设计和开展基于登记的随机临床试验的可行性和可接受性,评估 eVIS 作为跨学科疼痛康复计划中体育活动的数字支持:随机试点研究。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES DIGITAL HEALTH Pub Date : 2024-11-25 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20552076241299648
Veronica Sjöberg, Andreas Monnier, Elena Tseli, Riccardo LoMartire, Maria Hagströmer, Mathilda Björk, Björn Äng, Linda Vixner
{"title":"设计和开展基于登记的随机临床试验的可行性和可接受性,评估 eVIS 作为跨学科疼痛康复计划中体育活动的数字支持:随机试点研究。","authors":"Veronica Sjöberg, Andreas Monnier, Elena Tseli, Riccardo LoMartire, Maria Hagströmer, Mathilda Björk, Björn Äng, Linda Vixner","doi":"10.1177/20552076241299648","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with chronic pain often struggle to engage in physical activity despite its health benefits. The eVISualisation of physical activity and pain intervention (eVIS) was developed to support adherence to physical activity plans in Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Programs (IPRPs) by visualising activity, pain levels, pain interference, and pharmacological use. This pilot study assesses the feasibility and acceptability of trial design and trial conduct of a registry-based randomised clinical trial (R-RCT).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This randomised clinical pilot study included the first 10% (n = 39, mean age 43.5, 74.4% females) of the R-RCT sample (n≈400). Participants with non-cancer chronic pain from six IPRP units were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (IPRP + eVIS, n = 19) or the control group (IPRP, n = 20). Feasibility and acceptability were evaluated using pre-defined criteria on recruitment- and data collection procedures (e.g., inclusion rates, representativeness, adverse events), physiotherapists' ratings of trial design and conduct (e.g., acceptability, feasibility), and outcome data characteristics and completeness (e.g., adherence, data accessibility).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Recruitment was largely feasible, though attrition differences and the need for refined eligibility screening were noted. Physiotherapists cited time and implementation challenges. Both groups had satisfactory data completeness, but the control group showed lower adherence to daily reporting in the final third of the study. The intervention group had greater improvements in physical health, with 19.5% more participants achieving the minimum clinically important difference (≥3) on the physical component summary scale (PCS). No adverse events occurred.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>With minor adjustments, the R-RCT design is mostly feasible, though some challenges to feasibility were identified and addressed.</p>","PeriodicalId":51333,"journal":{"name":"DIGITAL HEALTH","volume":"10 ","pages":"20552076241299648"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11590142/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feasibility and acceptability of design and conduct of a registry-based randomised clinical trial evaluating eVIS as a digital support for physical activity in interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programs: A randomised pilot study.\",\"authors\":\"Veronica Sjöberg, Andreas Monnier, Elena Tseli, Riccardo LoMartire, Maria Hagströmer, Mathilda Björk, Björn Äng, Linda Vixner\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20552076241299648\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with chronic pain often struggle to engage in physical activity despite its health benefits. The eVISualisation of physical activity and pain intervention (eVIS) was developed to support adherence to physical activity plans in Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Programs (IPRPs) by visualising activity, pain levels, pain interference, and pharmacological use. This pilot study assesses the feasibility and acceptability of trial design and trial conduct of a registry-based randomised clinical trial (R-RCT).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This randomised clinical pilot study included the first 10% (n = 39, mean age 43.5, 74.4% females) of the R-RCT sample (n≈400). Participants with non-cancer chronic pain from six IPRP units were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (IPRP + eVIS, n = 19) or the control group (IPRP, n = 20). Feasibility and acceptability were evaluated using pre-defined criteria on recruitment- and data collection procedures (e.g., inclusion rates, representativeness, adverse events), physiotherapists' ratings of trial design and conduct (e.g., acceptability, feasibility), and outcome data characteristics and completeness (e.g., adherence, data accessibility).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Recruitment was largely feasible, though attrition differences and the need for refined eligibility screening were noted. Physiotherapists cited time and implementation challenges. Both groups had satisfactory data completeness, but the control group showed lower adherence to daily reporting in the final third of the study. The intervention group had greater improvements in physical health, with 19.5% more participants achieving the minimum clinically important difference (≥3) on the physical component summary scale (PCS). No adverse events occurred.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>With minor adjustments, the R-RCT design is mostly feasible, though some challenges to feasibility were identified and addressed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"DIGITAL HEALTH\",\"volume\":\"10 \",\"pages\":\"20552076241299648\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11590142/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"DIGITAL HEALTH\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076241299648\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DIGITAL HEALTH","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076241299648","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管体育锻炼对健康有益,但慢性疼痛患者往往难以参加体育锻炼。体力活动和疼痛干预eVIS(eVIS)的开发旨在通过可视化活动、疼痛程度、疼痛干扰和药物使用情况,支持跨学科疼痛康复计划(IPRP)中坚持体力活动计划。本试验研究评估了基于登记的随机临床试验(R-RCT)的试验设计和试验实施的可行性和可接受性:这项随机临床试验研究包括 R-RCT 样本(n≈400)的前 10%(n = 39,平均年龄 43.5 岁,74.4% 为女性)。来自六个 IPRP 单位的非癌症慢性疼痛参与者被随机分配到干预组(IPPR + eVIS,n = 19)或对照组(IPPR,n = 20)。采用预先确定的招募和数据收集程序标准(如纳入率、代表性、不良事件)、物理治疗师对试验设计和实施的评分(如可接受性、可行性)以及结果数据的特征和完整性(如依从性、数据可访问性)对可行性和可接受性进行评估:结果:尽管存在自然减员差异,且需要对资格筛选进行细化,但招募工作在很大程度上是可行的。物理治疗师提出了时间和实施方面的挑战。两组数据的完整性都令人满意,但对照组在研究的最后三分之一时间里对每日报告的坚持程度较低。干预组在身体健康方面有更大的改善,在身体成分汇总量表(PCS)上达到最小临床意义差异(≥3)的参与者比对照组多 19.5%。无不良事件发生:结论:尽管发现并解决了可行性方面的一些挑战,但稍作调整后,R-RCT 设计在很大程度上是可行的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Feasibility and acceptability of design and conduct of a registry-based randomised clinical trial evaluating eVIS as a digital support for physical activity in interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programs: A randomised pilot study.

Background: Patients with chronic pain often struggle to engage in physical activity despite its health benefits. The eVISualisation of physical activity and pain intervention (eVIS) was developed to support adherence to physical activity plans in Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Programs (IPRPs) by visualising activity, pain levels, pain interference, and pharmacological use. This pilot study assesses the feasibility and acceptability of trial design and trial conduct of a registry-based randomised clinical trial (R-RCT).

Method: This randomised clinical pilot study included the first 10% (n = 39, mean age 43.5, 74.4% females) of the R-RCT sample (n≈400). Participants with non-cancer chronic pain from six IPRP units were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (IPRP + eVIS, n = 19) or the control group (IPRP, n = 20). Feasibility and acceptability were evaluated using pre-defined criteria on recruitment- and data collection procedures (e.g., inclusion rates, representativeness, adverse events), physiotherapists' ratings of trial design and conduct (e.g., acceptability, feasibility), and outcome data characteristics and completeness (e.g., adherence, data accessibility).

Results: Recruitment was largely feasible, though attrition differences and the need for refined eligibility screening were noted. Physiotherapists cited time and implementation challenges. Both groups had satisfactory data completeness, but the control group showed lower adherence to daily reporting in the final third of the study. The intervention group had greater improvements in physical health, with 19.5% more participants achieving the minimum clinically important difference (≥3) on the physical component summary scale (PCS). No adverse events occurred.

Conclusion: With minor adjustments, the R-RCT design is mostly feasible, though some challenges to feasibility were identified and addressed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
DIGITAL HEALTH
DIGITAL HEALTH Multiple-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
302
期刊最新文献
A national data sharing solution for the prevention and treatment of obesity-a qualitative study of stakeholders' needs. Comparative insights into clinic onboarding and interaction practices for patient engagement in long COVID digital health care. Decoding anxiety: A scoping review of observable cues. The use of assistive technology to promote practical skills in persons with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disabilities: A systematic review. Effectiveness of computer-based telerehabilitation software (RehaCom) compared to other treatments for patients with cognitive impairments: A systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1