37
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    2
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      ‘Putting Life in Years’ (PLINY) telephone friendship groups research study: pilot randomised controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Loneliness in older people is associated with poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We undertook a parallel-group randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telephone befriending for the maintenance of HRQoL in older people. An internal pilot tested the feasibility of the trial and intervention.

          Methods

          Participants aged >74 years, with good cognitive function, living independently in one UK city were recruited through general practices and other sources, then randomised to: (1) 6 weeks of short one-to-one telephone calls, followed by 12 weeks of group telephone calls with up to six participants, led by a trained volunteer facilitator; or (2) a control group. The main trial required the recruitment of 248 participants in a 1-year accrual window, of whom 124 were to receive telephone befriending. The pilot specified three success criteria which had to be met in order to progress the main trial to completion: recruitment of 68 participants in 95 days; retention of 80% participants at 6 months; successful delivery of telephone befriending by local franchise of national charity. The primary clinical outcome was the Short Form (36) Health Instrument (SF-36) Mental Health (MH) dimension score collected by telephone 6 months following randomisation.

          Results

          We informed 9,579 older people about the study. Seventy consenting participants were randomised to the pilot in 95 days, with 56 (80%) providing valid primary outcome data (26 intervention, 30 control). Twenty-four participants randomly allocated to the research arm actually received telephone befriending due to poor recruitment and retention of volunteer facilitators. The trial was closed early as a result. The mean 6-month SF-36 MH scores were 78 (SD 18) and 71 (SD 21) for the intervention and control groups, respectively (mean difference, 7; 95% CI, -3 to 16).

          Conclusions

          Recruitment and retention of participants to a definitive trial with a recruitment window of 1 year is feasible. For the voluntary sector to recruit sufficient volunteers to match demand for telephone befriending created by trial recruitment would require the study to be run in more than one major population centre, and/or involve dedicated management of volunteers.

          Trial registration

          ISRCTN28645428.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies

            Background A commonly reported problem with the conduct of multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is that recruitment is often slower or more difficult than expected, with many trials failing to reach their planned sample size within the timescale and funding originally envisaged. The aim of this study was to explore factors that may have been associated with good and poor recruitment in a cohort of multicentre trials funded by two public bodies: the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme. Methods The cohort of trials was identified from the administrative databases held by the two funding bodies. 114 trials that recruited participants between 1994 and 2002 met the inclusion criteria. The full scientific applications and subsequent trial reports submitted by the trial teams to the funders provided the principal data sources. Associations between trial characteristics and recruitment success were tested using the Chi-squared test, or Fisher's exact test where appropriate. Results Less than a third (31%) of the trials achieved their original recruitment target and half (53%) were awarded an extension. The proportion achieving targets did not appear to improve over time. The overall start to recruitment was delayed in 47 (41%) trials and early recruitment problems were identified in 77 (63%) trials. The inter-relationship between trial features and recruitment success was complex. A variety of strategies were employed to try to increase recruitment, but their success could not be assessed. Conclusion Recruitment problems are complex and challenging. Many of the trials in the cohort experienced recruitment difficulties. Trials often required extended recruitment periods (sometimes supported by additional funds). While this is of continuing concern, success in addressing the trial question may be more important than recruitment alone.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Sample size slippages in randomised trials: exclusions and the lost and wayward.

              Proper randomisation means little if investigators cannot include all randomised participants in the primary analysis. Participants might ignore follow-up, leave town, or take aspartame when instructed to take aspirin. Exclusions before randomisation do not bias the treatment comparison, but they can hurt generalisability. Eligibility criteria for a trial should be clear, specific, and applied before randomisation. Readers should assess whether any of the criteria make the trial sample atypical or unrepresentative of the people in which they are interested. In principle, assessment of exclusions after randomisation is simple: none are allowed. For the primary analysis, all participants enrolled should be included and analysed as part of the original group assigned (an intent-to-treat analysis). In reality, however, losses frequently occur. Investigators should, therefore, commit adequate resources to develop and implement procedures to maximise retention of participants. Moreover, researchers should provide clear, explicit information on the progress of all randomised participants through the trial by use of, for instance, a trial profile. Investigators can also do secondary analyses on, for instance, per-protocol or as-treated participants. Such analyses should be described as secondary and non-randomised comparisons. Mishandling of exclusions causes serious methodological difficulties. Unfortunately, some explanations for mishandling exclusions intuitively appeal to readers, disguising the seriousness of the issues. Creative mismanagement of exclusions can undermine trial validity.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                Trials
                BioMed Central
                1745-6215
                2014
                24 April 2014
                : 15
                : 141
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK
                [2 ]Clinical Trials Research Unit, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK
                [3 ]Institute of Medical and Social Care Research, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2DG, UK
                [4 ]School of Health Sciences, Highfield Campus, University Road, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
                [5 ]Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Northumbria, Coach Lane Campus, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE7 7XA, UK
                [6 ]Community Network, First Floor, 12-20 Baron Street, London N1 9LL, UK
                Article
                1745-6215-15-141
                10.1186/1745-6215-15-141
                4022155
                24758530
                1f744e0e-b586-42f2-abe1-fc6f87122a10
                Copyright © 2014 Mountain et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.

                History
                : 2 August 2013
                : 28 March 2014
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article