Blog
About

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

      Telephone health coaching with exercise monitoring using wearable activity trackers (TeGeCoach) for improving walking impairment in peripheral artery disease: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation

      , 1 , 2 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 3 , 3 , 3 , 3 , 3 , 3 , 3 , 3 , 3 , 3 , 3 , 4 , 4 , 4 , 4 , 5 , 5 , 6 , 6 , 7 , 7 , 8 , 1

      BMJ Open

      BMJ Publishing Group

      health economics, health services administration & management, clinical trials, VASCULAR MEDICINE, peripheral artery disease

      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

          Introduction

          Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is the third most prevalent cardiovascular disease worldwide, with smoking and diabetes being the strongest risk factors. The most prominent symptom is leg pain while walking, known as intermittent claudication. To improve mobility, first-line treatment for intermittent claudication is supervised exercise programmes, but these remain largely unavailable and economically impractical, which has led to the development of structured home-based exercise programmes. This trial aims to determine the effectiveness and cost advantage of TeGeCoach, a 12-month long home-based exercise programme, compared with usual care of PAD. It is hypothesised that TeGeCoach improves walking impairment and lowers the need of health care resources that are spent on patients with PAD.

          Methods and analysis

          The investigators conduct a prospective, pragmatic randomised controlled clinical trial in a health insurance setting. 1760 patients diagnosed with PAD at Fontaine stage II are randomly assigned to either TeGeCoach or care-as-usual. TeGeCoach consists of telemonitored intermittent walking exercise with medical supervision by a physician and telephone health coaching. Participants allocated to the usual care group receive information leaflets and can access supervised exercise programmes, physical therapy and a variety of programmes for promoting a healthy lifestyle. The primary outcome is patient reported walking ability based on the Walking Impairment Questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures include quality of life, health literacy and health behaviour. Claims data are used to collect total health care costs, healthcare resource use and (severe) adverse events. Outcomes are measured at baseline, 12 and 24 months.

          Ethics and dissemination

          Ethical approval has been obtained from the Medical Association Hamburg. Findings are disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, reports to the funding body, conference presentations and media press releases. Data from this trial are made available to the public and researchers upon reasonable request.

          NCT03496948 ( www.clinicaltrials.gov), Pre-results.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 95

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

          A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7.

          Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders; however, there is no brief clinical measure for assessing GAD. The objective of this study was to develop a brief self-report scale to identify probable cases of GAD and evaluate its reliability and validity. A criterion-standard study was performed in 15 primary care clinics in the United States from November 2004 through June 2005. Of a total of 2740 adult patients completing a study questionnaire, 965 patients had a telephone interview with a mental health professional within 1 week. For criterion and construct validity, GAD self-report scale diagnoses were compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; and health care use. A 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity. A cut point was identified that optimized sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%). Increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment (all 6 Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey scales and disability days). Although GAD and depression symptoms frequently co-occurred, factor analysis confirmed them as distinct dimensions. Moreover, GAD and depression symptoms had differing but independent effects on functional impairment and disability. There was good agreement between self-report and interviewer-administered versions of the scale. The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity.

            Regression methods were used to select and score 12 items from the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) to reproduce the Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary scales in the general US population (n=2,333). The resulting 12-item short-form (SF-12) achieved multiple R squares of 0.911 and 0.918 in predictions of the SF-36 Physical Component Summary and SF-36 Mental Component Summary scores, respectively. Scoring algorithms from the general population used to score 12-item versions of the two components (Physical Components Summary and Mental Component Summary) achieved R squares of 0.905 with the SF-36 Physical Component Summary and 0.938 with SF-36 Mental Component Summary when cross-validated in the Medical Outcomes Study. Test-retest (2-week)correlations of 0.89 and 0.76 were observed for the 12-item Physical Component Summary and the 12-item Mental Component Summary, respectively, in the general US population (n=232). Twenty cross-sectional and longitudinal tests of empirical validity previously published for the 36-item short-form scales and summary measures were replicated for the 12-item Physical Component Summary and the 12-item Mental Component Summary, including comparisons between patient groups known to differ or to change in terms of the presence and seriousness of physical and mental conditions, acute symptoms, age and aging, self-reported 1-year changes in health, and recovery for depression. In 14 validity tests involving physical criteria, relative validity estimates for the 12-item Physical Component Summary ranged from 0.43 to 0.93 (median=0.67) in comparison with the best 36-item short-form scale. Relative validity estimates for the 12-item Mental Component Summary in 6 tests involving mental criteria ranged from 0.60 to 107 (median=0.97) in relation to the best 36-item short-form scale. Average scores for the 2 summary measures, and those for most scales in the 8-scale profile based on the 12-item short-form, closely mirrored those for the 36-item short-form, although standard errors were nearly always larger for the 12-item short-form.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.

              The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol.The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2020
                4 June 2020
                : 10
                : 6
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDepartment of Medical Psychology , University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf , Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
                [2 ]departmentDepartment of Health Economics and Health Services Research , University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf , Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
                [3 ]Kaufmännische Krankenkasse , Hannover, Niedersachsen, Germany
                [4 ]mhplus Krankenkasse , Nürnberg, Bayern, Germany
                [5 ]IEM GmbH , Stolberg, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
                [6 ]Philips Germany GmbH , Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
                [7 ]Dr Margarete Fischer Bosch Institute of Clinical Pharmacology , Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
                [8 ]departmentDepartment of Sports Medicine , Hannover Medical School , Hannover, Niedersachsen, Germany
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Farhad Rezvani; f.rezvani@ 123456uke.de
                Article
                bmjopen-2019-032146
                10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032146
                7279623
                32503866
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                Product
                Funding
                Funded by: Innovationsfonds, Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss;
                Award ID: 01NVF17013
                Categories
                Health Services Research
                1506
                1704
                Protocol
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Comments

                Comment on this article