51
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      HElmet therapy Assessment in infants with Deformed Skulls (HEADS): protocol for a 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

          In The Netherlands, helmet therapy is a commonly used treatment in infants with skull deformation (deformational plagiocephaly or deformational brachycephaly). However, evidence of the effectiveness of this treatment remains lacking. The HEADS study (HElmet therapy Assessment in Deformed Skulls) aims to determine the effects and costs of helmet therapy compared to no helmet therapy in infants with moderate to severe skull deformation.

          Methods/design

          Pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) nested in a cohort study. The cohort study included infants with a positional preference and/or skull deformation at two to four months (first assessment). At 5 months of age, all children were assessed again and infants meeting the criteria for helmet therapy were asked to participate in the RCT. Participants were randomly allocated to either helmet therapy or no helmet therapy. Parents of eligible infants that do not agree with enrolment in the RCT were invited to stay enrolled for follow up in a non-randomisedrandomised controlled trial (nRCT); they were then free to make the decision to start helmet therapy or not. Follow-up assessments took place at 8, 12 and 24 months of age. The main outcome will be head shape at 24 months that is measured using plagiocephalometry. Secondary outcomes will be satisfaction of parents and professionals with the appearance of the child, parental concerns about the future, anxiety level and satisfaction with the treatment, motor development and quality of life of the infant. Finally, compliance and costs will also be determined.

          Discussion

          HEADS will be the first study presenting data from an RCT on the effectiveness of helmet therapy. Outcomes will be important for affected children and their parents, health care professionals and future treatment policies. Our findings are likely to influence the reimbursement policies of health insurance companies.

          Besides these health outcomes, we will be able to address several methodological questions, e.g. do participants in an RCT represent the eligible target population and do outcomes of the RCT differ from outcomes found in the nRCT?

          Trial registration

          ISRCTN18473161.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

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

          Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.

          A systematic review of three bibliographic databases from 1986 to 1996 identified 78 papers reporting barriers to recruitment of clinicians and patients to randomised controlled trials. Clinician barriers included: time constraints, lack of staff and training, worry about the impact on the doctor-patient relationship, concern for patients, loss of professional autonomy, difficulty with the consent procedure, lack of rewards and recognition, and an insufficiently interesting question. Patient barriers included: additional demands of the trial, patient preferences, worry caused by uncertainty, and concerns about information and consent. To overcome barriers to clinician recruitment, the trial should address an important research question and the protocol and data collection should be as straightforward as possible. The demands on clinicians and patients should be kept to a minimum. Dedicated research staff may be required to support clinical staff and patients. The recruitment aspects of a randomised controlled trial should be carefully planned and piloted. Further work is needed to quantify the extent of problems associated with clinician and patient participation, and proper evaluation is required of strategies to overcome barriers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pragmatic clinical trials.

            Both pragmatic and explanatory randomised controlled trials have a useful role to play in the evaluation of health care interventions. In this descriptive article, the key steps in conducting a pragmatic trial are described. The strengths and limitations of pragmatic trials are also discussed. The main strength of pragmatic trials is that they can evaluate a therapy as it is used in normal practice. Comparisons are made between pragmatic and explanatory trials, on the understanding that trials may have aspects to them that make the trial more of a hybrid. A case is made for the appropriate use and relevance of pragmatic trials in the evaluation of alternative and complementary medicine.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                Trials
                BioMed Central
                1745-6215
                2012
                9 July 2012
                : 13
                : 108
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Institute for Governance Studies, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Rehabilitation, Pediatric Physical Therapy, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [3 ]Scientific Institute for Quality of Health Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                Article
                1745-6215-13-108
                10.1186/1745-6215-13-108
                3475065
                22776627
                fbcebbf1-1f08-4323-af76-30e6bf3d0a20
                Copyright ©2012 van Wijk 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 cited.

                History
                : 26 January 2012
                : 22 June 2012
                Categories
                Study Protocol

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article