JAN: ORIGINAL RESEARCH RCT of a lay-facilitated angina management programme Buszewicz et al. 2006, Kennedy et al. 2007). Indeed, the UK Department of Health (DH) highlighted self care as a ‘key building block’ in the National Health Service (NHS) Plan (DH 2000), and in ‘Self care; a real choice’ the DH further claimed that there was growing evidence of many beneﬁts of supporting self care, including improvements in health and quality of life, and reduced use of health service resources (DH 2005). In response to the report of lack of resources to deliver angina management or rehabilitation among primary care and community nurses that we talked to, and to the growing interest at that time in lay-facilitation of self- management support, we opted to develop a training programme for lay workers to become Angina Plan facil- itators. As a consequence of the above-mentioned reported lack of resources, usual care following diagnosis in UK chest pain clinics is often simply one-off advice from an angina nurse specialist. We wanted to test whether or not lay- facilitation was more effective than usual care, as this would add to the evidence base for self-management programmes for people with angina. The study Aim The aim of the study was to establish the relative effectiveness and comparative costs associated with a home-based, Lay- facilitated, Angina Management Programme (LAMP) when compared to routine advice and education from a specialist nurse. Design This was a pragmatic RCT with allocation to either the LAMP or routine information and advice from a specialist angina nurse. The RCT was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register: ISRCTN03137160, CONSORT 2010 Flow Diagram LAMP Enrolment Assessed for eligibility (n = 1013) Allocated to LAMP intervention (n = 70) - Received allocated intervention (n = 70) Lost to follow-up (n = 11) Not angina = 4 Withdrew following revasc = 3 Died (non cardiac) = 1 No data = 3 Discontinued intervention (n = 3) (No reason given) Analysed for primary outcome at 6 months (n = 57) Excluded from analysis (n = 2) Reason: missing data at 6 months Randomized (n = 142) Allocation Follow-Up Analysis Excluded (n = 871) - Not meeting inclusion criteria (n = 752) (Non-cardiac chest pain n = 536) - Declined to participate (n = 119) Allocated to control (n = 72) - Received allocated intervention (n = 72) Lost to follow-up (n = 7) Not angina = 1 Terminal illness = 2 Died (non cardiac) = 1 No data = 3 Discontinued intervention (n = 0) Analysed for primary outcome at 6 months (n = 58) Excluded from analysis (n = 7) Reason: missing data at baseline or 6 months Figure 1 CONSORT diagram showing participant ﬂow through the study. 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2269