Clinical trial NCT03177161: Assessment of Patient Reported Health Status Questions Via Four Different Methods of Administration, in Stroke Survivors.
Official title: Assessment of Patient Reported Health Status Questions Via Four Different Methods of Administration, in Stroke Survivors. A Randomised Controlled Trial. A Non-inferiority Study of the Response Rate for Four Alternative Methods of Administration of 15 Patient Reported Health Status Questions in Stroke Survivors.
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: COMPLETED
Phase: NA
Conditions: Stroke
Cerebral Infarction
Cerebral Hemorrhage
Stroke Hemorrhagic
Stroke, Ischemic
Stroke of Uncertain Pathology
Keywords: PROM
Patient Reported Outcome Measure
PROMIS
PROMIS-10
PROMIS Global Health
RiksStroke
ICHOM
International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement
Wales
Administration
Method
Delivery
Lead sponsor: Aneurin Bevan University Health Board
Sponsor class: OTHER
Collaborators: name: Stroke Implementation Group (Wales)
First posted: 2017-06-06
Enrollment: 472
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Primary purpose: HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH

Brief summary: A Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) is a questionnaire that asks patients for their views on their own health or the impact of healthcare they have received on their health and quality of life (RCN, 2011). The benefit of PROMS is that they gather information from the patient's perspective, which offers great potential to improve the quality and outcomes of health services (Department of Health 2011).

There is a PROM (the PROMIS-10 Global Health) and a number of extra questions that are recommended for use in people who have had a stroke by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement, but the best way of delivering these questions for stroke survivors is unknown.

At present, the NHS in England, Scotland and Wales are required to offer every stroke survivors a 6 month post stroke follow-up appointment. Currently, the information collected at the 6 month review is not from the patient's perspective and the best method of collecting this information has not been established. The Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP) which is led by the Royal College of Physicians in London promote the 6 month follow-up assessment. SSNAP recognise that currently 4 different methods of 6 month follow-up appointment occur. The current methods in use are face-to-face assessment, telephone interview, online questionnaire or postal questionnaire.

The aim of this research is to understand if there is a difference between these 4 methods of delivering these questions in people who have had a stroke.

As part of the 6 month review this research study will assess the response rate for 15 Patient Reported Health Status questions across the 4 recognised methods of delivery;

* Face-to-Face
* Telephone
* Online
* Post

To conduct this research study a sample of 808 stroke survivors will be asked to take part in the research. From these 808 people, 202 participants will be randomly assigned to each method of administration (Face-to-Face Interview, Telephone Interview, Postal Questionnaire and Online Questionnaire).

The questionnaires received by the research team will not record any personally identifiable information. The data will then be utilised by the researchers for statistical analysis in order to identify, which method of the 4 methods of administration, under investigation, is the most acceptable for stroke survivors. The conclusions of this research will inform the roll-out of the most appropriate method of delivering the 6 month stroke follow-up review for stroke survivors.


Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* Clinically confirmed diagnosis of stroke either Cerebral Infarct (ICD I63), Cerebrovascular Haemorrhage (ICD161) or Stroke, not specified as haemorrhage or infarction (ICD I64).
* Patients over 18 years old (≥ 18 years old)
* Had a diagnosis of stroke within the last 4-8 months (Stroke diagnosis ≥ 4months to ≤ 8 months)

Exclusion Criteria:

* Diagnosis of a Transient Ischaemic Attack (ICD G45)
* Diagnosis of a Subarachnoid Haemorrhage (ICD I60)

Primary outcomes:
measure: Total response rate for all 4 methods of delivery
timeFrame: 120 to 240 days post index event
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Total response rate across the four different methods of administration for 15 Patient Reported Health Status questions with people with communication issues (e.g. aphasia)
timeFrame: 120 to 240 days post index event
measure: Total response rate across the four different methods of administration for 15 Patient Reported Health Status questions by stroke severity (as defined by NIHSS on admission)
timeFrame: 120 to 240 days post index event
measure: Total response rate across the four different methods of administration for 15 Patient Reported Health Status questions by stroke type (as defined by ICD classification)
timeFrame: 120 to 240 days post index event
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Ystrad Mynach
country: United Kingdom
facility: Ysbyty Ystrad Fawr
state: Caerphilly
city: Newport
country: United Kingdom
facility: Royal Gwent Hospital
state: Gwent
city: Abergavenny
country: United Kingdom
facility: Nevill Hall Hospital
state: Monmouthshire
city: Merthyr Tydfil
country: United Kingdom
facility: Prince Charles Hospital
Study officials:
affiliation: Cardiff University & Aneurin Bevan University Health Board
name: Jonathan Hewitt, MBBS, FRCP (Glas), MSc, PhD
role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
References:
citation: Smith A, Pennington A, Carter B, Gething S, Price M, White J, Dewar R, Hewitt J. Acceptability of the method of administration of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) with stroke survivors, a randomised controlled trial protocol. Trials. 2018 Jul 3;19(1):349. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2694-4.
citation: Hewitt J, Pennington A, Smith A, Gething S, Price M, White J, Dewar R, Carter B. A multi-centre, UK-based, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of 4 follow-up assessment methods in stroke survivors. BMC Med. 2019 Jul 2;17(1):111. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1350-5.