Journal
BMJ OPEN
Volume 7, Issue 7, Pages -Publisher
BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016965
Keywords
-
Categories
Funding
- National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) [14/49/34, ISRCTN72019945]
- Lancaster University
- National Institute for Health Research [14/49/34, PB-PG-0807-14075] Funding Source: researchfish
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Introduction Despite clinical guidelines recommendations, many relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder do not currently receive the support they need. Online information and support may offer a solution. Methods and analysis This single-blind, parallel, online randomised controlled trial will determine clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Relatives Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT) (including an online resource directory (RD)), compared with RD only, for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder. Both groups continue to receive treatment as usual. Independent, web-based variable, block, individual randomisation will be used across 666 relatives. Primary outcome is distress at 24 weeks (measured by General Health Questionnaire; GHQ-28) compared between groups using analysis of covariance, adjusting for baseline score. Secondary clinical outcomes are carer well-being and support. Cost-effectiveness analysis will determine cost of a significant unit change (three-point reduction) in the GHQ-28. Costs include offering and supporting the intervention in the REACT arm, relevant healthcare care costs including health professional contacts, medications prescribed and time off (or ability to) work for the relative. Cost utility analysis will be calculated as the marginal cost of changes in quality-adjusted life years, based on EuroQol. We will explore relatives' beliefs, perceived coping and amount of REACT toolkit use as possible outcome mediators. We have embedded two methodological substudies in the protocol to determine the relative effectiveness of a low-value (10) pound versus higher value (20) pound incentive, and an unconditional versus conditional incentive, on improving follow-up rates.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available