Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28720617›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2017

Protocol for an online randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a peer-supported self-management intervention for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder: Relatives Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT).

Fiona Lobban, Heather Robinson, Duncan Appelbe, Johanna Barraclough, Emma Bedson, Lizzi Collinge, Susanna Dodd, Sue Flowers, Mahsa Honary, Sonia Johnson and 8 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Fiona LobbanSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Heather RobinsonSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Duncan AppelbeMedical Research Council North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Johanna BarracloughSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Emma BedsonMedical Research Council North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Lizzi CollingeSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Susanna DoddDivision of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Sue FlowersSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Mahsa HonarySpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Sonia JohnsonDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Ceu MateusDivision of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Barbara MezesSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Valerie MinnsSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Elizabeth MurrayeHealth Unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Andrew WalkerSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Paula WilliamsonMedical Research Council North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Catherine WintermeyerSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Steven JonesSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Centre for Mental Health · GBLancaster University · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBMental Health Research UK · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health HTA/14/49/34Department of Health PB-PG-0807-14075
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite 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) versus higher value (£20) incentive, and an unconditional versus conditional incentive, on improving follow-up rates. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has ethical approval from Lancaster National Research Ethics Service (NRES)Committee (15/NW/0732) and is overseen by an independent Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee and Trial Steering Committee. Protocol version 1.5 was approved on 9 January 2017. All updates to protocols are uploaded to the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Journals Library. A full statistical analysis plan is available at https://figshare.com/account/home#/projects/19975. Publications will be in peer-reviewed journals (open access wherever possible). Requests for access to the data at the end of the study will be reviewed and granted where appropriate by the Trial Management Group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN72019945, pre-results.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalBipolar DisorderCost-Benefit AnalysisHealth Care CostsHumansInternetLogistic ModelsPatient Education as TopicPsychotic DisordersQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeResearch DesignSelf-ManagementSingle-Blind MethodUnited Kingdomdigitalhealth economicsmental healthrelatives

Identifiers

PMID28720617
PMCPMC5541455
OpenAlexW2737201829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.