Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29457585›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2018

Training nurses in a competency framework to support adults with epilepsy and intellectual disability: the EpAID cluster RCT.

Howard Ring, James Howlett, Mark Pennington, Christopher Smith, Marcus Redley, Caroline Murphy, Roxanne Hook, Adam Platt, Nakita Gilbert, Elizabeth Jones and 7 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Psychological treatments for people with epilepsy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Howard RingDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
James HowlettMedical Research Council (MRC) Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK.
Mark PenningtonKing's Health Economics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Christopher SmithDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Marcus RedleyDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Caroline MurphyKing's Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK.
Roxanne HookDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Adam PlattDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Nakita GilbertDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Elizabeth JonesDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Joanna KellyKing's Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK.
Angela PullenEpilepsy Action, Leeds, UK.
Adrian ManderMedical Research Council (MRC) Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK.
Cam DonaldsonYunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Simon RoweNHS Wakefield Clinical Commissioning Group, Wakefield, UK.
James WasonKing's Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK.
Fiona IrvineSchool of Health and Population Science, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
University of Cambridge · GBKing's College London · GBMRC Biostatistics Unit · GBEpilepsy Action · GBGlasgow Caledonian University · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GB

Funding

Department of Health 10/104/16Medical Research Council MC_UP_1302/4Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/3Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/6
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with an intellectual (learning) disability (ID) and epilepsy have an increased seizure frequency, higher frequencies of multiple antiepileptic drug (AED) use and side effects, higher treatment costs, higher mortality rates and more behavioural problems than the rest of the population with epilepsy. The introduction of nurse-led care may lead to improvements in outcome for those with an ID and epilepsy; however, this has not been tested in a definitive clinical trial.

objectiveTo determine whether or not ID nurses, using a competency framework developed to optimise nurse management of epilepsy in people with an ID, can cost-effectively improve clinical and quality-of-life outcomes in the management of epilepsy compared with treatment as usual.

designCluster-randomised two-arm trial.

settingCommunity-based secondary care delivered by members of community ID teams.

participantsParticipants were adults aged 18-65 years with an ID and epilepsy under the care of a community ID team and had had at least one seizure in the 6 months before the trial.

interventionsThe experimental intervention was the Learning Disability Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Competency Framework. This provides guidelines describing a structure and goals to support the delivery of epilepsy care and management by ID-trained nurses.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the seizure severity scale from the Epilepsy and Learning Disabilities Quality of Life questionnaire. Measures of mood, behaviour, AED side effects and carer strain were also collected. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken along with a qualitative examination of carers' views of participants' epilepsy management.

resultsIn total, 312 individuals were recruited into the study from 17 research clusters. Using an intention-to-treat analysis controlling for baseline individual-level and cluster-level variables there was no significant difference in seizure severity score between the two arms. Altogether, 238 complete cases were included in the non-imputed primary analysis. Analyses of the secondary outcomes revealed no significant differences between arms. A planned subgroup analysis identified a significant interaction between treatment arm and level of ID. There was a suggestion in those with mild to moderate ID that the competency framework may be associated with a small reduction in concerns over seizure severity (standard error 2.005, 95% confidence interval -0.554 to 7.307; LIMITATIONS: The intervention could not be delivered blinded. Treatment as usual varied widely between the research sites.

conclusionsOverall, for adults with an ID and epilepsy, the framework conferred no clinical benefit compared with usual treatment. The economic analysis suggested that there may be a role for the framework in enhancing the cost-effectiveness of support for people with epilepsy and an ID. Future research could explore the specific value of the competency framework for those with a mild to moderate ID and the potential for greater long-term benefits arising from the continuing professional development element of the framework.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN96895428.

fundingThis trial was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

Disease ManagementAdolescentAdultAffectAgedBehaviorClinical CompetenceCost-Benefit AnalysisEpilepsyFemaleHumansIntellectual DisabilityMaleMiddle AgedQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID29457585
PMCPMC6485678
OpenAlexW2790734904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.