Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33436463›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2021

Organising Support for Carers of Stroke Survivors (OSCARSS): a cluster randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation.

Emma Patchwood, Kate Woodward-Nutt, Sarah A Rhodes, Evridiki Batistatou, Elizabeth Camacho, Sarah Knowles, Sarah Darley, Gunn Grande, Gail Ewing, Audrey Bowen

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.3field-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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Participatory research with carers: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Emma PatchwoodDivision of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4198-5761
Kate Woodward-NuttNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Greater Manchester (NIHR CLAHRC GM), Manchester, UK.
Sarah A RhodesNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Greater Manchester (NIHR CLAHRC GM), Manchester, UK.
Evridiki BatistatouNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Greater Manchester (NIHR CLAHRC GM), Manchester, UK.
Elizabeth CamachoManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9574-7710
Sarah KnowlesNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Greater Manchester (NIHR CLAHRC GM), Manchester, UK.
Sarah DarleyNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Greater Manchester (NIHR CLAHRC GM), Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5420-6774
Gunn GrandeNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Greater Manchester (NIHR CLAHRC GM), Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2200-1680
Gail EwingNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Greater Manchester (NIHR CLAHRC GM), Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9547-7247
Audrey BowenDivision of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), Manchester, UK audrey.bowen@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4075-1215
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBNational Institute for Health Research · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveInvestigated clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a person-centred intervention for informal carers/caregivers of stroke survivors.

designPragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) with economic and process evaluation.

settingClusters were services, from a UK voluntary sector specialist provider, delivering support primarily in the homes of stroke survivors and informal carers.

participantsAdult carers in participating clusters were referred to the study by cluster staff following initial support contact.

interventionsIntervention was the Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool for Stroke: a staff-facilitated, carer-led approach to help identify, prioritise and address the specific support needs of carers. It required at least one face-to-face support contact dedicated to carers, with reviews as required. Control was usual care, which included carer support (unstructured and variable). OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants provided study entry and self-reported outcome data by postal questionnaires, 3 and 6 months after first contact by cluster staff. PRIMARY OUTCOME: 3-month caregiver strain (Family Appraisal of Caregiving Questionnaire, FACQ). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: FACQ subscales of caregiver distress and positive appraisals of caregiving, mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and satisfaction with stroke services (Pound). The economic evaluation included self-reported healthcare utilisation, intervention costs and EQ-5D-5L. RANDOMISATION AND MASKING: Clusters were recruited before randomisation to intervention or control, with stratification for size of service. Cluster staff could not be masked as training was required for participation. Carer research participants provided self-reported outcome data unaware of allocation; they consented to follow-up data collection only.

resultsBetween 1 February 2017 and 31 July 2018, 35 randomised clusters (18 intervention; 17 control) recruited 414 cRCT carers (208 intervention; 206 control). Study entry characteristics were well balanced. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: intention-to-treat analysis for 84% retained participants (175 intervention; 174 control) found mean (SD) FACQ carer strain at 3 months to be 3.11 (0.87) in the control group compared with 3.03 (0.90) in the intervention group, adjusted mean difference of -0.04 (95% CI -0.20 to 0.13). Secondary outcomes had similarly small differences and tight CIs. Sensitivity analyses suggested robust findings. Intervention fidelity was not achieved. Intervention-related group costs were marginally higher with no additional health benefit observed on EQ-5D-5L. No adverse events were related to the intervention.

conclusionsThe intervention was not fully implemented in this pragmatic trial. As delivered, it conferred no clinical benefits and is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with usual care from a stroke specialist provider organisation. It remains unclear how best to support carers of stroke survivors. To overcome the implementation challenges of person-centred care in carers' research and service development, staff training and organisational support would need to be enhanced. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN58414120.

Indexed as

CaregiversStrokeAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesSurvivorseducation & training (see medical education & training)health economicsmental healthprimary carestroke

Identifiers

PMID33436463
PMCPMC7805348
OpenAlexW3120407079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.