Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38500191›Full record

ArticleTrials2024

The IMPROVE trial: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of using lay health workers to improve uptake and completion of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Gill Gilworth, Katherine Harris, Toby L Morgan, Salma Ayis, Julia Fox-Rushby, Emma Godfrey, Nicholas S Hopkinson, Simon Lewin, Ka Keat Lim, Arietta Spinou and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 94% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Gill GilworthAcademic Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Sheffield, UK.
Katherine HarrisSchool of Life Course & Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, Addison House, London, SE1 IUL, UK.
Toby L MorganSchool of Life Course & Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, Addison House, London, SE1 IUL, UK.
Salma AyisSchool of Life Course & Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, Addison House, London, SE1 IUL, UK.
Julia Fox-RushbySchool of Life Course & Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, Addison House, London, SE1 IUL, UK.
Emma GodfreySchool of Mental Health and Psychological Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
Nicholas S HopkinsonNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Simon LewinDepartment of Health Sciences Ålesund, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Ka Keat LimSchool of Life Course & Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, Addison House, London, SE1 IUL, UK.
Arietta SpinouSchool of Life Course & Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's Centre for Lung Health, King's College London, London, UK.
Stephanie J C TaylorWolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Patrick WhiteSchool of Life Course & Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, Addison House, London, SE1 IUL, UK. patrick.white@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2047-8787
King's College London · GBImperial College London · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBSouth African Medical Research Council · ZAUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR130999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a programme of exercise and education and the most effective treatment for the symptoms and disability associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, the benefits of PR are limited by poor uptake and completion. This trial will determine whether using trained volunteer lay health workers, called "PR buddies," improves uptake and completion of PR and is cost-effective. This trial protocol outlines the methods for evaluating effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and acceptability.

methodsThe IMPROVE trial is a pragmatic, open, cluster randomised controlled trial planned in 38 PR services across England and Wales. PR services will be randomised to either intervention arm-offering support from PR buddies to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-or to usual care as the control arm. PR staff in trial sites randomised to the intervention arm will receive training in recruiting and training PR buddies. They will deliver training to volunteers, recruited from among people who have recently completed PR in their service. The 3-day PR-buddy training programme covers communication skills, confidentiality, boundaries of the PR-buddy role and behaviour change techniques to help patients overcome obstacles to attending PR. An internal pilot will test the implementation of the trial in eight sites (four intervention sites and four in control arm). The primary outcome of the trial is the uptake and completion of PR. A process evaluation will investigate the acceptability of the intervention to patients, PR staff and the volunteer PR buddies, and intervention fidelity. We will also conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis. DISCUSSION: Improving outcomes for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and access to PR are priorities for the UK National Health Service (NHS) in its long-term plan. The trial hypothesis is that volunteer PR buddies, who are recruited and trained by local PR teams, are an effective and cost-effective way to improve the uptake and completion rates of PR. The trial is pragmatic, since it will test whether the intervention can be incorporated into NHS PR services. Information obtained in this trial may be used to influence policy on the use of PR buddies in PR and other similar services in the NHS.

trial registrationISRCTN12658458. Registered on 23/01/2023.

Indexed as

Pulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveState MedicineCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandExerciseHumansPragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeChronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseCluster randomised controlled trialLay health workersPulmonary rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID38500191
PMCPMC10949634
OpenAlexW4392968858

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.