![]() ![]() ![]() There was substantial statistical uncertainty in findings, and some of the sensitivity analysis suggested that a meaningful benefit of a conditional incentive were plausible. There was no clear evidence of a difference in participant completed questionnaire returns according to the time at which an incentive is given, nor to completeness of the returned questionnaires, or the time to questionnaire return. The conditional incentive was approximately £23 cheaper per diary returned based upon observed data. There was no clear statistical evidence of a difference in time taken to return questionnaires, nor proportion of pages completed, by intervention group in the main analyses (all p>0.05). Regression analysis adjusted for cluster pair showed no significant difference in returns, -0.09, (95% CI, -0.29, 0.10, p=0.336) when weighted there still no clear difference: 0.15 (-0.02, 0.31, p=0.068). Raw diaries return proportions were 0.58 and 0.73 for non-conditional and conditional incentive groups. Of the 42 randomised sites (21 to each intervention) only 28 recruited at least one participant with only 10 practice pairs recruiting participants at both constituent sites. The total number of vouchers distributed, the cost of administration and postage was calculated. The main analysis was regression accounting for site pair, with additional weighted, paired and non-parametric sensitivity analyses. Analyses were conducted according to randomised group irrespective of compliance with two-sided 5% level statistical significance level. Matched sites were randomised using computer generated random numbers, to either a non-conditional or conditional incentive. #Trolls mini diary with pn trialWe aimed to determine whether there was a difference in the number follow-up trial questionnaires returned when a monetary incentive was given to participants at recruitment (non-conditional), compared to informing participants at recruitment that the incentive would be given only once a questionnaire had been returned (conditional).Ī sub-study within the Antivirals for influenza-Like Illness, An rCt of Clinical and Cost effectiveness in primary CarE (ALICâ´E) Trial. A monetary incentive can increase retention, but it is not known if when it is provided matters. High participant retention enhances the validity of clinical trials. #Trolls mini diary with pn registrationThis trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials on 26 March 2013, registration number: ISRCTN17435450. This will be the first randomized controlled trial of oral corticosteroids in adults presenting to primary care with sore throat in the UK, and the first to examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of oral corticosteroids for the treatment of sore throat in the absence of antibiotics. Outcome data is being collected at 24 and 48 hours via text message or telephone call, from days 0 to 7 using a patient symptom diary and at one month via a GP notes review. Treatment arms will be stratified according to whether patients are being given a delayed antibiotic prescription or no antibiotic prescription and by recruiting centre (Oxford, Bristol or Southampton). Participants are being randomized to treatment arms at a ratio of 1:1. GPs or nurses assess eligibility, record baseline clinical features and obtain a throat swab for bacterial culture. Participants are recruited on the day of presentation to their GP practice. This trial aims to assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a single oral dose of corticosteroids on symptoms of sore throat in patients receiving either a delayed antibiotic prescription or no antibiotics at all in UK primary care.Ī double-blind, two arm, randomized, placebo controlled trial in adults (⥠18 years of age) presenting to primary care with acute sore throat ( ![]() In a recent systematic review we demonstrated that a single dose of steroids reduced the severity and time to resolution of sore throat. Nearly half of all patients presenting with acute sore throat are treated with antibiotics, despite their limited effect. Management of acute sore throat poses a significant burden on UK general practices, with almost 10% of registered patients attending their GP with sore throat every year. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |