Clinical effectiveness of a web-based peer-supported self-management intervention for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar (REACT): online, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial

Abstract Background The Relatives Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT) is an online supported self-management toolkit for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar designed to improve access to NICE recommended information and emotional support. Aims Our aim was to determine clinical and cost-ef...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Fiona Lobban, Nadia Akers, Duncan Appelbe, Lesley Chapman, Lizzi Collinge, Susanna Dodd, Sue Flowers, Bruce Hollingsworth, Sonia Johnson, Steven H. Jones, Ceu Mateus, Barbara Mezes, Elizabeth Murray, Katerina Panagaki, Naomi Rainford, Heather Robinson, Anna Rosala-Hallas, William Sellwood, Andrew Walker, Paula Williamson
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2020-04-01
Series:BMC Psychiatry
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12888-020-02545-9
id doaj-de592c86d24843abaea3ea377854bb65
record_format Article
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Fiona Lobban
Nadia Akers
Duncan Appelbe
Lesley Chapman
Lizzi Collinge
Susanna Dodd
Sue Flowers
Bruce Hollingsworth
Sonia Johnson
Steven H. Jones
Ceu Mateus
Barbara Mezes
Elizabeth Murray
Katerina Panagaki
Naomi Rainford
Heather Robinson
Anna Rosala-Hallas
William Sellwood
Andrew Walker
Paula Williamson
spellingShingle Fiona Lobban
Nadia Akers
Duncan Appelbe
Lesley Chapman
Lizzi Collinge
Susanna Dodd
Sue Flowers
Bruce Hollingsworth
Sonia Johnson
Steven H. Jones
Ceu Mateus
Barbara Mezes
Elizabeth Murray
Katerina Panagaki
Naomi Rainford
Heather Robinson
Anna Rosala-Hallas
William Sellwood
Andrew Walker
Paula Williamson
Clinical effectiveness of a web-based peer-supported self-management intervention for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar (REACT): online, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial
BMC Psychiatry
Digital health intervention
Relatives
Psychosis
Bipolar
Randomised controlled trial
author_facet Fiona Lobban
Nadia Akers
Duncan Appelbe
Lesley Chapman
Lizzi Collinge
Susanna Dodd
Sue Flowers
Bruce Hollingsworth
Sonia Johnson
Steven H. Jones
Ceu Mateus
Barbara Mezes
Elizabeth Murray
Katerina Panagaki
Naomi Rainford
Heather Robinson
Anna Rosala-Hallas
William Sellwood
Andrew Walker
Paula Williamson
author_sort Fiona Lobban
title Clinical effectiveness of a web-based peer-supported self-management intervention for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar (REACT): online, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial
title_short Clinical effectiveness of a web-based peer-supported self-management intervention for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar (REACT): online, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial
title_full Clinical effectiveness of a web-based peer-supported self-management intervention for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar (REACT): online, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial
title_fullStr Clinical effectiveness of a web-based peer-supported self-management intervention for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar (REACT): online, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial
title_full_unstemmed Clinical effectiveness of a web-based peer-supported self-management intervention for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar (REACT): online, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial
title_sort clinical effectiveness of a web-based peer-supported self-management intervention for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar (react): online, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial
publisher BMC
series BMC Psychiatry
issn 1471-244X
publishDate 2020-04-01
description Abstract Background The Relatives Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT) is an online supported self-management toolkit for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar designed to improve access to NICE recommended information and emotional support. Aims Our aim was to determine clinical and cost-effectiveness of REACT including a Resource Directory (RD), versus RD-only. Methods A primarily online, observer-blind randomised controlled trial comparing REACT (including RD) with RD only (registration ISRCTN72019945 ). Participants were UK relatives aged > = 16, with high distress (assessed using the GHQ-28), and actively help-seeking, individually randomised, and assessed online. Primary outcome was relatives’ distress (GHQ-28) at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were wellbeing, support, costs and user feedback. Results We recruited 800 relatives (REACT = 399; RD only = 401) with high distress at baseline (GHQ-28 REACT mean 40.3, SD 14.6; RD only mean 40.0, SD 14.0). Median time spent online on REACT was 50.8 min (IQR 12.4–172.1) versus 0.5 min (IQR 0–1.6) on RD only. Retention to primary follow-up (24 weeks) was 75% (REACT n = 292 (73.2%); RD-only n = 307 (76.6%)). Distress decreased in both groups by 24 weeks, with no significant difference between the two groups (− 1.39, 95% CI -3.60, 0.83, p = 0.22). Estimated cost of delivering REACT was £62.27 per person and users reported finding it safe, acceptable and convenient. There were no adverse events or reported side effects. Conclusions REACT is an inexpensive, acceptable, and safe way to deliver NICE-recommended support for relatives. However, for highly distressed relatives it is no more effective in reducing distress (GHQ-28) than a comprehensive online resource directory. Trial registration ISRCTN72019945 prospectively registered 19/11/2015.
topic Digital health intervention
Relatives
Psychosis
Bipolar
Randomised controlled trial
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12888-020-02545-9
work_keys_str_mv AT fionalobban clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
AT nadiaakers clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
AT duncanappelbe clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
AT lesleychapman clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
AT lizzicollinge clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
AT susannadodd clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
AT sueflowers clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
AT brucehollingsworth clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
AT soniajohnson clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
AT stevenhjones clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
AT ceumateus clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
AT barbaramezes clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
AT elizabethmurray clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
AT katerinapanagaki clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
AT naomirainford clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
AT heatherrobinson clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
AT annarosalahallas clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
AT williamsellwood clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
AT andrewwalker clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
AT paulawilliamson clinicaleffectivenessofawebbasedpeersupportedselfmanagementinterventionforrelativesofpeoplewithpsychosisorbipolarreactonlineobserverblindrandomisedcontrolledsuperioritytrial
_version_ 1724840903838793728
spelling doaj-de592c86d24843abaea3ea377854bb652020-11-25T02:27:47ZengBMCBMC Psychiatry1471-244X2020-04-0120111610.1186/s12888-020-02545-9Clinical effectiveness of a web-based peer-supported self-management intervention for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar (REACT): online, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trialFiona Lobban0Nadia Akers1Duncan Appelbe2Lesley Chapman3Lizzi Collinge4Susanna Dodd5Sue Flowers6Bruce Hollingsworth7Sonia Johnson8Steven H. Jones9Ceu Mateus10Barbara Mezes11Elizabeth Murray12Katerina Panagaki13Naomi Rainford14Heather Robinson15Anna Rosala-Hallas16William Sellwood17Andrew Walker18Paula Williamson19Spectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster UniversitySpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster UniversityClinical Trials Research Centre, Institute of Child Health, Alder Hey, University of LiverpoolSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster UniversitySpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster UniversityClinical Trials Research Centre, Institute of Child Health, Alder Hey, University of LiverpoolSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster UniversityDivision of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster UniversityUniversity College LondonSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster UniversityDivision of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster UniversitySpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster Universitye-Health and Primary Care, Primary Care & Population Health Institute of Epidemiology & Health, Faculty of Pop Health Sciences, University College LondonSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster UniversityClinical Trials Research Centre, Institute of Child Health, Alder Hey, University of LiverpoolSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster UniversityClinical Trials Research Centre, Institute of Child Health, Alder Hey, University of LiverpoolDivision of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster UniversitySpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster UniversityClinical Trials Research Centre, Institute of Child Health, Alder Hey, University of LiverpoolAbstract Background The Relatives Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT) is an online supported self-management toolkit for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar designed to improve access to NICE recommended information and emotional support. Aims Our aim was to determine clinical and cost-effectiveness of REACT including a Resource Directory (RD), versus RD-only. Methods A primarily online, observer-blind randomised controlled trial comparing REACT (including RD) with RD only (registration ISRCTN72019945 ). Participants were UK relatives aged > = 16, with high distress (assessed using the GHQ-28), and actively help-seeking, individually randomised, and assessed online. Primary outcome was relatives’ distress (GHQ-28) at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were wellbeing, support, costs and user feedback. Results We recruited 800 relatives (REACT = 399; RD only = 401) with high distress at baseline (GHQ-28 REACT mean 40.3, SD 14.6; RD only mean 40.0, SD 14.0). Median time spent online on REACT was 50.8 min (IQR 12.4–172.1) versus 0.5 min (IQR 0–1.6) on RD only. Retention to primary follow-up (24 weeks) was 75% (REACT n = 292 (73.2%); RD-only n = 307 (76.6%)). Distress decreased in both groups by 24 weeks, with no significant difference between the two groups (− 1.39, 95% CI -3.60, 0.83, p = 0.22). Estimated cost of delivering REACT was £62.27 per person and users reported finding it safe, acceptable and convenient. There were no adverse events or reported side effects. Conclusions REACT is an inexpensive, acceptable, and safe way to deliver NICE-recommended support for relatives. However, for highly distressed relatives it is no more effective in reducing distress (GHQ-28) than a comprehensive online resource directory. Trial registration ISRCTN72019945 prospectively registered 19/11/2015.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12888-020-02545-9Digital health interventionRelativesPsychosisBipolarRandomised controlled trial