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...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |