Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Headline
A medication reminder letter sent in July from general practitioners to parents/carers of school-age children with asthma did not reduce unscheduled contacts in September; but there appeared to be later effects and cost savings.
Abstract
Background:
Asthma episodes and deaths are known to be seasonal. A number of reports have shown peaks in asthma episodes in school-aged children associated with the return to school following the summer vacation. A fall in prescription collection in the month of August has been observed, and was associated with an increase in the number of unscheduled contacts after the return to school in September.
Objective:
The primary objective of the study was to assess whether or not a NHS-delivered public health intervention reduces the September peak in unscheduled medical contacts.
Design:
Cluster randomised trial, with the unit of randomisation being 142 NHS general practices, and trial-based economic evaluation.
Setting:
Primary care.
Intervention:
A letter sent (n = 70 practices) in July from their general practitioner (GP) to parents/carers of school-aged children with asthma to remind them of the importance of taking their medication, and to ensure that they have sufficient medication prior to the start of the new school year in September. The control group received usual care.
Main outcome measures:
The primary outcome measure was the proportion of children aged 5–16 years who had an unscheduled medical contact in September 2013. Supporting end points included the proportion of children who collected prescriptions in August 2013 and unscheduled contacts through the following 12 months. Economic end points were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and costs from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective.
Results:
There is no evidence of effect in terms of unscheduled contacts in September. Among children aged 5–16 years, the odds ratio (OR) was 1.09 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.25] against the intervention. The intervention did increase the proportion of children collecting a prescription in August (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.64) as well as scheduled contacts in the same month (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.52). For the wider time intervals (September–December 2013 and September–August 2014), there is weak evidence of the intervention reducing unscheduled contacts. The intervention did not reduce unscheduled care in September, although it succeeded in increasing the proportion of children collecting prescriptions in August as well as having scheduled contacts in the same month. These unscheduled contacts in September could be a result of the intervention, as GPs may have wanted to see patients before issuing a prescription. The economic analysis estimated a high probability that the intervention was cost-saving, for baseline-adjusted costs, across both base-case and sensitivity analyses. There was no increase in QALYs.
Limitation:
The use of routine data led to uncertainty in the coding of medical contacts. The uncertainty was mitigated by advice from a GP adjudication panel.
Conclusions:
The intervention did not reduce unscheduled care in September, although it succeeded in increasing the proportion of children both collecting prescriptions and having scheduled contacts in August. After September there is weak evidence in favour of the intervention. The intervention had a favourable impact on costs but did not demonstrate any impact on QALYs. The results of the trial indicate that further work is required on assessing and understanding adherence, both in terms of using routine data to make quantitative assessments, and through additional qualitative interviews with key stakeholders such as practice nurses, GPs and a wider group of children with asthma.
Trial registration:
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03000938.
Funding details:
This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 93. See the HTA programme website for further project information.
Contents
- Plain English summary
- Scientific summary
- Chapter 1. Introduction
- Chapter 2. Methods
- Ethics approval and research governance
- Trial design
- Clinical Practice Research Datalink
- Settings and locations where the data were collected
- Clinical Practice Research Datalink recruitment
- National Institute for Health Research Primary Care Research Network
- Site set-up
- Participants and eligibility criteria
- Trial intervention
- Outcomes
- Changes to trial outcomes after the trial commenced, with reasons
- Data collection, data extraction and methods for allocation of data
- Data handling
- Methods for allocation of data to scheduled/unscheduled contacts
- Changes to the data collection, data extraction and methods for allocation of data after the trial commenced, with reasons
- Sample size
- Randomisation and blinding
- Statistical methods
- Patient and public involvement
- Trial oversight
- Safety assessments
- Chapter 3. Trial results
- Chapter 4. Health economics
- Chapter 5. Discussion
- Chapter 6. Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- References
- Appendix 1. Trial intervention
- Appendix 2. Changes to protocol
- Appendix 3. Data management process: allocation of medical contacts and follow-up data
- Appendix 4. Statistical analysis plan
- Appendix 5. Systematic review of health-related quality of life data to inform health economic analysis
- Appendix 6. Full search strategy
- Appendix 7. Quality-of-life filter
- Appendix 8. Reasons for exclusion at titles and abstracts
- Appendix 9. Reasons for exclusion at full texts
- Appendix 10. Baseline (12 months pre intervention) and post-intervention (12 months) resource use and costs per patient
- List of abbreviations
About the Series
Article history
The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 11/01/10. The contractual start date was in January 2013. The draft report began editorial review in February 2016 and was accepted for publication in June 2016. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.
Declared competing interests of authors
Jennifer Campbell, Rachael Williams and Robin May are employees of Clinical Practice Research Datalink who received payment from the University of Sheffield during the conduct of the study and funding from multiple organisations outside the submitted work.
Last reviewed: February 2016; Accepted: June 2016.
- NLM CatalogRelated NLM Catalog Entries
- Open-label, cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a brief letter from a GP on unscheduled medical contacts associated with the start of the school year: the PLEASANT trial.[BMJ Open. 2018]Open-label, cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a brief letter from a GP on unscheduled medical contacts associated with the start of the school year: the PLEASANT trial.Julious SA, Horspool MJ, Davis S, Franklin M, Smithson WH, Norman P, Simpson RM, Elphick H, Bortolami O, Cooper C. BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 20; 8(4):e017367. Epub 2018 Apr 20.
- Preventing and lessening exacerbations of asthma in school-age children associated with a new term (PLEASANT): study protocol for a cluster randomised control trial.[Trials. 2013]Preventing and lessening exacerbations of asthma in school-age children associated with a new term (PLEASANT): study protocol for a cluster randomised control trial.Horspool MJ, Julious SA, Boote J, Bradburn MJ, Cooper CL, Davis S, Elphick H, Norman P, Smithson WH, VanStaa T. Trials. 2013 Sep 16; 14:297. Epub 2013 Sep 16.
- TRial to Assess Implementation of New research in a primary care Setting (TRAINS): study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of an educational intervention to promote asthma prescription uptake in general practitioner practices.[Trials. 2022]TRial to Assess Implementation of New research in a primary care Setting (TRAINS): study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of an educational intervention to promote asthma prescription uptake in general practitioner practices.Alyami RA, Simpson R, Oliver P, Julious SA. Trials. 2022 Nov 17; 23(1):947. Epub 2022 Nov 17.
- Review Primary care management of cardiovascular risk for people with severe mental illnesses: the Primrose research programme including cluster RCT[ 2019]Review Primary care management of cardiovascular risk for people with severe mental illnesses: the Primrose research programme including cluster RCTOsborn D, Burton A, Walters K, Atkins L, Barnes T, Blackburn R, Craig T, Gilbert H, Gray B, Hardoon S, et al. 2019 Apr
- Review A patient-centred intervention to improve the management of multimorbidity in general practice: the 3D RCT[ 2019]Review A patient-centred intervention to improve the management of multimorbidity in general practice: the 3D RCTSalisbury C, Man MS, Chaplin K, Mann C, Bower P, Brookes S, Duncan P, Fitzpatrick B, Gardner C, Gaunt DM, et al. 2019 Feb
- PLEASANT: Preventing and Lessening Exacerbations of Asthma in School-age childre...PLEASANT: Preventing and Lessening Exacerbations of Asthma in School-age children Associated with a New Term – a cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation
- ARSG [Chlorocebus sabaeus]ARSG [Chlorocebus sabaeus]Gene ID:103243148Gene
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...