University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2018 Jun;22(36):1-162. doi: 10.3310/hta22360.
Eleven million people suffer a fire-related injury worldwide every year, and 71% have significant scarring. Pressure garment therapy (PGT) is a standard part of burn scar management, but there is little evidence of its clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness.
To identify the barriers to, and the facilitators of, conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of burn scar management with and without PGT and test whether or not such a trial is feasible.
Web-based surveys, semistructured individual interviews, a pilot RCT including a health economic evaluation and embedded process evaluation.
UK NHS burns services. Interviews and the pilot trial were run in seven burns services.
Thirty NHS burns services and 245 staff provided survey responses and 15 staff participated in individual interviews. Face-to-face interviews were held with 24 adult patients and 16 parents of paediatric patients who had undergone PGT. The pilot trial recruited 88 participants (57 adults and 31 children) who were at risk of hypertrophic scarring and were considered suitable for scar management therapy. Interviews were held with 34 participants soon after recruitment, with 23 participants at 12 months and with eight staff from six sites at the end of the trial.
The intervention was standard care with pressure garments. The control was standard care comprising scar management techniques involving demonstration and recommendations to undertake massage three or four times per day with moisturiser, silicone treatment, stretching and other exercises.
Feasibility was assessed by eligibility rates, consent rates, retention in allocated arms, adherence with treatment and follow-up and completion of outcome assessments. The outcomes from interview-based studies were core outcome domains and barriers to, and facilitators of, trial participation and delivery.
NHS burns services treat 2845 patients per annum (1476 paediatric and 1369 adult) and use pressure garments for 6-18 months, costing £2,171,184. The majority of staff perceived a need for a RCT of PGT, but often lacked equipoise around the research question and PGT as a treatment. Strong views about the use of PGT have the potential to influence the conduct of a full-scale RCT. A range of outcome domains was identified as important via the qualitative research: perceptions of appearance, specific scar characteristics, function, pain and itch, broader psychosocial outcomes and treatment burden. The outcome tools evaluated in the pilot trial did not cover all of these domains. The planned 88 participants were recruited: the eligibility rate was 88% [95% confidence interval (CI) 83% to 92%], the consent rate was 47% (95% CI 40% to 55%). Five (6%) participants withdrew, 14 (16%) were lost to follow-up and 8 (9%) crossed over. Adherence was as in clinical practice. Completion of outcomes was high for adult patients but poorer from parents of paediatric patients, particularly for quality of life. Sections on range of movement and willingness to pay were found to be challenging and poorly completed.
The Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile appears more suitable in terms of conceptual coverage than the outcome scales that were used in the trial but was not available at the time of the study.
A definitive RCT of PGT in burn scar management appears feasible. However, staff attitudes to the use of pressure garments may lead to biases, and the provision of training and support to sites and an ongoing assessment of trial processes are required.
We recommend that any future trial include an in-depth mixed-methods recruitment investigation and a process evaluation to account for this.
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN34483199.
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 22, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
全世界每年有 1100 万人因火灾而受伤,其中 71%有明显的疤痕。压力衣治疗(PGT)是烧伤疤痕管理的标准组成部分,但关于其临床效果或成本效益的证据很少。
确定进行烧伤疤痕管理的随机对照试验(RCT)的障碍和促进因素,并测试是否可行。
基于网络的调查、半结构化的个人访谈、包括健康经济评估和嵌入式过程评估的试点 RCT。
英国国民保健制度烧伤服务。访谈和试点试验在七个烧伤服务机构中进行。
30 个英国国民保健制度烧伤服务机构和 245 名工作人员提供了调查答复,15 名工作人员参加了个人访谈。24 名成年患者和 16 名接受过 PGT 的儿科患者的父母进行了面对面访谈。试点试验招募了 88 名符合条件的参与者(57 名成人和 31 名儿童),他们有发生增生性瘢痕的风险,适合进行瘢痕管理治疗。在招募后不久对 34 名参与者进行了访谈,在 12 个月时对 23 名参与者进行了访谈,在试验结束时对来自六个地点的 8 名工作人员进行了访谈。
干预措施是使用压力衣的标准护理。对照组是包括疤痕管理技术的标准护理,涉及演示和建议每天进行三到四次按摩,用保湿剂、硅酮治疗、伸展和其他运动。
通过资格认定率、同意率、在分配臂中的保留率、治疗和随访的依从性以及完成结果评估来评估可行性。基于访谈的研究结果是核心结果领域,以及参与和交付试验的障碍和促进因素。
英国国民保健制度烧伤服务机构每年治疗 2845 名患者(1476 名儿科和 1369 名成人),使用压力衣治疗 6-18 个月,费用为 217.1184 万英镑。大多数工作人员认为需要进行 PGT 的 RCT,但通常对研究问题和 PGT 作为治疗方法缺乏均衡性。对 PGT 使用的强烈看法有可能影响全面 RCT 的进行。通过定性研究确定了一系列重要的结果领域:对外观的看法、特定的疤痕特征、功能、疼痛和瘙痒、更广泛的社会心理结果和治疗负担。试点试验中评估的结果工具没有涵盖所有这些领域。计划招募 88 名参与者:资格认定率为 88%(95%置信区间为 83%至 92%),同意率为 47%(95%置信区间为 40%至 55%)。有 5 名(6%)参与者退出,14 名(16%)失访,8 名(9%)交叉。依从性与临床实践相同。成人患者的结果完成率较高,但儿科患者的父母较差,尤其是生活质量。范围运动和支付意愿的部分被发现具有挑战性,完成情况较差。
在概念涵盖方面,烧伤疤痕影响概况(Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile)似乎比试验中使用的结果量表更合适,但在研究时不可用。
在烧伤疤痕管理中进行 PGT 的确定性 RCT 似乎是可行的。然而,工作人员对压力衣使用的态度可能会导致偏见,需要向各站点提供培训和支持,并对试验过程进行持续评估。
我们建议任何未来的试验都包括一个深入的混合方法招募调查和一个过程评估,以考虑到这一点。
当前对照试验 ISRCTN34483199。
该项目由英国国家卫生研究院(NIHR)健康技术评估计划资助,将在;第 22 卷,第 36 期。有关该项目的更多信息,请访问 NIHR 期刊库网站。