CroupNCT00147849
A Cluster Controlled Trial Comparing Three Methods of Disseminating Practice Guidelines for Children With Croup
A study testing mailing of printed educational materials, a combination of interactive educational meetings, educational outreach visits, and reminders and identification of local opinion leaders and establishment of local consensus processes in people with Croup, run by Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).
Trial summary
The purpose of this study is to identify, from a societal perspective, the costs and associated benefits of three strategies for disseminating and implementing a practice guideline that addresses the management of croup. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 0 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Croup
- What is being tested?
- mailing of printed educational materials, a combination of interactive educational meetings, educational outreach visits, and reminders and identification of local opinion leaders and establishment of local consensus processes
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- How many people
- Not given
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Sep 2000to Mar 2006
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 0 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Alberta hospitals were rank ordered based on the number of disease episodes and rates of hospitalization for a six-year period. We then approached in this order each of the hospital administrators and clinical staff for permission to include their hospital in our study until a total of 24 hospitals consented
Who cannot join
- Refusal by hospital staff to participate in this trial
About this study
Official title: A Cluster Controlled Trial Comparing Three Methods of Disseminating Practice
The purpose of this study is to identify, from a societal perspective, the costs and associated benefits of three strategies for disseminating and implementing a practice guideline that addresses the management of croup.
Read the detailed description
Overall Aim: The overall aim of this study is to identify - from a societal perspective - the costs and associated benefits of three strategies for implementing a practice guideline that addresses the management of croup.
Intervention Strategies: The intervention strategies to be compared will be mailing of printed educational materials (the "Standard intervention"), mailing plus a combination of interactive educational meetings, educational outreach visits, and reminders (a "Saturn intervention"), and a combination of mailing, interactive sessions, outreach visits, reminders plus identification of local opinion leaders and establishment of local consensus processes (a "Cadillac intervention").
Primary Objective: To determine which of the three intervention strategies are most effective at lowering the rate of hospital days per 1,000 disease episodes. The null hypothesis is that none of the intervention strategies reduce hospital utilization rates from baseline. The alternate hypothesis is that the intervention strategies will have a graded degree of effect on hospitalization rates, with the 'Standard intervention' having minimal to no effect, the 'Saturn intervention' having moderate but significant effect, and the 'Cadillac intervention' having the greatest effect.
Secondary Objective: To determine which of the three dissemination strategies are most effective at increasing the use of therapies of known benefit.
Economic Analysis: To determine which of the three intervention strategies will most effectively reduce total societal costs including all health care costs, costs borne by the family, and costs stemming from the strategies for disseminating guidelines.
Other Objectives: To determine which dissemination strategy will most effectively maintain or improve clinical outcomes and maintain or reduce the family psychosocial burden. Clinical outcomes assessed will include both uncommon severe events such as endotracheal intubation, respiratory arrest, and death, as well as average duration of clinical symptoms. The assessment of family psychosocial burden will include the number of hours of sleep missed by the child, and the stress experienced by the primary caregiver (most commonly the mother).
Study Plan: The study objectives will be achieved through the following:
- We are completing a baseline survey which a) documents Alberta-wide utilization rates for health care services; b) documents severe adverse outcomes Alberta-wide; c) rank orders Alberta hospitals based on rates of hospitalization; d) documents therapeutic practices in 24 selected Alberta hospitals; and e) documents, through the use of a prospectively administered survey, the psychosocial burden of the disease on families in the same 24 Alberta hospitals.
- We are developing clinical guidelines that address indications for drug therapy and hospital admission/discharge criteria. Development of these guidelines have included the following: a)convening an expert panel; b) critically reviewing the published literature; c) drafting guidelines which meet standard criteria for developing guidelines; d) obtaining approval of the guidelines by the Canadian Pediatric Society, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, and the Alberta Medical Association; and e) publishing the guidelines in journals such as the CMAJ.
- We have identified 24 Alberta hospitals and will randomize them to one of the three dissemination strategies outlined above.
- We will complete a follow-up survey which a) documents Alberta-wide severe adverse outcomes and utilization rates; b) documents practice patterns in the same 24 Alberta hospitals surveyed at baseline; and c) documents the psychosocial burden of the disease on families in these same hospitals.
- We will complete a statistical analysis comparing the three randomized groups of hospitals in terms of the change in health care utilization, change in physician use of effective therapies, and change in the psychosocial burden of the disease on families.
- We will complete an economic analysis that compares the change in benefits derived from the three types of dissemination strategies with the relative costs (change in health care costs, relative costs associated with the three types of dissemination strategies, and change in costs borne by the family such as lost wages).
- Conditions
- Croup
- Being tested
- mailing of printed educational materials, a combination of interactive educational meetings, educational outreach visits, and reminders, identification of local opinion leaders and establishment of local consensus processes
- Keywords
- knowledge translation, health care utilization, economic analysis
- Medical subject headings
- Croup, Patient Acceptance of Health Care
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
mailing of printed educational materialsBehavioural
a combination of interactive educational meetings, educational outreach visits, and remindersBehavioural
identification of local opinion leaders and establishment of local consensus processesBehavioural
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Rate of hospital days per 1,000 disease episodes
Secondary outcomes (4)
Proportion of patients treated in the ED and hospital with a corticosteroid.
Proportion of patients evaluated in ED for at least three hours after treatment with corticosteroids before the decision to admit to hospital is made.
Time to treatment with corticosteroids in both ED and hospital patients.
An economic analysis conducted from a societal perspective with costs classified as either payer (costs born by the province) or non-payer (costs born by individuals or the families of children with croup).
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 Sep 2005 (estimated)
- Study startSep 2000
- Study completionMar 2006
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for CroupStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Early clinical test
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
- Sponsor type
- Other government
- Investigators
- David W Johnson, MD, Principal investigator, University of Calgary
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00147849
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- MCT-63141
- Other IDs
- CIHR App No. 110642, U Calgary Acct. No. 73-1051
- Status last verified
- Sep 2005
- First submitted
- 2 Sep 2005
- Last updated
- 29 Nov 2005
- Results posted
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 29 Nov 2005. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Cluster Controlled Trial Comparing Three Methods of Disseminating Practice
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00147849
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- MCT-63141
- Conditions
- Croup
- Keywords
- knowledge translation, health care utilization, economic analysis
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Terminated
- Lead sponsor
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)Other government
- Study start
- Sep 2000
- Study completion
- Mar 2006
- First posted
- 7 Sep 2005 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of this study is to identify, from a societal perspective, the costs and associated benefits of three strategies for disseminating and implementing a practice guideline that addresses the management of croup.
Detailed description
Overall Aim: The overall aim of this study is to identify - from a societal perspective - the costs and associated benefits of three strategies for implementing a practice guideline that addresses the management of croup.
Intervention Strategies: The intervention strategies to be compared will be mailing of printed educational materials (the "Standard intervention"), mailing plus a combination of interactive educational meetings, educational outreach visits, and reminders (a "Saturn intervention"), and a combination of mailing, interactive sessions, outreach visits, reminders plus identification of local opinion leaders and establishment of local consensus processes (a "Cadillac intervention").
Primary Objective: To determine which of the three intervention strategies are most effective at lowering the rate of hospital days per 1,000 disease episodes. The null hypothesis is that none of the intervention strategies reduce hospital utilization rates from baseline. The alternate hypothesis is that the intervention strategies will have a graded degree of effect on hospitalization rates, with the 'Standard intervention' having minimal to no effect, the 'Saturn intervention' having moderate but significant effect, and the 'Cadillac intervention' having the greatest effect.
Secondary Objective: To determine which of the three dissemination strategies are most effective at increasing the use of therapies of known benefit.
Economic Analysis: To determine which of the three intervention strategies will most effectively reduce total societal costs including all health care costs, costs borne by the family, and costs stemming from the strategies for disseminating guidelines.
Other Objectives: To determine which dissemination strategy will most effectively maintain or improve clinical outcomes and maintain or reduce the family psychosocial burden. Clinical outcomes assessed will include both uncommon severe events such as endotracheal intubation, respiratory arrest, and death, as well as average duration of clinical symptoms. The assessment of family psychosocial burden will include the number of hours of sleep missed by the child, and the stress experienced by the primary caregiver (most commonly the mother).
Study Plan: The study objectives will be achieved through the following:
- We are completing a baseline survey which a) documents Alberta-wide utilization rates for health care services; b) documents severe adverse outcomes Alberta-wide; c) rank orders Alberta hospitals based on rates of hospitalization; d) documents therapeutic practices in 24 selected Alberta hospitals; and e) documents, through the use of a prospectively administered survey, the psychosocial burden of the disease on families in the same 24 Alberta hospitals.
- We are developing clinical guidelines that address indications for drug therapy and hospital admission/discharge criteria. Development of these guidelines have included the following: a)convening an expert panel; b) critically reviewing the published literature; c) drafting guidelines which meet standard criteria for developing guidelines; d) obtaining approval of the guidelines by the Canadian Pediatric Society, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, and the Alberta Medical Association; and e) publishing the guidelines in journals such as the CMAJ.
- We have identified 24 Alberta hospitals and will randomize them to one of the three dissemination strategies outlined above.
- We will complete a follow-up survey which a) documents Alberta-wide severe adverse outcomes and utilization rates; b) documents practice patterns in the same 24 Alberta hospitals surveyed at baseline; and c) documents the psychosocial burden of the disease on families in these same hospitals.
- We will complete a statistical analysis comparing the three randomized groups of hospitals in terms of the change in health care utilization, change in physician use of effective therapies, and change in the psychosocial burden of the disease on families.
- We will complete an economic analysis that compares the change in benefits derived from the three types of dissemination strategies with the relative costs (change in health care costs, relative costs associated with the three types of dissemination strategies, and change in costs borne by the family such as lost wages).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Early clinical test
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 0 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Alberta hospitals were rank ordered based on the number of disease episodes and rates of hospitalization for a six-year period. We then approached in this order each of the hospital administrators and clinical staff for permission to include their hospital in our study until a total of 24 hospitals consented
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Refusal by hospital staff to participate in this trial
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| mailing of printed educational materials | Behavioural | – |
| a combination of interactive educational meetings, educational outreach visits, and reminders | Behavioural | – |
| identification of local opinion leaders and establishment of local consensus processes | Behavioural | – |
Primary outcome
Rate of hospital days per 1,000 disease episodes
4 secondary outcomes
Proportion of patients treated in the ED and hospital with a corticosteroid.
Proportion of patients evaluated in ED for at least three hours after treatment with corticosteroids before the decision to admit to hospital is made.
Time to treatment with corticosteroids in both ED and hospital patients.
An economic analysis conducted from a societal perspective with costs classified as either payer (costs born by the province) or non-payer (costs born by individuals or the families of children with croup).
Results and safety
The study was stopped early. Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 29 Nov 2005.
Related trials for Croup
RecruitingObservational study
Complicated Infections in Otorhinolaryngology
Sinusitis, Otitis
Recruiting
Impact of a Multimodal Intervention on Antibiotic Prescribing for Respiratory Infections in Primary Care
Angina, Acute Bronchiolitis
RecruitingPhase 3
VItamin D in pregnanCy for prevenTion Of eaRlY Childhood Asthma
Asthma, Respiratory Tract Infections
RecruitingPhase 3
Fish Oil in pREgnancY for Personalized Prevention of Early Childhood Asthma
Asthma, Respiratory Tract Infections
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
David W Johnson, MD principal investigator
University of Calgary
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing mailing of printed educational materials, a combination of interactive educational meetings, educational outreach visits, and reminders and identification of local opinion leaders and establishment of local consensus processes in people with Croup, run by Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: stopped early, as of the sponsor's last update on 29 Nov 2005. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study was stopped early. Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Rate of hospital days per 1,000 disease episodes. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 29 Nov 2005.