AggressionViolinNCT02724748
Managing Patient Aggression in Mental Health Services
A study testing Educational intervention in people with Aggression and Mental Disorders, run by University of Turku.
Trial summary
To compare the effects of an educational intervention to usual practice (no specified staff education) on improving treatment culture and supporting team climate in staff members, which further could reduce the need for the use of coercive methods in psychiatric care. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 99 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Aggression, Mental Disorders
- What is being tested?
- Educational intervention
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 28 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Feb 2016to 31 Dec 2018
- 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 18 to 99 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Finnish speaking hospital organisations
- at least 1 psychiatric ward
- open 24/7
- are able to use coersive measures (seclusion room, limb restraint, forced medication, physical restraint)
Who cannot join
- wards specialised in forensic, psychogeriatric, or child and adolescent care alone
- similar type of project is underway or is planned to start
About this study
Official title: The Effectiveness of User-driven Intervention to Manage Patient Aggression in Mental Health Services
To compare the effects of an educational intervention to usual practice (no specified staff education) on improving treatment culture and supporting team climate in staff members, which further could reduce the need for the use of coercive methods in psychiatric care.
Read the detailed description
This is a single-blind, two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial involving 28 psychiatric hospital wards across Finland.
Units are randomised on an equal basis to receive either staff educational programme (designed together with staff members, patients and relatives on the study units) or standard care. Inpatient psychiatric hospital organisations are the unit of randomisation. The cluster design will be used to avoid contamination between individual staff members in each study ward. We will use centralized randomisation at the University of Turku (Department of Mathematics and Statistics). Randomisation will be fully concealed and computer-generated by an independent statistician, who is not involved in the study. Investigators enrolling wards cannot foresee assignment. Outcome assessors and statisticians will be kept blinded to allocation. However, due to the type of intervention, allocation will be unmasked to patients and their relatives, contact persons in each ward, and health care staff delivering patient care on the wards after randomisation; this would reflect real-world care. While the Data Monitoring Committee undertook ongoing safety surveillance, investigators running the preliminary analysis for the Data Monitoring Committee will be masked to data until investigators released the database. Further, the statisticians and the National Register holder who are responsible in Finnish routine data used in this study, will be masked to ward allocation and patient data in each group. Randomisation will be done after collecting the baseline data from each unit.
Baseline data on coercive practices used on the units will be collected by the members of the research team with a help of staff members within the eight weeks, while observational and interview data related to the quality of the services will be collected by the research team (only in the intervention units). On the individual level, all staff members working in the study units, patients, and their relatives are eligible to participate in the study. Staff survey and interviews with staff members, patient groups and relatives will be done on the basis of free will. The staff of the unit/research team members will approach patients and their relatives to explain the purpose of the study and its arrangements orally and in written format. The opportunity to ask questions about the study will be given to them. Those that will be assessed having a lack of capacity to give informed consent and declined to participate will not be interviewed. Staff surveys will be repeated for baseline and follow-up. On the organisational level, the outcomes related to patient service use will be assessed 12 and 24 months after baseline data collection.
Assessing quality components: The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to the new practices will also be discussed and categorised based on SWOT analysis (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat). Possible barriers and facilitating factors for change on the on each unit will be identified. The quality of the service facilities will be assessed by observations on the units, based on World Health Organization's (2012) QualityRight Tool Kit focusing on five central quality criteria.
We have systematically searched for, but found no directly relevant past work. We assume that if the data will be obtained from local hospital registers by sampling 7 clusters (hospitals) with 265 subjects each in intervention group and 7 clusters with 265 subjects each in control group, we will have 80% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of -0.0400. The control group proportion is 0.1100. The intervention group proportion is assumed to be 0.1100 under the null hypothesis and 0.0700 under the alternative hypothesis. The test statistic used is the two-sided Z test (unpooled) with an overall significance level at 0.05. We may assume based on the hospital registers that sample size for the total population admitted in the study wards in one year will be 3710. However, if we consider a loss of 20% patients in the local care registers, the total number of patients on the randomised wards should be about 4454 patients. Further, if we assume 50% response rate for patient survey out of possible 3710 participants, we will assume that we will obtain 928 filled questionnaires during 6 month survey data collection period. The sample size calculation was adjusted for intra-cluster correlation at 0.005.
- Conditions
- Aggression, Mental Disorders
- Being tested
- Educational intervention
- Keywords
- Aggression, Mental Health, Education, Continuing
- Medical subject headings
- Aggression, Mental Disorders, Psychological Well-Being
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Educational interventionBehavioural
Educational intervention for staff members will encourage collaboration between patients, relatives and staff members. Skills, intellectual resources, motivation and encouragement among staff members to make changes on the unit will be supported. More detailed content of the intervention to be used in each unit will be tailored based on preparatory phase of the study and individual needs of the unit. The educational intervention will be carried out beside usual care.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Educational intervention | Experimental | Beside usual care the intervention will encourage collaborative practices between staff, patients and family members to adopt more human patient-centred approach on the unit. The intervention is designed to impact on treatment culture and thereby treatment practices on the study wards. Receives: Behavioral: Educational intervention |
| Treatment as usual | No intervention | Wards allocated to comparison wards continue with their usual care. No restrictions on how nursing staff works in these wards, although participation in corresponding projects is not supported. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The incidence of seclusion room use.
The incidence of seclusion room use by patients in each unit.
Measured: Three years
Secondary outcomes (7)
Other types of coercive measures
Organisational outcomes. Incidence of other types of coercive measures used on patients (limb restraint, forced injection, physical restraint).
Measured: Three years
Service use
Organisational outcomes. Type of admission, length of stay, deaths.
Measured: Three years
Team climate
Staff outcomes. Team Climate Inventory, TCI.
Measured: 18-20 months after beginning of the intervention
Turnover
Staff outcomes.
Measured: Three years
The functional capacity of patients
Patient outcomes. Gobal Assessment Scale, GAS.
Measured: Nine months after beginning of the intervention
Patient treatment satisfaction
Patient outcomes. Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, CSQ-8.
Measured: Nine months after beginning of the intervention
Quality of Life
Patient outcomes. Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form, Q-LES-Q-SF
Measured: Nine months after beginning of the intervention
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted31 Mar 2016 (estimated)
- Study startFeb 2016
- Primary completion31 Dec 2018
- Study completion31 Dec 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (4)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for AggressionStudies 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
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 28 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Turku
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Academy of Finland, Turku University Hospital, Harvard Medical School (HMS and HSDM), Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH), Stanford University, Sichuan University of China, China, University of Nottingham, World Health Organisation, Philippines, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Maritta Välimäki, University of Turku
- Investigators
- Maritta Välimäki, Professor, Study director, University of Turku, Hong Kong Polytechnic University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02724748
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 294298
- Acronym
- Violin
- Status last verified
- Feb 2020
- First submitted
- 18 Mar 2016
- Last updated
- 26 Feb 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Valimaki M, Yang M, Normand SL, Lorig KR, Anttila M, Lantta T, Pekurinen V, Adams CE. Study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of user-driven intervention to prevent aggressive events in psychiatric services. BMC Psychiatry. 2017 Apr 4;17(1):123. doi: 10.1186/s12888-017-1266-6.
PubMed 28372555Valimaki M, Yang M, Vahlberg T, Lantta T, Pekurinen V, Anttila M, Normand SL. Trends in the use of coercive measures in Finnish psychiatric hospitals: a register analysis of the past two decades. BMC Psychiatry. 2019 Jul 26;19(1):230. doi: 10.1186/s12888-019-2200-x.
PubMed 31349787Valimaki M, Lantta T, Anttila M, Vahlberg T, Normand SL, Yang M. An Evidence-Based Educational Intervention for Reducing Coercive Measures in Psychiatric Hospitals: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Aug 1;5(8):e2229076. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.29076.
PubMed 36040740Gibbon S, Khalifa NR, Cheung NH, Vollm BA, McCarthy L. Psychological interventions for antisocial personality disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Sep 3;9(9):CD007668. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007668.pub3.
PubMed 32880104
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 Feb 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Effectiveness of User-driven Intervention to Manage Patient Aggression in Mental Health Services
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02724748
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Violin / 294298
- Conditions
- Aggression, Mental Disorders
- Keywords
- Aggression, Mental Health, Education, Continuing
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 28 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of TurkuUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Academy of Finland, Turku University Hospital, Harvard Medical School (HMS and HSDM), Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH), Stanford University, Sichuan University of China, China, University of Nottingham, World Health Organisation, Philippines, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
- Study start
- Feb 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 31 Mar 2016 (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.
To compare the effects of an educational intervention to usual practice (no specified staff education) on improving treatment culture and supporting team climate in staff members, which further could reduce the need for the use of coercive methods in psychiatric care.
Detailed description
This is a single-blind, two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial involving 28 psychiatric hospital wards across Finland.
Units are randomised on an equal basis to receive either staff educational programme (designed together with staff members, patients and relatives on the study units) or standard care. Inpatient psychiatric hospital organisations are the unit of randomisation. The cluster design will be used to avoid contamination between individual staff members in each study ward. We will use centralized randomisation at the University of Turku (Department of Mathematics and Statistics). Randomisation will be fully concealed and computer-generated by an independent statistician, who is not involved in the study. Investigators enrolling wards cannot foresee assignment. Outcome assessors and statisticians will be kept blinded to allocation. However, due to the type of intervention, allocation will be unmasked to patients and their relatives, contact persons in each ward, and health care staff delivering patient care on the wards after randomisation; this would reflect real-world care. While the Data Monitoring Committee undertook ongoing safety surveillance, investigators running the preliminary analysis for the Data Monitoring Committee will be masked to data until investigators released the database. Further, the statisticians and the National Register holder who are responsible in Finnish routine data used in this study, will be masked to ward allocation and patient data in each group. Randomisation will be done after collecting the baseline data from each unit.
Baseline data on coercive practices used on the units will be collected by the members of the research team with a help of staff members within the eight weeks, while observational and interview data related to the quality of the services will be collected by the research team (only in the intervention units). On the individual level, all staff members working in the study units, patients, and their relatives are eligible to participate in the study. Staff survey and interviews with staff members, patient groups and relatives will be done on the basis of free will. The staff of the unit/research team members will approach patients and their relatives to explain the purpose of the study and its arrangements orally and in written format. The opportunity to ask questions about the study will be given to them. Those that will be assessed having a lack of capacity to give informed consent and declined to participate will not be interviewed. Staff surveys will be repeated for baseline and follow-up. On the organisational level, the outcomes related to patient service use will be assessed 12 and 24 months after baseline data collection.
Assessing quality components: The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to the new practices will also be discussed and categorised based on SWOT analysis (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat). Possible barriers and facilitating factors for change on the on each unit will be identified. The quality of the service facilities will be assessed by observations on the units, based on World Health Organization's (2012) QualityRight Tool Kit focusing on five central quality criteria.
We have systematically searched for, but found no directly relevant past work. We assume that if the data will be obtained from local hospital registers by sampling 7 clusters (hospitals) with 265 subjects each in intervention group and 7 clusters with 265 subjects each in control group, we will have 80% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of -0.0400. The control group proportion is 0.1100. The intervention group proportion is assumed to be 0.1100 under the null hypothesis and 0.0700 under the alternative hypothesis. The test statistic used is the two-sided Z test (unpooled) with an overall significance level at 0.05. We may assume based on the hospital registers that sample size for the total population admitted in the study wards in one year will be 3710. However, if we consider a loss of 20% patients in the local care registers, the total number of patients on the randomised wards should be about 4454 patients. Further, if we assume 50% response rate for patient survey out of possible 3710 participants, we will assume that we will obtain 928 filled questionnaires during 6 month survey data collection period. The sample size calculation was adjusted for intra-cluster correlation at 0.005.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Educational intervention | Experimental | Behavioral: Educational interventionBeside usual care the intervention will encourage collaborative practices between staff, patients and family members to adopt more human patient-centred approach on the unit. The intervention is designed to impact on treatment culture and thereby treatment practices on the study wards. |
| Treatment as usual | No intervention | –Wards allocated to comparison wards continue with their usual care. No restrictions on how nursing staff works in these wards, although participation in corresponding projects is not supported. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 99 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Finnish speaking hospital organisations
- at least 1 psychiatric ward
- open 24/7
- are able to use coersive measures (seclusion room, limb restraint, forced medication, physical restraint)
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- wards specialised in forensic, psychogeriatric, or child and adolescent care alone
- similar type of project is underway or is planned to start
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Educational interventionEducational intervention for staff members will encourage collaboration between patients, relatives and staff members. Skills, intellectual resources, motivation and encouragement among staff members to make changes on the unit will be supported. More detailed content of the intervention to be used in each unit will be tailored based on preparatory phase of the study and individual needs of the unit. The educational intervention will be carried out beside usual care. | Behavioural | Educational intervention |
Primary outcome
The incidence of seclusion room use.
Time frame: Three years
The incidence of seclusion room use by patients in each unit.
7 secondary outcomes
Other types of coercive measures
Time frame: Three years
Service use
Time frame: Three years
Team climate
Time frame: 18-20 months after beginning of the intervention
Turnover
Time frame: Three years
The functional capacity of patients
Time frame: Nine months after beginning of the intervention
Patient treatment satisfaction
Time frame: Nine months after beginning of the intervention
Quality of Life
Time frame: Nine months after beginning of the intervention
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 26 Feb 2020.
- Background: PubMed 28372555Valimaki M, Yang M, Normand SL, Lorig KR, Anttila M, Lantta T, Pekurinen V, Adams CE. Study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of user-driven intervention to prevent aggressive events in psychiatric services. BMC Psychiatry. 2017 Apr 4;17(1):123. doi: 10.1186/s12888-017-1266-6.
- Results publication: PubMed 31349787Valimaki M, Yang M, Vahlberg T, Lantta T, Pekurinen V, Anttila M, Normand SL. Trends in the use of coercive measures in Finnish psychiatric hospitals: a register analysis of the past two decades. BMC Psychiatry. 2019 Jul 26;19(1):230. doi: 10.1186/s12888-019-2200-x.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 36040740Valimaki M, Lantta T, Anttila M, Vahlberg T, Normand SL, Yang M. An Evidence-Based Educational Intervention for Reducing Coercive Measures in Psychiatric Hospitals: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Aug 1;5(8):e2229076. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.29076.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 32880104Gibbon S, Khalifa NR, Cheung NH, Vollm BA, McCarthy L. Psychological interventions for antisocial personality disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Sep 3;9(9):CD007668. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007668.pub3.
- Study protocolLink provided by the sponsor.
- TrendsLink provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Aggression
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Lisdexamfetamine For the Treatment of Conduct Disorder in Children
Conduct Disorder
RecruitingPhase 3
Measuring if Immunotherapy Plus Chemotherapy is Better Than Chemotherapy Alone for Patients With Aggressive Poorly Differentiated Sarcomas
Metastatic Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma, Metastatic Undifferentiated Pleomorphic Sarcoma
RecruitingPhase 2
Testing the Effectiveness of a Combination Targeted Therapy (ViPOR) for Patients With Relapsed and/or Refractory Aggressive B-cell Lymphoma
High Grade B-Cell Lymphoma With MYC and BCL6 Rearrangements, Recurrent Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma
Recruiting
Momentary Coping Prompts and Hair Steroids in College Students
Emotional Regulation, Alcohol Drinking in College
Active, not recruitingPhase 1/2
First-in-Human (FIH) Trial in Patients With Relapsed, Progressive or Refractory B-Cell Lymphoma
DLBCL, High-grade B-cell Lymphoma (HGBCL)
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.
Maritta Välimäki, Professor study director
University of Turku, Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Educational intervention in people with Aggression and Mental Disorders, run by University of Turku.
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 4 inclusion and 2 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 26 Feb 2020. 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 is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
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?
The incidence of seclusion room use. (time frame: Three years). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02724748, which also lists 4 linked publications.
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 26 Feb 2020.