The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a national lay-led self care support programme for patients with long-term conditions: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Volumn 61, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 254-261

  Kennedy, Anne ^a   Reeves, David ^a   Bower, Peter ^a   Lee, Victoria ^a   Middleton, Elizabeth ^a   Richardson, Gerry ^b   Gardner, Caroline ^a   Gately, Claire ^a   Rogers, Anne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH SERVICES; HEALTH STATUS; QUALITY OF LIFE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SELF CARE; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADULT; AGED; CHRONIC DISEASE; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICES; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUALITY OF LIFE; SELF CARE; SELF EFFICACY; SELF-HELP GROUPS;

ENGLAND; EURASIA; EUROPE; UNITED KINGDOM; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 34147198203     PISSN: 0143005X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jech.2006.053538     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Murray C, Lopez A. The global burden of disease: a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from disease, injuries and risk factors in 1990. Boston: Harvard School of Public Health on behalf of the World Bank, 1996.
2. Epping-Jordan J, Pruitt S, Bengoa R, et al. Improving the quality of health care for chronic conditions. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13:299-305.
3. Weingarten S, Henning J, Badamgarav E, et al. Interventions used in disease management programmes for patients with chronic illness - which ones work? Meta-analysis of published reports. BMJ 2002;325:925.
4. Wagner E, Austin B, Von Korff M. Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. Milbank Q 1996;74:511-43.
5. Department of Health. Self care - a real choice: self care support - a practical option. London: Department of Health, 2005.
6. Department of Health. The expert patient: a new approach to chronic disease management for the 21st century. London: Department of Health, 2001.
7. Barlow J, Turner A, Wright C. A randomized controlled study of the Arthritis Self-Management Programme in the UK. Health Educ Res Theory Pract 2000;15:665-80.
8. Lewin B, Robertson I, Cay E, et al. Effects of self-help post-myocardial infarction rehabilitation on psychological adjustment and use of health services. Lancet 1992;339:1036-40.
9. Barlow J, Wright C, Sheasby J, et al. Self-management approaches for people with chronic conditions: a review. Pat Educ Couns 2002;48:177-87.
10. Newman S, Steed L, Mulligan K. Self-management interventions for chronic illness. Lancet 2004;364:1523-37.
11. Lorig K, Sobel D, Stewart A, et al. Evidence suggesting that chronic disease self-management can improve health status while reducing hospitalisation: a randomized trial. Med Care 1999;37:5-14.
12. Wagner E, Groves T. Care for chronic diseases. BMJ 2002;325:913-14.
13. Lorig K, Ritter P, Gonzalez V. Hispanic chronic disease self-management programme. Nurs Res 2003;52:361-9.
14. Fu D, Fu H, McGowan P, et al. Implementation and quantitative evaluation of chronic disease self-management programme in Shanghai, China: randomized controlled trial. Bull World Health Organ 2003;81:174-82.
15. Griffiths C, Mitlib J, Azad A, et al. Randomised controlled trial of a lay-led self-management programme for Bangladeshi patients with chronic disease. Br J Gen Pract 2005;55:831-7.
16. Wanless D. Securing our future health: taking a long term view. London: HM Treasury, 2002.
17. Gravelle H, Richardson G, Weatherly H, et al. An assessment of the quality of economic evaluations of self management. York: University of York, Centre for Health Economics, 2003.
18. Bury M, Newbould J, Taylor D. A rapid review of the current state of knowledge regarding lay led self-management of chronic illness: evidence review. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2005.
19. Cooper J, Thompson J. Stepping stones to success: an implementation, training and support framework for lay led self-management programmes. London: NHS, 2005.
20. Medical Research Council. A framework for development and evaluation of RCTs for complex interventions to improve health. London: Medical Research Council, 2000.
21. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: WH Freeman and Company, 1997.
22. Lorig K, Seleznick M, Lubeck D, et al. The beneficial outcomes of the arthritis self-management course are not adequately explained by behaviour change. Arthritis Rheum 1989;32:91-5.
23. Lorig K, Stewart A, Ritter P, et al. Outcome measures for health education and other health care interventions. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1996.
24. Kind P. The EuroQoL instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1996.
25. Bower P, Kennedy A, Reeves D, et al. Recruitment to a trial of self care skills training in long term health conditions: analysis of the impact of patient attitudes and preferences. Contemp Clin Trials 2006;27:49-56.
26. King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, et al. Impact of participant and physician intervention preferences on randomized trials: a systematic review. JAMA 2005;293:1089-99.
27. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Points to consider on adjustment for baseline covariates. London: The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, 2003.
28. Bender R, Lange S. Adjusting for multiple testing - when and how? J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:343-9.
29. Assman S, Pocock S, Enos L, et al. Subgroup analysis and other misuses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet 2000;355:1064-9.
30. Van Houf B, Al M, Gordon G, et al. Costs, effects, and C/E ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994;3:309-13.
31. Kennedy A, Gately C, Rogers A. Process evaluation of the EPP - Report II: examination of the implementation of the Expert Patients Programme within the structures and locality contexts of the NHS in England. Manchester: University of Manchester, National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, 2005.
32. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2004.
33. Schulz K, Chalmers I, Hayes R, et al. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-12.
34. Charlton B. The future of clinical research: from megatrials towards methodological rigour and representative sampling. J Eval Clin Pract 1996;2:159-69.
35. National Centre for Social Research and University College London. Health Survey for England, 2003 [computer file]. Colchester, Essex. UK Data Archive [distributor], 2005.
36. Dost A. EPP Internal monitoring national level analysis (unpublished report). London: Strategy Directorate, Department of Health, 2005.
37. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000;320:1530-3.