Protocol for the mWellcare trial: a multicentre, cluster randomised, 12-month, controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of mWellcare, an mHealth system for an integrated management of patients with hypertension and diabetes, versus enhanced usual care in India

Dilip Jha, Priti Gupta, Vamadevan S Ajay, Devraj Jindal, Pablo Perel, David Prieto-Merino, Pramod Jacob, Jonathan Nyong, Vidya Venugopal, Kavita Singh, Shifalika Goenka, Ambuj Roy, Nikhil Tandon, Vikram Patel, Dorairaj Prabhakaran, Dilip Jha, Priti Gupta, Vamadevan S Ajay, Devraj Jindal, Pablo Perel, David Prieto-Merino, Pramod Jacob, Jonathan Nyong, Vidya Venugopal, Kavita Singh, Shifalika Goenka, Ambuj Roy, Nikhil Tandon, Vikram Patel, Dorairaj Prabhakaran

Abstract

Introduction: Rising burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes is a major challenge to the health system in India. Innovative approaches such as mobile phone technology (mHealth) for electronic decision support in delivering evidence-based and integrated care for hypertension, diabetes and comorbid depression have potential to transform the primary healthcare system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: mWellcare trial is a multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a mHealth system and nurse managed care for people with hypertension and diabetes in rural India. mWellcare system is an Android-based mobile application designed to generate algorithm-based clinical management prompts for treating hypertension and diabetes and also capable of storing health records, sending alerts and reminders for follow-up and adherence to medication. We recruited a total of 3702 participants from 40 Community Health Centres (CHCs), with ≥90 at each of the CHCs in the intervention and control (enhanced care) arms. The primary outcome is the difference in mean change (from baseline to 1 year) in systolic blood pressure and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) between the two treatment arms. The secondary outcomes are difference in mean change from baseline to 1 year in fasting plasma glucose, total cholesterol, predicted 10-year risk of CVD, depression, smoking behaviour, body mass index and alcohol use between the two treatment arms and cost-effectiveness.

Ethics and dissemination: The study has been approved by the institutional Ethics Committees at Public Health Foundation of India and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and other mechanisms.

Trial registration: mWellcare trial is registered with Clinicaltrial.gov (Registration number NCT02480062; Pre-results) and Clinical Trial Registry of India (Registration number CTRI/2016/02/006641). The current version of the protocol is Version 2 dated 19 October 2015 and the study sponsor is Public Health Foundation of India, Gurgaon, India (www.phfi.org).

Keywords: decision support system; diabetes; hypertension; integrated management of chronic conditions; mHealth.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial flowchart. AUDIT, Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test; BP, blood pressure; CHC, community health centre; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; NCD, non-communicable disease; PHQ9, patient health questionnaire; PPG, post-prandial glucose; SMS, short message service.

References

    1. Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, et al. . Global burden of disease and risk factors: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development The World Bank, 2006.
    1. Patel V, Chatterji S, Chisholm D, et al. . Chronic diseases and injuries in India. Lancet 2011;377:413–28. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61188-9
    1. Bloom DE, Cafiero-Fonseca ET, Candeias VAE, et al. . Economics of Non-Communicable Diseases in India: The Costs and Returns on Investment of Interventions to Promote Healthy Living and Prevent, Treat, and Manage NCDs. 2014.
    1. Beaglehole R, Epping-Jordan J, Patel V, et al. . Improving the prevention and management of chronic disease in low-income and middle-income countries: a priority for primary health care. Lancet 2008;372:940–9. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61404-X
    1. National Program for Prevention and Control of cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and stroke (NPCDCS).
    1. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators October - December, 2015. New Delhi, 2016.
    1. Curioso WH. New Technologies and Public Health in Developing Countries: The Cell PREVEN Project The internet and Health Care: theory, Research and Practice. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006.
    1. Curioso WH, Mechael PN. Enhancing ‘M-health’ with south-to-south collaborations. Health Aff 2010;29:264–7. 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.1057
    1. Vital Wave Consulting. mHealth for development: the Opportunity of Mobile Technology for Healthcare in the developing world. Washington DC and Berkshire, UK, 2009.
    1. Blaya JA, Fraser HS, Holt B. E-health technologies show promise in developing countries. Health Aff 2010;29:244–51. 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0894
    1. Krishna S, Boren SA, Balas EA. Healthcare via cell phones: a systematic review. Telemed J E Health 2009;15:231–40. 10.1089/tmj.2008.0099
    1. Kaplan WA. Can the ubiquitous power of mobile phones be used to improve health outcomes in developing countries? Global Health 2006;2:9 10.1186/1744-8603-2-9
    1. Peiris D, Praveen D, Johnson C, et al. . Use of mHealth systems and tools for non-communicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. J Cardiovasc Transl Res 2014;7:677–91. 10.1007/s12265-014-9581-5
    1. Free C, Phillips G, Watson L, et al. . The effectiveness of mobile-health technologies to improve health care service delivery processes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2013;10:e1001363 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001363
    1. Rockfeller Foundation. Making the eHealth connection, 2008.
    1. Hall AK, Cole-Lewis H, Bernhardt JM. Mobile text messaging for health: a systematic review of reviews. Annu Rev Public Health 2015;36:393–415. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122855
    1. Anchala R, Pinto MP, Shroufi A, et al. . The role of decision support system (DSS) in prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2012;7:e47064 10.1371/journal.pone.0047064
    1. Ogedegbe G, Gyamfi J, Plange-Rhule J, et al. . Task shifting interventions for cardiovascular risk reduction in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open 2014;4:e005983 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005983
    1. Joshi R, Alim M, Kengne AP, et al. . Task shifting for non-communicable disease management in low and middle income countries--a systematic review. PLoS One 2014;9:e103754 10.1371/journal.pone.0103754
    1. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare G of I. Rural Health Statistics. 2015.
    1. Anchala R, Kaptoge S, Pant H, et al. . Evaluation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a clinical decision support system in managing hypertension in resource constrained primary health care settings: results from a cluster randomized trial. J Am Heart Assoc 2015;4:e001213 10.1161/JAHA.114.001213
    1. Tricco AC, Ivers NM, Grimshaw JM, et al. . Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies on the management of diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2012;379:2252–61. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60480-2
    1. Nair M, Ali MK, Ajay VS, et al. . CARRS Surveillance study: design and methods to assess burdens from multiple perspectives. BMC Public Health 2012;12:701 10.1186/1471-2458-12-701
    1. Hayes RJ, Bennett S. Simple sample size calculation for cluster-randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol 1999;28:319–26. 10.1093/ije/28.2.319
    1. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 1999;89:1322–7. 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322
    1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. . Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 2005.
    1. Gilks WR, Richardson S, Spiegelhalter DJ. Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice. Technometrics 1996;39:512.
    1. Stone PW, Chapman RH, Sandberg EA, et al. . Measuring costs in cost-utility analyses. Variations in the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000;16:111–24. 10.1017/S0266462300161100
    1. Shillcutt SD, Walker DG, Goodman CA, et al. . Cost effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries: a review of the debates surrounding decision rules. Pharmacoeconomics 2009;27:903–17. 10.2165/10899580-000000000-00000
    1. Ali MK, Singh K, Kondal D, et al. . Effectiveness of a Multicomponent Quality Improvement Strategy to improve Achievement of Diabetes Care Goals: a Randomized, Controlled Trial. Ann Intern Med 2016;165:399–408. 10.7326/M15-2807

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel