Supported Intervention Versus Intervention Alone for Management of Fecal Incontinence in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Le résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to test a noninvasive self-management intervention supported by specialist nurses versus intervention alone in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) experiencing fecal incontinence and to conduct a qualitative evaluation of the trial. DESIGN: Multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, mixed-methods randomized controlled trial (RCT). SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The sample comprised patients from a preceding case-finding study who reported fecal incontinence and met study requirements; the RCT was delivered via IBD outpatient clinics in 6 hospitals (5 in major UK cities, 1 rural) between September 2015 and August 2017. Sixteen participants and 11 staff members were interviewed for qualitative evaluation. METHODS: Adults with IBD completed the study activities over a 3-month period following randomization. Each participant received either four 30-minute structured sessions with an IBD clinical nurse specialist and a self-management booklet or the booklet alone. Low retention numbers precluded statistical analysis; individual face-to-face or telephone interviews, recorded digitally and transcribed professionally, were conducted to evaluate the RCT. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using an inductive method. RESULTS: Sixty-seven participants (36%) of the targeted 186 participants were recruited. The groups comprised 32 participants (17% of targeted participants) allocated to the nurse + booklet intervention and 35 (18.8% of targeted participants) allocated to the booklet alone. Less than one-third (n = 21, 31.3%) completed the study. Given the low recruitment and high attrition, statistical analysis of quantitative data was considered futile. Participant interviews were conducted concerning study participation and 4 themes emerged that described experiences of patients and staff. These data provided insights into reasons for low recruitment and high attrition, as well as challenges of delivering resource-heavy studies in busy health service environments. CONCLUSIONS: Alternative approaches to trials of nurse-led interventions in hospital settings are needed as many interfering factors may prevent successful completion.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.