Job retention vocational rehabilitation for employed people with inflammatory arthritis: adaptations to the WORKWELL trial due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

There are high levels of work disability, absenteeism (sick leave) and presenteeism (reduced productivity) amongst people with inflammatory arthritis. WORKWELL is a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of job retention vocational rehabilitation for employed people with inflammatory arthritis. The trial tested the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the WORKWELL programme compared to the receipt of written self-help information only. Both arms continued to receive usual care. In March 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the WORKWELL trial paused to recruitment and intervention delivery. To successfully re-start, protocol amendments were rapidly submitted and changes to existing trial procedures were made. The WORKWELL protocol was adapted in response to both the practical issues likely faced by many clinical research studies active across NHS sites during the pandemic and additional trial-specific challenges. A key eligibility criterion for the trial required participants to be in paid work for at least 15 h per week. However, UK national lockdowns led to a substantial proportion of the workforce suddenly being furloughed or unable to work, and many people with arthritis taking immunosuppressive medications were asked to shield themselves. Thus, the number of eligible participants was reduced. Those continuing to work were harder to identify, as hospital clinics moved to remote delivery, and also to then screen, consent and treat, as the hospital research staff and clinical therapists were re-deployed. New recruitment and consent strategies were applied, and where sites had reduced capacity, responsibilities were absorbed by the trial management team. Remote intervention delivery and electronic data capture were also implemented. By rapidly adapting the WORKWELL protocol and procedures, the trial successfully reopened to recruitment in July 2020, only 4 months after the trial pause. We were able to achieve recruitment figures above the pre-COVID target and maintain a high retention rate. In addition, we found many of the protocol changes beneficial, as these streamlined trial procedures, thus improving efficiency. It is likely that many strategies implemented in response to the pandemic may become standard practice in future research within trials of a similar design and methodology.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03942783 . Retrospectively registered on 08 May 2019. ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN61762297 . Retrospectively registered on 13 May 2019.

Systematic voiding programme in adults with urinary incontinence following acute stroke: the ICONS-II RCT.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence affects around half of stroke survivors in the acute phase, and it often presents as a new problem after stroke or, if pre-existing, worsens significantly, adding to the disability and helplessness caused by neurological deficits. New management programmes after stroke are needed to address urinary incontinence early and effectively. OBJECTIVE: The Identifying Continence OptioNs after Stroke (ICONS)-II trial aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a systematic voiding programme for urinary incontinence after stroke in hospital. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, individual-patient-randomised (1 : 1), parallel-group trial with an internal pilot. SETTING: Eighteen NHS stroke services with stroke units took part. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adult men and women with acute stroke and urinary incontinence, including those with cognitive impairment. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to the intervention, a systematic voiding programme, or to usual care. The systematic voiding programme comprised assessment, behavioural interventions (bladder training or prompted voiding) and review. The assessment included evaluation of the need for and possible removal of an indwelling urinary catheter. The intervention began within 24 hours of recruitment and continued until discharge from the stroke unit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was severity of urinary incontinence (measured using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire) at 3 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures were taken at 3 and 6 months after randomisation and on discharge from the stroke unit. They included severity of urinary incontinence (at discharge and at 6 months), urinary symptoms, number of urinary tract infections, number of days indwelling urinary catheter was in situ, functional independence, quality of life, falls, mortality rate and costs. The trial statistician remained blinded until clinical effectiveness analysis was complete. RESULTS: The planned sample size was 1024 participants, with 512 allocated to each of the intervention and the usual-care groups. The internal pilot did not meet the target for recruitment and was extended to March 2020, with changes made to address low recruitment. The trial was paused in March 2020 because of COVID-19, and was later stopped, at which point 157 participants had been randomised (intervention, n = 79; usual care, n = 78). There were major issues with attrition, with 45% of the primary outcome data missing: 56% of the intervention group data and 35% of the usual-care group data. In terms of the primary outcome, patients allocated to the intervention group had a lower score for severity of urinary incontinence (higher scores indicate greater severity in urinary incontinence) than those allocated to the usual-care group, with means (standard deviations) of 8.1 (7.4) and 9.1 (7.8), respectively. LIMITATIONS: The trial was unable to recruit sufficient participants and had very high attrition, which resulted in seriously underpowered results. CONCLUSIONS: The internal pilot did not meet its target for recruitment and, despite recruitment subsequently being more promising, it was concluded that the trial was not feasible owing to the combined problems of poor recruitment, poor retention and COVID-19. The intervention group had a slightly lower score for severity of urinary incontinence at 3 months post randomisation, but this result should be interpreted with caution. FUTURE WORK: Further studies to assess the effectiveness of an intervention starting in or continuing into the community are required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14005026. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Urinary incontinence affects around half of stroke survivors. It causes embarrassment and distress, affecting patients' ability to take part in rehabilitation. It also has a major impact on families and may determine whether or not patients are able to return home. Finding the underlying cause and addressing it can prevent, cure or reduce problems. Doing this in a systematic way for everyone with incontinence problems as early as possible after the stroke, while they are still in hospital, may work best. We also wanted to avoid using catheters in the bladder to drain the urine away, as these are often unnecessary and can cause urinary tract infections. This study aimed to test whether or not continence problems and the use of urinary catheters could be reduced if everyone with incontinence was fully assessed and given the right management and support early after hospital admission. We also wanted to find out if the benefits outweighed the costs. We planned to involve 1024 men and women with incontinence from 18 stroke units in the study, with 512 people receiving the intervention and 512 receiving usual care. However, the trial was paused because of COVID-19, at which time only 157 participants had been recruited. When we were thinking about restarting the study and looked at its progress, we found that not enough people had agreed to take part and, of those who had agreed, many had not returned their outcome questionnaires. This indicated that the trial was not feasible and should not restart. We could not make any firm conclusions about whether or not the intervention worked, as not enough people were involved. We found that stays in hospital after stroke are shorter than they were in the past. This suggests that future studies investigating ways of treating incontinence should consider interventions with management and support for incontinence that continue after patients leave the hospital.