↓ Skip to main content

Habit training versus habit training with direct visual biofeedback in adults with chronic constipation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Habit training versus habit training with direct visual biofeedback in adults with chronic constipation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-1880-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine Norton, Anton Emmanuel, Natasha Stevens, S. Mark Scott, Ugo Grossi, Sybil Bannister, Sandra Eldridge, James M. Mason, Charles H. Knowles

Abstract

Constipation affects up to 20% of adults. Chronic constipation (CC) affects 1-2% of adults. Patient dissatisfaction is high; nearly 80% feel that laxative therapy is unsatisfactory and symptoms have significant impact on quality of life. There is uncertainty about the value of specialist investigations and whether equipment-intensive therapies using biofeedback confer additional benefit when compared with specialist conservative advice. A three-arm, parallel-group, multicentre randomised controlled trial. to determine whether standardised specialist-led habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computerised biofeedback is more clinically effective than standardised specialist-led habit training alone; to determine whether outcomes are improved by stratification based on prior investigation of anorectal and colonic pathophysiology. Primary outcome measure is response to treatment, defined as a 0.4-point (10% of scale) or greater reduction in Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) score 6 months after the end of treatment. Other outcomes up to 12 months include symptoms, quality of life, health economics, psychological health and qualitative experience. (1) habit training (HT) with computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback (HTBF) results in an average reduction in PAC-QOL score of 0.4 points at 6 months compared to HT alone in unselected adults with CC, (2) stratification to either HT or HTBF informed by pathophysiological investigation (INVEST) results in an average 0.4-point reduction in PAC-QOL score at 6 months compared with treatment not directed by investigations (No-INVEST). Inclusion: chronic constipation in adults (aged 18-70 years) defined by self-reported symptom duration of more than 6 months; failure of previous laxatives or prokinetics and diet and lifestyle modifications. Consenting participants (n = 394) will be randomised to one of three arms in an allocation ratio of 3:3:2: [1] habit training, [2] habit training and biofeedback or [3] investigation-led allocation to one of these arms. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial has the potential to answer some of the major outstanding questions in the management of chronic constipation, including whether costly invasive tests are warranted and whether computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback confers additional benefit to well-managed specialist advice alone. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN11791740. Registered on 16 July 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 143 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Librarian 6 4%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 58 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 27 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 14%
Psychology 10 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 66 46%