↓ Skip to main content

Clinical- and cost-effectiveness of the STAR care pathway compared to usual care for patients with chronic pain after total knee replacement: study protocol for a UK randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 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
Clinical- and cost-effectiveness of the STAR care pathway compared to usual care for patients with chronic pain after total knee replacement: study protocol for a UK randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2516-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vikki Wylde, Wendy Bertram, Andrew D. Beswick, Ashley W. Blom, Julie Bruce, Amanda Burston, Jane Dennis, Kirsty Garfield, Nicholas Howells, Athene Lane, Candy McCabe, Andrew J. Moore, Sian Noble, Tim J. Peters, Andrew Price, Emily Sanderson, Andrew D. Toms, David A. Walsh, Simon White, Rachael Gooberman-Hill

Abstract

Approximately 20% of patients experience chronic pain after total knee replacement. There is little evidence for effective interventions for the management of this pain, and current healthcare provision is patchy and inconsistent. Given the complexity of this condition, multimodal and individualised interventions matched to pain characteristics are needed. We have undertaken a comprehensive programme of work to develop a care pathway for patients with chronic pain after total knee replacement. This protocol describes the design of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention care pathway compared with usual care. This is a pragmatic two-armed, open, multi-centred randomised controlled trial conducted within secondary care in the UK. Patients will be screened at 2 months after total knee replacement and 381 patients with chronic pain at 3 months postoperatively will be recruited. Recruitment processes will be optimised through qualitative research during a 6-month internal pilot phase. Patients are randomised using a 2:1 intervention:control allocation ratio. All participants receive usual care as provided by their hospital. The intervention comprises an assessment clinic appointment at 3 months postoperatively with an Extended Scope Practitioner and up to six telephone follow-up calls over 12 months. In the assessment clinic, a standardised protocol is followed to identify potential underlying causes for the chronic pain and enable appropriate onward referrals to existing services for targeted and individualised treatment. Outcomes are assessed by questionnaires at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The co-primary outcomes are pain severity and pain interference assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory at 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes relate to resource use, function, neuropathic pain, mental well-being, use of pain medications, satisfaction with pain relief, pain frequency, capability, health-related quality of life and bodily pain. After trial completion, up to 30 patients in the intervention group will be interviewed about their experiences of the care pathway. If shown to be clinically and cost-effective, this care pathway intervention could improve the management of chronic pain after total knee replacement. ISRCTN registry ( ISRCTN92545361 ), prospectively registered on 30 August 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 13 12%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 43 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Psychology 9 8%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 46 41%