Key result
Cluster randomized trial protocol investigates RehaCAT+ for reducing depression severity during rehabilitation.
Why the study?
Integrating a web-based computer-adaptive test platform with persuasive design-optimized recommendations for action into routine care could translate diagnostic results into action, but its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in routine cardiological and orthopaedic rehabilitation require evaluation.
Does RehaCAT+ improve depression severity at 12 months follow-up compared to standard RehaCAT in rehabilitation patients with elevated depressive symptoms?
RCT (n=1,848)
Single-blind (patients and outcome assessors obscured, clinicians not blinded)
Cluster-randomized (1:1)
Yes
Does RehaCAT+ improve depression severity at 12 months follow-up compared to standard RehaCAT in rehabilitation patients with elevated depressive symptoms?
This trial protocol outlines an evaluation of a persuasive web-based PROMs platform designed to improve mental health care translation into action in somatic rehabilitation.
RehaCAT+ effectiveness unknown; leaves open whether web-based PROMs improve depression outcomes in somatic rehabilitation.
INTRODUCTION: The integration of a web-based computer-adaptive patient-reported outcome test (CAT) platform with persuasive design optimised features including recommendations for action into routine healthcare could provide a promising way to translate reliable diagnostic results into action. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of such a platform for depression and anxiety (RehaCAT+) compared with the standard diagnostic system (RehaCAT) in cardiological and orthopaedic health clinics in routine care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-arm, pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial will be conducted. Twelve participating rehabilitation clinics in Germany will be randomly assigned to a control (RehaCAT) or experimental group (RehaCAT+) in a 1:1 design. A total sample of 1848 participants will be recruited across all clinics. The primary outcome, depression severity at 12 months follow-up (T3), will be assessed using the CAT Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Emotional Distress-Depression Item set. Secondary outcomes are depression at discharge (T1) and 6 months follow-up (T2) as well as anxiety, satisfaction with participation in social roles and activities, pain impairment, fatigue, sleep, health-related quality of life, self-efficacy, physical functioning, alcohol, personality and health economic-specific general quality of life and socioeconomic cost and benefits at T1-3. User behaviour, acceptance, facilitating and hindering factors will be assessed with semistructured qualitative interviews. Additionally, a smart sensing substudy will be conducted, with daily ecological momentary assessments and passive collection of smartphone usage variables. Data analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle with additional per-protocol analyses. Cost-effectiveness analyses will be conducted from a societal perspective and the perspective of the statutory pension insurance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki. The Ethics Committee of Ulm University, has approved the study (on 24 February 2021 ref. 509/20). Written informed consent will be obtained for all participants. Results will be published via peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00027447.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Knauer et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Elevated depressive symptoms in cardiological and orthopaedic rehabilitation (n=1,848). RehaCAT+ (web-based computer-adaptive patient-reported outcome test platform with integrated recommendations for action) vs. RehaCAT (standard diagnostic system) was evaluated on Depression severity at 12 months follow-up (T3) assessed using the CAT PROMIS Emotional Distress-Depression Item set. This is a study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial; therefore, results are not yet available.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: