Key result
Nurse-led health counselling trial J-HARP successfully enrolls a well-balanced cohort of untreated high-risk individuals.
Why the study?
It is uncertain whether health counselling after community-based health checkups for high-risk individuals with lifestyle-related disease enhances their referral to physicians.
Does theory-based health counselling increase clinical visits and reduce composite outcomes associated with lifestyle-related diseases in untreated high-risk individuals?
RCT (n=15,710)
Open-label
Cluster randomization
Yes
Does theory-based health counselling increase clinical visits and reduce composite outcomes associated with lifestyle-related diseases in untreated high-risk individuals?
The J-HARP trial is designed to evaluate whether a nurse-led, community-based theory-based health counselling program improves physician referrals and clinical outcomes in high-risk individuals.
Successful large-scale enrollment with balance confirms cluster RCT feasibility; enables definitive evaluation of nurse-led counseling on referrals and outcomes.
BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether health counselling after community-based health checkups for high-risk individuals of lifestyle-related disease enhances their referral to physicians. METHODS: We performed a clustered randomized controlled trial of untreated high-risk individuals aged 40 to 74 years who were screened from the annual health checkup in 2014 and 2015 under the national health insurance in 43 municipalities around Japan, assigning 21 intervention and 22 usual care municipalities. The high-risk conditions were severe forms of hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia (for men), and proteinuria. For the intervention group, the theory-based health counselling was performed to enhance referrals to physicians, while each municipality performed its own standard counselling for the usual care group. Data on clinical visits and risk factors were collected systematically and anonymously from the databases of health insurance qualification, health insurance claims, and annual health checkups. Hypotheses are that the cumulative proportion of seeing physicians (clinical visits) is higher in the intervention than the usual care groups, and that those in the intervention group have lower cumulative incidence of composite outcomes associated with lifestyle-related diseases. RESULTS: The numbers of subjects for the analyses were 8,977 in the intervention group and 6,733 in the usual care group. Among them, 6,758 had hypertension, 2,147 had diabetes, 2,861 had dyslipidemia, and 1,221 had proteinuria in the intervention group, with corresponding numbers of 4,833, 1,517, 2,262, and 845, respectively, in the usual care group. There were no material differences in mean levels and proportions of major cardiovascular risk factors between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: We expect to provide scientific evidence on the effectiveness of health counselling.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Noguchi et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Untreated high-risk individuals for lifestyle-related diseases (n=15,710). Theory-based health counselling vs. Usual care (standard counselling) was evaluated on Cumulative proportion of clinical visits and cumulative incidence of composite cardiovascular/renal outcomes. The J-HARP cluster randomized trial successfully enrolled 15,710 untreated high-risk individuals to evaluate a nurse-led health counselling program, with well-balanced baseline characteristics between groups.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: