Measuring the outcome of neonatal intensive care: a randomised controlled trial of two methods of data collection.

ISRCTN ISRCTN14162250
DOI https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN14162250
Secondary identifying numbers MCH 06-04
Submission date
23/01/2004
Registration date
23/01/2004
Last edited
08/12/2009
Recruitment status
No longer recruiting
Overall study status
Completed
Condition category
Neonatal Diseases
Prospectively registered
Protocol
Statistical analysis plan
Results
Individual participant data

Plain English summary of protocol

Not provided at time of registration

Contact information

Prof David Field
Scientific

Department of Child Health
University of Leicester
RKCSB
LRI
Leicester
LE2 7LX
United Kingdom

Phone +44 (0)116 2585502

Study information

Study designRandomised controlled trial
Primary study designInterventional
Secondary study designRandomised controlled trial
Study setting(s)Other
Study typeOther
Scientific title
Study objectivesTo compare two simple and inexpensive methods of obtaining long term health status data for high risk newborns. The need for ongoing national outcome data for these babies has been high lighted in a number of national reports. To be successful either method would need to provide outcome data on 95% of children alive at a corrected age of two years.
Ethics approval(s)Ethical approval from the eight local research ethics committees relating to the participating neonatal and community child health services (added 20/11/09)
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studiedNeonatal diseases, Neonatal intesive care outcomes
InterventionOutcome was measured at 2 years. The two approaches being tested were:
1. A questionnaire about health status completed by parents when the child reached a corrected age of 2 years
2. A questionnaire completed by a clerk based in the local community child service when the child reached a corrected age of 2 years. The clerk used routine information collected about the child.
Both questionnaires were based on a consensus statement developed in the early 1990s about the measurement of health status at 2 years. Nine hospitals in two old NHS regions (Trent and Wessex) were randomly allocated to one of the two methods. Parents gave written consent for the inclusion of the child prior to discharge. For those in the 'parent arm' intermittent contact was maintained by using birthday and Christmas cards to prompt the family to inform the research team about changes of address. The clerk based in the child health dept. collected data regarding hospital attendances, copies of out patient letters etc. Intermittent telephone contact to the health visitor was also used. At the end of the study a 10% sample of children (half normal, half abnormal) were selected for independent examination to determine if data supplied by both methods were accurate. ONS flagging was used to prevent us contacting a family where the child had died.
Intervention typeOther
Primary outcome measureRate of ascertainment of outcome in all areas of development. Target >95%.
Secondary outcome measuresNot provided at time of registration
Overall study start date01/09/1996
Completion date01/04/2000

Eligibility

Participant type(s)Patient
Age groupNeonate
SexBoth
Target number of participants472 (236 in each arm) (added 20/11/09)
Key inclusion criteriaFor purposes of the investigation the "at risk" group will be defined as: any baby born less than or equal to 32 weeks gestation.
Key exclusion criteriaDoes not match inclusion criteria
Date of first enrolment01/09/1996
Date of final enrolment01/04/2000

Locations

Countries of recruitment

  • England
  • United Kingdom

Study participating centre

Department of Child Health
Leicester
LE2 7LX
United Kingdom

Sponsor information

Record Provided by the NHS R&D 'Time-Limited' National Programme Register - Department of Health (UK)
Government

The Department of Health
Richmond House
79 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2NL
United Kingdom

Website http://www.doh.gov.uk

Funders

Funder type

Government

NHS Mother and Child Health National Research and Development Programme (UK)

No information available

Results and Publications

Intention to publish date
Individual participant data (IPD) Intention to shareNo
IPD sharing plan summaryNot provided at time of registration
Publication and dissemination planNot provided at time of registration
IPD sharing plan

Study outputs

Output type Details Date created Date added Peer reviewed? Patient-facing?
Results article results 01/12/2001 Yes No