LEGS Cluster Randomized Trial: Liaison with Education and General Practices to Detect and Refine Referrals of People with At-Risk-Mental-States (ARMS)

ISRCTN ISRCTN70185866
DOI https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN70185866
Protocol serial number 7036
Sponsor Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (UK)
Funder National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (UK)
Submission date
28/05/2010
Registration date
28/05/2010
Last edited
25/08/2015
Recruitment status
No longer recruiting
Overall study status
Completed
Condition category
Mental and Behavioural Disorders
Prospectively registered
Protocol
Statistical analysis plan
Results
Individual participant data

Plain English summary of protocol

Not provided at time of registration

Contact information

Prof Peter Jones
Scientific

Addenbrooke's Hospital
Hills Road
Cambridge
CB2 0QQ
United Kingdom

Email pbj21@cam.ac.uk

Study information

Primary study designInterventional
Study designMulticentre randomised interventional diagnosis, prevention and treatment trial
Secondary study designRandomised controlled trial
Scientific titleLEGS Cluster Randomized Trial: Liaison with Education and General Practices to Detect and Refine Referrals of People with At-Risk-Mental-States (ARMS)
Study acronymLEGS Trial: Liaison with PCPs and HEIs to Refine Referrals of ARMS
Study objectivesIn order to do really early intervention in psychosis we need to find people early, those with At-Risk-Mental-States (ARMS) of developing such illness. International efforts to decrease the stigma of psychosis and solicit self- and other referrals have exploited print and television media for public information campaigns, as well as educating members of relevant occupational groups. The Norwegian 'TIPS' projects and the Australian ORYGEN/PACE are exemplars regarding ARMS detection; neither of them was a randomised design for ARMS, nor did they use propensity or other appropriate methods to compare areas with and without the intervention. TIPS has no economic evaluation but is certainly very expensive. There was evidence that existing cases of psychosis (with long duration of untreated psychosis) were found, but it was less clear what worked in terms of finding ARMS. Influential work in Denmark and Australia has also taken this approach.
Ethics approval(s)MREC approved (ref: 09/H0304/46)
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studiedTopic: Mental Health Research Network, Primary Care Research Network for England; Subtopic: Schizophrenia, Not Assigned, Psychosis, Service Delivery; Disease: Schizophrenia, Psychosis, All Diseases
InterventionWe are going to test whether a simple 'postal' campaign coordinated from an office is more effective and cost-effective than a more elaborate system of personal liaison by a health professional with the Primary Care Practices [PCPs] and the Higher Education Institutions [HEIs], as has been deployed in the international work cited above: a low versus high intensity strategy.

Study entry: single randomisation only
Intervention typeOther
Primary outcome measure(s)

Yield in terms of ARMS referrals

Key secondary outcome measure(s)

Comparison of referral rates

Completion date06/05/2013

Eligibility

Participant type(s)Patient
Age groupAdult
SexAll
Target sample size at registration90
Key inclusion criteriaLiaison phase:
1. PCPs and HEIs in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough areas
2. Signed agreement form from PCPs Partners and HEIs

Follow-up phase (at-risk-mental-states' data collection):
3. Patients confirmed as at-risk-mental-states for psychosis after being previously identified by PCPs and/or HEIs
4. Informed consent signed for data collection

All:
5. Male and female, aged 16 years or older
Key exclusion criteriaLack of mental capacity to provide informed consent
Date of first enrolment22/12/2009
Date of final enrolment06/05/2013

Locations

Countries of recruitment

  • United Kingdom
  • England

Study participating centre

Addenbrooke's Hospital
Cambridge
CB2 0QQ
United Kingdom

Results and Publications

Individual participant data (IPD) Intention to shareNo
IPD sharing plan summaryNot provided at time of registration
IPD sharing plan

Study outputs

Output type Details Date created Date added Peer reviewed? Patient-facing?
Results article results 01/11/2015 Yes No
Protocol article protocol 17/07/2013 Yes No