Norton, C;
Bannister, S;
Booth, L;
Brown, SR;
Cross, S;
Eldridge, S;
Emmett, C;
... Knowles, CH; + view all
(2023)
Habit training versus habit training with direct visual biofeedback in adults with chronic constipation: A randomized controlled trial.
Colorectal Disease
10.1111/codi.16738.
(In press).
Preview |
Text
Colorectal Disease - 2023 - Norton.pdf - Published Version Download (3MB) | Preview |
Abstract
Aim: The aim was to determine whether specialist-led habit training using Habit Training with Biofeedback (HTBF) is more effective than specialist-led habit training alone (HT) for chronic constipation and whether outcomes of interventions are improved by stratification to HTBF or HT based on diagnosis (functional defaecation disorder vs. no functional defaecation disorder) by radio-physiological investigations (INVEST). Method: This was a parallel three-arm randomized single-blinded controlled trial, permitting two randomized comparisons: HTBF versus HT alone; INVEST- versus no-INVEST-guided intervention. The inclusion criteria were age 18–70 years; attending specialist hospitals in England; self-reported constipation for >6 months; refractory to basic treatment. The main exclusions were secondary constipation and previous experience of the trial interventions. The primary outcome was the mean change in Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score at 6 months on intention to treat. The secondary outcomes were validated disease-specific and psychological questionnaires and cost-effectiveness (based on EQ-5D-5L). Results: In all, 182 patients were randomized 3:3:2 (target 384): HT n = 68; HTBF n = 68; INVEST-guided treatment n = 46. All interventions had similar reductions (improvement) in the primary outcome at 6 months (approximately −0.8 points of a 4-point scale) with no statistically significant difference between HT and HTBF (−0.03 points; 95% CI −0.33 to 0.27; P = 0.85) or INVEST versus no-INVEST (0.22; −0.11 to 0.55; P = 0.19). Secondary outcomes showed a benefit for all interventions with no evidence of greater cost-effectiveness of HTBF or INVEST compared with HT. Conclusion: The results of the study at 6 months were inconclusive. However, with the caveat of under-recruitment and further attrition at 6 months, a simple, cheaper approach to intervention may be as clinically effective and more cost-effective than more complex and invasive approaches.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | Habit training versus habit training with direct visual biofeedback in adults with chronic constipation: A randomized controlled trial |
| Location: | England |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| DOI: | 10.1111/codi.16738 |
| Publisher version: | https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.16738 |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2023 The Authors. Colorectal Disease published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. |
| Keywords: | Biofeedback, Randomised controlled trial, constipation, functional, gastroenterology |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Medical Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Medical Sciences > Div of Medicine UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > Inst of Clinical Trials and Methodology UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Medical Sciences > Div of Medicine > Department of Imaging |
| URI: | https://discovery-pp.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10177328 |
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
