Facilitating an accelerated experience-based co-design project

Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Partnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear. In this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care. For the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity. This QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. 2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. The Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). Each of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories. Contextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence). Consumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence). Partnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers' involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers' professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence) Perceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence). Perceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence). Best practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Successful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.

Experienced based co design: nursing preceptorship educational programme

BACKGROUND

Patients play a central role in nursing preceptorship relationships, a professional educational relationship between a staff nurse and student nurse that is grounded in providing patient care. Yet the patient experiences and perspectives are largely uncaptured in the literature or represented in current preceptorship education programmes. Furthermore, the lack of student, staff nurse & patient involvement in the design of preceptorship education programmes has been noted.

OBJECTIVE

To use a co-design process to develop an innovative educational programme for developing interpersonal and communication skills among nurses who act as preceptors. We sought to (a) clarify experiences and events from all three members involved in a preceptorship relationship (student nurse, preceptor, and patient (SPP) in order to develop a shared understanding of nursing preceptorship relationships and (b) identify the key informational and educational needs recommended by SPP for the educational programme.

METHODS

Using the principles and the iterative process of Experienced Based Co Design (EBCD), data was collected from qualitative interviews and used to inform a series of co-design workshops and the co-production of the new educational programme.

RESULTS

Twenty-six individuals, including undergraduate student nurses, staff nurses, patients, and a team of nursing, educational and educational technologist experts, contributed to developing a blended learning preceptorship educational programme that consists of three core elements (1) six online reusable learning objects, (2) two role play simulations and (3) a virtual reality storytelling simulated experience.

CONCLUSIONS

The EBCD process ensured that the educational programme was developed to meet SPP viewpoints associated with fostering positive interpersonal relationships in a nursing preceptorship. EBCD is a valuable framework for developing human-centred educational resources that combine experiential knowledge (experiences) and scientific knowledge (literature-based knowledge). It facilitated the identification and the development of Interpersonal and Communications skills (IP & C skills) training required within a nursing preceptorship relationship, creating an authentic and memorable learning programme. The structure of EBCD harnesses SPP involvement throughout the research and development process, ensuring transparency and continuity of message, scope, and outcomes.

Cyclical experience-based design: A proposal for engaging stakeholders in a co-creative model for primary health care service design

Healthcare services face difficulties in using structured methods for service design and having patient participation in such processes. There are few models on healthcare service design and even less focused on Primary Health Care (PHC) in the literature. Therefore, this paper contributes to this domain by presenting the proposal of a co-creative model to design PHC services. The proposed model was constructed based on the study of reference models in PHC and co-design. Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle and the Experience-Based Co-Design approach were used to structure the model. The resulting model contributes to (a) continuous improvement, (b) improvement analysis and registry, (c) identification and solution of PHC users' real needs, (d) community participation and empowerment, (e) creation of experience-focused and patient-centred services. The model's use of co-creation enables patients and PHC staff to understand each other's needs and challenges, and to create together appropriate solutions to their communities and act toward more satisfying services.

Challenges in co-designing an intervention to increase mobility in older patients: a qualitative study

Purpose

The aim of this study is to explore and discuss key challenges associated with having stakeholders take part in co-designing a health care intervention to increase mobility in older medical patients admitted to two medical departments at two hospitals in Denmark.

Design/methodology/approach

The study used a qualitative design to investigate the challenges of co-designing an intervention in five workshops involving health professionals, patients and relatives. “Challenges” are understood as “situations of being faced with something that needs great mental or physical effort in order to be done successfully and therefore tests a person's ability” (Cambridge Dictionary). Thematic content analysis was conducted with a background in the analytical question: “What key challenges arise in the material in relation to the co-design process?”.

Findings

Two key challenges were identified: engagement and facilitation. These consisted of five sub-themes: recruiting patients and relatives, involving physicians, adjusting to a new researcher role, utilizing contextual knowledge and handling ethical dilemmas.

Research limitations/implications

The population of patients and relatives participating in the workshops was small, which likely affected the co-design process.

Practical implications

Researchers who want to use co-design must be prepared for the extra time required and the need for skills concerning engagement, communication, facilitation, negotiation and resolution of conflict. Time is also required for ethical discussions and considerations concerning different types of knowledge creation.

Originality/value

Engaging stakeholders in co-design processes is increasingly encouraged. This study documents the key challenges in such processes and reports practical implications.

Co-designing organisational improvements and interventions to increase inpatient activity in four stroke units in England: a mixed-methods process evaluation using normalisation process theory

OBJECTIVE

To explore facilitators and barriers to using experience-based co-design (EBCD) and accelerated EBCD (AEBCD) in the development and implementation of interventions to increase activity opportunities for inpatient stroke survivors.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods process evaluation underpinned by normalisation process theory (NPT).

SETTING

Four post-acute rehabilitation stroke units in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Stroke survivors, family members, stroke unit staff, hospital managers, support staff and volunteers. Data informing our NPT analysis comprised: ethnographic observations, n=366 hours; semistructured interviews with 76 staff, 53 stroke survivors and 27 family members pre-EBCD/AEBCD implementation or post-EBCD/AEBCD implementation; and observation of 43 co-design meetings involving 23 stroke survivors, 21 family carers and 54 staff.

RESULTS

Former patients and families valued participation in EBCD/AEBCD perceiving they were equal partners in co-design. Staff engaged with EBCD/AEBCD, reporting it as a valuable improvement approach leading to increased activity opportunities. The structured EBCD/AEBCD approach was influential in enabling coherence and cognitive participation and legitimated staff involvement in the change process. Researcher facilitation of EBCD/AEBCD supported cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring; these were important in implementing and sustaining co-design activities. Observations and interviews post-EBCD/AEBCD cycles confirmed creation and use of new social spaces and increased activity opportunities in all units. EBCD/AEBCD facilitated engagement with wider hospital resources and local communities, further enhancing activity opportunities. However, outside of structured group activity, many individual staff-patient interactions remained task focused.

CONCLUSIONS

EBCD/AEBCD facilitated the development and implementation of environmental changes and revisions to work routines which supported increased activity opportunities in stroke units providing post-acute and rehabilitation care. Former stroke patients and carers contributed to improvements. NPT's generative mechanisms were instrumental in analysis and interpretation of facilitators and barriers at the individual, group and organisational level, and can help inform future implementations of similar approaches.

Using co-production to increase activity in acute stroke units: the CREATE mixed-methods study

Background

Stroke is the most common neurological disability in the UK. Any activity contributes to recovery, but stroke patients can be inactive for > 60% of their waking hours. This problem remains, despite organisational changes and targeted interventions. A new approach to addressing post-stroke inactivity is needed. Experience-based co-design has successfully initiated improvements for patients and staff in other acute settings. Experience-based co-design uses observational fieldwork and filmed narratives with patients to trigger different conversations and interactions between patients and staff to improve health-care services.

Objectives

To complete a rapid evidence synthesis of the efficacy and effectiveness of co-production as an approach to quality improvement in acute health-care settings; to evaluate the feasibility and impact of patients, carers and staff co-producing and implementing interventions to increase supervised and independent therapeutic patient activity in acute stroke units; and to understand the experience of participating in experience-based co-design and whether or not interventions developed and implemented in two units could transfer to two additional units using an accelerated experience-based co-design cycle.

Design

A mixed-methods case comparison using interviews, observations, behavioural mapping and self-report surveys (patient-reported outcome measure/patient-reported experience measure) pre and post implementation of experience-based co-design cycles, and a process evaluation informed by normalisation process theory.

Setting

The setting was two stroke units (acute and rehabilitation) in London and two in Yorkshire.

Participants

In total, 130 staff, 76 stroke patients and 47 carers took part.

Findings

The rapid evidence synthesis showed a lack of rigorous evaluation of co-produced interventions in acute health care, and the need for a robust critique of co-production approaches. Interviews and observations (365 hours) identified that it was feasible to co-produce and implement interventions to increase activity in priority areas including ‘space’ (environment), ‘activity’ and, to a lesser extent, ‘communication’. Patients and families reported benefits from participating in co-design and perceived that they were equal and valued members. Staff perceived that experience-based co-design provided a positive experience, was a valuable improvement approach and led to increased activity opportunities. Observations and interviews confirmed the use of new social spaces and increased activity opportunities. However, staff interactions remained largely task focused, with limited focus on enabling patient activity. Behavioural mapping indicated a mixed pattern of activity pre and post implementation of co-designed changes. Patient-reported outcome measure/patient-reported experience measure response rates were low, at 12–38%; pre- and post-experience-based co-design cohorts reported dependency, emotional and social limitations consistent with national statistics. Post-experience-based co-design patient-reported experience measure data indicated that more respondents reported that they had ‘enough things to do in their free time’. The use of experience-based co-design – full and accelerated – legitimised and supported co-production activity. Staff, patients and families played a pivotal role in intervention co-design. All participants recognised that increased activity should be embedded in everyday routines and in work on stroke units.

Limitations

Communication by staff that enabled patient activity was challenging to initiate and sustain.

Conclusions

It was feasible to implement experience-based co-design in stroke units. This resulted in some positive changes in unit environments and increased activity opportunities for patients. There was no discernible difference in experiences or outcomes between full and accelerated experience-based co-design. Future work should consider multiple ways to embed increased patient activity into everyday routines in stroke units.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 35. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Use and reporting of experience-based codesign studies in the healthcare setting: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Experience-based codesign (EBCD) is an approach to health service design that engages patients and healthcare staff in partnership to develop and improve health services or pathways of care. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the use (structure, process and outcomes) and reporting of EBCD in health service improvement activities.

METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library) were searched to identify peer-reviewed articles published from database inception to August 2018. Search terms identified peer-reviewed English language qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies that underwent independent screening by two authors. Full texts were independently reviewed by two reviewers and data were independently extracted by one reviewer before being checked by a second reviewer. Adherence to the 10 activities embedded within the eight-stage EBCD framework was calculated for each study.

RESULTS

We identified 20 studies predominantly from the UK and in acute mental health or cancer services. EBCD fidelity ranged from 40% to 100% with only three studies satisfying 100% fidelity.

CONCLUSION

EBCD is used predominantly for quality improvement, but has potential to be used for intervention design projects. There is variation in the use of EBCD, with many studies eliminating or modifying some EBCD stages. Moreover, there is no consistency in reporting. In order to evaluate the effect of modifying EBCD or levels of EBCD fidelity, the outcomes of each EBCD phase (ie, touchpoints and improvement activities) should be reported in a consistent manner.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018105879.

How might patient involvement in healthcare quality improvement efforts work-A realist literature review

Introduction

This realist literature review, regarding active patient involvement in healthcare quality improvement (QI), seeks to identify possible mechanisms that contribute to success or failure. Furthermore, the paper outlines key considerations for organizing and supporting patient involvement in healthcare QI efforts.

Methods

Two literature searches were performed. Altogether, 1204 articles from a healthcare context were screened, focusing on improvement efforts that involve patients, healthcare professionals and/or managers and leaders. Among these, 107 articles fulfilled the chosen study selection criteria and were further analysed. Eighteen articles underwent a full realist review. In the realist synthesis, context‐mechanism‐outcome configurations were articulated as middle‐range theories and organized thematically to generate a program theory on how active patient involvement in QI efforts might work.

Results

The articles exhibited a diversity of patient involvement approaches at different levels of healthcare organizations. To be successful, organizations’ support of QI efforts that actively involved patients tailored the QI efforts to their context to achieve the desired outcomes, and involved the relevant microsystem members. Furthermore, it promoted interaction and partnership within the microsystem, and supported the behavioural change that follows.

Conclusion

This realist synthesis generates a program theory for active patient involvement in QI efforts; active patient involvement can be a tool (resource), if tailored for interaction and partnership (reasoning), that leads to behaviour change (outcome) within healthcare QI efforts. The theory explains essential resource and reasoning mechanisms, and outcomes that together form guidance for healthcare organizations when managing active patient involvement in QI efforts.

Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

To identify the strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients in the design, delivery, and evaluation of health services.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, PsychINFO, Social Science Abstracts, EBSCO, and ISI Web of Science from 1990 to 2016 for empirical studies addressing the active participation of patients, caregivers, or families in the design, delivery and evaluation of health services to improve quality of care. Thematic analysis was used to identify (1) strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients, (2) outcomes of patient engagement, and (3) patients' experiences of being engaged.

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies were included. Strategies and contextual factors that enable patient engagement were thematically grouped and related to techniques to enhance design, recruitment, involvement and leadership action, and those aimed to creating a receptive context. Reported outcomes ranged from educational or tool development and informed policy or planning documents (discrete products) to enhanced care processes or service delivery and governance (care process or structural outcomes). The level of engagement appears to influence the outcomes of service redesign-discrete products largely derived from low-level engagement (consultative unidirectional feedback)-whereas care process or structural outcomes mainly derived from high-level engagement (co-design or partnership strategies). A minority of studies formally evaluated patients' experiences of the engagement process (n = 12; 25%). While most experiences were positive-increased self-esteem, feeling empowered, or independent-some patients sought greater involvement and felt that their involvement was important but tokenistic, especially when their requests were denied or decisions had already been made.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient engagement can inform patient and provider education and policies, as well as enhance service delivery and governance. Additional evidence is needed to understand patients' experiences of the engagement process and whether these outcomes translate into improved quality of care.

REGISTRATION

N/A (data extraction completed prior to registration on PROSPERO).

Welcoming Feedback: Using Family Experience to Design a Pediatric Weight Management Program

Objective

To describe an approach using principles of experience-based codesign (EBCD) and quality improvement (QI) to integrate family experience into the development of a pediatric weight management program.

Methods

Clinic development occurred in 3 plan, do, study, act (PDSA) cycles that were driven by family experience data. During these cycles, families were engaged in feedback sessions that informed program development. Staff reflected on feedback and designed and tested changes that would improve service delivery.

Results

The first PDSA cycle resulted in the fundamental program parameters and a formalized patient engagement strategy. The second cycle focused on pilot programming, and feedback was used to develop the structured group program. During the third cycle, feedback sessions were embedded into the structured group programs. Program changes included focusing on health rather than weight-based outcomes, adjusting the timing of program offerings, increasing experiential learning opportunities, and providing more opportunities for peer support.

Conclusions

Both EBCD and QI methodologies informed the process of family engagement and program development. This pragmatic approach might be useful for the development of other family-centered pediatric programs.

Using patient experiences to develop services for chronic pain

Purpose

The aim of this study was to improve the overall experience for patients using chronic pain services at a large teaching hospital in England. Experience-based co-design methodology was used to gain a greater understanding of patients' experiences and to produce a list of priorities for change when improving the patient experience.

Method

A total of seven video-recorded patient interviews were conducted to capture a range of patient experiences of using the chronic pain service. The interviews were analysed to identify 'touchpoints' which are areas in which patients experienced a heightened emotional response to their interaction with the service or staff. A short trigger film was compiled to illustrate these touchpoints to staff and gain their commitment to improve patients' experiences when using the service. A patient experience event was held at which patients discussed the touchpoints and identified the most significant areas for change that would improve their experiences of using the chronic pain service.

Results

A wide range of touchpoints were identified. The lack of information provided before arriving for a procedure and the need for a short debrief after clinic were prioritised for improvement. Patients valued the development of good relationships with clinic staff and feeling properly listened to for the first time. The patient experience event allowed the key points patients would like to know before a procedure, to be drawn up in a list, which could be passed onto staff.

Conclusion

This study featured collaboration between patients and staff to improve patients' experiences of using chronic pain services. Through patient participation, a comprehensive list of recommendations for service improvement was produced, and possible solutions were identified. The involvement of patients in driving change and re-designing services is shaping a more patient-centred chronic pain clinic and improving the experience for all the patients who use the service.

What outcomes are associated with developing and implementing co-produced interventions in acute healthcare settings? A rapid evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Co-production is defined as the voluntary or involuntary involvement of users in the design, management, delivery and/or evaluation of services. Interest in co-production as an intervention for improving healthcare quality is increasing. In the acute healthcare context, co-production is promoted as harnessing the knowledge of patients, carers and staff to make changes about which they care most. However, little is known regarding the impact of co-production on patient, staff or organisational outcomes in these settings.

AIMS

To identify and appraise reported outcomes of co-production as an intervention to improve quality of services in acute healthcare settings.

DESIGN

Rapid evidence synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Cinahl, Web of Science, Embase, HMIC, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, SCIE, Proquest Dissertation and Theses, EThOS, OpenGrey; CoDesign; The Design Journal; Design Issues.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies reporting patient, staff or organisational outcomes associated with using co-production in an acute healthcare setting.

FINDINGS

712 titles and abstracts were screened; 24 papers underwent full-text review, and 11 papers were included in the evidence synthesis. One study was a feasibility randomised controlled trial, three were process evaluations and seven used descriptive qualitative approaches. Reported outcomes related to (a) the value of patient and staff involvement in co-production processes; (b) the generation of ideas for changes to processes, practices and clinical environments; and (c) tangible service changes and impacts on patient experiences. Only one study included cost analysis; none reported an economic evaluation. No studies assessed the sustainability of any changes made.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increasing interest in and advocacy for co-production, there is a lack of rigorous evaluation in acute healthcare settings. Future studies should evaluate clinical and service outcomes as well as the cost-effectiveness of co-production relative to other forms of quality improvement. Potentially broader impacts on the values and behaviours of participants should also be considered.

The CORE study protocol: a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial to test a co-design technique to optimise psychosocial recovery outcomes for people affected by mental illness in the community mental health setting

INTRODUCTION

User engagement in mental health service design is heralded as integral to health systems quality and performance, but does engagement improve health outcomes? This article describes the CORE study protocol, a novel stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (SWCRCT) to improve psychosocial recovery outcomes for people with severe mental illness.

METHODS

An SWCRCT with a nested process evaluation will be conducted over nearly 4 years in Victoria, Australia. 11 teams from four mental health service providers will be randomly allocated to one of three dates 9 months apart to start the intervention. The intervention, a modified version of Mental Health Experience Co-Design (MH ECO), will be delivered to 30 service users, 30 carers and 10 staff in each cluster. Outcome data will be collected at baseline (6 months) and at completion of each intervention wave. The primary outcome is improvement in recovery score using the 24-item Revised Recovery Assessment Scale for service users. Secondary outcomes are improvements to user and carer mental health and well-being using the shortened 8-item version of the WHOQOL Quality of Life scale (EUROHIS), changes to staff attitudes using the 19-item Staff Attitudes to Recovery Scale and recovery orientation of services using the 36-item Recovery Self Assessment Scale (provider version). Intervention and usual care periods will be compared using a linear mixed effects model for continuous outcomes and a generalised linear mixed effects model for binary outcomes. Participants will be analysed in the group that the cluster was assigned to at each time point.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The University of Melbourne, Human Research Ethics Committee (1340299.3) and the Federal and State Departments of Health Committees (Project 20/2014) granted ethics approval. Baseline data results will be reported in 2015 and outcomes data in 2017.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000457640.