Patient outcomes following Spinal Cord Stimulator procedure
Research type
Research Study
Full title
What outcomes are important for patients going for spinal cord stimulator trial?
IRAS ID
225840
Contact name
Shiva Tripathi
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 2 months, 14 days
Research summary
This is a qualitative research study involving semi-structured interviews to find out what patients expectations are before they get the spinal cord stimulation (SCS) intervention and also after the intervention. The results from this research will inform us with both what patients want, whether this is met and whether expectations change over time. Those who have had a successful trial of SCS and awaiting a permanent SCS will be identified using the LTHTR pain team database by a member of the direct care team, for semi-structured interview to find out what their expected outcomes are from a successful intervention. Then those with permanent SCS will also be interviewed to find out whether their outcomes have been met or changed in any way post procedure. The interview will be semi-structured with number of questions trying to prompt the patients to find out why they have the expectations that they have stated. At the end the patients will be asked to rank the expected outcomes they have mentioned throughout the interview as well as ranking the pre-set expected outcomes. The pre-set ranking will also be handed out to consultant anaesthetists within the pain team to compare to compare with the patients' results. The information from the semi-structured interview will be collected in an anonymised format and analysed using thematic analysis. The ranking at the end will be analysed using descriptive statistics. The results from this research will encourage patient-centred care and enhance patient’s experience as a service user and ultimately aid the development of a spinal cord stimulation specific Patient Reported Outcomes Measures questionnaire for future application.
REC name
North West - Haydock Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
17/NW/0213
Date of REC Opinion
6 Apr 2017
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion