Autopsy of a failed trial part 2: Outcomes, challenges, and lessons learnt from the DAISIES trial

This article consists of a citation of a published article describing research funded by the Health Technology Assessment programme under project number 17/123/03, and is provided as as part of the complete record of research outputs for this project. The original publication is available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.3058 Objective The relative merits of inpatient or day-treatment for adults with anorexia nervosa (AN) are unknown. The DAISIES trial aimed to establish the non-inferiority of a stepped-care day patient treatment (DPT) approach versus inpatient treatment as usual (IP-TAU) for improving body mass index (BMI) at 12 months in adults with AN. The trial was terminated due to poor recruitment. This paper presents outcomes and investigates the reasons behind the trial's failure. Method Fifteen patients with AN (of 53 approached) participated and were followed-up to 6 or 12 months. Summary statistics were calculated due to low sample size, and qualitative data concerning treatment experiences were analysed using thematic analysis. Results At baseline, participants in both trial arms rated stepped-care DPT as more acceptable. At 12 months, participants' BMIs had increased in both trial arms. Qualitative analysis highlighted valued and challenging aspects of care across settings. Only 6/12 sites opened for recruitment. Among patients approached, the most common reason for declining participation was their treatment preference ( n = 12/38). Conclusions No conclusions can be drawn concerning the effectiveness of IP-TAU and stepped-care DPT, but the latter was perceived more positively. Patient-related, service-related and systemic factors (COVID-19) contributed to the trial's failure. Lessons learnt can inform future studies. Funding This publication was funded by the Health Technology Assessment programme as a part of award number 17/123/03. This article reports on one component of the research award A Randomised Controlled Multi-Centre Open-Label Parallel Group Non-Inferiority Trial of the Clinical Effectiveness, Acceptability and Cost-Effectiveness of a ‘Stepping into Day Treatment’ Approach versus Inpatient Treatment as Usual for Anorexia Nervosa in Adult Specialist Eating Disorder Services. For more information about this research please view the award page [https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/17/123/03] DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.3058

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Health Technology Assessment
Published
2025-02-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3310/ybfd2546
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Autopsy of a failed trial part 2: Outcomes, challenges, and lessons learnt from the DAISIES trial

Health Technology Assessment
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
article

Autopsy of a failed trial part 2: Outcomes, challenges, and lessons learnt from the DAISIES trial

article en

Abstract

This article consists of a citation of a published article describing research funded by the Health Technology Assessment programme under project number 17/123/03, and is provided as as part of the complete record of research outputs for this project. The original publication is available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.3058 Objective The relative merits of inpatient or day-treatment for adults with anorexia nervosa (AN) are unknown. The DAISIES trial aimed to establish the non-inferiority of a stepped-care day patient treatment (DPT) approach versus inpatient treatment as usual (IP-TAU) for improving body mass index (BMI) at 12 months in adults with AN. The trial was terminated due to poor recruitment. This paper presents outcomes and investigates the reasons behind the trial's failure. Method Fifteen patients with AN (of 53 approached) participated and were followed-up to 6 or 12 months. Summary statistics were calculated due to low sample size, and qualitative data concerning treatment experiences were analysed using thematic analysis. Results At baseline, participants in both trial arms rated stepped-care DPT as more acceptable. At 12 months, participants' BMIs had increased in both trial arms. Qualitative analysis highlighted valued and challenging aspects of care across settings. Only 6/12 sites opened for recruitment. Among patients approached, the most common reason for declining participation was their treatment preference ( n = 12/38). Conclusions No conclusions can be drawn concerning the effectiveness of IP-TAU and stepped-care DPT, but the latter was perceived more positively. Patient-related, service-related and systemic factors (COVID-19) contributed to the trial's failure. Lessons learnt can inform future studies. Funding This publication was funded by the Health Technology Assessment programme as a part of award number 17/123/03. This article reports on one component of the research award A Randomised Controlled Multi-Centre Open-Label Parallel Group Non-Inferiority Trial of the Clinical Effectiveness, Acceptability and Cost-Effectiveness of a ‘Stepping into Day Treatment’ Approach versus Inpatient Treatment as Usual for Anorexia Nervosa in Adult Specialist Eating Disorder Services. For more information about this research please view the award page [https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/17/123/03] DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.3058

Health Technology AssessmentVol. 29(3)
Dorset HealthCare University NHS Foundation Trust (GB), University of Nottingham (GB), King's College London (GB), South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Glenfield Hospital (GB), Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB), South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust (GB), NHS Grampian (GB), Institute of Mental Health (GB), Gloucestershire Health and Care NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust (GB), University College London (GB), Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Health Technology Assessment Programme
Openalex Percentile: Top 96%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.