Search

Purpose The service configuration with distinct child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) and adult mental health services (AMHS) may be a barrier to continuity of care. Because of a lack of transition policy, CAMHS clinicians have to decide whether and when a young person should transition to AMHS. This study describes which characteristics are associated with the clinicians’ advice to continue treatment at AMHS. Methods Demographic, family, clinical, treatment, and service-use characteristics of the MILESTONE cohort of 763 young people from 39 CAMHS in Europe were assessed using multi-informant and standardized assessment tools. Logistic mixed models were fitted to assess the relationship between these characteristics and clinicians’ transition recommendations. Results Young people with higher clinician-rated severity of psychopathology scores, with self- and parent-reported need for ongoing treatment, with lower everyday functional skills and without self-reported psychotic experiences were more likely to be recommended to continue treatment. Among those who had been recommended to continue treatment, young people who used psychotropic medication, who had been in CAMHS for more than a year, and for whom appropriate AMHS were available were more likely to be recommended to continue treatment at AMHS. Young people whose parents indicated a need for ongoing treatment were more likely to be recommended to stay in CAMHS. Conclusion Although the decision regarding continuity of treatment was mostly determined by a small set of clinical characteristics, the recommendation to continue treatment at AMHS was mostly affected by service-use related characteristics, such as the availability of appropriate services.

Additional file 1. Trial information leaflets (for schools, parents/carers and young people) and trial poster.

Additional file 4. Parent consent form and young person assent form.

Additional file 2. Process evaluation focus group question frameworks.

Additional file 3. Process evaluation family interview question framework.

BackgroundPoor transition planning contributes to discontinuity of care at the child–adult mental health service boundary (SB), adversely affecting mental health outcomes in young people (YP). The aim of the study was to determine whether managed transition (MT) improves mental health outcomes of YP reaching the child/adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) boundary compared with usual care (UC).MethodsA two-arm cluster-randomised trial (ISRCTN83240263 and NCT03013595) with clusters allocated 1:2 between MT and UC. Recruitment took place in 40 CAMHS (eight European countries) between October 2015 and December 2016. Eligible participants were CAMHS service users who were receiving treatment or had a diagnosed mental disorder, had an IQ ⩾ 70 and were within 1 year of reaching the SB. MT was a multi-component intervention that included CAMHS training, systematic identification of YP approaching SB, a structured assessment (Transition Readiness and Appropriateness Measure) and sharing of information between CAMHS and adult mental health services. The primary outcome was HoNOSCA (Health of the Nation Outcome Scale for Children and Adolescents) score 15-months post-entry to the trial.ResultsThe mean difference in HoNOSCA scores between the MT and UC arms at 15 months was −1.11 points (95% confidence interval −2.07 to −0.14, p = 0.03). The cost of delivering the intervention was relatively modest (€17–€65 per service user).ConclusionsMT led to improved mental health of YP after the SB but the magnitude of the effect was small. The intervention can be implemented at low cost and form part of planned and purposeful transitional care.

Additional file 1.

Background: Since the introduction of digital health technologies in National Health Service (NHS), health professionals are starting to use email, text, and other digital methods to consult with their patients in a timely manner. There is lack of evidence regarding the economic impact of digital consulting in the United Kingdom (UK) NHS. Objective: This study aimed to estimate the direct costs associated with digital consulting as an adjunct to routine care at 18 clinics serving young people aged 16-24 years with long-term conditions. Methods: This study uses both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 173 clinical team members on the impacts of digital consulting. A structured questionnaire was developed and used for 115 health professionals across 12 health conditions at 18 sites in the United Kingdom to collect data on time and other resources used for digital consulting. A follow-up semistructured interview was conducted with a single senior clinician at each site to clarify the mechanisms through which digital consulting use might lead to outcomes relevant to economic evaluation. We used the two-part model to see the association between the time spent on digital consulting and the job role of staff, type of clinic, and the average length of the working hours using digital consulting. Results: When estimated using the two-part model, consultants spent less time on digital consulting compared with nurses (95.48 minutes; PConclusions: Nurses and physiotherapists were the greatest users of digital consulting. Teams appear to use an efficient triage system with the most expensive members digitally consulting less than lower-paid team members. Staff report showed concerns regarding time spent digitally consulting, which implies that direct costs increase. There remain considerable gaps in evidence related to cost-effectiveness of digital consulting, but this study has highlighted important cost-related outcomes for assessment in future cost-effectiveness trials of digital consulting.

Background: Young people (aged 16-24 years) with long-term health conditions can disengage from health services, resulting in poor health outcomes, but clinicians in the UK National Health Service (NHS) are using digital communication to try to improve engagement. Evidence of effectiveness of this digital communication is equivocal. There are gaps in evidence as to how it might work, its cost, and ethical and safety issues.Objective: Our objective was to understand how the use of digital communication between young people with long-term conditions and their NHS specialist clinicians changes engagement of the young people with their health care; and to identify costs and necessary safeguards.Methods: We conducted mixed-methods case studies of 20 NHS specialist clinical teams from across England and Wales and their practice providing care for 13 different long-term physical or mental health conditions. We observed 79 clinical team members and interviewed 165 young people aged 16-24 years with a long-term health condition recruited via case study clinical teams, 173 clinical team members, and 16 information governance specialists from study NHS Trusts. We conducted a thematic analysis of how digital communication works, and analyzed ethics, safety and governance, and annual direct costs.Results: Young people and their clinical teams variously used mobile phone calls, text messages, email, and voice over Internet protocol. Length of clinician use of digital communication varied from 1 to 13 years in 17 case studies, and was being considered in 3. Digital communication enables timely access for young people to the right clinician at the time when it can make a difference to how they manage their health condition. This is valued as an addition to traditional clinic appointments and can engage those otherwise disengaged, particularly at times of change for young people. It can enhance patient autonomy, empowerment and activation. It challenges the nature and boundaries of therapeutic relationships but can improve trust. The clinical teams studied had not themselves formally evaluated the impact of their intervention. Staff time is the main cost driver, but offsetting savings are likely elsewhere in the health service. Risks include increased dependence on clinicians, inadvertent disclosure of confidential information, and communication failures, which are mostly mitigated by young people and clinicians using common-sense approaches.Conclusions: As NHS policy prompts more widespread use of digital communication to improve the health care experience, our findings suggest that benefit is most likely, and harms are mitigated, when digital communication is used with patients who already have a relationship of trust with the clinical team, and where there is identifiable need for patients to have flexible access, such as when transitioning between services, treatments, or lived context. Clinical teams need a proactive approach to ethics, governance, and patient safety.

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of TNF-alpha antagonist therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the United Kingdom using data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Registry (BSRBR).A simulation model is constructed to quantify the cost effectiveness of the TNF-alpha antagonist therapies (infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab) as a group versus traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, with a time horizon over the full patient lifetime. Participants are UK NHS patients in the BSRBR with RA who have failed at least two traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. The BSRBR aims to recruit all RA patients starting on a TNF-alpha antagonist agent and follows them 6 monthly via consultant and patient administered questionnaires. Data collected include disease activity scores (DAS28), the Health Assessment Questionnaire and the SF-36. Costs include drug, monitoring and hospitalisations. Benefits are measured in disability and quality of life improvements. The main outcome measure is the incremental cost per quality adjusted life-year gained (discounted).The basecase cost per quality adjusted life-year gained by using TNF-alpha antagonist therapies is estimated at pound23 882, with probabilistic uncertainty analysis suggesting that the probability that treatments are below 30,000 pounds per QALY is around 84%. The results are most sensitive to assumptions concerning long-term disability progression, discount rates and the validity or otherwise of SF6D derived utility measures. Subgroup analysis, monotherapy versus combination with methotrexate, and a limited analysis of sequential therapy with two TNF-alpha antagonist agents, suggest cost-effectiveness ratios around 20,000 pounds to 30,000 pounds.The BSRBR data provide valuable evidence for estimating cost-effectiveness. The analysis concludes that current policies and practice for the use of TNF-alpha antagonist therapies, after RA patients have failed at least two traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, appear cost-effective in the context of the NICE re-appraisal of 2006 for England and Wales, thus supporting their decision to continue their reimbursement. Decision-makers worldwide might adapt this analysis because differential costs, discount rates and other factors could affect results. There remains uncertainty, particularly on long-term disease progression. Further data collection using the BSRBR is recommended, together with a revision to this analysis when data become available.

Background\ud This study assesses the efficacy of three granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs; pegfilgrastim, filgrastim and lenograstim) in preventing febrile neutropenia (FN).\ud \ud Methods\ud A systematic review was undertaken. Head-to-head studies were combined using direct meta-analyses. In addition, an indirect Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) was undertaken to facilitate comparison between G-CSFs where there were no direct trials, and to allow data from all trials to be synthesised into a coherent set of results.\ud \ud Results\ud The review identified the following studies comparing G-CSF prophylaxis to no primary G-CSF prophylaxis: 5 studies of pegfilgrastim, 9 studies of filgrastim and 5 studies of lenograstim. In addition, 5 studies were identified comparing pegfilgrastim to filgrastim. The two synthesis methods (meta-analysis and MTC) demonstrated that all three G-CSFs significantly reduced FN rate. Pegfilgrastim reduced FN rate to a greater extent than filgrastim (significantly in the head-to-head meta-analysis and in the MTC of all studies, and not quite significantly when the MTC was restricted to RCTs only). In the absence of direct trials, the MTC gave an 80-86% probability that pegfilgrastim is superior to lenograstim in preventing FN, and a 71-72% probability that lenograstim is superior to filgrastim.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud Prophylaxis with G-CSFs significantly reduces FN rate. A head-to-head meta-analysis shows pegfilgrastim to be significantly superior to filgrastim in preventing FN events, while an MTC demonstrates that pegfilgrastim is likely to be superior to lenograstim.

The technology needed to implement mass screening by mammography existed well before the implementation of national screening programmes. This delay arose partly because of the complexities involved in conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of screening programmes. These complexities not only extend the time needed to conduct trials of cancer screening, they reduce the external validity of the results. There is potential to improve the application of evidence-based medicine (EBM) to the evaluation of cancer screening programmes and other complex interventions through adding insights from Operational Research and Decision Theory. This would extend EBM to what might be called Decision-Analytic Medicine (DAM).

Introduction: We report a cost-effectiveness evaluation of granulocyte colony–stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy in the United Kingdom (UK).\ud \ud Methods: A mathematical model was constructed simulating the experience of women with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Three strategies were modelled: primary prophylaxis (G-CSFs administered in all cycles), secondary prophylaxis (G-CSFs administered in all cycles after an FN event), and no G-CSF prophylaxis. Three G-CSFs were considered: filgrastim, lenograstim, and pegfilgrastim. Costs were taken from UK databases and utility values from published sources. A systematic review provided data on G-CSF efficacy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined the effects of uncertainty in model parameters.\ud \ud Results: In the UK, base-case analysis with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained and using list prices, the most cost-effective strategy was primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for a patient with baseline FN risk greater than 38%, secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for baseline FN risk 11% to 37%, and no G-CSFs for baseline FN risk less than 11%. Using a WTP threshold of £30,000 and list prices, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim was cost-effective for baseline FN risks greater than 29%. In all analyses, pegfilgrastim dominated filgrastim and lenograstim. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that higher WTP threshold, younger age, earlier stage at diagnosis, or reduced G-CSF prices result in G-CSF prophylaxis being cost-effective at lower baseline FN risk levels.\ud \ud Conclusion: Pegfilgrastim was the most cost-effective G-CSF. The most cost-effective strategy (primary or secondary prophylaxis) was dependent on the FN risk level for an individual patient, patient age and stage at diagnosis, and G-CSF price.

Objectives\ud This study aims to highlight the benefits of Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC), within a case study of the efficacy of three treatments (pegfilgrastim, filgrastim and lenograstim) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) following chemotherapy.\ud \ud Methods\ud Two published meta-analyses have assessed the relative efficacy of the three treatments based on head-to-head trials. In the present study, all the trials from these meta-analyses were synthesised within a single network in a Bayesian MTC. Following a systematic review, the evidence base was then updated to include further recently-published trials. The metaanalyses and MTC were re-analysed using the updated evidence base.\ud \ud Results\ud Using data from the previously-published meta-analyses only, the relative risk of FN for pegfilgrastim vs. no treatment was estimated at 0.08 (95% confidence interval: 0.03, 0.18) from the head-to-head trial and 0.27 (95% credible interval: 0.12, 0.60) from the MTC, reflecting strong inconsistency between the results of the direct and indirect methodologies. When subsequently-published head-to-head trials were included, the meta-analysis estimate increased to 0.29 (95% confidence interval: 0.15, 0.55), while the MTC gave a relative risk of 0.34 (95% credible interval: 0.23, 0.54). The initial MTC results were therefore a better predictor of subsequent study results than was the direct trial. The MTC was also able to estimate the probability that there were clinically significant difference in efficacy between the treatments.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud Bayesian MTC provides clinically relevant information, including a measure of the consistency of direct and indirect evidence. Where inconsistency exists, it should not always be assumed that the direct evidence is more appropriate.

Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs following myelosuppressive chemotherapy and is associated with morbidity, mortality, costs, and chemotherapy reductions and delays. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) stimulate neutrophil production and may reduce FN incidence when given prophylactically following chemotherapy.\ud \ud Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of G-CSFs (pegfilgrastim, filgrastim or lenograstim) in preventing FN in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. G-CSFs were compared with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis and with one another. Nine databases were searched in December 2009. Meta-analysis used a random effects model due to heterogeneity.\ud \ud Results: Twenty studies compared primary G-CSF prophylaxis with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis: five studies of pegfilgrastim; ten of filgrastim; and five of lenograstim. All three G-CSFs significantly reduced FN incidence, with relative risks of 0.30 (95% CI: 0.14 – 0.65) for pegfilgrastim, 0.57 (95% CI: 0.48 – 0.69) for filgrastim, and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.44 – 0.88) for lenograstim. Five studies compared pegfilgrastim with filgrastim; FN incidence was significantly lower for pegfilgrastim than filgrastim, with relative risk 0.66 (95% CI: 0.44 – 0.98).\ud \ud Conclusions: Primary prophylaxis with G-CSFs significantly reduces FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. Pegfilgrastim reduces FN incidence to a significantly greater extent than filgrastim.

Background: To study clinicians' and parents' awareness of suicidal behaviour in adolescents reaching the upper age limit of their Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) and its association with mental health indicators, transition recommendations and mental health service (MHS) use. Methods: 763 CAMHS users from eight European countries were assessed using multi-informant and standardised assessment tools at baseline and nine months follow-up. Separate ANCOVA's and pairwise comparisons were conducted to assess whether clinicians' and parents' awareness of young people's suicidal behaviour were associated with mental health indicators, clinician's recommendations to continue treatment and MHS use at nine months follow-up. Results: 53.5 % of clinicians and 56.9 % of parents were unaware of young people's self-reported suicidal behaviour at baseline. Compared to those whose clinicians/parents were aware, unawareness was associated with a 72–80 % lower proportion of being recommended to continue treatment. Self-reported mental health problems at baseline were comparable for young people whose clinicians and parents were aware and unaware of suicidal behaviour. Clinicians' and parents' unawareness were not associated with MHS use at follow-up. Limitations: Aspects of suicidal behaviour, such as suicide ideation, -plans and -attempts, could not be distinguished. Few young people transitioned to Adult Mental Health Services (AMHS), therefore power to study factors associated with AMHS use was limited. Conclusion: Clinicians and parents are often unaware of suicidal behaviour, which decreases the likelihood of a recommendation to continue treatment, but does not seem to affect young people's MHS use or their mental health problems.