Search

Abstract Background Moderately severe or major trauma (injury severity score (ISS) > 8) is common, often resulting in physical and psychological problems and leading to difficulties in returning to work. Vocational rehabilitation (VR) can improve return to work/education in some injuries (e.g. traumatic brain and spinal cord injury), but evidence is lacking for other moderately severe or major trauma. Methods ROWTATE is an individually randomised controlled multicentre pragmatic trial of early VR and psychological support in trauma patients. It includes an internal pilot, economic evaluation, a process evaluation and an implementation study. Participants will be screened for eligibility and recruited within 12 weeks of admission to eight major trauma centres in England. A total of 722 participants with ISS > 8 will be randomised 1:1 to VR and psychological support (where needed, following psychological screening) plus usual care or to usual care alone. The ROWTATE VR intervention will be provided within 2 weeks of study recruitment by occupational therapists and where needed, by clinical psychologists. It will be individually tailored and provided for ≤ 12 months, dependent on participant need. Baseline assessment will collect data on demographics, injury details, work/education status, cognitive impairment, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic distress, disability, recovery expectations, financial stress and health-related quality of life. Participants will be followed up by postal/telephone/online questionnaires at 3, 6 and 12 months post-randomisation. The primary objective is to establish whether the ROWTATE VR intervention plus usual care is more effective than usual care alone for improving participants’ self-reported return to work/education for at least 80% of pre-injury hours at 12 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include other work outcomes (e.g. hours of work/education, time to return to work/education, sickness absence), depression, anxiety, post-traumatic distress, work self-efficacy, financial stress, purpose in life, health-related quality of life and healthcare/personal resource use. The process evaluation and implementation study will be described elsewhere. Discussion This trial will provide robust evidence regarding a VR intervention for a major trauma population. Evidence of a clinically and cost-effective VR intervention will be important for commissioners and providers to enable adoption of VR services for this large and important group of patients within the NHS. Trial registration ISRCTN: 43115471. Registered 27/07/2021.

Abstract Background UK national clinical guidance recommends that men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy are offered twice weekly supervised aerobic and resistance exercise to address iatrogenic harm caused by treatment. Very few NHS trusts have established adequate provision of such services. Furthermore, interventions fail to demonstrate sustained behaviour change. The STAMINA lifestyle intervention offers a system-level change to clinical care delivery addressing barriers to long-term behaviour change and implementation of new prostate cancer care pathways. This trial aims to establish whether STAMINA is clinically and cost-effective in improving cancer-specific quality of life and/or reducing fatigue compared to optimised usual care. The process evaluation aims to inform the interpretation of results and, if the intervention is shown to benefit patients, to inform the implementation of the intervention into the NHS. Methods Men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy (n = 697) will be identified from a minimum of 12 UK NHS trusts to participate in a multi-centre, two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial. Consenting men will have a ‘safety to exercise’ check and be randomly allocated (5:4) to the STAMINA lifestyle intervention (n = 384) or optimised usual care (n = 313). Outcomes will be collected at baseline, 3-, 6- and 12-month post-randomisation. The two primary outcomes are cancer-specific quality of life and fatigue. The parallel process evaluation will follow a mixed-methods approach to explore recruitment and aspects of the intervention including, reach, fidelity, acceptability, and implementation. An economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness of the STAMINA lifestyle intervention versus optimised usual care and a discrete choice experiment will explore patient preferences. Discussion The STAMINA lifestyle intervention has the potential to improve quality of life and reduce fatigue in men on androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Embedding supervised exercise into prostate cancer care may also support long-term positive behaviour change and reduce adverse events caused by treatment. Findings will inform future clinical care and could provide a blueprint for the integration of supervised exercise and behavioural support into other cancer and/or clinical services. Trial registration ISRCTN 46385239, registered on 30/07/2020. Cancer Research UK 17002, retrospectively registered on 24/08/2022.

Abstract Background Frailty is common in older age and is characterised by loss of biological reserves across multiple organ systems. These changes associated with frailty mean older people can be vulnerable to sudden, dramatic changes in health because of relatively small problems. Older people with frailty are at increased risk of adverse outcomes including disability, hospitalisation, and care home admission, with associated reduction in quality of life and increased NHS and social care costs. Personalised Care Planning offers an anticipatory, preventative approach to supporting older adults to live independently for longer, but it has not been robustly evaluated in a population of older adults with frailty. Methods Following an initial feasibility study, this multi-centre, individually randomised controlled trial aims to establish whether personalised care planning for older people improves health-related quality of life. It will recruit 1337 participants from general practices across Yorkshire and Humber and Mid-Mersey in the North of England. Eligible patients will be aged 65 and over with an electronic frailty index score of 0.21 or above, living in their own homes, without severe cognitive impairment and not in receipt of end-of-life care. Following confirmation of eligibility, informed consent and baseline data collection, participants will be individually randomised to the PeRsOnaliSed care Planning for oldER people with frailty (PROSPER) intervention or usual care in a 2.6:1 allocation ratio. Participants will not be blinded to allocation, but data collection and analysis will be blinded. The intervention will be delivered over 12 weeks by a Personal Independence Co-ordinator worker based within a voluntary sector organisation, Age UK. The primary outcomes are health-related quality of life, measured using both the physical and mental components of the Short-Form 12 Item Health Questionnaire at 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes comprise activities of daily living, self-management capabilities and loneliness, admission to care homes, hospitalisations, and health and social care resource use at 12 months post randomisation. Parallel cost-effectiveness and process evaluations will be conducted alongside the trial. Discussion The PROSPER study will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a personalised care planning approach for older people with frailty and inform the process of its implementation. Trial registration ISRCTN16123291 . Registered on 28 August 2020.

Introduction Stroke survivors spend long periods of time engaging in sedentary behaviour (SB) even when their functional recovery is good. In the RECREATE programme, an intervention aimed at reducing SB (‘Get Set Go’) will be implemented and evaluated in a pragmatic external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. We report the protocol for the process evaluation which will address the following objectives: (1) describe and clarify causal assumptions about the intervention, and its mechanisms of impact; (2) assess implementation fidelity; (3) explore views, perceptions and acceptability of the intervention to staff, stroke survivors and their carers; (4) establish the contextual factors that influence implementation, intervention mechanisms and outcomes.Methods and analysis This pilot trial will be conducted in 15 UK-based National Health Service stroke services. This process evaluation study, underpinned by the Medical Research Council guidance, will be undertaken in six of the randomised services (four intervention, two control). Data collection includes the following: observations of staff training sessions, non-participant observations in inpatient and community settings, semi-structured interviews with staff, patients and carers, and documentary analysis of key intervention components. Additional quantitative implementation data will be collected in all sites. Training observations and documentary analysis data will be summarised, with other observational and interview data analysed using thematic analysis. Relevant theories will be used to interpret the findings, including the theoretical domains framework, normalisation process theory and the theoretical framework of acceptability. Anticipated outputs include the following: recommendations for intervention refinements (both content and implementation); a revised implementation plan and a refined logic model.Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by Yorkshire & The Humber - Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 19/YH/0403). Findings will be disseminated via peer review publications, and national and international conference presentations.Trial registration number ISRCTN82280581.

Introduction Sedentary behaviour (sitting or lying during waking hours without being otherwise active) is strongly associated with adverse health outcomes, including all-cause, cancer and cardiovascular mortality in adults. Stroke survivors are consistently reported as being more sedentary than healthy age-matched controls, spending more hours sedentary daily and sustaining longer unbroken bouts of sedentary time. An evidence-based and clinically feasible intervention (‘Get Set Go’) was developed. A pragmatic definitive trial to evaluate Get Set Go was planned; however, due to the unprecedented effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on National Health Service (NHS) services this study was reduced in size and scope to become an external pilot trial. We report the protocol for this external pilot trial, which aims to undertake a preliminary exploration of whether Get Set Go is likely to improve ability to complete extended activities of daily living in the first year post-stroke and inform future trial designs in stroke rehabilitation.Methods and analysis This study is a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. UK-based stroke services will be randomised 1:1 to the intervention (usual care plus Get Set Go) or control (usual care) arm. Fifteen stroke services will recruit 300–400 stroke inpatient and carer participants, with follow-up at 6, 12 and 24 months. The proposed primary endpoint is stroke survivor self-reported Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale at 12 months. Endpoint analyses will be exploratory and provide preliminary estimates of intervention effect. The process evaluation will provide valuable information on intervention fidelity, acceptability and how it can be optimised.Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by Yorkshire and The Humber – Bradford-Leeds Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 19/YH/0403). Results will be disseminated through journal publications and conference presentations.Trial registration number This trial was registered prospectively on 01 April 2020 (ISRCTN ref: ISRCTN82280581).

Introduction Emotional disorders (such as anxiety and depression) are associated with considerable distress and impairment in day-to-day function for affected children and young people and for their families. Effective evidence-based interventions are available but require appropriate identification of difficulties to enable timely access to services. Standardised diagnostic assessment (SDA) tools may aid in the detection of emotional disorders, but there is limited evidence on the utility of SDA tools in routine care and equipoise among professionals about their clinical value.Methods and analysis A multicentre, two-arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial, with embedded qualitative and health economic components. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the Development and Well-Being Assessment SDA tool as an adjunct to usual clinical care, or usual care only. A total of 1210 participants (children and young people referred to outpatient, specialist Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services with emotional difficulties and their parent/carers) will be recruited from at least 6 sites in England. The primary outcome is a clinician-made diagnosis about the presence of an emotional disorder within 12 months of randomisation. Secondary outcomes include referral acceptance, diagnosis and treatment of emotional disorders, symptoms of emotional difficulties and comorbid disorders and associated functional impairment.Ethics and dissemination The study received favourable opinion from the South Birmingham Research Ethics Committee (Ref. 19/WM/0133). Results of this trial will be reported to the funder and published in full in the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Journal series and also submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal.Trial registration number ISRCTN15748675; Pre-results.

Abstract Background Memory services often see people with early stage dementia who are largely independent and able to participate in community activities but who run the risk of reducing activities and social networks. PRIDE is a self-management intervention designed to promote living well and enhance independence for people with mild dementia. This study aims to examine the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PRIDE intervention offered in addition to usual care or with usual care alone. Methods/design PRIDE is a parallel, two-arm, multicentre, feasibility, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Eligible participants aged 18 or over who have mild dementia (defined as a score of 0.5 or 1 on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale) who can participate in the intervention and provide informed consent will be randomised (1:1) to treatment with the PRIDE intervention delivered in addition to usual care, or usual care only. Participants will be followed-up at 3 and 6 month’s post-randomisation. There will be an option for a supporter to join each participant. Each supporter will be provided with questionnaires at baseline and follow-ups at 3 to 6 months. Embedded qualitative research with both participants and supporters will explore their perspectives on the intervention investigating a range of themes including acceptability and barriers and facilitators to delivery and participation. The feasibility of conducting a full RCT associated with participant recruitment and follow-up of both conditions, intervention delivery including the recruitment, training, retention of PRIDE trained facilitators, clinical outcomes, intervention and resource use costs and the acceptability of the intervention and study related procedures will be examined. Discussion This study will assess whether a definitive randomised trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of whether the PRIDE intervention offered in addition to usual care is feasible in comparison to usual care alone, and if so, will provide data to inform the design and conduct of a future trial. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN11288961, registered on 23 October 2019, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12345678 Protocol V2.1 dated 19 June 2019.

Background: People with multiple sclerosis have problems with memory and attention. The effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation has not been established. Objectives: The objectives were to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a cognitive rehabilitation programme for people with multiple sclerosis. Design: This was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in which participants were randomised in a ratio of 6 : 5 to receive cognitive rehabilitation plus usual care or usual care alone. Participants were assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Setting: The trial was set in hospital neurology clinics and community services. Participants: Participants were people with multiple sclerosis who had cognitive problems, were aged 18–69 years, could travel to attend group sessions and gave informed consent. Intervention: The intervention was a group cognitive rehabilitation programme delivered weekly by an assistant psychologist to between four and six participants for 10 weeks. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale – Psychological subscale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included results from the Everyday Memory Questionnaire, the 30-Item General Health Questionnaire, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version and a service use questionnaire from participants, and the Everyday Memory Questionnaire – relative version and the Modified Carer Strain Index from a relative or friend of the participant. Results: Of the 449 participants randomised, 245 were allocated to cognitive rehabilitation (intervention group) and 204 were allocated to usual care (control group). Of these, 214 in the intervention group and 173 in the control group were included in the primary analysis. There was no clinically important difference in the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale – Psychological subscale score between the two groups at the 12-month follow-up (adjusted difference in means –0.6, 95% confidence interval –1.5 to 0.3; p = 0.20). There were no important differences between the groups in relation to cognitive abilities, fatigue, employment, or carer strain at follow-up. However, there were differences, although small, between the groups in the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale – Psychological subscale score at 6 months (adjusted difference in means –0.9, 95% confidence interval –1.7 to –0.1; p = 0.03) and in everyday memory on the Everyday Memory Questionnaire as reported by participants at 6 (adjusted difference in means –5.3, 95% confidence interval –8.7 to –1.9) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means –4.4, 95% confidence interval –7.8 to –0.9) and by relatives at 6 (adjusted difference in means –5.4, 95% confidence interval –9.1 to –1.7) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means –5.5, 95% confidence interval –9.6 to –1.5) in favour of the cognitive rehabilitation group. There were also differences in mood on the 30-Item General Health Questionnaire at 6 (adjusted difference in means –3.4, 95% confidence interval –5.9 to –0.8) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means –3.4, 95% confidence interval –6.2 to –0.6) in favour of the cognitive rehabilitation group. A qualitative analysis indicated perceived benefits of the intervention. There was no evidence of a difference in costs (adjusted difference in means –£574.93, 95% confidence interval –£1878.93 to £729.07) or quality-adjusted life-year gain (adjusted difference in means 0.00, 95% confidence interval –0.02 to 0.02). No safety concerns were raised and no deaths were reported. Limitations: The trial included a sample of participants who had relatively severe cognitive problems in daily life. The trial was not powered to perform subgroup analyses. Participants could not be blinded to treatment allocation. Conclusions: This cognitive rehabilitation programme had no long-term benefits on quality of life for people with multiple sclerosis. Future work: Future research should evaluate the selection of those who may benefit from cognitive rehabilitation. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09697576. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 4. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Abstract Background Diabetic foot ulcers are a common and severe complication of diabetes mellitus. Standard treatment includes debridement, offloading, management of infection and revascularisation where appropriate, although healing times may be long. The LeucoPatch® device is used to generate an autologous platelet-rich fibrin and leucocyte wound dressing produced from the patient’s own venous blood by centrifugation, but without the addition of any reagents. The final product comprises a thin, circular patch composed predominantly of fibrin together with living platelets and leucocytes. Promising results have been obtained in non-controlled studies this system, but this now needs to be tested in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). If confirmed, the LeucoPatch® may become an important new tool in the armamentarium in the management of diabetic foot ulcers which are hard-to-heal. Methods People with diabetes and hard-to-heal ulcers of the foot will receive either pre-specified good standard care or good standard care supplemented by the application of the LeucoPatch® device. The primary outcome will be the percentage of ulcers healed within 20 weeks. Healing will be defined as complete epithelialisation without discharge that is maintained for 4 weeks and is confirmed by an observer blind to randomisation group. Discussion Ulcers of the foot are a major source of morbidity to patients with diabetes and costs to health care economies. The study population is designed to be as inclusive as possible with the aim of maximising the external validity of any findings. The primary outcome measure is healing within 20 weeks of randomisation and the trial also includes a number of secondary outcome measures. Among these are rate of change in ulcer area as a predictor of the likelihood of eventual healing, minor and major amputation of the target limb, the incidence of infection and quality of life. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, ISRCTN27665670 . Registered on 5 July 2013.

Background: People with traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) commonly report memory impairments. These are persistent, debilitating and reduce quality of life, but patients do not routinely receive memory rehabilitation after discharge from hospital. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group memory rehabilitation programme for people with TBI. Design: Multicentre, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Qualitative and health economic evaluations were also undertaken. Setting: Community settings in nine sites in England. Participants: Participants were aged 18–69 years, had undergone a TBI > 3 months prior to recruitment, reported memory problems, were able to travel to a site to attend group sessions, could communicate in English and gave informed consent. Randomisation and blinding: Clusters of four to six participants were randomised to the memory rehabilitation arm or the usual-care arm on a 1 : 1 ratio. Randomisation was based on a computer-generated pseudo-random code using random permuted blocks of randomly varying size, stratified by study site. Participants and therapists were aware of the treatment allocation whereas outcome assessors were blinded. Interventions: In the memory rehabilitation arm 10 weekly sessions of a manualised memory rehabilitation programme were provided in addition to usual care. Participants were taught restitution strategies to retrain impaired memory functions and compensation strategies to enable them to cope with memory problems. The usual-care arm received usual care only. Main outcome measures: Outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Primary outcome: patient-completed Everyday Memory Questionnaire – patient version (EMQ-p) at 6 months’ follow-up. Secondary outcomes: Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test – third edition (RBMT-3), General Health Questionnaire 30-item version, European Brain Injury Questionnaire, Everyday Memory Questionnaire – relative version and individual goal attainment. Costs (based on a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective) were collected using a service use questionnaire, with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, used to derive quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A Markov model was developed to explore cost-effectiveness at 5 and 10 years, with a 3.5% discount applied. Results: We randomised 328 participants (memory rehabilitation, n = 171; usual care, n = 157), with 129 in the memory rehabilitation arm and 122 in the usual-care arm included in the primary analysis. We found no clinically important difference on the EMQ-p between the two arms at 6 months’ follow-up (adjusted difference in mean scores –2.1, 95% confidence interval –6.7 to 2.5; p = 0.37). For secondary outcomes, differences favouring the memory rehabilitation arm were observed at 6 months’ follow-up for the RBMT-3 and goal attainment, but remained only for goal attainment at 12 months’ follow-up. There were no differences between arms in mood or quality of life. The qualitative results suggested positive experiences of participating in the trial and of attending the groups. Participants reported that memory rehabilitation was not routinely accessible in usual care. The primary health economics outcome at 12 months found memory rehabilitation to be £26.89 cheaper than usual care but less effective, with an incremental QALY loss of 0.007. Differences in costs and effects were not statistically significant and non-parametric bootstrapping demonstrated considerable uncertainty in these findings. No safety concerns were raised and no deaths were reported. Limitations: As a pragmatic trial, we had broad inclusion criteria and, therefore, there was considerable heterogeneity within the sample. The study was not powered to perform further subgroup analyses. Participants and therapists could not be blinded to treatment allocation. Conclusions: The group memory rehabilitation delivered in this trial is very unlikely to lead to clinical benefits or to be a cost-effective treatment for people with TBI in the community. Future studies should examine the selection of participants who may benefit most from memory rehabilitation. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN65792154. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: If effective, less intensive treatments for people with personality disorder have the potential to serve more people. Objectives: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychoeducation with problem-solving (PEPS) therapy plus usual treatment against usual treatment alone in improving social problem-solving with adults with personality disorder. Design: Multisite two-arm, parallel-group, pragmatic randomised controlled superiority trial. Setting: Community mental health services in three NHS trusts in England and Wales. Participants: Community-dwelling adults with any personality disorder recruited from community mental health services. Interventions: Up to four individual sessions of psychoeducation, a collaborative dialogue about personality disorder, followed by 12 group sessions of problem-solving therapy to help participants learn a process for solving interpersonal problems. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was measured by the Social Functioning Questionnaire (SFQ). Secondary outcomes were service use (general practitioner records), mood (measured via the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and client-specified three main problems rated by severity. We studied the mechanism of change using the Social Problem-Solving Inventory. Costs were identified using the Client Service Receipt Inventory and quality of life was identified by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions questionnaire. Research assistants blinded to treatment allocation collected follow-up information. Results: There were 739 people referred for the trial and 444 were eligible. More adverse events in the PEPS arm led to a halt to recruitment after 306 people were randomised (90% of planned sample size); 154 participants received PEPS and 152 received usual treatment. The mean age was 38 years and 67% were women. Follow-up at 72 weeks after randomisation was completed for 62% of participants in the usual-treatment arm and 73% in the PEPS arm. Intention-to-treat analyses compared individuals as randomised, regardless of treatment received or availability of 72-week follow-up SFQ data. Median attendance at psychoeducation sessions was approximately 90% and for problem-solving sessions was approximately 50%. PEPS therapy plus usual treatment was no more effective than usual treatment alone for the primary outcome [adjusted difference in means for SFQ –0.73 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) –1.83 to 0.38 points; p = 0.19], any of the secondary outcomes or social problem-solving. Over the follow-up, PEPS costs were, on average, £182 less than for usual treatment. It also resulted in 0.0148 more quality-adjusted life-years. Neither difference was statistically significant. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds, the intervention had a 64% likelihood of being the more cost-effective option. More adverse events, mainly incidents of self-harm, occurred in the PEPS arm, but the difference was not significant (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.64). Limitations: There was possible bias in adverse event recording because of dependence on self-disclosure or reporting by the clinical team. Non-completion of problem-solving sessions and non-standardisation of usual treatment were limitations. Conclusions: We found no evidence to support the use of PEPS therapy alongside standard care for improving social functioning of adults with personality disorder living in the community. Future work: We aim to investigate adverse events by accessing centrally held NHS data on deaths and hospitalisation for all PEPS trial participants. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70660936. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.