Search

Abstract Background The Brief Educational Workshops in Secondary Schools Trial (BESST) is an England-wide school-based cluster randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an open-access psychological workshop programme (DISCOVER) for 16–18-year-olds. This baseline paper describes the self-referral and other recruitment processes used in this study and the baseline characteristics of the enrolled schools and participants. Method We enrolled 900 participants from 57 Secondary schools across England from 4th October 2021 to 10th November 2022. Schools were randomised to receive either the DISCOVER day-long Stress workshop or treatment as usual which included signposting information. Participants will be followed up for 6 months with outcome data collection at baseline, 3-month, and 6-month post randomisation. Results Schools were recruited from a geographically and ethnically diverse sample across England. To reduce stigma, students were invited to self-refer into the study if they wanted help for stress. Their mean age was 17.2 (SD = 0.6), 641 (71%) were female and 411 (45.6%) were from ethnic minority groups. The general wellbeing of our sample measured using the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ) found 314 (35%) of students exhibited symptoms of depression at baseline. Eighty percent of students reported low wellbeing on the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS) suggesting that although the overall sample mean is below the cut-off for depression, the self-referral approach used in this study supports distressed students in coming forward. Conclusion The BESST study will continue to follow up participants to collect outcome data and results will be analysed once all the data have been collected. Trial registration ISRCTN registry ISRCTN90912799. Registered on 28 May 2020.

BackgroundA smartphone app, Parent Positive, was developed to help parents manage their children’s conduct and emotional problems during the COVID-19 pandemic. A randomized controlled trial, Supporting Parents and Kids Through Lockdown Experiences (SPARKLE), found Parent Positive to be effective in reducing children’s emotional problems. However, app effectiveness may be influenced by a range of child, family, socioeconomic, and pandemic-related factors. ObjectiveThis study examined whether baseline factors related to the child, family, and socioeconomic status, as well as pandemic-related disruption circumstances, moderated Parent Positive’s effects on child conduct and emotional problems at 1- and 2-month follow-up. MethodsThis study was a secondary exploratory analysis of SPARKLE data. The data set included 646 children (4-10 years of age) with parents randomized to either Parent Positive (n=320) or follow-up as usual (n=326). Candidate baseline moderators included child age, gender, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms, parental psychological distress, family conflict, household income, employment status, household overcrowding, and pandemic-related disruption risk (ie, homeschooling, lockdown status, and isolation status). Child conduct and emotional problem outcomes measured at 1- (T2) and 2-months (T3) post randomization were analyzed using linear mixed-effects analysis of covariance models adjusting for baseline (T1) measure of outcome and including intervention and intervention by time point interaction terms allowing for different effects at the 2 time points. Moderation of intervention effects by baseline factors was assessed by replacing the intervention by time interaction terms with intervention by time point by baseline moderator interaction terms. ResultsChild gender was a significant moderator of the Parent Positive versus follow-up as usual effect on emotional problems (B=0.72, 95% CI 0.12-1.33; P=.02). Specifically, the effect of Parent Positive was close to significant (T2: B=–0.41, 95% CI –0.82 to 0.0004; P=.05) or significant (T3: B=–0.76, 95% CI –1.22 to –0.30; P

Background Depression and anxiety are increasingly prevalent in adolescents. The Brief Educational Workshops in Secondary Schools Trial investigated the effectiveness of a brief self-referral stress workshop programme for sixth-form students aged 16–18 years old.Objective This study conducted a secondary analysis on the outcomes of participants with elevated depressive symptoms at baseline.Methods This is an England-wide, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a brief cognitive–behavioural therapy workshop (DISCOVER) compared with treatment-as-usual (TAU) (1:1). The primary outcome was depression symptoms (Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ)) at 6-month follow-up, using the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and analysed with a multilevel linear regression estimating a between-group adjusted mean difference (aMD). Cost-effectiveness, taking a National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services perspective, was explored using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).Findings Between 4 October 2021 and 10 November 2022, 900 adolescents at 57 schools were enrolled. 314 students were identified as having elevated symptoms of depression at baseline (>27 on MFQ). In this prespecified subgroup, the DISCOVER arm included 142 participants and TAU included 172. ITT analysis included 298 participants. Primary analysis at 6 months found aMD to be −3.88 (95% CI −6.48, –1.29; Cohen’s d=−0.52; p=0.003), with a similar reduction at 3 months (aMD=−4.00; 95% CI −6.58, –1.42; Cohen’s d=0.53; p=0.002), indicating a moderate, clinically meaningful effect in the DISCOVER arm. We found an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £5255 per QALY, with a probability of DISCOVER being cost-effective at between 89% and 95% compared with TAU.Conclusions and clinical implications DISCOVER is clinically effective and cost-effective in those with elevated depressive symptoms. This intervention could be used as an early school-based intervention by the NHS.Trial registration number ISRCTN90912799.

Abstract Background Liver disease is within the top five causes of premature death in adults. Deaths caused by complications of cirrhosis continue to rise, whilst deaths related to other non-liver disease areas are declining. Portal hypertension is the primary sequelae of cirrhosis and is associated with the development of variceal haemorrhage, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and infection, collectively termed hepatic decompensation, which leads to hospitalisation and mortality. It remains uncertain whether administering a non-selective beta-blocker (NSBB), specifically carvedilol, at an earlier stage, i.e. when oesophageal varices are small, can prevent VH and reduce all-cause decompensation (ACD). Methods/design The BOPPP trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, placebo-controlled, triple-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients aged 18 years or older with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices that have never bled will be recruited, subject to exclusion criteria. The trial aims to enrol 740 patients across 55 hospitals in the UK. Patients are allocated randomly on a 1:1 ratio to receive either carvedilol 6.25 mg (a NSBB) or a matched placebo, once or twice daily, for 36 months, to attain adequate power to determine the effectiveness of carvedilol in preventing or reducing ACD. The primary outcome is the time to first decompensating event. It is a composite primary outcome made up of variceal haemorrhage (VH, new or worsening ascites, new or worsening hepatic encephalopathy (HE), spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), hepatorenal syndrome, an increase in Child–Pugh grade by 1 grade or MELD score by 5 points, and liver-related mortality. Secondary outcomes include progression to medium or large oesophageal varices, development of gastric, duodenal, or ectopic varices, participant quality of life, healthcare costs and transplant-free survival. Discussion The BOPPP trial aims to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of carvedilol in patients with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices to determine whether this non-selective beta-blocker can prevent or reduce hepatic decompensation. There is clinical equipoise on whether intervening in cirrhosis, at an earlier stage of portal hypertension, with NSBB therapy is beneficial. Should the trial yield a positive result, we anticipate that the administration and use of carvedilol will become widespread with pathways developed to standardise the administration of the medication in primary care. Ethics and dissemination The trial has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (REC) (reference number: 19/YH/0015). The results of the trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Participants will be informed of the results via the BOPPP website ( www.boppp-trial.org ) and partners in the British Liver Trust (BLT) organisation. Trial registration EUDRACT reference number: 2018–002509-78. ISRCTN reference number: ISRCTN10324656. Registered on April 24 2019.

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a system based psychological first aid (PFA) training programme for emergency medical first responders in China.Design Parallel-group, assessor-blinded, cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting 42 clusters of health workers from various health facilities in China.Participants 1399 health workers who provide emergency service for survivors of disasters.Interventions One-day system based PFA training programme (PFA) or training as usual (TAU).Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome was the PFA skills, knowledge and attitude (SKA-PFA) score at 2 months postintervention. Secondary outcomes included post-traumatic growth, self-efficacy and professional quality of life.Results The intervention group (n=690) had significantly higher SKA-PFA scores than the control group (n=709) at 2 months postintervention (adjusted mean difference=4.44; 95% CI 1.17 to 7.52; p=0.007; Cohen’s d=0.35). The intervention group also had higher scores on post-traumatic growth (p=0.113, d=0.24), self-efficacy (p=0.032, d=0.20) and professional quality of life (p=0.281, d=0.04).Conclusions The system based PFA training programme was more effective than the TAU in enhancing the PFA knowledge and skills of the emergency medical first responders and in increasing their competence to provide emergency service for survivors in China.Trial registration number ChiCTR2200060464.

Summary: Background: Adolescence represents a distinctive phase of development, and variables linked to this developmental period could affect the efficiency of prevention and treatment for depression and anxiety, as well as the long-term prognosis. The objectives of this study were to investigate the long-term effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for adolescents on depression and anxiety symptoms and to assess the influence of different intervention parameters on the long-term effects. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched five databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PsychInfo, Web of Science) and trial registers for relevant papers published between database inception and Aug 11, 2022, with no restrictions on the language or region in which the study was conducted. An updated search was performed on Oct 3, 2023. Randomised controlled trials of psychosocial interventions targeting specifically adolescents were included if they assessed outcomes at 1-year post-intervention or more. The risk of bias in the results was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0. Between-study heterogeneity was estimated using the I2 statistic. The primary outcome was depression and studies were pooled using a standardised mean difference, with associated 95% confidence interval, p-value and I2. The study protocol was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022348668). Findings: 57 reports (n = 46,678 participants) were included in the review. Psychosocial interventions led to small reductions in depressive symptoms, with standardised mean difference (SMD) at 1-year of −0.08 (95% CI: −0.20 to −0.03, p = 0.002, I2 = 72%), 18-months SMD = −0.12, 95% CI: −0.22 to −0.01, p = 0.03, I2 = 63%) and 2-years SMD = −0.12 (95% CI: −0.20 to −0.03, p = 0.01, I2 = 68%). Sub-group analyses indicated that targeted interventions produced stronger effects, particularly when delivered by trained mental health professionals (K = 18, SMD = −0.24, 95% CI: −0.38 to −0.10, p = 0.001, I2 = 60%). No effects were detected for anxiety at any assessment. Interpretation: Psychosocial interventions specifically targeting adolescents were shown to have small but positive effects on depression symptoms but not anxiety symptoms, which were sustained up to 2 years. These findings highlight the potential population-level preventive effects if such psychosocial interventions become widely implemented in accessible settings, such as schools. Future trials should include a longer term-follow-up at least at 12 months, in order to determine whether the intervention effects improve, stay the same or wear off over time. Funding: UKRI Medical Research Council.

Background Acamprosate is an effective and cost-effective medication for alcohol relapse prevention but poor adherence can limit its full benefit. Effective interventions to support adherence to acamprosate are therefore needed. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of Medication Management, with and without Contingency Management, compared to Standard Support alone in enhancing adherence to acamprosate and the impact of adherence to acamprosate on abstinence and reduced alcohol consumption. Design Multicentre, three-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled clinical trial. Setting Specialist alcohol treatment services in five regions of England (South East London, Central and North West London, Wessex, Yorkshire and Humber and West Midlands). Participants Adults (aged 18 years or more), an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of alcohol dependence, abstinent from alcohol at baseline assessment, in receipt of a prescription for acamprosate. Interventions (1) Standard Support, (2) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management provided by pharmacists via a clinical contact centre (12 sessions over 6 months), (3) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management plus Contingency Management that consisted of vouchers (up to £120) to reinforce participation in Medication Management. Consenting participants were randomised in a 2 : 1 : 1 ratio to one of the three groups using a stratified random permuted block method using a remote system. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation. Main outcome measures Primary outcome: self-reported percentage of medication taken in the previous 28 days at 6 months post randomisation. Economic outcome: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, a five-level version, used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years, with costs estimated using the Adult Service Use Schedule. Results Of the 1459 potential participants approached, 1019 (70%) were assessed and 739 (73 consented to participate in the study, 372 (50%) were allocated to Standard Support, 182 (25%) to Standard Support with Medication Management and 185 (25%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. Data were available for 518 (70%) of participants at 6-month follow-up, 255 (68.5%) allocated to Standard Support, 122 (67.0%) to Standard Support and Medication Management and 141 (76.2%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. The mean difference of per cent adherence to acamprosate was higher for those who received Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management (10.6%, 95% confidence interval 19.6% to 1.6%) compared to Standard Support alone, at the primary end point (6-month follow-up). There was no significant difference in per cent days adherent when comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support alone 3.1% (95% confidence interval 12.8% to −6.5%) or comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management 7.9% (95% confidence interval 18.7% to −2.8%). The primary economic analysis at 6 months found that Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management was cost-effective compared to Standard Support alone, achieving small gains in quality-adjusted life-years at a lower cost per participant. Cost-effectiveness was not observed for adjunctive Medication Management compared to Standard Support alone. There were no serious adverse events related to the trial interventions reported. Limitations The trial’s primary outcome measure changed substantially due to data collection difficulties and therefore relied on a measure of self-reported adherence. A lower than anticipated follow-up rate at 12 months may have lowered the statistical power to detect differences in the secondary analyses, although the primary analysis was not impacted. Conclusions Medication Management enhanced with Contingency Management is beneficial to patients for supporting them to take acamprosate. Future work Given our findings in relation to Contingency Management enhancing Medication Management adherence, future trials should be developed to explore its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness with other alcohol interventions where there is evidence of poor adherence. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN17083622 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17083622. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Plain language summary What is the problem? Many people who are trying to stop drinking alcohol can find it difficult to remain alcohol free. There is a medication called acamprosate (Campral) that can reduce cravings thereby increasing the likelihood of abstinence. However, some people have trouble taking the right amount of acamprosate tablets needed every day at the right time, preferably at mealtimes. This means the medication is not as effective. We have tested some new ways to help support people taking acamprosate. What did we do? We tested three different strategies to find the best way to support people taking acamprosate. We recruited 739 people aged 18 and over who were receiving alcohol treatment to stop drinking and were taking acamprosate. We randomly allocated these people to three groups. The first was Standard Support, the usual support people receive when taking acamprosate. The second group received Standard Support plus Medication Management. This consisted of 12 telephone calls over 6 months with a trained pharmacist to discuss the importance of taking the right amount of the medication, how the medication works and strategies to help people take the medication correctly. The third group received Standard Support, Medication Management and Contingency Management. This involved giving people shopping vouchers for participating with Medication Management calls. The maximum value of vouchers per person was £120. What did we find out? People who were in the group receiving Medication Management and Contingency Management took a greater number of acamprosate tablets. We also found that Medication Management plus Contingency Management was more cost-effective; there were greater gains in health with a smaller cost per person compared to Standard Support alone. This shows that there is likely to be a benefit to patients of Medication Management plus Contingency Management for supporting people taking acamprosate. Scientific summary Background Alcohol is a significant risk factor for morbidity and mortality. In the UK there has been an increase in harm related to alcohol while also a reduction in funding to public health budgets, including alcohol services. While some individuals do successfully complete alcohol treatment, the majority will undergo frequent episodes of relapse. Providing effective treatment can reduce relapse rates and associated harms thus having a positive impact on cost-effectiveness. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends acamprosate in combination with psychological intervention as a first-line treatment for relapse prevention in alcohol dependence, however, acamprosate adherence poses a problem for its effectiveness in clinical practice. The reasons for non-adherence are complex and often due to multiple influences. Currently there is insufficient evidence as to which forms of intervention are effective in increasing adherence. Psychosocial interventions to support medication adherence have the potential to promote positive beliefs about medication and any concerns. Medication Management (MM) is a psychosocial intervention which aims to improve medication and treatment adherence by providing education, support, and practical advice about drinking behaviour and medication. There has also been an increasing focus on extending the role of the community pharmacist and the delivery of MM to improve medication adherence compliments this expanding role. Engagement in psychological interventions and retention in treatment is often poor in alcohol dependence but there is evidence that Contingency Management (CM) improves engagement and retention in substance use disorder treatment. There is currently limited evidence of its effectiveness within alcohol treatment but if shown to be effective it has the potential to also be adopted within the NHS and community pharmacies. Objectives Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adjunctive MM with and without CM in improving adherence to acamprosate for relapse prevention in alcohol dependence. To conduct a definitive three-arm, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the effectiveness of MM with and without CM compared to Standard Support (SS) alone in enhancing adherence to acamprosate in alcohol dependence relapse prevention. To estimate the cost-effectiveness of MM with and without CM compared to SS alone in enhancing adherence to acamprosate in alcohol dependence relapse prevention. To assess the impact of adherence to acamprosate for alcohol dependence relapse prevention on abstinence and reduced alcohol consumption. Methods Trial design This was a three-arm, parallel-group, pragmatic RCT, which began with an internal pilot phase to demonstrate recruitment, randomisation and interventions could be implemented as planned. Eligibility and recruitment Participants presenting to alcohol services in one of the trial sites (London, Southampton, Birmingham, Yorkshire and Humber) who met the trial inclusion criteria were recruited via service staff. Participants Inclusion criteria were: (1) adults, aged 18 years and over; (2) an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of alcohol dependence; (3) abstinent from alcohol at baseline assessment; (4) in receipt of a prescription of acamprosate; and (5) willing and able to provide informed consent. Exclusion criteria were: (1) a diagnosis of a severe physical/mental illness likely to preclude active participation in treatment or follow-up, (2) unable to understand verbal English at a level necessary to engage in the intervention and follow-up and (3) concurrent dependence on an illicit substance (other than cannabis). Randomisation and interventions Participants were randomised in a 2 : 1 : 1 ratio to SS, SS + MM or SS + MM + CM using a stratified random permuted block method using a remote system. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation. SS typically comprised of monthly dispensing of prescribed acamprosate, monthly monitoring of the service user for 3 months by the specialist alcohol service, and then returned to the care of their GP for monthly monitoring in accordance with NICE guidelines and current clinical NHS clinical practice. SS + MM participants followed the same care pathway as those in SS, with the addition of MM delivered by a central telephone support service by trained pharmacists. MM was delivered once a week for the first 6 weeks, reducing to once a fortnight for the following 6 weeks, and then monthly for 3 months. SS + MM + CM participants followed the same care pathway as those in the SS + MM arm but with the addition of CM. Incentives in the form of vouchers were provided to reinforce attendance at MM sessions, up to a total of £120. Outcomes The primary outcome measure was the self-reported per cent of medication taken as prescribed during the 6-month target phase of prescribing, post randomisation. Data collection Data were collected at baseline, 2, 4, 6 and 12 months. Following an amendment, the 12-month follow-up was removed to maximise participant recruitment, and the recruitment period was extended without extending the trial end date. Data that had been collected at the 12-month follow-up were still included in the trial analysis plan. The primary outcome was collected at the 6-month follow-up. Sample size The sample size aimed to detect a clinically important effect size difference of 0.3, about 13% difference in per cent adherence. In order to make the study cost-efficient, we proposed to allocate twice as many to the SS group than to the SS + MM and SS + MM + CM groups. With power at 80%, alpha of 0.05 and a two-sided test, this required 524 to be followed up at the primary end point, 262 in the SS group and 131 in each of the other groups. We anticipated a loss to follow-up at month 6 of 30% and inflated the required sample at baseline to 748 to account for this. Sample sizes were calculated using Stata 12 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). Statistical methods The primary analysis was an analysis by treatment allocated (ATA) and was based on all available data for participants who were randomised, irrespective of whether they complied with their allocation or not. The primary analysis was based on the ATA. Secondary analyses examined treatment effects under different scenarios for compliance with allocation/treatment: complier average causal effects (CACE). Two scenarios of compliance were defined in this trial. The first compliance for those in the SS + MM and SS + MM + CM group was defined as adhering to at least 50% of the MM calls. In the second, the threshold was increased to 100%. Both scenarios are modelled in the analysis. We considered missing data as being missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR). We conducted a multiple imputation to address MAR and a sensitivity analysis to address MNAR. Fractional regression was conducted to model the relationship between pre-randomisation factors and per cent adherence to acamprosate and per cent days abstinent from alcohol at month 6. Interaction terms with treatment allocation were included in the model and a significance level of 0.1 was used as a threshold to determine which variables were maintained in the final model reported. Baseline variables included initially in the model include age, gender, marital status, ethnicity, employment status, number of children, age of first drink, weekly and daily drinking, frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption, severity of alcohol dependence, alcohol urges and alcohol-related problems. This analysis was augmented with an additional analysis for the SS + MM and SS + MM + CM groups where the same dependent variable was assessed with the same independent variables with the addition of therapeutic alliance. Method of economic evaluation The primary economic analysis was a cost-utility analysis where outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), as recommended by NICE. A secondary analysis explored cost-effectiveness in terms of the primary clinical outcome which was adherence to relapse prevention medication. The primary economic perspective was the NHS and personal social services (NHS/PSS) perspective preferred by NICE. The primary time horizon of the economic analyses using both QALYs and relapse medication adherence was the 6-month follow-up, consistent with the primary clinical analysis. A secondary analysis was carried out at the 12-month follow-up using QALYs. The primary economic outcome was QALYs calculated using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, a five-level version measure of health-related quality-of-life scores at baseline, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. The primary economic analysis was composed of two separate comparisons: (1) SS + MM + CM versus SS alone; and (2) SS + MM versus SS alone, both at 6 months post randomisation, and assessed cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per QALY using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions measure of quality of life. Two secondary economic evaluations were carried out, a cost-utility analysis at 12 months post randomisation and a cost-effectiveness analysis using adherence to relapse medication which was the primary clinical outcome. Cost-effectiveness was explored using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (difference in mean cost divided by difference in mean effect) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs), which show the probability that SS + MM + CM or SS + MM are cost-effective compared to SS alone for different levels of willingness to pay for improvements in outcome. Sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the impact of varying methods and assumptions on the relative cost-effectiveness of the interventions being compared. We planned three sensitivity analyses: (1) a broader analytical perspective to include the cost of crime (which was not completed as no crimes were reported), (2) a complete case analysis for comparison with the results that used multiple imputation for missing data and (3) a cost-utility analysis using QALYs calculated from EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version tariffs. Results A total of 1459 potential participants were approached of whom 1019 (70%) were assessed. Of these 739 (73%) were eligible and consented to participate in the study. Allocation was in the ratio of 2 : 1 : 1, 372 (50%) were allocated to SS, 182 (25%) to SS + MM and 185 (25%) to SS + MM + CM. At the primary end point, 6 months post randomisation, 518 (70%) were successfully followed up with 255 (68.5%) allocated to SS, 122 (67.0%) to SS + MM and 141 (76.2%) to SS + MM + CM. There were no serious adverse events related to the trial interventions reported. The mean difference in per cent adherence to acamprosate at month 6 between those allocated to SS and SS + MM + CM versus SS was 10.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 19.6% to 1.6%]; this difference was statistically significant. When the SS + MM group was compared to SS alone, the SS + MM group had a lower per cent days adherent than the SS group, mean difference 3.1% (95% CI 12.8% to −6.5%); this was not significant. A similar non-significant finding was seen when we compared the SS + MM and SS + MM + CM groups, mean difference 7.9% (95% CI 18.7% to −2.8%). Our secondary analysis included per cent days abstinent from alcohol at month 6. The ATA found differences favouring both intervention groups over SS alone but neither of these was significant. When a CACE analysis was conducted using scenario 2, both intervention groups had a significantly greater per cent days abstinent than SS alone. This analysis also highlighted the relationship between adherence to acamprosate and better outcomes, something additionally highlighted by a significant correlation between adherence to acamprosate and increased per cent days abstinent at month 6. CACE analysis: Under scenario 1, 50% adherence, the mean difference in per cent adherence increases from 10.6% (95% CI 19.6 to 1.62) to 12.4% (95% CI 17.8% to 7.1%) in the SS + MM + CM versus SS comparison, indicating that at 50% compliance those allocated to SS + MM + CM have a mean of 12.44% more adherence to acamprosate at month 6 than those allocated to SS alone. When comparing the SS + MM versus the SS group, a previous non-significant difference 3.14% (95% CI 12.8% to −6.5%) becomes a significant difference of 13.2% (25.4–1.15%). Under scenario 2, the differences are larger in magnitude, the SS + MM + CM group having 22.2% (95% CI 29.7% to 14.7%) more adherent days than the SS group alone. At the same time, the magnitude of difference is larger for the SS + MM versus SS comparison 31.8% (95–60.5% vs. 3.10%), although this comparison is based on a small number of participants, 20, and should be interpreted with caution. For SS + MM + CM versus SS, the primary economic analysis at 6-month follow-up using QALYs, the secondary economic analysis at 6-month follow-up using medication adherence and the economic modelling over a 20-year time horizon using QALYs all found SS + MM + CM to dominate SS (better outcomes at lower cost). At 12-month follow-up, although SS + MM + CM was not dominant, it generated more QALYs at an additional cost that was below the NICE cost per QALY threshold. CEACs also showed there was a higher probability of SS + MM + CM being cost-effective compared to SS alone in all analyses and at all time points. For SS + MM versus SS, at 6- and 12-month follow-up and when modelled over 20 years, SS + MM achieved better outcomes at higher cost compared to SS. In terms of cost-effectiveness, SS + MM was not found to be cost-effective at 6-month follow-up but had a higher probability of being cost-effective compared to SS at both the 12-month follow-up (using the higher £30,000 per QALY NICE threshold) and when modelled over 20 years (over the full £20,000–30,0000 cost per QALY threshold). Conclusions When comparing SS + MM + CM versus SS alone, we observed a significantly higher per cent adherence to acamprosate in the SS + MM + CM group, and the differences were of the magnitude that would indicate a clinically important difference. Differences were also observed when comparing SS + MM versus SS and SS + MM + CM versus SS + MM, but these were not significant. We explored how robust these findings were to assumptions about the nature of any missing data and we explored a missing data imputation model to explore the impact of data that may be MAR and a sensitivity analysis to explore data that may not be MAR. Neither of these analyses found any significant deviation from the analysis based on observed values, we can be confident that our findings from the ATA analysis are robust. To explore the effect of compliance to MM we conducted a CACE analysis using two scenarios of compliance, 50% and 100%. In both scenarios, we found greater benefits associated with SS + MM + CM and SS + MM versus SS alone and these benefits were significant and clinically important. There were several limitations to the current trial that should be taken into consideration. The trial’s primary outcome measure changed substantially due to data collection difficulties and therefore relied on a measure of self-reported adherence. A lower than anticipated follow-up rate at 12 months may have lowered the statistical power to detect differences in the secondary analyses, although the primary analysis was not impacted. The results of the primary economic analysis at the 6-month follow-up point suggest that MM was only cost-effective when supported by incentives to encourage support session uptake. This finding was heavily influenced by lower total costs in the SS + MM + CM group as a result of lower use of residential rehabilitation facilities compared to both SS + MM and SS alone, which may be related to the significantly higher medication adherence seen in the CM group. Over the medium (12 months) and longer term (20 years), SS + MM + CM remained cost-effective compared to SS and there was a higher probability of SS + MM being cost-effective compared to SS. These results support the addition of MM to SS for alcohol dependence, with or without CM. However, the economic benefit was stronger when CM was included. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN17083622 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17083622. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BackgroundThe Structured E-Parenting Support (STEPS) app provides support for parents of children with elevated hyperactivity, impulsivity, inattention, and conduct problems who are awaiting clinical assessment. STEPS will be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) within the Online Parent Training for the Initial Management of ADHD Referrals (OPTIMA) research program in the United Kingdom. Phase 1 of the OPTIMA tested the feasibility of participants’ recruitment and the app’s usability. ObjectiveThis study aimed to adapt a digital routine clinical monitoring system, myHealthE, for research purposes to facilitate waitlist recruitment; test using remote methods to screen and identify participants quickly and systematically; pilot the acceptability of the recruitment and assessment protocol; and explore the usability of STEPS. MethodsmyHealthE was adapted to screen patients’ data. Parents’ and clinicians’ feedback on myHealthE was collected, and information governance reviews were conducted in clinical services planning to host the RCT. Potential participants for the observational feasibility study were identified from new referrals using myHealthE and non-myHealthE methods. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the demographic and outcome variables. We estimated whether the recruitment rate would meet the planned RCT sample size requirement (n=352). In addition to the feasibility study participants, another group of parents was recruited to assess the STEPS usability. They completed the adapted System Usability Scale and responded to open-ended questions about the app, which were coded using the Enlight quality construct template. ResultsOverall, 124 potential participants were identified as eligible: 121 (97.6%) via myHealthE and 3 (2.4%) via non-myHealthE methods. In total, 107 parents were contacted, and 48 (44.9%) consented and were asked if, hypothetically, they would be willing to participate in the OPTIMA RCT. Of the 28 feasibility study participants who provided demographic data, 21 (75%) identified as White. Their children had an average age of 8.4 (SD 1.7) years and 65% (31/48) were male. During the primary recruitment period (June to July 2021) when 45 participants had consented, 38 (84%) participants agreed hypothetically to take part in the RCT (rate of 19/mo, 95% CI 13.5-26.1), meeting the stop-go criterion of 18 participants per month to proceed with the RCT. All parents were satisfied or very satisfied with the study procedures. Parents (n=12) recruited to assess STEPS’ usability described it as easy to navigate and use and as having an attractive combination of colors and visual design. They described the content as useful, pitched at the right level, and sensitively presented. Suggested improvements included adding captions to videos or making the recorded reflections editable. ConclusionsRemote recruitment and study procedures for testing a parenting intervention app are feasible and acceptable for parents. The parents felt that STEPS was a useful and easy-to-use digital parenting support tool. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)RR2-10.1186/s40814-021-00959-0

Abstract Background Children referred for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often present with a broader pattern of conduct problems including oppositionality and defiance. This combination can be extremely stressful to parents, lower parents’ self-esteem and negatively impact family life. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that families receive support as soon as possible after their referral. However, as clinical services are overstretched, and traditional in-person parenting intervention programmes are expensive, families often must wait times a long time prior to receiving this vital input. To address this, we have created a digital parenting programme called STEPS. It is delivered as a mobile phone app providing a set of tools and resources that can be easily accessed at parents’ convenience. This study aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of STEPS in supporting parents of children with high levels of hyperactivity/impulsivity, inattention and conduct problems, who are waiting to be assessed by specialist children’s clinical services. Methods Online Parent Training for The Initial Management of ADHD referrals (OPTIMA) is a two-arm superiority parallel randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot study. We aim to recruit 352 parents and their children, who have been accepted onto a waitlist in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services or similar child health services. Parents who consent will be randomised 1:1 to either the STEPS or wait-as-usual (WAU) group. The trial will be conducted remotely (online and telephone) with measures taken at baseline and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post-randomisation. The primary objective is to evaluate whether STEPS reduces the severity of children’s oppositional and defiant behaviour, as rated by parents, measured at 3 months post-randomisation compared to WAU. Discussion Digital solutions, such as mobile phone apps, have potential for delivering psychological support for parents of children with clinical-level needs in a timely and inexpensive manner. This trial will provide data on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the STEPS app, which could support the implementation of this scalable parenting intervention programme into standard clinical care and, ultimately, improve the outcomes for families of children referred to specialist child and adolescent health services. Trial registration ISRCTN 16523503. Prospectively registered on 18 November 2021. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16523503

Abstract Anxiety and depression are increasingly prevalent in adolescents, often causing daily distress and negative long-term outcomes. Despite the significant and growing burden, less than 25% of those with probable diagnosis of anxiety and depression are receiving help in England. Significant barriers to help-seeking exist in this population, with a scarcity of easily accessible, effective, and cost-effective interventions tailored specially for this age group. One intervention that has been shown to be feasible to deliver and with the promise of reducing stress in this age group is a school-based stress workshop programme for 16–18-year-olds (herein called DISCOVER). The next step is to rigorously assess the effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness, of the DISCOVER intervention in a fully powered cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT). If found to be clinically and cost-effective, DISCOVER could be scaled up as a service model UK-wide and have a meaningful impact on the mental health of adolescents across the country. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN90912799. Registered with ISRCTN 28 May 2020.

BackgroundChildren’s conduct and emotional problems increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. ObjectiveWe tested whether a smartphone parenting support app, Parent Positive, developed specifically for this purpose, reversed these effects in a cost-effective way. Parent Positive includes 3 zones. Parenting Boosters (zone 1) provided content adapted from standard face-to-face parent training programs to tackle 8 specific challenges identified by parents and parenting experts as particularly relevant for parents during the pandemic. The Parenting Exchange (zone 2) was a parent-to-parent and parent-to-expert communication forum. Parenting Resources (zone 3) provided access to existing high-quality web-based resources on a range of additional topics of value to parents (eg, neurodevelopmental problems, diet, and sleep). MethodsSupporting Parents And Kids Through Lockdown Experiences (SPARKLE), a randomized controlled trial, was embedded in the UK-wide COVID-19: Supporting Parents, Adolescents and Children during Epidemics (Co-SPACE) longitudinal study on families’ mental health during the pandemic. Parents of children aged 4 to 10 years were randomized 1:1 to Parent Positive or follow-up as usual (FAU) between May 19, 2021, and July 26, 2021. Parent Positive provided advice on common parenting challenges and evidence-based web-based resources and facilitated parent-to-parent and expert-to-parent support. Child conduct and emotional problems and family well-being were measured before randomization (T1) and at 1 (T2) and 2 (T3) months after randomization. Service use, costs, and adverse events were measured, along with app use and satisfaction. The primary outcome was T2 parent-reported child conduct problems, which were analyzed using linear mixed regression models. ResultsA total of 320 participants were randomized to Parent Positive, and 326 were randomized to FAU. The primary outcome analysis included 79.3% (512/646) of the participants (dropout: 84/320, 26% on Parent Positive and 50/326, 15% on FAU). There were no statistically significant intervention effects on conduct problems at either T2 (standardized effect=−0.01) or T3 (secondary outcome; standardized effect=−0.09) and no moderation by baseline conduct problems. Significant intervention-related reductions in emotional problems were observed at T2 and T3 (secondary outcomes; standardized effect=−0.13 in both cases). Parent Positive, relative to FAU, was associated with more parental worries at T3 (standardized effect=0.14). Few intervention-attributable adverse events were reported. Parent Positive was cost-effective once 4 outliers with extremely high health care costs were excluded. ConclusionsParent Positive reduced child emotional problems and was cost-effective compared with FAU once outliers were removed. Although small when considered against targeted therapeutic interventions, the size of these effects was in line with trials of nontargeted universal mental health interventions. This highlights the public health potential of Parent Positive if implemented at the community level. Nevertheless, caution is required before making such an interpretation, and the findings need to be replicated in large-scale, whole-community studies. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04786080; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04786080

Abstract Background Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a serious and disabling mental disorder with a high disease burden. In a proportion of cases, intensive hospital-based treatments, i.e. inpatient or day patient treatment, are required, with day patient treatment often being used as a ‘step-down’ treatment after a period of inpatient treatment. Demand for such treatment approaches has seen a sharp rise. Despite this, the relative merits of these approaches for patients, their families, and the NHS and wider society are relatively unknown. This paper describes the rationale for, and protocol of, a two-arm multi-centre open-label parallel group non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two intensive treatments for adults with severe AN: inpatient treatment as usual and a stepped care day patient approach (the combination of day patient treatment with the option of initial inpatient treatment for medical stabilisation). The main aim of this trial is to establish whether, in adults with severe AN, a stepped care day patient approach is non-inferior to inpatient treatment as usual in relation to improving body mass index (BMI) at 12 months post-randomisation. Methods 386 patients with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5th edition diagnosis of severe AN or related disorder, with a BMI of ≤16 kg/m2 and in need of intensive treatment will be randomly allocated to either inpatient treatment as usual or a stepped care day patient approach. Patients in both groups will receive treatment until they reach a healthy weight or get as close to this point as possible. Assessments will be conducted at baseline (prior to randomisation), and at 6 and 12 months post-randomisation, with additional monthly symptom monitoring. The primary outcome will be BMI at the 12-month post-randomisation assessment. Other outcomes will include psychosocial adjustment; treatment motivation, expectations and experiences; cost-effectiveness; and carer burden. Discussion The results of this study will provide a rigorous evaluation of two intensive treatment approaches which will inform future national and international treatment guidelines and service provision. Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN10166784 . Registered 28 February 2020. ISRCTN is a primary registry of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) network and includes all items from the WHO Trial Registration Data Set.

Abstract Background In the UK, children with high levels of hyperactivity, impulsivity and inattention referred to clinical services with possible attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often wait a long time for specialist diagnostic assessment. Parent training (PT) has the potential to support parents during this difficult period, especially regarding the management of challenging and disruptive behaviours that often accompany ADHD. However, traditional face-to-face PT is costly and difficult to organise in a timely way. We have created a low-cost, easily accessible PT programme delivered via a phone app, Structured E-Parenting Support (STEPS), to address this problem. The overall OPTIMA programme will evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of STEPS as a way of helping parents manage their children behaviour while on the waitlist. To ensure the timely and efficient evaluation of STEPS in OPTIMA, we have worked with children’s health services to implement a remote strategy for recruitment, screening and assessment of recently referred families. Part of this strategy is incorporated into routine clinical practice and part is OPTIMA specific. Here, we present the protocol for Phase 1 of OPTIMA—a study of the feasibility of this remote strategy, as a basis for a large-scale STEPS randomised controlled trial (RCT). Methods This is a single arm observational feasibility study. Participants will be parents of up to 100 children aged 5-11 years with high levels of hyperactivity/impulsivity, inattention and challenging behaviour who are waiting for assessment in one of five UK child and adolescent mental health or behavioural services. Recruitment, consenting and data collection will occur remotely. The primary outcome will be the rate at which the families, who meet inclusion criteria, agree in principle to take part in a full STEPS RCT. Secondary outcomes include acceptability of remote consenting and online data collection procedures; the feasibility of collecting teacher data remotely within the required timeframe, and technical difficulties with completing online questionnaires. All parents in the study will receive access to STEPS. Discussion Establishing the feasibility of our remote recruitment, consenting and assessment strategy is a pre-requisite for the full trial of OPTIMA. It can also provide a model for future trials conducted remotely.

IntroductionThere is insufficient evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions to enhance frontline responders’ mental health proficiency and competence in emergency settings. This paper describes the methods for the evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Psychological First Aid training, to determine whether the intervention is effective and cost-effective as a mental health intervention in public health emergencies. A pilot to evaluate the acceptability of the PFA training found participants were either satisfied (55.6%) or extremely satisfied (44.4%) with the training program.MethodThis paper describes the protocol for a cluster randomized two-arm controlled trial. A total of 1,399 non-specialist health care workers will be recruited in 42 hospitals and health care centers across six provinces in China. Participants will be assigned according to hospital or health care center site to one of two groups (n = 699 for intervention group and 709 for control group) to receive system based PFA training or PFA training as usual. Both groups will receive one-day of training, comprising six modules including PFA core concepts, knowledge, skills and practice. Their knowledge, skills, competency, self-efficacy, resilience, and professional quality of life will be assessed immediately after the training; and reassessed after 1 and 2 months.AnalysisFor effectiveness outcomes, repeated measures will be used in a multi-level linear mixed model. The pooled standard deviations will be used to calculate the effect sizes (Cohen’s d) within and between groups. Appropriate statistical tests will be used to explore differences between intervention and control groups. For economic outcomes, a health service sector perspective will be adopted, with intervention costs and outcomes collected prospectively. Within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) will quantify the incremental costs and PFA proficiency gains of the intervention compared with training as usual at 2 months post training. CEA will present results as cost per unit of mental health proficiency gained. A cost-utility analysis (CUA) model will extend the population to emergency health service users.in order to identify potential for incremental cost offsets attributable to mental health improvement arising from intervention. Intervention costs and effects will be extrapolated to the population of patients who receive the emergency health service in clinical wards and will be modeled over the cohort’s lifetime. Modeled CUA results will be calculated as quality-adjusted life-years saved and healthcare cost savings in preventing mental disorders.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University Clinical Research Ethics Committee (2021) Ethical Review [Clinical Research] #067). Data about the economic evaluation of the intervention will be stored in the KCL OneDrive at King’s College London, UK. The trial protocol was registered with the China Clinical Trials Registry: ChiCTR2200060464. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed academic papers, and participating hospitals.

Background: Looked-after children are at risk of suboptimal attachment patterns and reactive attachment disorder. However, access to interventions varies widely and there are no evidence-based interventions for this disorder. Objectives: (1) To adapt an existing video-feedback intervention to meet the specific needs of foster children in the UK with reactive attachment symptoms, (2) to conduct a case series to road-test the treatment manual and study procedures, (3) to conduct a scoping study of the key hurdles in a pilot trial and (4) to conduct a pilot randomised controlled trial of the adapted intervention to determine the feasibility of a future full-scale trial. Design: This was a mixed-methods study. The adapted treatment manual was developed with expert input and tested on a small case series. Qualitative interviews with key stakeholders were used in the scoping study in preparation for the trial and later with foster carers who received the new intervention. The final stage was a feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trial of the new intervention, compared with usual care. Researchers assessing the outcomes were blinded to group assignment. Setting: The study was set in outpatient child and adolescent mental health services and partner social services departments. Sites included urban and rural/semirural areas. Participants: Participants were foster carers with children aged ≤ 6 years presenting with difficulties in the domain of reactive attachment disorder. Key stakeholders included children’s services managers and mental health service practitioners in the scoping study. Foster carers who received the modified intervention participated in qualitative interviews. Intervention: The video-feedback intervention to promote positive parenting and sensitive discipline is an extensively evaluated and effective treatment approach. This intervention was modified (based on the adapted version for foster care in the Netherlands) to suit the needs of young children with reactive attachment symptoms in foster care in the UK and was delivered to improve the sensitive responding of foster carers, foster carer–child relationships and child outcomes. The modified intervention was delivered in-home by trained mental health professionals over a period of 4–6 months. Main outcome measure: The main outcome was reactive attachment symptom scores on the Disturbances of Attachment Interview. Results: A series of minor changes to the intervention programme were introduced, which focused on improving its suitability for the UK foster care context. Challenges in recruitment meant that, despite numerous modifications to the protocol and the inclusion of additional sites, only 30 families (target, n = 40) were recruited to the randomised controlled trial (15 allocated to each group). However, most other trial parameters were deemed feasible and acceptable, particularly the high levels of data and treatment completeness. All randomised families were available for baseline analyses, but two in the treatment arm were not available for post-treatment analyses. The revised intervention was positively received by practitioners and foster carers. Limitations: Only three-quarters of the target sample size was recruited. Furthermore, the sites’ own exclusion of potential participants and the low return rates of screening questionnaires raise the possibility of non-randomness of non-responses. Conclusion: A larger-scale trial may be feasible, but only if recruitment barriers can be overcome. Dedicated resources to support recruitment within local authorities and wider inclusion criteria are recommended. Central resourcing of intervention capacity to supplement NHS staff is also recommended. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN18374094. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 35. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BackgroundAlcohol misuse is higher in the UK armed forces (AF) than in the general population. Research demonstrates that alcohol misuse persists after an individual leaves service, and this is notably the case for those who are seeking help for a mental health difficulty. Despite this, there is no work on testing a mobile alcohol reduction intervention that is personalized to support the UK AF. ObjectiveTo address this gap, we investigated the efficacy of a 28-day brief alcohol intervention delivered via a mobile app in reducing weekly self-reported alcohol consumption among UK veterans seeking help for mental health difficulties. MethodsWe performed a 2-arm participant-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT). We compared a mobile app that included interactive features designed to enhance participants’ motivation and personalized messaging (intervention arm) with a version that provided government guidance on alcohol consumption only (control arm). Adults were eligible if they had served in the UK AF, were currently receiving or had received clinical support for mental health symptoms, and consumed 14 units (approximately 112 g of ethanol) or more of alcohol per week. Participants received the intervention or the control mobile app (1:1 ratio). The primary outcome was a change in self-reported weekly alcohol consumption between baseline and day 84 assessed using the validated Timeline Follow Back for Alcohol Consumption (TLFB) (prior 7 days), with a secondary outcome exploring self-reported change in the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) score. ResultsBetween October 2020 and April 2021, 2708 individuals were invited to take part, of which 2531 (93.5%) did not respond, 54 (2%) were ineligible, and 123 (4.5%) responded and were randomly allocated (62, 50.4%, intervention; 61, 49.6%, control). At day 84, 41 (66.1%) participants in the intervention arm and 37 (60.7%) in the control arm completed the primary outcome assessment. Between baseline and day 84, weekly alcohol consumption reduced by –10.5 (95% CI –19.5 to –1.5) units in the control arm and –28.2 (95% CI –36.9 to –19.5) units in the intervention arm (P=.003, Cohen d=0.35). We also found a significant reduction in the AUDIT score of –3.9 (95% CI –6.2 to –1.6) in the intervention arm (Cohen d=0.48). Our primary and secondary effects did not persist over the longer term (day 168). Two adverse events were detected during the trial. ConclusionsThis study examined the efficacy of a fully automated 28-day brief alcohol intervention delivered via a mobile app in a help-seeking sample of UK veterans with hazardous alcohol consumption. We found that participants receiving Drinks:Ration reduced their alcohol consumption more than participants receiving guidance only (at day 84). In the short term, we found Drinks:Ration is efficacious in reducing alcohol consumption in help-seeking veterans. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04494594; https://tinyurl.com/34em6n9f International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)RR2-10.2196/19720

Abstract Objectives The COVID-19 related lockdowns and distancing measures have presented families with unprecedented challenges. A UK-wide cohort study tracking changes in families’ mental health since early lockdown (Co-SPACE) found a significant rise in primary school-aged children’s behaviour problems and associated family-related stress. Three-quarters of parents in Co-SPACE also reported wanting extra support. In SPARKLE, we will examine whether providing Co-SPACE families with a smartphone application delivering information and parenting support, Parent Positive, can reverse the negative effects of the pandemic on children and parents. The efficacy on child and parent outcomes and cost-effectiveness of Parent Positive will be examined. We will also test whether the effects are moderated by pre-existing levels of child conduct problems and usage of Parent Positive. Exploratory analyses will examine whether other baseline characteristics or lockdown circumstances moderate the effects of Parent Positive. Trial design SPARKLE is a two-arm superiority parallel group randomised controlled trial embedded in an existing large UK-wide self-selected community cohort – Co-SPACE. Those who consent to SPARKLE will be randomised 1:1 to either Parent Positive or Follow-up As Usual (FAU). Participants Co-SPACE (a UK-wide longitudinal cohort study) parents aged ≥18 who have children aged 4-10 years will be eligible for SPARKLE. Intervention and comparator Parent Positive: is a digital public health intervention that can be delivered rapidly at scale to support parents in managing their children’s behaviour to reduce conduct problems and levels of family conflict, which were exacerbated during the first lockdown, and which may increase further in future months as families need to cope with continuous uncertainty and further disruption to their daily lives. Co-designed with parents and based on decades of parenting research, Parent Positive consists of three elements: (i) Parenting Boosters: where advice, delivered in the form of narrated animations, videos, graphics and text is provided to help parents with eight common parenting challenges; (ii) Parenting Exchange: a facilitated parent-to-parent communication and peer support platform and; (iii) Parent Resources: giving access to carefully selected high-quality, evidence-based online parenting resources. Follow-up as Usual: FAU was selected as a comparator because the public health nature meant that an active comparator was not appropriate due to the pragmatic, rapid implementation of the trial. Individuals randomised to FAU will receive no intervention for the first two months while the data for baseline (T1), T2 and T3 are collected. They will then be given full access to the app until 30th November 2021. Main outcomes Outcome measures will be collected remotely through Qualtrics according to the Co-SPACE schedule at baseline (T1), which will be the Co-SPACE survey data obtained immediately prior to randomisation, and then at one month (T2) and two months (T3) post-randomisation. Measures will be collected to assess group differences in child and parent outcomes, costs and service utilisation, and adverse events. Usage of Parent Positive will also be tracked. The primary outcome is parent-reported child conduct problems at one-month post-randomisation measured using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire conduct problems subscale. Randomisation Enrolled participants will be allocated to Parent Positive or FAU at the ratio of 1:1 by simple randomisation using the Randomizer function within the Qualtrics programme. Neither blocking nor stratification will be used. Blinding (masking) It is not possible to blind parents enrolled in the study and Qualtrics will automatically inform parents of their group allocation. Blinded members of the research team and the senior statistician will not be given access to the Qualtrics system or the data in order to remain blinded until after the analysis is complete. We do not anticipate any serious harms associated with taking part in the intervention, therefore there will be no need to unblind any blinded staff during the study. The junior statistician will be unblinded throughout. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) A total of 616 will be recruited into the trial with 308 consenting parents randomised to each treatment arm. Trial status V1.0; 15.03.2021. Not yet recruiting. Anticipated start date: 1st April 2021. Anticipated end date for recruitment: 31st July 2021. Trial registration Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT04786080 . The trial was prospectively registered on 8 March 2021. Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).

Introduction Most individuals treated for heroin use disorder receive opioid agonist treatment (OAT)(methadone or buprenorphine). However, OAT is associated with high attrition and persistent, occasional heroin use. There is some evidence for the effectiveness of contingency management (CM), a behavioural intervention involving modest financial incentives, in encouraging drug abstinence when applied adjunctively with OAT. UK drug services have a minimal track record of applying CM and limited resources to implement it. We assessed a CM intervention pragmatically adapted for ease of implementation in UK drug services to promote heroin abstinence among individuals receiving OAT.Design Cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting and participants 552 adults with heroin use disorder (target 660) enrolled from 34 clusters (drug treatment clinics) in England between November 2012 and October 2015.Interventions Clusters were randomly allocated 1:1:1 to OAT plus 12× weekly appointments with: (1) CM targeted at opiate abstinence at appointments (CM Abstinence); (2) CM targeted at on-time attendance at appointments (CM Attendance); or (3) no CM (treatment as usual; TAU). Modifications included monitoring behaviour weekly and fixed incentives schedule.Measurements Primary outcome: heroin abstinence measured by heroin-free urines (weeks 9–12). Secondary outcomes: heroin abstinence 12 weeks after discontinuation of CM (weeks 21–24); attendance; self-reported drug use, physical and mental health.Results CM Attendance was superior to TAU in encouraging heroin abstinence. Odds of a heroin-negative urine in weeks 9–12 was statistically significantly greater in CM Attendance compared with TAU (OR=2.1; 95% CI 1.1 to 3.9; p=0.030). CM Abstinence was not superior to TAU (OR=1.6; 95% CI 0.9 to 3.0; p=0.146) or CM Attendance (OR=1.3; 95% CI 0.7 to 2.4; p=0.438) (not statistically significant differences). Reductions in heroin use were not sustained at 21–24 weeks. No differences between groups in self-reported heroin use.Conclusions A pragmatically adapted CM intervention for routine use in UK drug services was moderately effective in encouraging heroin abstinence compared with no CM only when targeted at attendance. CM targeted at abstinence was not effective.Trial registration number ISRCTN 01591254.

Background: The threat of antimicrobial resistance has led to intensified efforts to reduce antibiotic utilisation, but serious bacterial infections are increasing in frequency. Objectives: To estimate the risks of serious bacterial infections in association with lower antibiotic prescribing and understand stakeholder views with respect to safe antibiotic reduction. Design: Mixed-methods research was undertaken, including a qualitative interview study of patient and prescriber views that informed a cohort study and a decision-analytic model, using primary care electronic health records. These three work packages were used to design an application (app) for primary care prescribers. Data sources: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Setting: This took place in UK general practices. Participants: A total of 706 general practices with 66.2 million person-years of follow-up from 2002 to 2017 and antibiotic utilisation evaluated for 671,830 registered patients. The qualitative study included 31 patients and 30 health-care professionals from primary care. Main outcome measures: Sepsis and localised bacterial infections. Results: Patients were concerned about antimicrobial resistance and the side effects, as well as the benefits, of antibiotic treatment. Prescribers viewed the onset of sepsis as the most concerning potential outcome of reduced antibiotic prescribing. More than 40% of antibiotic prescriptions in primary care had no coded indication recorded across both Vision® and EMIS® practice systems. Antibiotic prescribing rates varied widely between general practices, but there was no evidence that serious bacterial infections were less frequent at higher prescribing practices (adjusted rate ratio for 20% increase in prescribing 1.03, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.06; p = 0.074). The probability of sepsis was lower if an antibiotic was prescribed at an infection consultation, and the number of antibiotic prescriptions required to prevent one episode of sepsis (i.e. the number needed to treat) decreased with age. For those aged 0–4 years, the number needed to treat was 29,773 (95% uncertainty interval 18,458 to 71,091) in boys and 27,014 (95% uncertainty interval 16,739 to 65,709) in girls. For those aged > 85 years, the number needed to treat was 262 (95% uncertainty interval 236 to 293) in men and 385 (95% uncertainty interval 352 to 421) in women. Frailty was associated with a greater risk of sepsis and a smaller number needed to treat. For severely frail patients aged 55–64 years, the number needed to treat was 247 (95% uncertainty interval 156 to 459) for men and 343 (95% uncertainty interval 234 to 556) for women. At all ages, the probability of sepsis was greatest for urinary tract infection, followed by skin infection and respiratory tract infection. The numbers needed to treat were generally smaller for the period 2014–17, when sepsis was diagnosed more frequently. The results are available using an app that we developed to provide primary care prescribers with stratified risk estimates during infection consultations. Limitations: Analyses were based on non-randomised comparisons. Infection episodes and antibiotic prescribing are poorly documented in primary care. Conclusions: Antibiotic treatment is generally associated with lower risks, but the most serious bacterial infections remain infrequent even without antibiotic treatment. This research identifies risk strata in which antibiotic prescribing can be more safely reduced. Future work: The software developed from this research may be further developed and investigated for antimicrobial stewardship effect. 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. 9, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The majority of people receiving treatment for their heroin addiction, are prescribed methadone; for which there is an extensive evidence base. When treatment starts, people take their daily dose of methadone under supervision at a community pharmacy. Supervision guarantees methadone is taken as directed by the individual for whom it has been prescribed, helps to ensure individuals take their correct dose every day, and safeguards against diversion and overdose. However, individuals often fail to attend the pharmacy to take their methadone. Each missed dose is of concern. If a patient misses their daily dose of methadone, they will start to experience opiate withdrawal and cravings and are more likely to use heroin. If they miss three days dose, there are concerns that they may lose tolerance to the drug and may be at risk of overdose when the next dose is taken. Hence there is an urgent need to develop effective interventions for medication adherence. Research suggests that incentive-based medication adherence interventions may be very effective, but there are few controlled trials and the provision of incentives requires time and organisational systems which can be challenging in pharmacies. The investigators have developed the technology to deliver incentives by mobile telephone. This cluster randomised trial will test the feasibility of conducting a future trial evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of using telephone delivered incentives (praise and modest financial rewards via text messaging) to encourage adherence with supervised consumption of methadone in community pharmacies. Three drug services (each with two or three community pharmacies supervising methadone consumption that will enrol 20 individuals, a total of 60 participants) will be recruited and randomly allocated to deliver either i) telephone delivered incentives, ii) telephone delivered reminders or iii) no telephone system. Acceptability, recruitment, follow-up, and suitable measures of clinical and cost effectiveness will be assessed. Findings from this feasibility study will be assessed against stated progression criteria and used to inform a future confirmatory trial of the clinical and cost effectiveness of telephone delivered incentives to encourage medication adherence. Trial registration: ISRCTN58958179 (retrospectively registered). Keywords: Opiate substitution treatment, Methadone, Supervised consumption, Pharmacies, Contingency management, Medication adherence, Financial incentives, Behavioural reinforcement, Heroin use

BackgroundRefractory depression is a major contributor to the economic burden of depression. Radically open dialectical behaviour therapy (RO DBT) is an unevaluated new treatment targeting overcontrolled personality, common in refractory depression, but it is not yet known whether the additional expense of RO DBT is good value for money.AimsTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of RO DBT plus treatment as usual (TAU) compared with TAU alone in people with refractory depression (trial registration: ISRCTN85784627).MethodWe undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised trial evaluating RO DBT plus TAU versus TAU alone for refractory depression in three UK secondary care centres. Our economic evaluation, 12 months after randomisation, adopted the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services. It evaluated cost-effectiveness by comparing the net cost of RO DBT with the net gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), estimated using the EQ-5D-3L measure of health-related quality of life.ResultsThe additional cost of RO DBT plus TAU compared with TAU alone was £7048 and was associated with a difference of 0.032 QALYs, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £220 250 per QALY. This ICER was well above the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) upper threshold of £30 000 per QALY. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicated that RO DBT had a zero probability of being cost-effective compared with TAU at the NICE £30 000 threshold.ConclusionsIn its current resource-intensive form, RO DBT is not a cost-effective use of resources in the UK NHS.Declaration of interestR.H. is co-owner and director of Radically Open Ltd, the RO DBT training and dissemination company. D.K. reports grants outside the submitted work from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). T.L. receives royalties from New Harbinger Publishing for sales of RO DBT treatment manuals, speaking fees from Radically Open Ltd, and a grant outside the submitted work from the Medical Research Council. He was co-director of Radically Open Ltd between November 2014 and May 2015 and is married to Erica Smith-Lynch, the principal shareholder and one of two directors of Radically Open Ltd. H.O'M. reports personal fees outside the submitted work from the Charlie Waller Institute and Improving Access to Psychological Therapy. S.R. provides RO DBT supervision through her company S C Rushbrook Ltd. I.R. reports grants outside the submitted work from NIHR and Health & Care Research Wales. M. Stanton reports personal fees outside the submitted work from British Isles DBT Training, Stanton Psychological Services Ltd and Taylor & Francis. M. Swales reports personal fees outside the submitted work from British Isles DBT Training, Guilford Press, Oxford University Press and Taylor & Francis. B.W. was co-director of Radically Open Ltd between November 2014 and February 2015.

BackgroundTelephone cognitive–behaviour therapy (TCBT) may be a cost-effective method for improving access to evidence-based treatment for obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) in young people.AimsEconomic evaluation of TCBT compared with face-to-face CBT for OCD in young people.MethodRandomised non-inferiority trial comparing TCBT with face-to-face CBT for 72 young people (aged 11 to 18) with a diagnosis of OCD. Cost-effectiveness at 12-month follow-up was explored in terms of the primary clinical outcome (Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale, CY-BOCS) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (trial registration: ISRCTN27070832).ResultsTotal health and social care costs were higher for face-to-face CBT (mean total cost £2965, s.d. = £1548) than TCBT (mean total cost £2475, s.d. = £1024) but this difference was non-significant (P = 0.118). There were no significant between-group differences in QALYs or the CY-BOCS and there was strong evidence to support the clinical non-inferiority of TCBT. Cost-effectiveness analysis suggests a 74% probability that face-to-face CBT is cost-effective compared with TCBT in terms of QALYs, but the result was less clear in terms of CY-BOCS, with TCBT being the preferred option at low levels of willingness to pay and the probability of either intervention being cost-effective at higher levels of willingness to pay being around 50%.ConclusionsAlthough cost-effectiveness of TCBT was sensitive to the outcome measure used, TCBT should be considered a clinically non-inferior alternative when access to standard clinic-based CBT is limited, or when patient preference is expressed.Declaration of interestD.M.-C. reports research grants from the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet), the Swedish Research Council for Health, working life and welfare (Forte), the US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), as well as royalties from Wolters Kluwer Health and Elsevier, all unrelated to the submitted work.

Background: People recovering from heroin addiction need better treatments than are currently offered. The chronic relapsing nature of drug dependence means that helping a patient to achieve abstinence is often difficult. Naltrexone blocks the effects of ingested heroin; however, evidence is conflicting regarding the best delivery method. Objectives: The primary purpose of the trial was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus standard oral naltrexone versus relapse prevention therapy without medication for opioid use disorder (OUD). Design: This was a 3-year, definitive, three-centre, three-arm, parallel group, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial. Setting: Two specialist NHS outpatient addiction clinics: one in London and one in Birmingham. Participants: Planned study sample – 300 adult patients with OUD who had completed detoxification. Interventions: One iGen/Atral-Cipan Extended Release Naltrexone device (iGen/Atral-Cipan, Castanheira do Ribatejo, Portugal) (765 mg naltrexone or placebo) at day 0 of study week 1. Three weekly directly observed active or placebo oral naltrexone tablets (2 × 50 mg, Monday and Wednesday; 3 × 50 mg, Friday) at day 0 of study week 1 (for 4 weeks) and then an 8-week regimen of patient-administered dosing at the same dosing level. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of heroin-negative urine drug screen (UDS) results at the end of the 12-week post-randomisation time point. Results: Six patients were recruited and randomised to receive study interventions. Two patients had no positive UDS samples for heroin during the 12-week treatment period, one patient had only one positive UDS sample and the remaining patients had two, six and eight positive UDS results for heroin. All patients had at least one missed clinic visit (range 1–14). Conclusions: Considerable problems were encountered with (1) the stipulated requirement of a validated ‘detoxified’ status prior to the initiation of the study naltrexone, (2) the requirement for a consent cooling-off period and (3) delays awaiting the surgical implant procedure. Major upheaval to the organisation and delivery of NHS community treatment services across England led to extremely poor levels of actual entry of patients into the trial. Research-vital clinical and procedural requirements were, therefore, more challenging to implement. The potential therapeutic value of the opioid antagonist naltrexone still needs clear investigation, including comparison of the established oral form with the new ultra-long-acting depot implant formulations (for which no licensed products exist in Europe). Despite the small number of study participants, some tentative conclusions can be reached, relevant to potential future work. The blinding of the active/placebo medications appeared to be good. Self-report was not sufficient to detect instances of heroin use. Self-report plus UDS information provided a fuller picture. Instances of lapsed heroin use were not necessarily followed by full relapse, and future work should consider the lapse–relapse relationship. The prison release setting also warrants special consideration. In future, investigators should consider seeking ethics approval for studies in which clinical procedures to accelerate the treatment process are permitted, even if outside orthodox clinical practice, if they address a clinical need at the time of challenge and clinical risk. In addition, it may be appropriate to seek exemption from the ordinary requirement of a cooling-off period after securing consent because it is often essential to initiate treatment promptly. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95809946. 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. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: About one-third of patients who are depressed do not respond to antidepressant medication (ADM) and traditional psychotherapy shows limited benefits. However, most randomised trials have excluded the most sick patients, especially with comorbid personality disorder. Radically open dialectical behaviour therapy (RO DBT) is a new treatment targeting emotionally overcontrolled personality, which is common in refractory depression. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, cost-effectiveness and therapeutic mechanisms of RO DBT for patients with refractory depression. Design: The Refractory depression: Mechanisms and Efficacy of RO DBT (RefraMED) trial was a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised trial in which participants were randomised to receive either RO DBT plus treatment as usual (TAU) or TAU alone. Participants were assessed at 7, 12 and 18 months after randomisation. Therapeutic mechanisms were explored in causal analyses. Setting: Participants were recruited from three secondary care NHS organisations in the UK: Dorset, Hampshire and North Wales. Participants: Patients were eligible if they were aged ≥ 18 years, had a Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) score of at least 15, had a current diagnosis of major depressive disorder in the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Axis I, were suffering either refractory or chronic depression and, in their current episode, had taken an adequate dose of ADM for at least 6 weeks without relief. Patients who met criteria for dramatic-erratic personality disorder (Cluster B), bipolar disorder or psychosis or who had a primary diagnosis of substance dependence or abuse were excluded. Interventions: The intervention, RO DBT, comprised 29 weekly individual sessions lasting 1 hour and 27 weekly skills classes lasting 2.5 hours. Participants allocated to TAU could access any treatment offered by the NHS or privately. Main outcome measures: The reported HRSD score 12 months after randomisation and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results: A total of 250 participants were allocated at random: 162 (65%) participants were randomised to RO DBT plus TAU and 88 (35%) were randomised to TAU. The difference between RO DBT and TAU in the primary outcome at 12 months was not statistically significant. Nevertheless, after 7 months, participants randomised to RO DBT had substantially, and significantly, reduced depressive symptoms, relative to TAU, by 5.40 HRSD points [standardised mean difference 1.03 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 9.85 points; p = 0.02]. Thereafter, RO DBT remained the better treatment with net, but non-significant, reductions of 2.15 HRSD points (standardised mean difference 0.41 points, 95% CI –2.28 to 6.59 points; p = 0.29) after 12 months and 1.69 points (standardised mean difference 0.32 points, 95% CI –2.84 to 6.22 points; p = 0.42) after 18 months. Participants allocated to TAU could access any treatment offered by the NHS or privately. Participants randomised to RO DBT reported significantly better psychological flexibility and emotional coping than TAU participants; these differences increased over time. From the perspective of the NHS and personal social services, RO DBT was not cost-effective; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £220,000 per QALY, which is considerably above the willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 set by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). RO DBT participants reported eight possible serious adverse reactions compared with none by TAU participants; however, we believe that this imbalance was a result of major differences in reporting opportunities. The Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee agreed that there was no reason to suspect that RO DBT was harmful. Conclusions: Although RO DBT achieved the target effect size (Cohen’s d) with a d of 0.4 at the primary end point of 12 months, this was not significant. RO DBT was not cost-effective by NICE criteria. Nevertheless, RO DBT enhanced psychological flexibility and emotional coping, which are potential mechanisms of change. Limitations: Analysing only 190 participants, instead of the target of 245, reduced the statistical power of the trial. Future work: Future studies should aim to refine RO DBT, by maintaining clinical effectiveness while reducing costs, and to evaluate it for a wider range of overcontrolled disorders over a longer period. Trial registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN85784627. Funding: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a MRC and NIHR partnership, and will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 5, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: The Cannabinoid Use in Progressive Inflammatory brain Disease (CUPID) trial aimed to determine whether or not oral Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) slowed the course of progressive multiple sclerosis (MS); evaluate safety of cannabinoid administration; and, improve methods for testing treatments in progressive MS. Objectives: There were three objectives in the CUPID study: (1) to evaluate whether or not Δ9-THC could slow the course of progressive MS; (2) to assess the long-term safety of Δ9-THC; and (3) to explore newer ways of conducting clinical trials in progressive MS. Design: The CUPID trial was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre trial. Patients were randomised in a 2 : 1 ratio to Δ9-THC or placebo. Randomisation was balanced according to Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, study site and disease type. Analyses were by intention to treat, following a pre-specified statistical analysis plan. A cranial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) substudy, Rasch measurement theory (RMT) analyses and an economic evaluation were undertaken. Setting: Twenty-seven UK sites. Participants: Adults aged 18–65 years with primary or secondary progressive MS, 1-year evidence of disease progression and baseline EDSS 4.0–6.5. Interventions: Oral Δ9-THC (maximum 28 mg/day) or matching placebo. Assessment visits: Three and 6 months, and then 6-monthly up to 36 or 42 months. Main outcome measures: Primary outcomes were time to EDSS progression, and change in Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 version 2 (MSIS-29v2) 20-point physical subscale (MSIS-29phys) score. Various secondary patient- and clinician-reported outcomes and MRI outcomes were assessed. RMT analyses examined performance of MS-specific rating scales as measurement instruments and tested for a symptomatic or disease-modifying treatment effect. Economic evaluation estimated mean incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results: Effectiveness – recruitment targets were achieved. Of the 498 randomised patients (332 to active and 166 to placebo), 493 (329 active and 164 placebo) were analysed. Primary outcomes: no significant treatment effect; hazard ratio EDSS score progression (active : placebo) 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.23]; and estimated between-group difference in MSIS-29phys score (active–placebo) –0.9 points (95% CI –2.0 to 0.2 points). Secondary clinical and MRI outcomes: no significant treatment effects. Safety – at least one serious adverse event: 35% and 28% of active and placebo patients, respectively. RMT analyses – scale evaluation: MSIS-29 version 2, MS Walking Scale-12 version 2 and MS Spasticity Scale-88 were robust measurement instruments. There was no clear symptomatic or disease-modifying treatment effect. Economic evaluation – estimated mean incremental cost to NHS over usual care, over 3 years £27,443.20 per patient. No between-group difference in QALYs. Conclusions: The CUPID trial failed to demonstrate a significant treatment effect in primary or secondary outcomes. There were no major safety concerns, but unwanted side effects seemed to affect compliance. Participants were more disabled than in previous studies and deteriorated less than expected, possibly reducing our ability to detect treatment effects. RMT analyses supported performance of MS-specific rating scales as measures, enabled group- and individual person-level examination of treatment effects, but did not influence study inferences. The intervention had significant additional costs with no improvement in health outcomes; therefore, it was dominated by usual care and not cost-effective. Future work should focus on determining further factors to predict clinical deterioration, to inform the development of new studies, and modifying treatments in order to minimise side effects and improve study compliance. The absence of disease-modifying treatments in progressive MS warrants further studies of the cannabinoid pathway in potential neuroprotection. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN62942668. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, the Medical Research Council Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, Multiple Sclerosis Society and Multiple Sclerosis Trust. The report will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.