Physical activity and health-related quality of life of patients with chronic knee pain after total knee replacement: Analysis of the PEP-TALK trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a major challenge for some people after total knee replacement (TKR). The changing impact of this complication during the first post-operative year remains unclear. This analysis aimed to examine how physical activity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) evolved over the first year after TKR for patients with and without post-operative chronic knee pain. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial (PEP-TALK), which tested the effectiveness of a behaviour change physiotherapy intervention compared with usual rehabilitation after TKR. Mean UCLA Activity Score and EQ-5D-5L for participants with and without chronic knee pain (14 points or lower in the Oxford Knee Score Pain Subscale (OKS-PS) at six months post-TKR) were compared at six and 12 months post-TKR. RESULTS: Data from 83 participants were analysed. For those with chronic knee pain, UCLA Activity Score remained unchanged between baseline to six months (mean: 3.8 to 3.8), decreasing at 12 months (3.0). Those without post-operative chronic knee pain reported improved physical activity from baseline to six months (4.0 vs 4.9), plateauing at 12 months (4.9). Participants with chronic knee pain reported lower baseline HRQoL (0.28 vs 0.48). Both groups improved health utility over one year. Of those without chronic pain at six months, 8.5% returned to chronic pain by 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring clinical outcomes after six months may be indicated for those at risk of chronic pain post-TKR. Further, sufficiently powered analyses are warranted to increase the generalisability of this exploratory analyses' results.

Cognitive behavioral therapy for eating disorders: A map of the systematic review evidence base.

OBJECTIVE: To map and examine the systematic review evidence base regarding the effects of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for eating disorders (EDs), especially against active interventions. METHOD: This systematic review is an extension of an overview of CBT for all health conditions (CBT-O). We identified ED-related systematic reviews from the CBT-O database and performed updated searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsychInfo in April 2021 and September 2022. RESULTS: The 44 systematic reviews included (21 meta-analyses) were of varying quality. They focused on "high intensity" CBT, delivered face-to-face by qualified clinicians, in BN, BED and mixed, not specifically low-weight samples. ED-specific outcomes were studied most, with little consensus on their operationalization. The, often insufficient, reporting of sample characteristics did not allow assessment of the generalizability of findings. The meta-analytic syntheses show that high intensity one-to-one CBT produces better short-term effects than a mix of active controls especially on ED-specific measures for BED, BN, and transdiagnostic samples. There is little evidence favoring group CBT or low intensity CBT against other active interventions. DISCUSSION: While this study found evidence consistent with current ED treatment recommendations, it highlighted notable gaps that need to be addressed. There were insufficient data to allow generalizations regarding sex and gender, age, culture and comorbidity and to support CBT in AN samples. The evidence for group CBT and low intensity CBT against active controls is limited, as it is for the longer-term effects of CBT. Our findings identify areas for future innovation and research within CBT. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides a comprehensive mapping and quality assessment of the current large systematic review research base regarding the effects of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for eating disorders (EDs), with a focus on comparisons to other active interventions. By transcending the more limited scope of individual systematic reviews, this overview highlights the gaps in the current evidence base, and thus provides guidance for future research and clinical innovation.

OBJETIVO: Mapear y examinar la base de evidencia de la revisión sistemática con respecto a los efectos de la terapia cognitivo-conductual (TCC) para los trastornos de la conducta alimentaria (TCA), especialmente contra las intervenciones activas. MÉTODO: Esta revisión sistemática es una extensión de una visión general de la TCC para todas las afecciones de salud (TCC-O, Fordham et al., 2021a). Se identificaron revisiones sistemáticas relacionadas con los TCA a partir de la base de datos TCC-O y se realizaron búsquedas actualizadas en EMBASE, MEDLINE y PsychInfo en abril de 2021 y septiembre de 2022. RESULTADOS: Las 44 revisiones sistemáticas incluidas (21 metanálisis) fueron de calidad variable. Se centraron en la TCC de "alta intensidad", administrada cara a cara por clínicos calificados, en BN, TpA y muestras mixtas, no específicamente de bajo peso. Los resultados específicos de los TCA fueron los más estudiados, con poco consenso sobre su operacionalización. El informe, a menudo insuficiente, de las características de la muestra no permitió evaluar la generalización de los hallazgos. Las síntesis metaanalíticas muestran que la TCC uno a uno de alta intensidad produce mejores efectos a corto plazo que una combinación de controles activos, especialmente en medidas específicas de TCA para TpA, BN y muestras transdiagnósticas. Hay poca evidencia a favor de la TCC grupal o la TCC de baja intensidad frente a otras intervenciones activas. DISCUSIÓN: Si bien este estudio encontró evidencia consistente con las recomendaciones actuales de tratamiento de los TCA, también destacó las brechas notables que deben abordarse. No hubo datos suficientes para permitir generalizaciones con respecto al sexo y el género, la edad, la cultura y la comorbilidad y para apoyar la TCC en las muestras de AN. La evidencia para la TCC grupal y la TCC de baja intensidad contra los controles activos es limitada, al igual que para los efectos a más largo plazo de la TCC. Nuestros hallazgos identifican áreas para la innovación y la investigación futuras dentro de la TCC.

Patient and physiotherapist perceptions of the Getting Recovery Right After Neck Dissection (GRRAND) rehabilitation intervention: a qualitative interview study embedded within a feasibility trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Getting Recovery Right After Neck Dissection (GRRAND) intervention is a physiotherapy programme for patients with head and neck cancer who have undergone neck dissection. The aim of this qualitative study was to understand if the intervention was useful, acceptable and whether it was feasible to conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT). DESIGN: This qualitative study was embedded within the GRRAND-Feasibility (GRRAND-F) Study. SETTING: Participants were recruited from four acute National Health Service hospitals in England between 2020 and 2021. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed four usual care and four intervention patient-participants from a single study site (Oxford). Six were male, two were female. All were white British ethnicity. We interviewed two physiotherapists from Oxford who delivered the GRRAND-F intervention, and physiotherapists from Birmingham, Poole and Norwich who were trained to deliver the intervention but were not able to deliver it within the study time frame. RESULTS: The analysis identified five themes: (1) Acceptability, (2) Adherence, (3) Outcomes, (4) Feasibility and (5) Stand-alone themes (prehabilitation, video consultations, healthcare use).Patient-participants and physiotherapist-participants agreed that usual care was not meeting patients' rehabilitation needs. The GRRAND intervention provided biopsychosocial support. In comparison to the usual care group, patient-participants who received the intervention were more confident that they could perform rehabilitation exercises and were more motivated to engage in long-term adaptive behaviour change. Physiotherapists felt they needed more administrative support to participate in an RCT. CONCLUSION: Participants felt that usual care was insufficient. GRRAND provided much needed, biopsychosocial support to patients. Participants were supportive that it would be feasible to test GRRAND in an RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11979997.

Randomised controlled trial of a behaviour change physiotherapy intervention to increase physical activity following hip and knee replacement: the PEP-TALK trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of a behaviour change physiotherapy intervention to increase physical activity compared with usual rehabilitation after total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR). DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, open, randomised controlled, superiority trial. SETTING: National Health Service providers in nine English hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 224 individuals aged ≥18 years, undergoing a primary THR or TKR deemed 'moderately inactive' or 'inactive'. INTERVENTION: Participants received either six, 30 min, weekly, group-based exercise sessions (usual care) or the same six weekly, group-based, exercise sessions each preceded by a 30 min cognitive behaviour discussion group aimed at challenging barriers to physical inactivity following surgery (experimental). RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING: Initial 75 participants were randomised 1:1 before changing the allocation ratio to 2:1 (experimental:usual care). Allocation was based on minimisation, stratifying on comorbidities, operation type and hospital. There was no blinding. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Score at 12 months. Secondary: 6 and 12-month assessed function, pain, self-efficacy, kinesiophobia, psychological distress and quality of life. RESULTS: Of the 1254 participants assessed for eligibility, 224 were included (139 experimental: 85 usual care). Mean age was 68.4 years (SD: 8.7), 63% were women, 52% underwent TKR. There was no between-group difference in UCLA score (mean difference: -0.03 (95% CI -0.52 to 0.45, p=0.89)). There were no differences observed in any of the secondary outcomes at 6 or 12 months. There were no important adverse events in either group. The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the reduced intended sample size (target 260) and reduced intervention compliance. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to suggest attending usual care physiotherapy sessions plus a group-based behaviour change intervention differs to attending usual care physiotherapy alone. As the trial could not reach its intended sample size, nor a proportion of participants receive their intended rehabilitation, this should be interpreted with caution. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN29770908.

Statistical analysis plan for a pragmatic phase III randomised controlled trial examining behaviour change physiotherapy intervention to increase physical activity following hip and knee replacements: the PEP-TALK trial.

BACKGROUND: Total hip (THR) and total knee replacements (TKR) are two highly successful orthopaedic procedures that reduce pain for people with osteoarthritis. Previous evidence suggests that physical activity, at best, remains the same pre- to post-operatively, and in some instances declines. The PEP-TALK trial evaluates the effects of a group-based, behaviour change intervention on physical activity following a THR or TKR. METHODS: PEP-TALK is an open, phase III, pragmatic, multi-centre, parallel, two-arm, two-way superiority randomised controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of usual care plus a behaviour change therapy compared with usual care alone following primary THR or TKR. The primary outcome is the UCLA Activity Score at 12 months post-randomisation which will be analysed using a linear mixed effects model. Secondary outcomes measured at 6 months and 12 months after randomisation include the UCLA Activity Score, Lower Extremity Functional Scale, Oxford Hip/Knee Score, Numerical Rating Scale for Pain, Generalised Self-Efficacy Scale, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L index and EQ-VAS and complications or adverse events. Full details of the planned analysis approaches for the primary and secondary outcomes, as well as the planned sensitivity analyses to be undertaken due to the COVID-19 pandemic, are described here. The PEP-TALK study protocol has been published previously. DISCUSSION: This paper provides details of the planned statistical analyses for the PEP-TALK trial. This is aimed to reduce the risk of outcome reporting bias and enhance transparency in reporting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials database, ISRCTN Number: 29770908 . Registered on October 2018.

Getting Recovery Right After Neck Dissection (GRRAND-F): mixed-methods feasibility study to design a pragmatic randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: We will evaluate the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a rehabilitation intervention on pain, function and health-related quality of life following neck dissection (ND) after head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic, multicentred, feasibility study. Participants are randomised to usual care (control) or usual care plus an individualised, rehabilitation programme (Getting Recovery Right After Neck Dissection, GRRAND intervention). Adults aged over 18 with HNC for whom ND is part of their care will be recruited from specialist clinics. Participants are randomised in 1:1 ratio using a web-based service. The target sample size is 60 participants. Usual care will be received by all participants during their postoperative inpatient stay consisting standard National Health Service care supplemented with a booklet advising on postoperative self-management strategies. The GRRAND intervention programme consists of usual care plus up to six individual physiotherapy sessions including neck and shoulder range of motion (ROM) and progressive resistance exercises, advice and education. Between sessions participants will be advised to complete a home exercise programme. The primary outcome is to determine recruitment and retention rates from study participants across sites. Outcomes will be measured at 6 and 12 months. Participants and physiotherapists will be invited to an optional qualitative interview at the completion of their involvement in the study. The target qualitative sample size is 15 participants and 12 physiotherapists. Interviews aim to further investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and to determine wider experiences of the study design and intervention from patient and physiotherapist perspectives. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was given on 29 October 2019 (National Research Ethics Committee Number: 19/SC/0457). Results will be reported at conferences and in peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11979997. STATUS: Trial recruitment is ongoing and is expected to be completed by 30 August 2021.

Cognitive-behavioural therapy for a variety of conditions: an overview of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive-behavioural therapy aims to increase quality of life by changing cognitive and behavioural factors that maintain problematic symptoms. A previous overview of cognitive-behavioural therapy systematic reviews suggested that cognitive-behavioural therapy was effective for many conditions. However, few of the included reviews synthesised randomised controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: This project was undertaken to map the quality and gaps in the cognitive-behavioural therapy systematic review of randomised controlled trial evidence base. Panoramic meta-analyses were also conducted to identify any across-condition general effects of cognitive-behavioural therapy. DATA SOURCES: The overview was designed with cognitive-behavioural therapy patients, clinicians and researchers. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and OpenGrey databases were searched from 1992 to January 2019. REVIEW METHODS: Study inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) fulfil the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination criteria; (2) intervention reported as cognitive-behavioural therapy or including one cognitive and one behavioural element; (3) include a synthesis of cognitive-behavioural therapy trials; (4) include either health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety or pain outcome; and (5) available in English. Review quality was assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-2. Reviews were quality assessed and data were extracted in duplicate by two independent researchers, and then mapped according to condition, population, context and quality. The effects from high-quality reviews were pooled within condition groups, using a random-effect panoramic meta-analysis. If the across-condition heterogeneity was I2 < 75%, we pooled across conditions. Subgroup analyses were conducted for age, delivery format, comparator type and length of follow-up, and a sensitivity analysis was performed for quality. RESULTS: A total of 494 reviews were mapped, representing 68% (27/40) of the categories of the International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision, Mortality and Morbidity Statistics. Most reviews (71%, 351/494) were of lower quality. Research on older adults, using cognitive-behavioural therapy preventatively, ethnic minorities and people living outside Europe, North America or Australasia was limited. Out of 494 reviews, 71 were included in the primary panoramic meta-analyses. A modest effect was found in favour of cognitive-behavioural therapy for health-related quality of life (standardised mean difference 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.41, prediction interval -0.05 to 0.50, I2 = 32%), anxiety (standardised mean difference 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.43, prediction interval -0.28 to 0.88, I2 = 62%) and pain (standardised mean difference 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.41, prediction interval -0.28 to 0.74, I2 = 64%) outcomes. All condition, subgroup and sensitivity effect estimates remained consistent with the general effect. A statistically significant interaction effect was evident between the active and non-active comparator groups for the health-related quality-of-life outcome. A general effect for depression outcomes was not produced as a result of considerable heterogeneity across reviews and conditions. LIMITATIONS: Data extraction and analysis were conducted at the review level, rather than returning to the individual trial data. This meant that the risk of bias of the individual trials could not be accounted for, but only the quality of the systematic reviews that synthesised them. CONCLUSION: Owing to the consistency and homogeneity of the highest-quality evidence, it is proposed that cognitive-behavioural therapy can produce a modest general, across-condition benefit in health-related quality-of-life, anxiety and pain outcomes. FUTURE WORK: Future research should focus on how the modest effect sizes seen with cognitive-behavioural therapy can be increased, for example identifying alternative delivery formats to increase adherence and reduce dropout, and pursuing novel methods to assess intervention fidelity and quality. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017078690. 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. 25, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

This report is a summary of research examining if a psychological therapy called cognitive­behavioural therapy can improve the quality of life of people living with physical and/or mental conditions. Cognitive­behavioural therapy uses a set of techniques that help individuals to identify and change problematic thoughts or behaviour patterns that might contribute to and maintain their physical or mental symptoms. It can be delivered face to face or through mediums such as the internet. We aimed to understand if cognitive­behavioural therapy helps patients with specific conditions only, or if it can help patients with any condition. We searched relevant databases to find articles that combine the results from multiple trials testing cognitive­behavioural therapy. These are known as systematic reviews. We graded these reviews as providing good- or poor-quality evidence. We identified the conditions for which we had good-quality evidence on whether or not cognitive­behavioural therapy was helpful. From each review, we took numerical data that told us if cognitive­behavioural therapy improved quality of life for that specific condition. Next, we combined all the numerical data together, across all the conditions, to see if there was a consistent benefit of cognitive­behavioural therapy. The statistical analyses found that cognitive­behavioural therapy consistently improved quality of life across all the conditions where it has been tested. We have evidence that it can help children, adolescents and adults, of either sex, who are living in Europe, North America and Australasia. We are unsure if it will help older adults or people living in Africa, Asia or South America, nor do we know if cognitive­behavioural therapy is equally effective across different ethnic groups. It is recommended that future research should prioritise understanding how cognitive­behavioural therapy works, why some people do not want to use cognitive­behavioural therapy and why some patients do not benefit from it.

The evidence for cognitive behavioural therapy in any condition, population or context: a meta-review of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis.

The majority of psychological treatment research is dedicated to investigating the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) across different conditions, population and contexts. We aimed to summarise the current systematic review evidence and evaluate the consistency of CBT's effect across different conditions. We included reviews of CBT randomised controlled trials in any: population, condition, format, context, with any type of comparator and published in English. We searched DARE, Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, CDAS, and OpenGrey between 1992 and January 2019. Reviews were quality assessed, their data extracted and summarised. The effects upon health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were pooled, within-condition groups. If the across-condition heterogeneity was I2 < 75%, we pooled effects using a random-effect panoramic meta-analysis. We summarised 494 reviews (221 128 participants), representing 14/20 physical and 13/20 mental conditions (World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases). Most reviews were lower-quality (351/494), investigated face-to-face CBT (397/494), and in adults (378/494). Few reviews included trials conducted in Asia, South America or Africa (45/494). CBT produced a modest benefit across-conditions on HRQoL (standardised mean difference 0.23; 95% confidence intervals 0.14-0.33, I2 = 32%). The effect's associated prediction interval -0.05 to 0.50 suggested CBT will remain effective in conditions for which we do not currently have available evidence. While there remain some gaps in the completeness of the evidence base, we need to recognise the consistent evidence for the general benefit which CBT offers.

Evaluation of the implementation of the Back Skills Training (BeST) programme using online training: a cohort implementation study.

OBJECTIVES: 1) Evaluate implementation of the Back Skills Training (BeST) programme, a group cognitive behavioural approach for patients with low back pain (LBP) developed for a clinical trial, into the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom; 2) Compare patient outcomes with the BeST Trial results. DESIGN: Two stage observational cohort implementation study. PARTICIPANTS: Stage 1: NHS Clinicians enrolled in BeST online training. Stage 2: Patients with LBP attending NHS physiotherapy departments and enrolled in the BeST programme. INTERVENTION: An online training and implementation programme. OUTCOMES: Stage 1: LBP attitudes and beliefs, self-rated competence, intention and actual implementation were collected before, immediately, 4- and 12-months post-training. Stage 2: Patients rated pain, function, recovery and satisfaction before and up to one year after attending the BeST programme. RESULTS: Stage 1: 1324 clinicians (157 NHS Trusts) enrolled in the training; 586 (44%) clinicians (101 NHS Trusts) completed training; 443/586 (76%) clinicians provided post-training data; 253/443 (57%) clinicians intended to implement the programme; 148/381 (39%) clinicians (54 NHS Trusts) provided follow-up data; 49/148 (33.1%) clinicians (27 NHS Trusts) implemented the programme. Attitudes and beliefs shifted towards a biopsychosocial model post-training. Stage 2: 923 patients were enrolled. Patients reported improvements in function (mean change: 1.55; 95%CI: 1.25, 1.86) and pain (-0.84; -1.1, -0.58) at follow-up. The majority rated themselves improved and satisfied with the programme. CONCLUSION: Online training had good reach into NHS Trusts although, not everyone went onto implement the programme. Improvements in function that were consistent with the original trial were demonstrated.

Behaviour change physiotherapy intervention to increase physical activity following hip and knee replacement (PEP-TALK): study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: While total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) successfully reduce pain associated with chronic joint pathology, this infrequently translates into increased physical activity. This is a challenge given that over 50% of individuals who undergo these operations are physically inactive and have medical comorbidities such as hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and depression. The impact of these diseases can be reduced with physical activity. This trial aims to investigate the effectiveness of a behaviour change physiotherapy intervention to increase physical activity compared with usual rehabilitation after THR or TKR. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PEP-TALK trial is a multicentre, open-labelled, pragmatic randomised controlled trial. 260 adults who are scheduled to undergo a primary unilateral THR or TKR and are moderately inactive or inactive, with comorbidities, will be recruited across eight sites in England. They will be randomised post-surgery, prior to hospital discharge, to either six, 30 min weekly group-based exercise sessions (control), or the same six weekly, group-based, exercise sessions each preceded by a 30 min cognitive behaviour approach discussion group. Participants will be followed-up to 12 months by postal questionnaire. The primary outcome is the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Physical Activity Score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include: physical function, disability, health-related quality of life, kinesiophobia, perceived pain, self-efficacy and health resource utilisation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics committee approval was granted by the NRES Committee South Central (Oxford B - 18/SC/0423). Dissemination of results will be through peer-reviewed, scientific journals and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN29770908.

Effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

INTRODUCTION: Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is a psychological therapy that has been used to improve patient well-being across multiple mental and physical health problems. Its effectiveness has been examined in thousands of randomised control trials that have been synthesised into hundreds of systematic reviews. The aim of this overview is to map, synthesise and assess the reliability of evidence generated from these systematic reviews of the effectiveness of CBT across all health conditions, patient groups and settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will run our search strategy, to identify systematic reviews of CBT, within the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Child Development and Adolescent Studies, and OpenGrey between January 1992 and 25 April 2018. Independent reviewers will sift, perform data extraction in duplicate and assess the quality of the reviews using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (V.2) tool. The outcomes of interest include: health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety, psychosis and physical/physiological outcomes prioritised in the individual reviews. The evidence will be mapped and synthesised where appropriate by health problem, patient subgroups, intervention type, context and outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this is an overview of published systematic reviews. We plan to publish results in peer-reviewed journals and present at international and national academic, clinical and patient conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017078690.

Development of an exercise intervention for the prevention of musculoskeletal shoulder problems after breast cancer treatment: the prevention of shoulder problems trial (UK PROSPER).

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal shoulder problems are common after breast cancer treatment. There is some evidence to suggest that early postoperative exercise is safe and may improve shoulder function. We describe the development and delivery of a complex intervention for evaluation within a randomised controlled trial (RCT), designed to target prevention of musculoskeletal shoulder problems after breast cancer surgery (The Prevention of Shoulder Problems Trial; PROSPER). METHODS: A pragmatic, multicentre RCT to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of best practice usual care versus a physiotherapy-led exercise and behavioural support intervention in women at high risk of shoulder problems after breast cancer treatment. PROSPER will recruit 350 women from approximately 15 UK centres, with follow-up at 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is shoulder function at 12 months; secondary outcomes include postoperative pain, health related quality of life, adverse events and healthcare resource use. A multi-phased approach was used to develop the PROSPER intervention which was underpinned by existing evidence and modified for implementation after input from clinical experts and women with breast cancer. The intervention was tested and refined further after qualitative interviews with patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer; a pilot RCT was then conducted at three UK clinical centres. DISCUSSION: The PROSPER intervention incorporates three main components: shoulder-specific exercises targeting range of movement and strength; general physical activity; and behavioural strategies to encourage adherence and support exercise behaviour. The final PROSPER intervention is fully manualised with clear, documented pathways for clinical assessment, exercise prescription, use of behavioural strategies, and with guidance for treatment of postoperative complications. This paper adheres to TIDieR and CERT recommendations for the transparent, comprehensive and explicit reporting of complex interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN 35358984 .

Aerobic and strength training exercise programme for cognitive impairment in people with mild to moderate dementia: the DAPA RCT.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 670,000 people in the UK have dementia. Previous literature suggests that physical exercise could slow dementia symptom progression. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a bespoke exercise programme, in addition to usual care, on the cognitive impairment (primary outcome), function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of people with mild to moderate dementia (MMD) and carer burden and HRQoL. DESIGN: Intervention development, systematic review, multicentred, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a parallel economic evaluation and qualitative study. SETTING: 15 English regions. PARTICIPANTS: People with MMD living in the community. INTERVENTION: A 4-month moderate- to high-intensity, structured exercise programme designed specifically for people with MMD, with support to continue unsupervised physical activity thereafter. Exercises were individually prescribed and progressed, and participants were supervised in groups. The comparator was usual practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog). The secondary outcomes were function [as measured using the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BADLS)], generic HRQoL [as measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version (EQ-5D-3L)], dementia-related QoL [as measured using the Quality of Life in Alzheimer's Disease (QoL-AD) scale], behavioural symptoms [as measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI)], falls and fractures, physical fitness (as measured using the 6-minute walk test) and muscle strength. Carer outcomes were HRQoL (Quality of Life in Alzheimer's Disease) (as measured using the EQ-5D-3L) and carer burden (as measured using the Zarit Burden Interview). The economic evaluation was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. We measured health and social care use with the Client Services Receipt Inventory. Participants were followed up for 12 months. RESULTS: Between February 2013 and June 2015, 494 participants were randomised with an intentional unequal allocation ratio: 165 to usual care and 329 to the intervention. The mean age of participants was 77 years [standard deviation (SD) 7.9 years], 39% (193/494) were female and the mean baseline ADAS-Cog score was 21.5 (SD 9.0). Participants in the intervention arm achieved high compliance rates, with 65% (214/329) attending between 75% and 100% of sessions. Outcome data were obtained for 85% (418/494) of participants at 12 months, at which point a small, statistically significant negative treatment effect was found in the primary outcome, ADAS-Cog (patient reported), with a mean difference of -1.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.62 to -0.17]. There were no treatment effects for any of the other secondary outcome measures for participants or carers: for the BADLS there was a mean difference of -0.6 (95% CI -2.05 to 0.78), for the EQ-5D-3L a mean difference of -0.002 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.04), for the QoL-AD scale a mean difference of 0.7 (95% CI -0.21 to 1.65) and for the NPI a mean difference of -2.1 (95% CI -4.83 to 0.65). Four serious adverse events were reported. The exercise intervention was dominated in health economic terms. LIMITATIONS: In the absence of definitive guidance and rationale, we used a mixed exercise programme. Neither intervention providers nor participants could be masked to treatment allocation. CONCLUSIONS: This is a large well-conducted RCT, with good compliance to exercise and research procedures. A structured exercise programme did not produce any clinically meaningful benefit in function or HRQoL in people with dementia or on carer burden. FUTURE WORK: Future work should concentrate on approaches other than exercise to influence cognitive impairment in dementia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32612072. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment Vol. 22, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Additional funding was provided by the Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and the Oxford NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care.

Physiotherapist-delivered cognitive-behavioural interventions are effective for low back pain, but can they be replicated in clinical practice? A systematic review.

PURPOSE: To determine if physiotherapist-led cognitive-behavioural (CB) interventions are effective for low back pain (LBP) and described sufficiently for replication. METHOD: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with LBP treated by physiotherapists using a CB intervention were included. Outcomes of disability, pain, and quality of life were assessed using the GRADE approach. Intervention reporting was assessed using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. RESULTS: Of 1898 titles, 5 RCTs (n = 1390) were identified. Compared to education and/or exercise interventions, we found high-quality evidence that CB had a greater effect (SMD; 95% CI) on reducing disability (-0.19; -0.32, -0.07), pain (-0.21; -0.33, -0.09); and moderate-quality evidence of little difference in quality of life (-0.06; -0.18 to 0.07). Sufficient information was provided on dose, setting, and provider; but not content and procedural information. Studies tended to report the type of CB component used (e.g., challenging unhelpful thoughts) with little detail on how it was operationalised. Moreover, access to treatment manuals, patient materials and provider training was lacking. CONCLUSIONS: With additional training, physiotherapists can deliver effective CB interventions. However, without training or resources, successful translation and implementation remains unlikely. Researchers should improve reporting of procedural information, provide relevant materials, and offer accessible provider training. Implications for Rehabilitation Previous reviews have established that traditional biomedical-based treatments (e.g., acupuncture, manual therapy, massage, and specific exercise programmes) that focus only on physical symptoms do provide short-term benefits but the sustained effect is questionable. A cognitive-behavioural (CB) approach includes techniques to target both physical and psychosocial symptoms related to pain and provides patients with long-lasting skills to manage these symptoms on their own. This combined method has been used in a variety of settings delivered by different health care professionals and has been shown to produce long-term effects on patient outcomes. What has been unclear is if these programmes are effective when delivered by physiotherapists in routine physiotherapy settings. Our study synthesises the evidence for this context. We have confirmed with high-quality evidence that with additional training, physiotherapists can deliver CB interventions that are effective for patients with back pain. Physiotherapists who are considering enhancing their treatment for patients with low back pain should consider undertaking some additional training in how to incorporate CB techniques into their practice to optimise treatment benefits and help patients receive long-lasting treatment effects. Importantly, our results indicate that using a CB approach, including a variety of CB techniques that could be easily adopted in a physical therapy setting, provides greater benefits for patient outcomes compared to brief education, exercise or physical techniques (such as manual therapy) alone. This provides further support that a combined treatment approach is likely better than one based on physical techniques alone. Notably, we identified a significant barrier to adopting any of these CB interventions in practice. This is because no study provided a description of the intervention or accessible training materials that would allow for accurate replication. Without access to provider training and/or resources, we cannot expect this evidence to be implemented in practice with optimal effects. Thus, we would urge physiotherapists to directly contact authors of the studies for more information on how to incorporate their interventions into their settings.

Explaining How Cognitive Behavioral Approaches Work for Low Back Pain: Mediation Analysis of the Back Skills Training Trial.

STUDY DESIGN: This is secondary research examining the longitudinal mediation effect within a structural equation model. OBJECTIVE: To identify possible mechanisms that mediate the effects of a cognitive behavioral approach upon disability and pain in low back pain patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cognitive behavioral interventions (CBIs) can improve pain and disability in low back pain (LBP) but the mechanisms of action are unclear. We used data from a large randomized controlled trial to investigate mediators of the treatment effect of CBI. METHODS: Pain self-efficacy, fear avoidance, and physical and mental functioning were selected as candidate mediators based on the theoretical rationale of the intervention. The primary treatment outcomes were the Roland Morris Questionnaire (RMDQ) and the modified Von Korff scale (MVK pain and disability) at 12 months. We used structural equation models to estimate the contribution of mediators. All models were tested for goodness-of-fit using χ , Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index, and Bentler Comparative Fit Index. RESULTS: We included 701 adults with LBP. The average RMDQ score at baseline for those on the intervention arm was 8.8 (Standard Deviation 5.0). The intervention was effective in reducing disability and pain at 12 months. Change in mental functioning was not a significant mediator. Changes to pain self-efficacy, fear avoidance, and physical functioning were causal mediators of the treatment effect at 12 months (RMDQ b= -0.149, P < 0.001; MVK-pain b = -0.181, P < 0.001 and MVK-disability b = -0.180, P < 0.001). Overall, the SEM model exceeded the threshold for acceptable goodness-of-fit. CONCLUSION: Fear avoidance and self-efficacy were important causal mediators of the cognitive behavioral treatment effect. Self-assessed change in physical function was a causal mediator but mental functioning was not. This suggests people need to experience meaningful change in physical function and beliefs but not in mental functioning associated with LBP, to achieve a treatment benefit. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

What are the preferences of health care professionals in Germany regarding fully liquid, ready-to-use hexavalent pediatric vaccine versus hexavalent pediatric vaccine that needs reconstitution?

Diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis (DTaP) based combined vaccines have led to significant reduction in incidence of several serious pediatric infectious diseases. A new, fully liquid combined hexavalent vaccine has been introduced and has been shown to reduce administration time. This fully liquid vaccine may also be simpler to administer and could reduce handling errors. The present study was designed to understand the value that health care providers (HCPs) place on aspects of injection devices for combined hexavalent vaccine programs in Germany. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit the views of HCPs regarding hexavalent vaccines. The key attributes of injection devices were identified through a focused literature search and interviews with HCPs. Five key attributes, each with two or three levels were described which included: type of device, experience of this hexavalent vaccine on the German market, preparation time, probability of handling errors, and dosage errors. Physicians (n=150) and nurses (n=150) who administered hexavalent vaccines in Germany completed the survey. Choice data were analyzed using the conditional logit procedure. All attributes were significant and important independent influences on physicians' and nurses' choices. Reducing any "probability of dosage errors" was the most important attribute. Both physicians and nurses had a strong preference to reduce preparation time. All other things equal both groups also significantly preferred a fully liquid hexavalent vaccine. They also preferred vaccines that had been on the market for a few years compared to ones that had not (especially the physicians). Additional analyses explored participants' preferences in more detail through interaction terms. The DCE choice data provide useful insights into how HCPs view each aspect of the vaccination device. Overall, the HCPs preferred fully liquid vaccines. The survey also highlighted the importance of handling and dosage errors, reducing preparation time, and also experience of the HCPs with the use of a vaccine. The survey work included physicians and nurses and explored their views separately.

Health state utility valuation in radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to elicit utilities for radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) and evaluate the impact of treatment response and toxicities on quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: RR-DTC health states were developed based on data from a previous qualitative study and iterative review by clinical experts. Following piloting, health states underwent valuation by 100 members of the UK public during time trade-off interviews. Mean utilities and descriptive distribution statistics were calculated, and a logistic regression analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The demographic characteristics of the study sample were generally reflective of the UK population. Clear differentiation in valuation between health states was observed. No response/stable disease had an adjusted utility value of 0.87, with a corresponding gain of +0.04 following a treatment response and a decline of -0.35 for disease progression. Adverse events were associated with utility decrements between -0.47 (grade III diarrhea) and -0.05 (grade I/II alopecia). CONCLUSION: The trade-off interviews derived utility weights show clear differentiation between RR-DTC health states in response to treatment. The values reported in this study are suitable for cost-effectiveness evaluations for new treatments in RR-DTC.

Overcoming the barriers to the diagnosis and management of chronic fatigue syndrome/ME in primary care: a meta synthesis of qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: The NICE guideline for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) emphasises the need for an early diagnosis in primary care with management tailored to patient needs. However, GPs can be reluctant to make a diagnosis and are unsure how to manage people with the condition. METHODS: A meta synthesis of published qualitative studies was conducted, producing a multi-perspective description of barriers to the diagnosis and management of CFS/ME, and the ways that some health professionals have been able to overcome them. Analysis provided second-order interpretation of the original findings and developed third-order constructs to provide recommendations for the medical curriculum. RESULTS: Twenty one qualitative studies were identified. The literature shows that for over 20 years health professionals have reported a limited understanding of CFS/ME. Working within the framework of the biomedical model has also led some GPs to be sceptical about the existence of the condition. GPs who provide a diagnosis tend to have a broader, multifactorial, model of the condition and more positive attitudes towards CFS/ME. These GPs collaborate with patients to reach agreement on symptom management, and use their therapeutic skills to promote self care. CONCLUSIONS: In order to address barriers to the diagnosis and management of CFS/ME in primary care, the limitations of the biomedical model needs to be recognised. A more flexible bio-psychosocial approach is recommended where medical school training aims to equip practitioners with the skills needed to understand, support and manage patients and provide a pathway to refer for specialist input.