Allied rehabilitation using caregiver-mediated exercises combined with telerehabilitation for stroke (ARMed4Stroke): A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the added value of caregiver-mediated exercises combined with telerehabilitation in addition to usual care compared to usual care alone on the self-reported mobility outcome after subacute stroke. DESIGN: Multicentre, observer-blinded, parallel randomised controlled trial. An off-site researcher allocated treatments using minimisation. SETTING: Four rehabilitation centres in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-one patient-caregiver dyads within 3 months poststroke. INTERVENTION: Eight-week blended care program with caregiver-mediated mobility exercises for 2.5 h per week supported by telerehabilitation and four face-to-face sessions in addition to usual care. MAIN MEASURES: Self-reported mobility domain of the Stroke Impact Scale postintervention. Secondary outcomes were functional outcome, dyads' psychosocial wellbeing, care transition to the community postintervention and after 6 months. RESULTS: Forty-one dyads (21 intervention, 20 control) were randomised, and 37 (N = 18; N = 19) were analysed following intention-to-treat. The Stroke Impact Scale mobility was not significantly different between groups postintervention (B 0.8, 95% CI -6.8-8.5, p = 0.826). The secondary outcomes, namely, (a) caregivers' quality of life postintervention (p = 0.013), (b) caregivers' symptoms of depression postintervention (p = 0.025), and (c) independence in leisurely activities at 6 months (p = 0.024), showed significant benefits in favour of caregiver-mediated exercises with telerehabilitation. A significant difference favouring controls was found in self-reported muscle strength at 6 months (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Caregiver-mediated exercises combined with telerehabilitation yielded no differential effect on our primary outcome self-reported mobility. Although the trial is underpowered, current findings are in line with previous trials. Future studies should further explore beneficial effects of caregiver involvement in stroke rehabilitation targeting psychosocial wellbeing.

Nordic inflammatory bowel disease treatment strategy trial: protocol for the NORDTREAT randomised controlled biomarker-strategy trial.

INTRODUCTION: The absence of reliable prognostic markers poses a challenge to the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Patients with aggressive disease may not receive sufficient treatment with conventional 'step-up' therapy, whereas a top-down approach may expose patients with indolent disease to unnecessary treatment-related toxicity. The objective of the Nordic IBD treatment strategy trial (NORDTREAT) is to assess the feasibility of personalised therapy by stratifying patients according to a prognostic serum protein signature at diagnosis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: NORDTREAT is a multicentre, biomarker-strategy design, open-label controlled trial. After screening consent, eligible patients are randomised (1:1) into one of two groups: a group with access to the protein signature and a group without access. In the access to protein signature group, patients displaying a protein signature suggestive of an increased risk of an aggressive disease course will be treated in line with a top-down treatment algorithm (anti-tumour necrosis factor agent with/without an immunomodulator). In contrast, those with a protein signature indicative of indolent disease will be excluded from the trial. Patients not in the access group receive treatment based on clinical management. This traditional management involves a stepwise escalation of treatment as determined by the investigator after failure of first-line treatment. After 52 weeks, outcomes are assessed in the subgroup of patients with a protein profile indicating a potentially severe disease trajectory. The primary endpoint is a composite of the proportion of patients with corticosteroid-free clinical and endoscopic remission at week 52. Surgical intervention due to IBD during follow-up will be defined as treatment failure. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained, and recruitment is underway at sites in four participating Nordic countries (Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden). Following trial completion and data analysis, the trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05180175; Pre-results. EudraCT number: 2019-002942-19.

A case management strategy to reduce falls in older people with a history of falls: A randomized controlled trial.

The present study aimed to determine whether a remotely delivered intervention, based on an individual case management, can reduce falls and their consequences in community-dwelling older people with a history of multiple falls. In this randomized controlled trial, 32 participants were randomized to the intervention group, which comprised a 16-week case management program involving a multidimensional assessment, targeted interventions according to the identified fall risk factors, and development of individualized care plans. The intervention was performed by trained gerontologists, under weekly supervision of professionals with experience in falls. The control group (n = 30) received usual care. Falls were monitored over 12 months with monthly falls calendars and telephone calls. Remotely delivered case management presented an 82 % uptake of recommendations. There was a trend toward a reduced fall incidence in the intervention vs control group, with lower fall, fall injury and fracture rates in the intervention group compared with the control group at both the 16-week and 12-month time-points, with the difference statistically significant for injurious fall rates at 12 months - IRR=0.18 (95 % CI = 0.04 to 0.74).

The impact of breaking up sitting during simulated nightshifts on musculoskeletal pain: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Prolonged sitting is associated with an increased risk of musculoskeletal pain, especially in nightshift workers. However, research investigating effects of breaking up sitting on musculoskeletal pain during nightshifts is lacking. This study evaluated effects of prolonged sitting or breaking up sitting with short bouts of light-intensity physical activity on pain in healthy adults during simulated nightshifts. METHODS: An in-laboratory randomised controlled trial was undertaken with 52 healthy adults completing five simulated nightshifts. Participants were randomised to prolonged sitting (Sit9; n = 26) or breaking up prolonged sitting (Break9; n = 26). Break9 group completed 3-min walking every 30 min during nightshifts, while Sit9 group remained seated. Musculoskeletal pain intensity and sensory/affective pain experiences were assessed. Linear mixed models examined pain within nights (pre-to post-shift) and across nights (pre-shift-night-1 to pre-shift-night-5). RESULTS: Musculoskeletal pain intensity increased within nights for both Sit9 (mean change [95%CI] points: 0.14 [0.05, 0.24]) and Break9 (0.09 [0.001, 0.19], but not across nights (Sit9: -0.13 [-0.33, 0.08]; Break9: 0.07 [-0.14, 0.29]). Sensory-pain experience improved across nights for Sit9 (-3.08 [-4.72, -1.45]), but not within nights (0.77 [-0.004, 1.55]). There was no change in affective-pain experience in either group. Between-group difference was observed favouring Sit9 for improving sensory-pain across nights (ß: 3.71 [1.42, 5.99]). No other between-group difference was observed. CONCLUSION: Both prolonged sitting and breaking up sitting were associated with a within-night increase in musculoskeletal pain intensity. Compared to prolonged sitting, breaking up sitting did not induce benefits on pain in healthy adults working simulated nightshifts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12619001516178.

Evaluating the relaxation effects of Shikuwasa (Citrus depressa Hayata) essential oil inhalation in young female adults: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Introduction: The essential oil of Shikuwasa (Citrus depressa Hayata) primarily contains limonene and γ-terpinene, which have potential applications in stress management and relaxation. However, the psychological or physiological relaxation effects of Shikuwasa essential oil on humans are still unknown. This study aims to investigate the short-term relaxation effects of Shikuwasa essential oil, one of the less-studied varieties, compared to inhaling odour-free air in young female adults. Methods: and analysis: This study is a two-arm, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial. Forty young female adults will be assigned with a 1:1 allocation ratio to either the Shikuwasa essential oil inhalation group or the odour-free air inhalation group. The primary outcome measure will be subjective tense arousal (subscale of the Japanese version of the University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology Mood Adjective Checklist). Secondary outcomes include objective measures: miosis rate and peripheral skin temperature for evaluating autonomic nervous activity, and cerebral blood flow (assessed using near-infrared spectroscopy) for evaluating central nervous activity. Since these objective outcome measures cannot be performed at the same time, we divide our experiment into three phases and participants will inhale sample vials for 2 min in each experiment. We will also evaluate individual preferences/impressions regarding inhaled samples and any adverse events. Ethics and dissemination: The study protocol has been reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Miyazaki (reference no: I-0074). The findings of this study will be disseminated to academic and professional audiences via publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at academic conferences, and to the broader public via public talks and media/press releases. All study findings, whether negative or positive, will be reported. Trial registration: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR), UMIN000053914. Prospectively registered on March 20, 2024.

LSDDEP2: study protocol for a randomised, double-dummy, triple-blind, active placebo-controlled, parallel groups trial of LSD microdosing in patients with major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) poses a significant global health burden with available treatments limited by inconsistent efficacy and notable side effects. Classic psychedelics, including lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), have garnered attention for their potential in treating psychiatric disorders. Microdosing, the repeated consumption of sub-hallucinogenic doses of psychedelics, has emerged as a self-treatment approach for depression within lay communities. Building upon preliminary evidence and the successful completion of an open-label pilot trial of microdosing LSD for depression (LSDDEP1), this protocol outlines a phase 2b randomised controlled trial (LSDDEP2). The main objective of LSDDEP2 is to assess the modification of depressive symptoms, measured by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), following a regimen of LSD microdoses versus placebo. METHODS: This is a randomised, double-dummy, triple-blind, active placebo-controlled, parallel groups trial of LSD microdosing in patients meeting DSM-5 criteria for major depressive disorder. Participants will undergo an 8-week LSD microdosing regimen using the titratable MB-22001 formulation taking two doses a week. All doses will be self-administered at home and will be titratable from 4 to 20 µg based on subjective perception and tolerability. In addition to depression symptoms, outcome will include psychiatric and personality inventories, sleep and activity tracking, electroencephalography (EEG), blood biomarkers, semi-structured interviews, and safety (e.g. adverse event, laboratory exam) measures. DISCUSSION: This study will be the first randomised controlled trial to administer controlled microdoses of LSD for treatment of MDD in participants' naturalistic environment. The measures included are designed to assess the drug's safety, mechanism, and treatment efficacy over placebo in this population. The results of this study will be important for assessing the viability of psychedelic microdosing as an additional treatment option and for informing the direction of future clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR, ACTRN12624000128594. Prospectively Registered on 13 February 2024.

Significance of phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors in advanced breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors may be used in cancer progression and mortality along with standard therapy to improve therapeutic efficacy of Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC). PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta- analysis were conducted to understand the therapeutic and toxicity profile of PI3K inhibitors in ABC. METHODS: The electronic databases were searched for suitable trials as per the criteria. The outcomes assessed were Progression- Free Survival, Objective Response Rate and Disease Control Rate. The data were systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed by Mantele- Haenszel method. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in the systematic review and meta- analysis. The co- administration of PI3K inhibitors with standard therapy improved the Progression- Free Survival significantly, while a marginal improvement was observed in Objective Response Rate, no difference in Disease Control Rate and toxicity significantly increased. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of PI3K inhibitors decreased the risk of progression but increased the risk of toxicity.

Promoting resilience in mental health nurses: A partially clustered randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a critical global shortage of nurses in mental health, with workforce attrition due in large part to workplace stressors. Proactive strengths-based interventions to strengthen nurses' capacity to manage stress and improve mental health, wellbeing and resilience may also support workforce retention. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of a resilience-building programme on mental health nurses' coping self-efficacy (primary outcome), and psychological distress, wellbeing, resilience, posttraumatic growth, emotional intelligence behaviours, workplace belonging, and turnover intention (secondary outcomes). DESIGN: Partially clustered randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Large tertiary metropolitan mental health service in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 144 registered and enrolled nurses working clinically ≥0.6 full-time equivalent (73/intervention, 71/control), with 122 completing 3-month follow-up. METHODS: The Promoting Resilience in Nurses programme is an evidence-based workplace intervention delivered by trained facilitators across two workshops. Surveys were administered online upon registration and prior to randomisation (Time 1) into Intervention or Control (no intervention) arms, and immediately after the final workshop (Time 2), and at three months follow-up (Time 3). Linear mixed models for outcome measures were fitted to Time 2 and 3 responses. RESULTS: There were seven intervention groups, with seven to 13 participants per group. Coping self-efficacy improved at Time 2 (estimated intervention effect 21.2 units, 95 % Confidence Intervals: 13.3 to 29.0) and Time 3 (12.1 units, 4.7 to 19.6), as well as wellbeing (Time 2: 9.2 units, 5.0 to 13.4), resilience (Time 2: 0.24 units, 0.01 to 0.46) and posttraumatic growth (Time 2: 16.1 units, 7.0 to 25.3). Psychological distress reduced (Time 2: -3.7 units, -6.2 to -1.31). All were sustained at three months. Emotional intelligence behaviours were improved (Time 2: 3.5 units, 0.6 to 6.5) but not sustained. Workplace belonging improved at Time 3 (0.34 units, 0.02 to 0.65) only. No statistically significant effects for turnover intention. CONCLUSIONS: Despite major contextual challenges, the Promoting Resilience in Nurses programme achieved the aims of promoting nurses' efficacy to cope with stress and regulate their emotions and improving mental health and wellbeing. The findings support the programme as a feasible and successful intervention for nurses across other settings and contexts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12620001052921). Registered 15/10/2020. First recruitment 04/02/2021. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Promoting Resilience in Nurses intervention improved coping self-efficacy, wellbeing, resilience, posttraumatic growth, emotional intelligence and psychological distress.

BCG vaccination of healthcare workers for protection against COVID-19: 12-month outcomes from an international randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine has immunomodulatory effects that may provide protection against unrelated infectious diseases. We aimed to determine whether BCG vaccination protects adults against COVID-19. DESIGN: Phase III double blind randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Healthcare centres in Australia, Brazil, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: 3988 healthcare workers with no prior COVID-19 and no contraindication to BCG. INTERVENTION: Randomised 1:1 using a web-based procedure to receive a single 0.1mL intradermal dose of BCG-Denmark (BCG group, n=1999) or saline (placebo group, n=1989). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Difference in incidence of (i) symptomatic and (ii) severe COVID-19 during the 12-months following randomisation in the modified intention to treat (mITT) population (confirmed SARS-CoV-2 naïve at inclusion). RESULTS: Of the 3988 participants randomised, 3386 had a negative baseline SARS-CoV-2 test and were included in the mITT population. The 12-month adjusted estimated risk of symptomatic COVID-19 was higher in the BCG group (22.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 20.6% to 24.5%) compared with the placebo group (19.6%; 95%CI 17.6% to 21.5%); adjusted difference +3.0 percentage points (95%CI 0.2% to 5.8%; p=0.04). The 12-month adjusted estimated risk of severe COVID-19 (mainly comprising those reporting being unable to work for ≥3 consecutive days) was 11.0% in the BCG group (95%CI 9.5% to 12.4%) compared with 9.6% in the placebo group (95%CI 8.3% to 11.1%); adjusted difference +1.3 percentage points (95%CI -0.7% to 3.3%, p=0.2). Breakthrough COVID-19 (post COVID-19 vaccination), and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the two groups. There were 18 hospitalisations due to COVID-19 (11 in BCG group, 7 in placebo group; adjusted hazard ratio 1.56, 95%CI 0.60 to 4.02, p=0.4) and two deaths due to COVID-19, both in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, vaccination with BCG-Denmark increased the risk of symptomatic COVID-19 over 12 months among health care workers and did not decrease the risk of severe COVID-19 or post-vaccination breakthrough COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04327206.

Cognitive behavioural treatment for mild Alzheimer's patients and their caregivers (CBTAC): results of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of a multicomponent psychotherapy programme for people with mild Alzheimer's dementia (AD) and their caregivers on depression and related neuropsychiatric symptoms. METHOD: The cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-based treatment consisted of 25 weekly sessions, including behavioural activation, behaviour management, interventions for the caregiver, reminiscence, couples counselling, and cognitive restructuring. 41 participants and their caregivers were randomised to either the CBT or the control group, which received treatment-as-usual (TAU). Follow-ups took place at 6 and 12 months posttreatment. The primary outcome was depression in the patient with AD. The secondary outcomes were apathy, other neuropsychiatric symptoms, functional abilities, quality of life, and quality of the relationship with the caregiver. RESULTS: Linear mixed models revealed a statistically significant superiority of CBT regarding clinician-rated depression at the 12-month follow-up with large effect sizes (within-subject d = 1.22, between-subject d = 1.00). Effect sizes were only moderate for self-rated depression and small for informant-rated depression. There was also a significant advantage for CBT regarding clinician-rated apathy, relationship quality, and informant-rated quality of life (QoL) but not for the other neuropsychiatric symptoms or self-rated QoL. CONCLUSION: The results are very encouraging and support an adequately powered multicentre study.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01273272. Date of registration: 3 Jan 2011.

Effects of a waiting list control design on alcohol consumption among online help-seekers: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Indirect evidence suggests that using waiting list control designs in behavioural research may have unintended consequences. The aim of this study was to estimate the effects of a waiting list design on alcohol consumption among individuals who had looked online for help. METHODS: A two-arm randomised controlled trial was employed. The intervention group was informed that they belonged to the intervention group and would receive immediate access to a digital alcohol intervention. The waiting list control group was informed that they belonged to the group that had to wait four weeks to be given access to the intervention and in the meantime, they would be given a summary of their drinking. However, both groups received immediate access to the same digital alcohol intervention; the experimental contrast was thus between being told to wait or not. RESULTS: We randomised 3388 participants (intervention: 1692, waiting list: 1696). Data were available for 954 participants at 1-month follow-up. We found no strong evidence that alcohol consumption differed between groups, but the evidence pointed towards the intervention group reporting lowering weekly alcohol consumption compared to the waiting list control group (IRR = 0.95, 95 % CI = 0.83; 1.08, probability of effect = 78.8 %). CONCLUSION: We found no strong evidence that being informed that access to an intervention would be delayed produced differential self-reported alcohol consumption compared to being informed that access would be immediate. We did find a difference in engagement with the intervention materials, indicating that the experimental manipulation was successful.

Rapid qualitative analysis of recruitment obstacles in the FORVAD (Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy surgery versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy surgery in the treatment of cervical brachialgia) randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The number of surgical trials is increasing but such trials can be complex to deliver and pose specific challenges. A multi-centre, Phase III, RCT comparing Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Treatment of Cervical Brachialgia (FORVAD Trial) was unable to recruit to target. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during trial closedown to understand the experiences of healthcare professionals who participated in the FORVAD Trial, with the aim of informing future research in this area. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 healthcare professionals who had participated in the FORVAD Trial. Interviews explored participants' experiences of the FORVAD trial. A rapid qualitative analysis was conducted, informed by Normalisation Process Theory. RESULTS: Four main themes were generated in the data analysis: (1) individual vs. community equipoise; (2) trial set-up and delivery; (3) identifying and approaching patients; and (4) timing of randomisation. The objectives of the FORVAD trial made sense to participants and they supported the idea that there was clinical or collective equipoise regarding the two FORVAD interventions; however, many surgeons had treatment preferences and lacked individual equipoise. The site which had most recruitment success had adopted a more structured process for identification and recruitment of patients, whereas other sites that adopted more "ad hoc" screening strategies struggled to identify patients. Randomisation on the day of surgery caused both medico-legal and practical concerns at some sites. CONCLUSIONS: Organisation and implementation of a surgical trial in neurosurgery is complex and presents many challenges. Sites often reported low recruitment and discussed the logistical issues of conducting a complex surgical RCT. Future trials in neurosurgery may need to offer more flexibility and time during set-up to maximise opportunities for larger recruitment numbers. Rapid qualitative analysis informed by Normalisation Process Theory was able to quickly identify key issues with trial implementation so rapid qualitative analysis may be a useful approach for teams conducting qualitative research in trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN reference: 10,133,661. Registered 23rd November 2018.

Protocol of a cost-effectiveness analysis of a combined intervention for depression and parenting compared with enhanced standard of care for perinatally depressed, HIV-positive women and their infants in rural South Africa.

INTRODUCTION: Poverty, HIV and perinatal depression represent a triple threat to public health in sub-Saharan Africa because of their combined negative effects on parenting and child development. In the resource-constrained context of low-income and middle-income countries, a lay-counsellor-delivered intervention that combines a psychological and parenting intervention could offer the potential to mitigate the consequences of perinatal depression while also optimising scarce resources for healthcare.Measuring the cost-effectiveness of such a novel intervention will help decision-makers to better understand the relative costs and effects associated with replicating the intervention, thereby supporting evidence-based decision-making. This protocol sets out the methodological framework for analysing the cost-effectiveness of a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) that compares a combined intervention to enhanced standard of care when treating depressed, HIV-positive pregnant women and their infants in rural South Africa. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) protocol complies with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. A societal perspective will be chosen.The proposed methods will determine the cost and efficiency of implementing the intervention as per the randomised control trial protocol, as well as the cost of replicating the intervention in a non-research setting. The costs will be calculated using an appropriately adjusted version of the Standardised Early Childhood Development Costing Tool.Primary health outcomes will be used in combination with costs to determine the cost per improvement in maternal perinatal depression at 12 months postnatal and the cost per improvement in child cognitive development at 24 months of age. To facilitate priority setting, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for improvements in child cognitive development will be ranked against six other child cognitive-development interventions according to Verguet et al's methodology (2022).A combination of activity-based and ingredient-based costing approaches will be used to identify, measure and value activities and inputs for all alternatives. Outcomes data will be sourced from the RCT team. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Oxford is the sponsor of the CEA. Ethics approval has been obtained from the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC, #REC 5/23/08/17), South Africa and the Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee (OxTREC #31-17), UK.Consent for publication is not applicable since no participant data are used in this protocol.We plan to disseminate the CEA results to key policymakers and researchers in the form of a policy brief, meetings and academic papers. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: ISRCTN registry #11 284 870 (14/11/2017) and SANCTR DOH-27-102020-9097 (17/11/2017).

Nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy to improve insomnia disorder in primary care: the HABIT RCT.

Background: Insomnia is a prevalent and distressing sleep disorder. Multicomponent cognitive-behavioural therapy is the recommended first-line treatment, but access remains extremely limited, particularly in primary care where insomnia is managed. One principal component of cognitive-behavioural therapy is a behavioural treatment called sleep restriction therapy, which could potentially be delivered as a brief single-component intervention by generalists in primary care. Objectives: The primary objective of the Health-professional Administered Brief Insomnia Therapy trial was to establish whether nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care improves insomnia relative to sleep hygiene. Secondary objectives were to establish whether nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy was cost-effective, and to undertake a process evaluation to understand intervention delivery, fidelity and acceptability. Design: Pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised, parallel-group, superiority trial with embedded process evaluation. Setting: National Health Service general practice in three regions of England. Participants: Adults aged ≥ 18 years with insomnia disorder were randomised using a validated web-based randomisation programme. Interventions: Participants in the intervention group were offered a brief four-session nurse-delivered behavioural treatment involving two in-person sessions and two by phone. Participants were supported to follow a prescribed sleep schedule with the aim of restricting and standardising time in bed. Participants were also provided with a sleep hygiene leaflet. The control group received the same sleep hygiene leaflet by e-mail or post. There was no restriction on usual care. Main outcome measures: Outcomes were assessed at 3, 6 and 12 months. Participants were included in the primary analysis if they contributed at least one post-randomisation outcome. The primary end point was self-reported insomnia severity with the Insomnia Severity Index at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were health-related and sleep-related quality of life, depressive symptoms, work productivity and activity impairment, self-reported and actigraphy-defined sleep, and hypnotic medication use. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year. For the process evaluation, semistructured interviews were carried out with participants, nurses and practice managers or general practitioners. Due to the nature of the intervention, both participants and nurses were aware of group allocation. Results: We recruited 642 participants (n = 321 for sleep restriction therapy; n = 321 for sleep hygiene) between 29 August 2018 and 23 March 2020. Five hundred and eighty participants (90.3%) provided data at a minimum of one follow-up time point; 257 (80.1%) participants in the sleep restriction therapy arm and 291 (90.7%) participants in the sleep hygiene arm provided primary outcome data at 6 months. The estimated adjusted mean difference on the Insomnia Severity Index was -3.05 (95% confidence interval -3.83 to -2.28; p < 0.001, Cohen's d = -0.74), indicating that participants in the sleep restriction therapy arm [mean (standard deviation) Insomnia Severity Index = 10.9 (5.5)] reported lower insomnia severity compared to sleep hygiene [mean (standard deviation) Insomnia Severity Index = 13.9 (5.2)]. Large treatment effects were also found at 3 (d = -0.95) and 12 months (d = -0.72). Superiority of sleep restriction therapy over sleep hygiene was evident at 3, 6 and 12 months for self-reported sleep, mental health-related quality of life, depressive symptoms, work productivity impairment and sleep-related quality of life. Eight participants in each group experienced serious adverse events but none were judged to be related to the intervention. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was £2075.71, giving a 95.3% probability that the intervention is cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000. The process evaluation found that sleep restriction therapy was acceptable to both nurses and patients, and delivered with high fidelity. Limitations: While we recruited a clinical sample, 97% were of white ethnic background and 50% had a university degree, which may limit generalisability to the insomnia population in England. Conclusions: Brief nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care is clinically effective for insomnia disorder, safe, and likely to be cost-effective. Future work: Future work should examine the place of sleep restriction therapy in the insomnia treatment pathway, assess generalisability across diverse primary care patients with insomnia, and consider additional methods to enhance patient engagement with treatment. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN42499563. Funding: The award was funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/84/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 36. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Insomnia refers to problems with falling asleep or staying asleep, which affects 10% of the adult population. The recommended treatment for insomnia is a psychological treatment called cognitive­behavioural therapy. Research shows this to be a very effective and long-lasting treatment, but there are not enough trained therapists to support the large number of poor sleepers in the United Kingdom. We have developed a brief version of cognitive­behavioural therapy, called sleep restriction therapy, which involves supporting the patient to follow a new sleep­wake pattern. We carried out this study to see if sleep restriction therapy, given by nurses working in general practice, can improve insomnia and quality of life. We searched general practice records and invited people with insomnia to take part. Six hundred and forty-two participants were assigned, by chance, to either sleep restriction therapy or a comparison treatment, called sleep hygiene. Sleep restriction therapy involved meeting with a nurse on four occasions and following a prescribed sleep schedule. Sleep hygiene involved receiving a leaflet of sleep 'do's and dont's'. Those receiving sleep restriction therapy were also provided with the same sleep hygiene leaflet so that the difference between the two groups was whether or not they received nurse treatment. We measured sleep, quality of life, daytime functioning and use of sleep medication through questionnaires, before and after treatment. We calculated the cost to deliver the treatment, as well as the cost of other National Health Service treatments that participants accessed during the study. We also interviewed participants and nurses to understand their views of the treatment. We found that participants in the sleep restriction therapy group experienced greater reduction in their insomnia symptoms compared to sleep hygiene. They also experienced improved sleep, mental health, quality of life and work productivity. The two groups did not differ in their use of prescribed sleep medication. Our results suggest that the treatment is likely to represent good value for money for the National Health Service. Both nurses and participants considered the treatment to be acceptable and beneficial, and they suggested some potential refinements. The study shows that nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy is likely to be a clinically effective approach to the treatment of insomnia, and good value for money for the National Health Service.

A person-centred consultation intervention to improve shared decision-making about, and uptake of, osteoporosis medicines (iFraP): a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial protocol.

Background: Good quality shared decision-making (SDM) conversations involve people with, or at risk of osteoporosis and clinicians collaborating to decide, where appropriate, which evidence-based medicines best fit the person's life, beliefs, and values. We developed the improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments (iFraP) intervention comprising a computerised Decision Support Tool (DST), clinician training package and information resources, for use in UK Fracture Liaison Service consultations.Two primary objectives to determine (1) the effect of the iFraP intervention on patient-reported ease in decision-making about osteoporosis medicines, and (2) cost-effectiveness of iFraP intervention compared to usual NHS care. Secondary objectives are to determine the iFraP intervention effect on patient reported outcome and experience measures, clinical effectiveness (osteoporosis medicine adherence), and to explore intervention acceptability, mechanisms, and processes underlying observed effects, and intervention implementation. Methods: The iFraP trial is a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial in patients referred to a Fracture Liaison Service, with nested mixed methods process evaluation and health economic analysis. Participants aged ≥50 years (n=380) are randomised (1:1 ratio) to one of two arms: (1) iFraP intervention (iFraP-i) or (2) comparator usual NHS care (iFraP-u) and are followed up at 2-weeks and 3-months. The primary outcome is ease of decision-making assessed 2 weeks after the consultation using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The primary objectives will be addressed by comparing the mean DCS score in each trial arm (using analysis of covariance) for patients given an osteoporosis medicine recommendation, alongside a within-trial cost-effectiveness and value of information (VoI) analysis. Process evaluation data collection includes consultation recordings, semi-structured interviews, and DST analytics. Discussion: The iFraP trial will answer important questions about the effectiveness of the new 'iFraP' osteoporosis DST, coupled with clinician training, on SDM and informed initiation of osteoporosis medicines. Trial registration ISRCTN: 10606407, 21/11/2022 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10606407.

Background: For people with osteoporosis, broken bones (called 'fragility fractures') can occur from low or no trauma and cause significant disability. Medicines can strengthen bone and lower the chance of fragility fractures. However, many people who experience a fragility fracture do not start or continue taking osteoporosis medicines. People commonly choose not to take osteoporosis medicines because they are unsure what medicines are for, confused about fracture 'risk' and/or worried about side-effects. To address this, we developed the 'iFraP intervention': 1. The iFraP 'decision-support tool': to support patients and healthcare professionals talk together to make decisions about medicines2. iFraP training for healthcare professionals to:a. use the tool in appointments with patientsb. give understandable, clear and consistent information c. listen to and address patient concerns This trial investigates whether the iFraP intervention makes decision-making about osteoporosis medicines easier, and whether it is cost-effective, acceptable and practical to deliver. Methods: 380 patients will take part who will be 50 years and older and referred to a fracture prevention service, because they have broken a bone. Patients taking part will be allocated to receive either a usual NHS appointment or an appointment using the iFraP intervention. Patients will complete a questionnaire before their appointment, and 2 weeks and 3 months afterwards. Some patients will be asked if they consent to have their appointment recorded and/or be interviewed, to understand how the decision-support tool is being used, and patient's views of the iFraP intervention. Outputs: If successful, the iFraP intervention will benefit patients and the NHS by helping patients make decisions about osteoporosis medicine. If the iFraP intervention increases the number of people with osteoporosis that start and continue taking osteoporosis medicines, iFraP will lower the number of future fractures, and reduce the negative outcomes that result from fractures (e.g. significant disability).

Patient experiences and clinical outcomes of admissions to municipal acute wards versus a hospital: a multicentre randomised controlled trial in Norway.

BACKGROUND: In Norway, municipal acute wards (MAWs) were implemented as alternatives to hospitalisation. Evaluations of the quality of MAW services are lacking. The primary objective of this study was to compare patient experiences after admission to a MAW versus to a hospital. The secondary objective was to compare 'readmissions', 'length of stay', 'self-assessed health-related quality of life' as measured by the EuroQol 5 items 5 level (EQ-5D-5L) index, and 'health status' measured by the RAND-12, in patients admitted to a MAW versus a hospital. METHODS: A multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT), randomising patients to either MAW or hospital. RESULTS: In total, 164 patients were enrolled in the study; 115 were randomised to MAW and 49 to hospital. There were no significant differences between the MAW and hospital groups regarding patient experience, which was rated positively in both groups. Patients in the MAW group reported significantly better physical health status as measured by the RAND-12 four to six weeks after admittance than those randomised to hospital (physical component summary score, 31.7 versus 27.1, p = 0.04). The change in EQ-5D index score from baseline to four to six weeks after admittance was significantly greater among patients randomised to MAWs versus hospitals (0.20 versus 0.02, p = 0.03). There were no other significant differences between the MAW and hospital groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patient experiences and readmissions were similar, whether patients were admitted to a MAW or a hospital. The significant differences in health status and quality of life favouring the MAWs suggest that these healthcare services may be better for elderly patients. However, unfortunately we did not reach the planned sample size due to challenges in the data collection posed by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Municipal acute wards have been implemented in Norway as alternatives to hospitalisation. However, the quality of these wards remains unexplored. Results in this study indicates thatpatient experiences after stays in municipal acute wards are equally positive to experiences after stays in hospitalthere are no significant differences in length-of-stay, readmission rates or mortality between municipal acute wards and hospitalpatients have slightly more positive self-rated health and health status 4­6 weeks after staying in a municipal acute ward.

Mediated effects of a randomised control trial for a text messaging smoking cessation intervention for online help-seekers and primary care visitors.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Digital smoking cessation interventions have been shown to be effective in helping individuals achieve prolonged smoking abstinence. Nonetheless, the mechanisms that drive such effects are unclear. The current study aimed to estimate a digital smoking cessation intervention's natural direct and indirect effects. METHODS: This secondary analysis of mediated effects uses data from a randomised controlled trial which included participants who smoked at least one cigarette a week, had access to a mobile phone, and were 18 years or older. The comparator was existing smoking cessation support available to all members of the Swedish public. Primary outcomes were prolonged smoking abstinence and point prevalence of smoking abstinence, measured at 3- and 6-months post-randomisation. A counterfactual framework was used to estimate three hypothesised mediators of the intervention's effects: importance, knowledge of how to change (know-how), and confidence. RESULTS: Between 18/09/20 and 16/06/22, 1012 participants were randomised. The intervention led to improved confidence and know-how, which both partially mediated the effects of the digital intervention on smoking abstinence at 3- and 6 months post-randomisation. CONCLUSIONS: A digital smoking cessation intervention was found to partially affect smoking abstinence by improving individuals' confidence in their ability to quit smoking and developing knowledge on how to quit. Face-value single-item mediator measures, lack of blinding, and attrition limit the study. Future studies should address these limitations and assess additional mechanisms mediating intervention effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13455271.

Community health promotion and medical provision and impact on neonates (CHAMPION2) and support to rural India's public education system and impact on numeracy and literacy scores (STRIPES2): an update to the study protocol (v 11) for a cluster randomised trial in Madhya Pradesh, India.

BACKGROUND: This update outlines amendments to the CHAMPION2/STRIPES2 cluster randomised trial protocol primarily made due to the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown in India in 2020. These amendments were in line with national guidelines for health research during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We did not change the original trial design, eligibility, and outcomes. Amendments were introduced to minimise the risk of COVID-19 transmission and ensure safety and wellbeing of trial staff, participants, and other villagers. CHAMPION2 intervention: participatory learning and action (PLA) and fixed day service (FDS) meeting were revised to incorporate social distancing and hygiene precautions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, PLA participation was limited to pregnant women and birthing partners. STRIPES2 intervention: before/after-school classes were halted for a period and then modified temporarily (reducing class sizes, and/or changing meeting places) with hygiene and safe distancing practices introduced. DATA COLLECTION: The research team gathered as much information as possible from participants by telephone. If the participant had no telephone or could not be contacted by telephone, data were collected in person. COVID-19 precautions: trial teams were trained on COVID-19 precautions and used personal protective equipment whilst in the villages for trial-related activities. After restarting the trial between June and September 2020 in a phased manner, some trial activities were suspended again in all the trial villages from April to June 2021 due to the second wave of COVID-19 cases and lockdown imposed in Satna, Madhya Pradesh. Trial timelines were also revised, with outcomes measured later than originally planned. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registry of India CTRI/2019/05/019296. Registered 23 May 2019. https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?EncHid=MzExOTg=&Enc=&userName=champion2 .

Components of pharmacist-led medication reviews and their relationship to outcomes: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmacist-led medication reviews are an established intervention to support patients prescribed multiple medicines or with complex medication regimes. For this systematic review, a medication review was defined as 'a consultation between a pharmacist and a patient to review the patient's total medicines use with a view to improve patient health outcomes and minimise medicines-related problems'. It is not known how varying approaches to medication reviews lead to different outcomes. AIM: To explore the common themes associated with positive outcomes from pharmacist-led medication reviews. METHOD: Randomised controlled trials of pharmacist-led medication reviews in adults aged 18 years and over were included. The search terms used in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were "medication review", "pharmacist", "randomised controlled trial" and their synonyms, time filter 2015 to September 2023. Studies published before 2015 were identified from a previous systematic review. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. Descriptions of medication reviews' components, implementation and outcomes were narratively synthesised to draw out common themes. Results are presented in tables. RESULTS: Sixty-eight papers describing 50 studies met the inclusion criteria. Common themes that emerged from synthesis include collaborative working which may help reduce medicines-related problems and the number of medicines prescribed; patient involvement in goal setting and action planning which may improve patients' ability to take medicines as prescribed and help them achieve their treatment goals; additional support and follow-up, which may lead to improved blood pressure, diabetes control, quality of life and a reduction of medicines-related problems. CONCLUSION: This systematic review identified common themes and components, for example, goal setting, action planning, additional support and follow-up, that may influence outcomes of pharmacist-led medication reviews. Researchers, health professionals and commissioners could use these for a comprehensive evaluation of medication review implementation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020173907.