A Systematic Review of Mental Health Professionals, Patients, and Carers' Perceived Barriers and Enablers to Supporting Smoking Cessation in Mental Health Settings.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based smoking cessation and temporary abstinence interventions to address smoking in mental health settings are available, but the impact of these interventions is limited. AIMS AND METHODS: We aimed to identify and synthesize the perceived barriers and enablers to supporting smoking cessation in mental health settings. Six databases were searched for articles reporting the investigation of perceived barriers and enablers to supporting smoking cessation in mental health settings. Data were extracted and coded using a mixed inductive/deductive method to the theoretical domains framework, key barriers and enablers were identified through the combining of coding frequency, elaboration, and expressed importance. RESULTS: Of 31 included articles, 56 barriers/enablers were reported from the perspectives of mental healthcare professionals (MHPs), 48 from patient perspectives, 21 from mixed perspectives, and 0 from relatives/carers. Barriers to supporting smoking cessation or temporary abstinence in mental health settings mainly fell within the domains: environmental context and resources (eg, MHPs lack of time); knowledge (eg, interactions around smoking that did occur were ill informed); social influences (eg, smoking norms within social network); and intentions (eg, MHPs lack positive intentions to deliver support). Enablers mainly fell within the domains: environmental context and resources (eg, use of appropriate support materials) and social influences (eg, pro-quitting social norms). CONCLUSIONS: The importance of overcoming competing demands on staff time and resources, the inclusion of tailored, personalized support, the exploitation of patients wider social support networks, and enhancing knowledge and awareness around the benefits smoking cessation is highlighted. IMPLICATIONS: Identified barriers and enablers represent targets for future interventions to improve the support of smoking cessation in mental health settings. Future research needs to examine the perceptions of the carers and family/friends of patients in relation to the smoking behavior change support delivered to patients.

Impact of Social Stories on social and emotional health of autism spectrum primary school children: the ASSSIST2 RCT with economic evaluation.

Background: Differences in the way autistic children experience the world can contribute to anxiety and stress. Carol Gray's Social Stories™ are a highly personalised intervention to support children by providing social information about specific situations in an individual story. Objectives: This randomised controlled trial aimed to establish whether Social Stories are clinically effective and cost-effective in improving social responsiveness and social and emotional health in children on the autism spectrum in schools. Design: A multisite pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial comparing Social Stories with care as usual. Setting: Eighty-seven schools (clusters) across Yorkshire and the Humber. Participants: Two hundred and forty-nine children were randomised via a bespoke system hosted at York Trials Unit (129 Social Stories and 120 care as usual). Recruitment was completed in May 2021. Participants were children aged 4-11 years with a diagnosis of autism, alongside teachers, interventionists and caregivers. Recruitment was via schools, NHS trusts, support groups and local publicity. Intervention: The intervention included training for educational professionals and caregivers covering psychoeducation and implementation of Social Stories. Stories were written around contextualised goals around the child's need for social information. Interventionists read the Social Story™ with the child at least six times over 4 weeks during school. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome was the Social Responsiveness Scale-2 completed by teachers at 6 months (the primary end point), which measures social awareness, cognition, communication and behaviour. Data were collected from caregivers and educational professionals at 6 weeks and 6 months through questionnaires. Blinding of participants was not possible. Results: At 6 months, the estimated difference in expected teacher-reported Social Responsiveness Scale-2 T-score (the primary end point) was -1.61 (95% confidence interval -4.18 to 0.96, p = 0.220), slightly favouring the intervention group. The estimated differences for the parent-reported secondary outcomes at 6 months were small and generally favoured the control group except the measure of children's quality-adjusted life-year (+ 0.001, 95% confidence interval -0.032 to 0.035) and parental stress (-1.49, 95% confidence interval -5.43 to 2.46, p = 0.460), which favoured the intervention group. Children in the intervention group met their individual goals more frequently than children who received usual care alone (0.97 confidence interval 0.21 to 1.73, p = 0.012). The intervention is likely to save small costs (-£191 per child, 95% confidence interval -767.7 to 337.7) and maintain a similar quality of life compared to usual care. The probability of Social Stories being a preferred option is 75% if the society is willing to pay £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Limitations include considerable disruptions during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Conclusion: Social Stories are used in schools and represent a low-cost intervention. There is no clinically evident impact on social responsiveness, anxiety and/or depression, parental stress or general health. Benefits were observed for specific behavioural goals as assessed by the teacher, and Social Stories may serve as a useful tool for facilitating dialogue between children and school staff to address specific behavioural challenges. Usage should be at the school's discretion. Future work: Given the uncertainty of the results in light of coronavirus disease 2019, further work to establish the impact of Social Stories is merited. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11634810. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/111/91) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 39. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Autism affects the way children experience the world, and some children find social situations stressful. We wanted to know whether Social Stories™, developed by Carol Gray, helped children with their social skills and behaviour in school and whether they offered value for money. A randomised controlled trial design was used, which gave schools an equal chance of being asked to deliver Social Stories or to continue providing care as usual. Two hundred and forty-nine children from 87 schools took part and we trained school staff and parents to write and deliver Social Stories. We agreed with teachers and parents, what each child needed help with and wrote stories with this in mind. Trained staff read the Social Story with the child at least six times over 4 weeks. Follow-up information was collected from parents and school staff at the start of the study, after 6 weeks and 6 months. After 6 months, teachers completed a questionnaire called the Social Responsiveness Scale-2 which measures the child's social skills. Using these measures, the results suggest that Social Stories do not lead to any significant changes in social skills, mental health, parent stress, general health or quality of life but children in schools allocated to Social Stories met their goal more frequently and incurred less costs than children who did not. Parents and educational professionals found the Social Stories intervention and training beneficial. Based on our findings, Social Stories do not appear to improve general social skills in primary-aged autistic children. Benefits were observed for specific goals, and school-based costs were reduced.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of opportunistic screening and stepped care interventions for older hazardous alcohol users in primary care (AESOPS) - a randomised control trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is a wealth of evidence regarding the detrimental impact of excessive alcohol consumption. In older populations excessive alcohol consumption is associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease, hypertension, stroke and a range of cancers. Alcohol consumption is also associated with an increased risk of falls, early onset of dementia and other cognitive deficits. Physiological changes that occur as part of the ageing process mean that older people experience alcohol related problems at lower consumption levels. There is a strong evidence base for the effectiveness of brief psychosocial interventions in reducing alcohol consumption in populations identified opportunistically in primary care settings. Stepped care interventions involve the delivery of more intensive interventions only to those in the population who fail to respond to less intensive interventions and provide a potentially resource efficient means of meeting the needs of this population. METHODS/DESIGN: The study design is a pragmatic prospective multi-centre two arm randomised controlled trial. The primary hypothesis is that stepped care interventions for older hazardous alcohol users reduce alcohol consumption compared with a minimal intervention at 12 months post randomisation. Potential participants are identified using the AUDIT questionnaire. Eligible and consenting participants are randomised with equal probability to either a minimal intervention or a three step treatment approach. The step treatment approach incorporates as step 1 behavioural change counselling, step 2 three sessions of motivational enhancement therapy and step 3 referral to specialist services. The primary outcome is measured using average standard drinks per day and secondary outcome measures include the Drinking Problems Index, health related quality of life and health utility. The study incorporates a comprehensive economic analysis to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of the interventions. DISCUSSION: The paper presents a protocol for the first pragmatic randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stepped care interventions for older hazardous alcohol users in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN52557360.

What are the main inefficiencies in trial conduct: a survey of UKCRC registered clinical trials units in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) Network aims to support high-quality, efficient and sustainable clinical trials research in the UK. To better understand the challenges in efficient trial conduct, and to help prioritise tackling these challenges, we surveyed CTU staff. The aim was to identify important inefficiencies during two key stages of the trial conduct life cycle: (i) from grant award to first participant, (ii) from first participant to reporting of final results. METHODS: Respondents were asked to list their top three inefficiencies from grant award to recruitment of the first participant, and from recruitment of the first participant to publication of results. Free text space allowed respondents to explain why they thought these were important. The survey was constructed using SurveyMonkey and circulated to the 45 registered CTUs in May 2013. Respondents were asked to name their unit and job title, but were otherwise anonymous. Free-text responses were coded into broad categories. RESULTS: There were 43 respondents from 25 CTUs. The top inefficiency between grant award and recruitment of first participant was reported as obtaining research and development (R&D) approvals by 23 respondents (53%), contracts by 22 (51%), and other approvals by 13 (30%). The top inefficiency from recruitment of first participant to publication of results was failure to meet recruitment targets, reported by 19 (44%) respondents. A common comment was that this reflected overoptimistic or inaccurate estimates of recruitment at site. Data management, including case report form design and delays in resolving data queries with sites, was reported as an important inefficiency by 11 (26%) respondents, and preparation and submission for publication by 9 (21%). CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for improving the efficiency of trial conduct within the CTUs network include: further reducing unnecessary bureaucracy in approvals and contracting; improving training for site staff; realistic recruitment targets and appropriate feasibility; developing training across the network; improving the working relationships between chief investigators and units; encouraging funders to release sufficient funding to allow prompt recruitment of trial staff; and encouraging more research into how to improve the efficiency and quality of trial conduct.

Randomised controlled feasibility trial of the Active Communication Education programme plus hearing aid provision versus hearing aid provision alone (ACE to HEAR): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Up to 30% of hearing aids fitted to new adult clients are reported to be of low benefit and used intermittently or not at all. Evidence suggests that additional interventions paired with service-delivery redesign may help improve hearing aid use and benefit. The range of interventions available is limited. In particular, the efficacy of interventions like the Active Communication Education (ACE) programme that focus on improving communication success with hearing-impaired people and significant others, has not previously been assessed. We propose that improved communication outcomes associated with the ACE intervention, lead to an increased perception of hearing aid value and more realistic expectations associated with hearing aid use and ownership, which are reported to be key barriers and facilitators for successful hearing aid use. This study will assess the feasibility of delivering ACE and undertaking a definitive randomised controlled trial to evaluate whether ACE would be a cost-effective and acceptable way of increasing quality of life through improving communication and hearing aid use in a public health service such as the National Health Service. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This will be a randomised controlled, open feasibility trial with embedded economic and process evaluations delivered in audiology departments in two UK cities. We aim to recruit 84 patients (and up to 84 significant others) aged 18 years and over, who report moderate or less than moderate benefit from their new hearing aid. The feasibility of a large-scale study and the acceptability of the ACE intervention will be measured by recruitment rates, treatment retention, follow-up rates and qualitative interviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval granted by South East Coast-Surrey Research Ethics Committee (16/LO/2012). Dissemination of results will be via peer-reviewed research publications both online and in print, conference presentations, posters, patient forums and Trust bulletins. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN28090877.