Fall prevention interventions in primary care to reduce fractures and falls in people aged 70 years and over: the PreFIT three-arm cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: Falls and fractures are a major problem. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative falls prevention interventions. DESIGN: Three-arm, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with parallel economic analysis. The unit of randomisation was the general practice. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: People aged ≥ 70 years. INTERVENTIONS: All practices posted an advice leaflet to each participant. Practices randomised to active intervention arms (exercise and multifactorial falls prevention) screened participants for falls risk using a postal questionnaire. Active treatments were delivered to participants at higher risk of falling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was fracture rate over 18 months, captured from Hospital Episode Statistics, general practice records and self-report. Secondary outcomes were falls rate, health-related quality of life, mortality, frailty and health service resource use. Economic evaluation was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year and incremental net monetary benefit. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2014, we randomised 63 general practices (9803 participants): 21 practices (3223 participants) to advice only, 21 practices (3279 participants) to exercise and 21 practices (3301 participants) to multifactorial falls prevention. In the active intervention arms, 5779 out of 6580 (87.8%) participants responded to the postal fall risk screener, of whom 2153 (37.3%) were classed as being at higher risk of falling and invited for treatment. The rate of intervention uptake was 65% (697 out of 1079) in the exercise arm and 71% (762 out of 1074) in the multifactorial falls prevention arm. Overall, 379 out of 9803 (3.9%) participants sustained a fracture. There was no difference in the fracture rate between the advice and exercise arms (rate ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.59) or between the advice and multifactorial falls prevention arms (rate ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.71). There was no difference in falls rate over 18 months (exercise arm: rate ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.14; multifactorial falls prevention arm: rate ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.30). A lower rate of falls was observed in the exercise arm at 8 months (rate ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.96), but not at other time points. There were 289 (2.9%) deaths, with no differences by treatment arm. There was no evidence of effects in prespecified subgroup comparisons, nor in nested intention-to-treat analyses that considered only those at higher risk of falling. Exercise provided the highest expected quality-adjusted life-years (1.120), followed by advice and multifactorial falls prevention, with 1.106 and 1.114 quality-adjusted life-years, respectively. NHS costs associated with exercise (£3720) were lower than the costs of advice (£3737) or of multifactorial falls prevention (£3941). Although incremental differences between treatment arms were small, exercise dominated advice, which in turn dominated multifactorial falls prevention. The incremental net monetary benefit of exercise relative to treatment valued at £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year is modest, at £191, and for multifactorial falls prevention is £613. Exercise is the most cost-effective treatment. No serious adverse events were reported. LIMITATIONS: The rate of fractures was lower than anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: Screen-and-treat falls prevention strategies in primary care did not reduce fractures. Exercise resulted in a short-term reduction in falls and was cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: Exercise is the most promising intervention for primary care. Work is needed to ensure adequate uptake and sustained effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN71002650. 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. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?: Falls are a major problem for older people. Current practice is to give people advice leaflets. Another approach is exercise, especially balance and strength training. A third alternative is to invite older people to attend a falls assessment with a health-care professional, either a doctor or a trained nurse. This usually involves a careful check of prescribed tablets, blood pressure, eyesight and other problems that might cause falls. WHAT DID WE DO?: We compared three strategies. We recruited 9803 people aged 70­101 years from 63 general practices across England. We randomly allocated practices in clusters into three treatment groups. The participants in one group were given a Staying Steady advice leaflet (Age UK. Staying Steady. London: Age UK; 2009). Participants in the second group received the same leaflet and were assessed to see if they were at higher risk of falling. Those participants identified as being at higher risk (about 1000 people) were invited to take part in an exercise programme, supported by an exercise therapist. These people did balance and strength training at home for up to 6 months. In the third group, we again identified participants who were at higher risk of falling (about 1000 people) and invited them for a detailed falls assessment with a trained nurse or doctor. This last group of participants were referred for other treatments if any health problems were found. In all groups we counted fractures and falls and measured changes in quality of life, frailty and the cost of the treatments over 18 months of follow-up. WHAT DID WE FIND OUT?: We found no difference in the number of fractures over 18 months between the different treatments. The exercise programme reduced falls in the short term but not over the longer term. The exercise programme was cheaper and led to a slightly better overall quality of life.

Screening and Intervention to Prevent Falls and Fractures in Older People.

BACKGROUND: Community screening and therapeutic prevention strategies may reduce the incidence of falls in older people. The effects of these measures on the incidence of fractures, the use of health resources, and health-related quality of life are unknown. METHODS: In a pragmatic, three-group, cluster-randomized, controlled trial, we estimated the effect of advice sent by mail, risk screening for falls, and targeted interventions (multifactorial fall prevention or exercise for people at increased risk for falls) as compared with advice by mail only. The primary outcome was the rate of fractures per 100 person-years over 18 months. Secondary outcomes were falls, health-related quality of life, frailty, and a parallel economic evaluation. RESULTS: We randomly selected 9803 persons 70 years of age or older from 63 general practices across England: 3223 were assigned to advice by mail alone, 3279 to falls-risk screening and targeted exercise in addition to advice by mail, and 3301 to falls-risk screening and targeted multifactorial fall prevention in addition to advice by mail. A falls-risk screening questionnaire was sent to persons assigned to the exercise and multifactorial fall-prevention groups. Completed screening questionnaires were returned by 2925 of the 3279 participants (89%) in the exercise group and by 2854 of the 3301 participants (87%) in the multifactorial fall-prevention group. Of the 5779 participants from both these groups who returned questionnaires, 2153 (37%) were considered to be at increased risk for falls and were invited to receive the intervention. Fracture data were available for 9802 of the 9803 participants. Screening and targeted intervention did not result in lower fracture rates; the rate ratio for fracture with exercise as compared with advice by mail was 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.59), and the rate ratio with multifactorial fall prevention as compared with advice by mail was 1.30 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.71). The exercise strategy was associated with small gains in health-related quality of life and the lowest overall costs. There were three adverse events (one episode of angina, one fall during a multifactorial fall-prevention assessment, and one hip fracture) during the trial period. CONCLUSIONS: Advice by mail, screening for fall risk, and a targeted exercise or multifactorial intervention to prevent falls did not result in fewer fractures than advice by mail alone. (Funded by the National Institute of Health Research; ISRCTN number, ISRCTN71002650.).

The importance of different frailty domains in a population based sample in England.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to estimate the prevalence of frailty and relative contribution of physical/balance, nutritive, cognitive and sensory frailty to important adverse health states (falls, physical activity levels, outdoor mobility, problems in self-care or usual activities, and lack of energy or accomplishment) in an English cohort by age and sex. METHODS: Analysis of baseline data from a cohort of 9803 community-dwelling participants in a clinical trial. The sample was drawn from a random selection of all people aged 70 or more registered with 63 general practices across England. Data were collected by postal questionnaire. Frailty was measured with the Strawbridge questionnaire. We used cross sectional, multivariate logistic regression to estimate the association between frailty domains and known correlates and adjusted for age. Some models were stratified by sex. RESULTS: Mean age of participants was 78 years (sd 5.7), range 70 to 101 and 47.5% (4653/9803) were men. The prevalence of overall frailty was 20.7% (2005/9671) and there was no difference in prevalence by sex (Odds Ratio 0.98; 95% Confidence Interval 0.89 to 1.08). Sensory frailty was the most common and this was reported by more men (1823/4586) than women (1469/5056; Odds Ratio for sensory frailty 0.62, 95% Confidence Interval 0.57 to 0.68). Men were less likely than women to have physical or nutritive frailty. Physical frailty had the strongest independent associations with adverse health states. However, sensory frailty was independently associated with falls, less frequent walking, problems in self-care and usual activities, lack of energy and accomplishment. CONCLUSIONS: Physical frailty was more strongly associated with adverse health states, but sensory frailty was much more common. The health gain from intervention for sensory frailty in England is likely to be substantial, particularly for older men. Sensory frailty should be explored further as an important target of intervention to improve health outcomes for older people both at clinical and population level. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN71002650.

Testing a support programme for opioid reduction for people with chronic non-malignant pain: the I-WOTCH randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic non-malignant pain has a major impact on the well-being, mood and productivity of those affected. Opioids are increasingly prescribed to manage this type of pain, but with a risk of other disabling symptoms, when their effectiveness has been questioned. This trial is designed to implement and evaluate a patient-centred intervention targeting withdrawal of strong opioids in people with chronic pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a group-based multicomponent intervention combined with individualised clinical facilitator led support for the management of chronic non-malignant pain against the control intervention (self-help booklet and relaxation compact disc). An embedded process evaluation will examine fidelity of delivery and investigate experiences of the intervention. The two primary outcomes are activities of daily living (measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference Short Form (8A)) and opioid use. The secondary outcomes are pain severity, quality of life, sleep quality, self-efficacy, adverse events and National Health Service (NHS) healthcare resource use. Participants are followed up at 4, 8 and 12 months, with a primary endpoint of 12 months. Between-group differences will indicate effectiveness; we are looking for a difference of 3.5 points on our pain interference outcome (scale 40 to 77). We will undertake an NHS perspective cost-effectiveness analysis using quality adjusted life years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Full approval was given by Yorkshire & The Humber - South Yorkshire Research Ethics Committee on 13 September, 2016 (16/YH/0325). Appropriate local approvals were sought for each area in which recruitment was undertaken. The current protocol version is 1.6 date 19 December 2018. Publication of results in peer- reviewed journals will inform the scientific and clinical community. We will disseminate results to patient participants and study facilitators in a study newsletter as well as a lay summary of results on the study website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN49470934; Pre-results.

Comparison of alternative falls data collection methods in the Prevention of Falls Injury Trial (PreFIT).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prospective, monthly diaries are recommended for collecting falls data but are burdensome and expensive. The aim of the article was to compare characteristics of fallers and estimates of fall rates by method of data collection. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A methodology study nested within a large cluster randomized controlled trial. We randomized 9,803 older adults from 63 general practices across England to receive one of three fall prevention interventions. Participants provided a retrospective report of falls in postal questionnaires mailed every 4 months. A separate randomization allocated participants to receive prospective monthly falls diaries for one simultaneous 4-month period. RESULTS: Falls diaries were returned by 7,762 of 9,375 (83%); of which 6,306 (67%) participants reported the same number of falls on both data sources. Diary nonresponders were older and had poorer levels of physical and mental health. Analysis of time points where both data sources were available showed the falls rate on diaries was consistently higher than on the questionnaire (mean rate: 0.16 vs. 0.12 falls per person-month observation). Diary allocation was associated with a higher rate of withdrawal from the main trial. CONCLUSION: Diary completion was associated with sample attrition. We found on average a 32% difference in falls rates between the two data sources. Retrospective and prospective falls data are not consistently reported when collected simultaneously.

Randomised controlled trial of exercise to prevent shoulder problems in women undergoing breast cancer treatment: study protocol for the prevention of shoulder problems trial (UK PROSPER).

Musculoskeletal shoulder problems are common after breast cancer treatment. Early postoperative exercises targeting the upper limb may improve shoulder function. This protocol describes a National Institute for Health Research-funded randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an early supervised structured exercise programme compared with usual care, for women at high risk of developing shoulder problems after breast cancer surgery. METHODS: This pragmatic two-armed, multicentre RCT is underway within secondary care in the UK. PRevention Of Shoulder ProblEms tRial (PROSPER) aims to recruit 350 women from approximately 15 UK centres with follow-up at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Recruitment processes and intervention development were optimised through qualitative research during a 6-month internal pilot phase. Participants are randomised to the PROSPER intervention or best practice usual care only. The PROSPER intervention is delivered by physiotherapists and 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 primary outcome is upper arm function assessed using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months postrandomisation. Secondary outcomes include DASH subscales, acute and chronic pain, complications, health-related quality of life and healthcare resource use. We will interview a subsample of 20 participants to explore their experiences of the trial interventions. DISCUSSION: The PROSPER study is the first multicentre UK clinical trial to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of supported exercise in the prevention of shoulder problems in high-risk women undergoing breast cancer surgery. The findings will inform future clinical practice and provide valuable insight into the role of physiotherapy-supported exercise in breast cancer rehabilitation. PROTOCOL VERSION: Version 2.1; dated 11 January 2017 TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN35358984; Pre-results.

Development and delivery of an exercise programme for falls prevention: the Prevention of Falls Injury Trial (PreFIT).

OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the development and implementation of an exercise intervention to prevent falls within The Prevention of Fall Injury Trial (PreFIT), which is a large multi-centred randomised controlled trial based in the UK National Health Service (NHS). DESIGN: Using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist, to describe the rationale and processes for treatment selection and delivery of the PreFIT exercise intervention. PARTICIPANTS: Based on the results of a validated falls and balance survey, participants were eligible for the exercise intervention if they were at moderate or high risk of falling. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention development was informed using the current evidence base, published guidelines, and pre-existing surveys of clinical practice, a pilot study and consensus work with therapists and practitioners. The exercise programme targets lower limb strength and balance, which are known, modifiable risk factors for falling. Treatment was individually tailored and progressive, with seven recommended contacts over a six-month period. Clinical Trials Registry (ISCTRN 71002650).

The design and development of a complex multifactorial falls assessment intervention for falls prevention: The Prevention of Falls Injury Trial (PreFIT).

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the design and development of a complex multifactorial falls prevention (MFFP) intervention for implementation and testing within the framework of a large UK-based falls prevention randomised controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: A complex intervention was developed for inclusion within the Prevention of Falls Injury Trial (PreFIT), a multicentre pragmatic RCT. PreFIT aims to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of three alternative primary care falls prevention interventions (advice, exercise and MFFP), on outcomes of fractures and falls. Community-dwelling adults, aged 70 years and older, were recruited from primary care in the National Health Service (NHS), England. RESULTS: Development of the PreFIT MFFP intervention was informed by the existing evidence base and clinical guidelines for the assessment and management of falls in older adults. After piloting and modification, the final MFFP intervention includes seven falls risk factors: a detailed falls history interview with consideration of 'red flags'; assessment of balance and gait; vision; medication screen; cardiac screen; feet and footwear screen and home environment assessment. This complex intervention has been fully manualised with clear, documented assessment and treatment pathways for each risk factor. Each risk factor is assessed in every trial participant referred for MFFP. Referral for assessment is based upon a screening survey to identify those with a history of falling or balance problems. Intervention delivery can be adapted to the local setting. CONCLUSION: This complex falls prevention intervention is currently being tested within the framework of a large clinical trial. This paper adheres to TIDieR and CONSORT recommendations for the comprehensive and explicit reporting of trial interventions. Results from the PreFIT study will be published in due course. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PreFIT MFFP intervention, compared to advice and exercise, on the prevention of falls and fractures, will be reported at the conclusion of the trial.

Dementia and Physical Activity (DAPA) - an exercise intervention to improve cognition in people with mild to moderate dementia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is more common in older than in younger people, and as a result of the ageing of the population in developed countries, it is becoming more prevalent. Drug treatments for dementia are limited, and the main support offered to people with dementia and their families is generally services to mitigate against loss of function. Physical exercise is a candidate non-pharmacological treatment for dementia. METHODS/DESIGN: DAPA is a randomised controlled trial funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme to estimate the effect of a 4-month, moderate- to hard-intensity exercise training programme and subsequent advice to remain active, on cognition (primary outcome) at 12 months in people with mild to moderate dementia. Community-dwelling participants (with their carers where possible), who are able to walk 3 metres without human assistance, able to undertake an exercise programme and do not have any unstable or terminal illness are recruited. Participants are then randomised by an independent statistician using a computerised random number generator to usual care or exercise at a 2:1 ratio in favour of exercise. The exercise intervention comprises 29, 1-hour-long exercise classes, run twice weekly at suitable venues such as leisure centres, which include aerobic exercise (on static bikes) and resistance exercise (using weights). Goals for independent exercise are set while the classes are still running, and supported thereafter with phone calls. The primary outcome is measured using ADAS-cog. Secondary outcome measures include behavioural symptoms, functional ability, quality of life and carer burden. Primary and secondary outcomes will be measured at baseline and at 6 and 12 months after randomisation, by researchers masked to participant randomisation in the participants' own homes. An economic evaluation will be carried out in parallel to the RCT, as will a qualitative study capturing the experiences of participants, carers and staff delivering the intervention. DISCUSSION: The DAPA study will be the first large, randomised trial of the cognitive effects of exercise on people with dementia. The intervention is designed to be capable of being delivered within the constraints of NHS service provision, and the economic evaluation will allow assessment of its cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DAPA was registered with the ISRCTN database on 29 July 2011, registration number ISRCTN32612072 .

A cluster randomised controlled trial of advice, exercise or multifactorial assessment to prevent falls and fractures in community-dwelling older adults: protocol for the prevention of falls injury trial (PreFIT).

INTRODUCTION: Falls are the leading cause of accident-related mortality in older adults. Injurious falls are associated with functional decline, disability, healthcare utilisation and significant National Health Service (NHS)-related costs. The evidence base for multifactorial or exercise interventions reducing fractures in the general population is weak. This protocol describes a large-scale UK trial investigating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of alternative falls prevention interventions targeted at community dwelling older adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A three-arm, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial, conducted within primary care in England, UK. Sixty-three general practices will be randomised to deliver one of three falls prevention interventions: (1) advice only; (2) advice with exercise; or (3) advice with multifactorial falls prevention (MFFP). We aim to recruit over 9000 community-dwelling adults aged 70 and above. Practices randomised to deliver advice will mail out advice booklets. Practices randomised to deliver 'active' interventions, either exercise or MFFP, send all trial participants the advice booklet and a screening survey to identify participants with a history of falling or balance problems. Onward referral to 'active' intervention will be based on falls risk determined from balance screen. The primary outcome is peripheral fracture; secondary outcomes include number with at least one fracture, falls, mortality, quality of life and health service resource use at 18 months, captured using self-report and routine healthcare activity data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has approval from the National Research Ethics Service (REC reference 10/H0401/36; Protocol V.3.1, 21/May/2013). User groups and patient representatives were consulted to inform trial design. Results will be reported at conferences and in peer-reviewed publications. A patient-friendly summary of trial findings will be published on the prevention of falls injury trial (PreFIT) website. This protocol adheres to the recommended SPIRIT Checklist. Amendments will be reported to relevant regulatory parties. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 71002650; Pre-results.

Emergency department treatments and physiotherapy for acute whiplash: a pragmatic, two-step, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effectiveness of treatments for acute whiplash injury. We aimed to estimate whether training of staff in emergency departments to provide active management consultations was more effective than usual consultations (Step 1) and to estimate whether a physiotherapy package was more effective than one additional physiotherapy advice session in patients with persisting symptoms (Step 2). METHODS: Step 1 was a pragmatic, cluster randomised trial of 12 NHS Trust hospitals including 15 emergency departments who treated patients with acute whiplash associated disorder of grades I-III. The hospitals were randomised by clusters to either active management or usual care consultations. In Step 2, we used a nested individually randomised trial. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a package of up to six physiotherapy sessions or a single advice session. Randomisation in Step 2 was stratified by centre. Investigator-masked outcomes were obtained at 4, 8, and 12 months. Masking of clinicians and patients was not possible in all steps of the trial. The primary outcome was the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Analysis was intention to treat, and included an economic evaluation. The study is registered ISRCTN33302125. FINDINGS: Recruitment ran from Dec 5, 2005 to Nov 30, 2007. Follow-up was completed on Dec 19, 2008. In Step 1, 12 NHS Trusts were randomised, and 3851 of 6952 eligible patients agreed to participate (1598 patients were assigned to usual care and 2253 patients were assigned to active management). 2704 (70%) of 3851 patients provided data at 12 months. NDI score did not differ between active management and usual care consultations (difference at 12 months 0·5, 95% CI -1·5 to 2·5). In Step 2, 599 patients were randomly assigned to receive either advice (299 patients) or a physiotherapy package (300 patients). 479 (80%) patients provided data at 12 months. The physiotherapy package at 4 months showed a modest benefit compared to advice (NDI difference -3·7, -6·1 to -1·3), but not at 8 or 12 months. Active management consultations and the physiotherapy package were more expensive than usual care and single advice session. No treatment-related serious adverse events or deaths were noted. INTERPRETATION: Provision of active management consultation did not show additional benefit. A package of physiotherapy gave a modest acceleration to early recovery of persisting symptoms but was not cost effective from a UK NHS perspective. Usual consultations in emergency departments and a single physiotherapy advice session for persistent symptoms are recommended. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

Group cognitive behavioural interventions for low back pain in primary care: extended follow-up of the Back Skills Training Trial (ISRCTN54717854).

Group cognitive behavioural intervention (CBI) is effective in reducing low back pain and disability over a 12-month period, in comparison to best practice advice in primary care. The aim was to study the effects of this CBI beyond 12 months. We undertook an extended follow-up of our original randomised, controlled trial of a group CBI and best practice advice in primary care, in comparison to best practice advice alone. Participants were mailed a questionnaire including measures of disability, pain, health services resource use, and health-related quality of life. The time of extended follow-up ranged between 20 and 50 months (mean 34 months). Fifty-six percent (395 of 701) of the original cohort provided extended follow-up. Those who responded were older and had less disability and pain at baseline than did the original trial cohort. After 12 months, the improvements in pain and disability observed with CBI were sustained. For disability measures, the treatment difference in favour of CBI persisted (mean difference 1.3 Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire points, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 2.26; 5.5 Modified von Korff Scale disability points, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 10.64). There was no between-group difference in Modified von Korff Scale pain outcomes. The results suggest that the effects of a group CBI are maintained up to an average of 34 months. Although pain improves in response to best practice advice, longer-term recovery of disability remains substantially less.

Group cognitive behavioural treatment for low-back pain in primary care: a randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Low-back pain is a common and costly problem. We estimated the effectiveness of a group cognitive behavioural intervention in addition to best practice advice in people with low-back pain in primary care. METHODS: In this pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with parallel cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken in England, 701 adults with troublesome subacute or chronic low-back pain were recruited from 56 general practices and received an active management advisory consultation. Participants were randomly assigned by computer-generated block randomisation to receive an additional assessment and up to six sessions of a group cognitive behavioural intervention (n=468) or no further intervention (control; n=233). Primary outcomes were the change from baseline in Roland Morris disability questionnaire and modified Von Korff scores at 12 months. Assessment of outcomes was blinded and followed the intention-to-treat principle, including all randomised participants who provided follow-up data. This study is registered, number ISRCTN54717854. FINDINGS: 399 (85%) participants in the cognitive behavioural intervention group and 199 (85%) participants in the control group were included in the primary analysis at 12 months. The most frequent reason for participant withdrawal was unwillingness to complete questionnaires. At 12 months, mean change from baseline in the Roland Morris questionnaire score was 1.1 points (95% CI 0.39-1.72) in the control group and 2.4 points (1.89-2.84) in the cognitive behavioural intervention group (difference between groups 1.3 points, 0.56-2.06; p=0.0008). The modified Von Korff disability score changed by 5.4% (1.99-8.90) and 13.8% (11.39-16.28), respectively (difference between groups 8.4%, 4.47-12.32; p<0.0001). The modified Von Korff pain score changed by 6.4% (3.14-9.66) and 13.4% (10.77-15.96), respectively (difference between groups 7.0%, 3.12-10.81; p<0.0001). The additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from cognitive behavioural intervention was 0.099; the incremental cost per QALY was 1786 pound sterling, and the probability of cost-effectiveness was greater than 90% at a threshold of 3000 pound sterling per QALY. There were no serious adverse events attributable to either treatment. INTERPRETATION: Over 1 year, the cognitive behavioural intervention had a sustained effect on troublesome subacute and chronic low-back pain at a low cost to the health-care provider. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Does a monetary incentive improve the response to a postal questionnaire in a randomised controlled trial? The MINT incentive study.

BACKGROUND: Sending a monetary incentive with postal questionnaires has been found to improve the proportion of responders, in research in non-healthcare settings. However, there is little research on use of incentives to improve follow-up rates in clinical trials, and existing studies are inconclusive. We conducted a randomised trial among participants in the Managing Injuries of the Neck Trial (MINT) to investigate the effects on the proportion of questionnaires returned and overall non-response of sending a 5 pounds gift voucher with a follow-up questionnaire. METHODS: Participants in MINT were randomised to receive either: (a) a 5 POUNDSgift voucher (incentive group) or (b) no gift voucher (no incentive group), with their 4 month or 8 month follow-up questionnaire. We recorded, for each group, the number of questionnaires returned, the number returned without any chasing from the study office, the overall number of non-responders (after all chasing efforts by the study office), and the costs of following up each group. RESULTS: 2144 participants were randomised, 1070 to the incentive group and 1074 to the no incentive group. The proportion of questionnaires returned (RR 1.10 (95% CI 1.05, 1.16)) and the proportion returned without chasing (RR 1.14 (95% CI 1.05, 1.24) were higher in the incentive group, and the overall non-response rate was lower (RR 0.68 (95% CI 0.53, 0.87)). Adjustment for injury severity and hospital of recruitment to MINT made no difference to these results, and there were no differences in results between the 4-month and 8-month follow up questionnaires. Analysis of costs suggested a cost of 67.29 POUNDS per additional questionnaire returned. CONCLUSION: Monetary incentives may be an effective way to increase the proportion of postal questionnaires returned and minimise loss to follow-up in clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN61305297.

Design considerations in a clinical trial of a cognitive behavioural intervention for the management of low back pain in primary care: Back Skills Training Trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a major public health problem. Risk factors for the development and persistence of LBP include physical and psychological factors. However, most research activity has focused on physical solutions including manipulation, exercise training and activity promotion. METHODS/DESIGN: This randomised controlled trial will establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a group programme, based on cognitive behavioural principles, for the management of sub-acute and chronic LBP in primary care. Our primary outcomes are disease specific measures of pain and function. Secondary outcomes include back beliefs, generic health related quality of life and resource use. All outcomes are measured over 12 months. Participants randomised to the intervention arm are invited to attend up to six weekly sessions each of 90 minutes; each group has 6-8 participants. A parallel qualitative study will aid the evaluation of the intervention. DISCUSSION: In this paper we describe the rationale and design of a randomised evaluation of a group based cognitive behavioural intervention for low back pain.

Managing Injuries of the Neck Trial (MINT): design of a randomised controlled trial of treatments for whiplash associated disorders.

BACKGROUND: A substantial proportion of patients with whiplash injuries develop chronic symptoms. However, the best treatment of acute injuries to prevent long-term problems is uncertain. A stepped care treatment pathway has been proposed, in which patients are given advice and education at their initial visit to the emergency department (ED), followed by review at three weeks and physiotherapy for those with persisting symptoms. MINT is a two-stage randomised controlled trial to evaluate two components of such a pathway: 1. use of The Whiplash Book versus usual advice when patients first attend the emergency department; 2. referral to physiotherapy versus reinforcement of advice for patients with continuing symptoms at three weeks. METHODS: Evaluation of the Whiplash Book versus usual advice uses a cluster randomised design in emergency departments of eight NHS Trusts. Eligible patients are identified by clinicians in participating emergency departments and are sent a study questionnaire within a week of their ED attendance. Three thousand participants will be included. Patients with persisting symptoms three weeks after their ED attendance are eligible to join an individually randomised study of physiotherapy versus reinforcement of the advice given in ED. Six hundred participants will be randomised. Follow-up is at 4, 8 and 12 months after their ED attendance. Primary outcome is the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and secondary outcomes include quality of life and time to return to work and normal activities. An economic evaluation is being carried out. CONCLUSION: This paper describes the protocol and operational aspects of a complex intervention trial based in NHS emergency and physiotherapy departments, evaluating two components of a stepped-care approach to the treatment of whiplash injuries. The trial uses two randomisations, with the first stage being cluster randomised and the second individually randomised.