The effectiveness of knowledge-sharing techniques and approaches in research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR): a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR), funds, enables and delivers world-leading health and social care research to improve people's health and wellbeing. To achieve this aim, effective knowledge sharing (two-way knowledge sharing between researchers and stakeholders to create new knowledge and enable change in policy and practice) is needed. To date, it is not known which knowledge sharing techniques and approaches are used or how effective these are in creating new knowledge that can lead to changes in policy and practice in NIHR funded studies. METHODS: In this restricted systematic review, electronic databases [MEDLINE, The Health Management Information Consortium (including the Department of Health's Library and Information Services and King's Fund Information and Library Services)] were searched for published NIHR funded studies that described knowledge sharing between researchers and other stakeholders. One researcher performed title and abstract, full paper screening and quality assessment (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist) with a 20% sample independently screened by a second reviewer. A narrative synthesis was adopted. RESULTS: In total 9897 records were identified. After screening, 17 studies were included. Five explicit forms of knowledge sharing studies were identified: embedded models, knowledge brokering, stakeholder engagement and involvement of non-researchers in the research or service design process and organisational collaborative partnerships between universities and healthcare organisations. Collectively, the techniques and approaches included five types of stakeholders and worked with them at all stages of the research cycle, except the stage of formation of the research design and preparation of funding application. Seven studies (using four of the approaches) gave examples of new knowledge creation, but only one study (using an embedded model approach) gave an example of a resulting change in practice. The use of a theory, model or framework to explain the knowledge sharing process was identified in six studies. CONCLUSIONS: Five knowledge sharing techniques and approaches were reported in the included NIHR funded studies, and seven studies identified the creation of new knowledge. However, there was little investigation of the effectiveness of these approaches in influencing change in practice or policy.

"I am there just to get on with it": a qualitative study on the labour of the patient and public involvement workforce.

BACKGROUND: Workers tasked with specific responsibilities around patient and public involvement (PPI) are now routinely part of the organizational landscape for applied health research in the United Kingdom. Even as the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) has had a pioneering role in developing a robust PPI infrastructure for publicly funded health research in the United Kingdom, considerable barriers remain to embedding substantive and sustainable public input in the design and delivery of research. Notably, researchers and clinicians report a tension between funders' orientation towards deliverables and the resources and labour required to embed public involvement in research. These and other tensions require further investigation. METHODS: This was a qualitative study with participatory elements. Using purposive and snowball sampling and attending to regional and institutional diversity, we conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with individuals holding NIHR-funded formal PPI roles across England. Interviews were analysed through reflexive thematic analysis with coding and framing presented and adjusted through two workshops with study participants. RESULTS: We generated five overarching themes which signal a growing tension between expectations put on staff in PPI roles and the structural limitations of these roles: (i) the instability of support; (ii) the production of invisible labour; (iii) PPI work as more than a job; (iv) accountability without control; and (v) delivering change without changing. CONCLUSIONS: The NIHR PPI workforce has enabled considerable progress in embedding patient and public input in research activities. However, the role has led not to a resolution of the tension between performance management priorities and the labour of PPI, but rather to its displacement and - potentially - its intensification. We suggest that the expectation to "deliver" PPI hinges on a paradoxical demand to deliver a transformational intervention that is fundamentally divorced from any labour of transformation. We conclude that ongoing efforts to transform health research ecologies so as to better respond to the needs of patients will need to grapple with the force and consequences of this paradoxical demand.

Equality, diversity, and inclusion in oncology clinical trials: an audit of essential documents and data collection against INCLUDE under-served groups in a UK academic trial setting.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials should be as inclusive as possible to facilitate equitable access to research and better reflect the population towards which any intervention is aimed. Informed by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Innovations in Clinical Trial Design and Delivery for the Under-served (INCLUDE) guidance, we audited oncology trials conducted by the Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research, London (ICR-CTSU) to identify whether essential documents were overtly excluding any groups and whether sufficient data were collected to assess diversity of trial participants from groups suggested by INCLUDE as under-served by research in the UK. METHODS: Thirty cancer clinical trials managed by ICR-CTSU and approved between 2011-2021 were audited. The first ethics approved version of each trial's protocol, patient information sheet, and patient completed questionnaire, together with the first case report forms (CRFs) version were reviewed. A range of items aligned with the INCLUDE under-served groups were assessed, including age, sex and gender, socio-economic and health factors. The scope did not cover trial processes in participating hospitals. RESULTS: Data relating to participants' age, ethnic group and health status were well collected and no upper age limit was specified in any trials' eligibility criteria. 23/30 (77%) information sheets used at least one gendered term to address patients. Most CRFs did not specify whether they were collecting sex or gender and only included male or female categories. The median reading age for information sheets was 15-16 years (IQR: 14-15 - 16-17). Socio-economic factors were not routinely collected and not commonly mentioned in trial protocols. CONCLUSIONS: No systemic issues were identified in protocols which would explicitly prevent any under-served group from participating. Areas for improvement include reducing use of gendered words and improving readability of patient information. The challenge of fully assessing adequate inclusion of under-served populations remains, as socio-economic factors are not routinely collected because they fall beyond the data generally required for protocol-specified trial endpoint assessments. This audit has highlighted the need to agree and standardise demographic data collection to permit adequate monitoring of the under-served groups identified by the NIHR.

Perceptions of gender equity and markers of achievement in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The need to improve gender equity (GE) in academic medicine is well documented. Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs), partnerships between leading National Health Service (NHS) organizations and universities in England, conduct world-class translational research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). In 2011, eligibility for BRC funding was restricted to universities demonstrating sustained GE success recognized by the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science Silver awards. Despite this structural change, GE research in BRC settings is underdeveloped, yet critical to the acceleration of women's advancement and leadership. To explore both women's and men's perceptions of GE and current markers of achievement in a BRC setting. METHODS: Thematic analysis of data from two research projects: 53 GE survey respondents' free-text comments (34 women, 16 men), and 16 semi-structured interviews with women affiliated to the NIHR Oxford BRC. RESULTS: Four major themes emerged from the analysis: perceptions of the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science (GE policy); views on monitoring GE in BRCs; views on current markers of achievement in academia and GE; and recommendations for actions to improve GE in BRC settings. Monitoring of GE in BRCs was deemed to be important, but complex. Participants felt that current markers of achievement were not equitable to women, as they did not take contextual factors into account such as maternity leave and caring responsibilities. BRC-specific organizational policies and metrics are needed in order to monitor and catalyse GE. CONCLUSIONS: Markers of achievement for monitoring GE in BRCs should consider contextual factors specific to BRCs and women's career progression and professional advancement. GE markers of achievement should be complemented with broader aspects of equality, diversity and inclusion.

Fundamental challenges in assessing the impact of research infrastructure.

Clinical research infrastructure is one of the unsung heroes of the scientific response to the current COVID-19 pandemic. The extensive, long-term funding into research support structures, skilled people, and technology allowed the United Kingdom research response to move off the starting blocks at pace by utilizing pre-existing platforms. The increasing focus from funders on evaluating the outcomes and impact of research infrastructure investment requires both a reframing and progression of the current models in order to address the contribution of the underlying support infrastructure. The majority of current evaluation/outcome models focus on a "pipeline" approach using a methodology which follows the traditional research funding route with the addition of quantitative metrics. These models fail to embrace the complexity caused by the interplay of previous investment, the coalescing of project outputs from different funders, the underlying infrastructure investment, and the parallel development across different parts of the system. Research infrastructure is the underpinning foundation of a project-driven research system and requires long-term, sustained funding and capital investment to maintain scientific and technological expertise. Therefore, the short-term focus on quantitative metrics that are easy to collect and interpret and that can be assessed in a roughly 5-year funding cycle needs to be addressed. The significant level of investment in research infrastructure necessitates investment to develop bespoke methodologies that develop fit-for-purpose, longer-term/continual approach(es) to evaluation. Real-world research should reflect real-world evaluation and allow for the accrual of a narrative of value indicators that build a picture of the contribution of infrastructure to research outcomes. The linear approach is not fit for purpose, the research endeavour is a complex, twisted road, and the evaluation approach needs to embrace this complexity through the development of realist approaches and the rapidly evolving data ecosystem. This paper sets out methodological challenges and considers the need to develop bespoke methodological approaches to allow a richer assessment of impact, contribution, attribution, and evaluation of research infrastructure. This paper is the beginning of a conversation that invites the community to "take up the mantle" and tackle the complexity of real-world research translation and evaluation.

NHS Trusts' clinical research activity and overall CQC performance - Is there a correlation?

OBJECTIVE: Since the late 2000's, the creation of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has transformed clinical research activity in the United Kingdom. This study sought to establish if there is a link between clinical research activity and overall NHS Trust performance. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Data for NHS Trust performance were obtained from public databases, namely the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 2013 risk rating for overall performance, and 2012-13 NIHR records for clinical research activity. RESULTS: Applying Spearman's rank analysis, none of the Trust categories showed a correlation with CQC risk rating: small hospitals, r = -0.062 (P = 0.76; n = 27); medium, r = -0.224 (P = 0.13; n = 47); large, r = -0.008 (P = 0.96; n = 57); academic, r = -0.18 (P = 0.41; n = 24). Similar results were observed when CQC risk rating was compared with the number of different clinical research studies conducted per Trust. CONCLUSION: The degree of NIHR National Portfolio clinical research activity is not significantly related to CQC risk rating, used as an indicator of overall NHS Trust performance. Other studies have previously shown that increased research activity correlates with improved mortality rates, one component of CQC risk rating scores. Alternative tools may have to be explored to evaluate the impact of clinical research on NHS Trusts and its patients.

Developing a clinical research network: the Northern Region Endoscopy Group experience.

Research is central to the National Health Service. Clinical trial recruitment has been aided by the National Institute for Health Research's Comprehensive Research Network but these networks do not support development of research. The Northern Region Endoscopy Group (NREG) was founded in 2007, encompasses 17 endoscopy units and has become a highly successful collaborative research network. The network is now a major contributor to UK trials, has published over 20 papers (>60 abstracts) and holds grants totalling more than £1.5 million. The NREG provides an exemplar model of how collaborative working can contribute significantly to biomedical research.

NIHR Race Equality Framework: development of a tool for addressing racial equality in public involvement.

BACKGROUND: While there has been a long recognition of the importance of race equality in health and care research, there is a lack of sustained action among research funding and research performing organisations to address racial equality in public involvement. This paper describes how the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) convened a Race Equality Public Action Group (REPAG), which co-developed with public contributors and stakeholders a Race Equality Framework - a tool for addressing racial equality in public involvement. METHODS: The REPAG, through meetings and discussions, defined the focus of the Framework, and developed an initial draft of the Framework. Public contributors identified the need for broader consultation with other public members. Three community consultation events with a total of 59 members of Black African-, Asian- and Caribbean-heritage communities were held to seek their views on health and care research generally and on the draft Framework specifically. The draft Framework was modified and piloted among 16 organisations delivering health and care research. Following feedback from the pilot, the Framework was modified and prepared for publication. RESULTS: The Framework is designed as a self-assessment tool comprised of 50 questions pertaining to five domains of organisational activity: 1) individual responsibility, 2) leadership, 3) public partnerships, 4) recruitment, and 5) systems and processes. The questions were co-designed with REPAG public members and provide key concepts and elements of good practice that organisations should consider and address on their path to achieving racial competence. The accompanying materials provide implementation guidance with 20 detailed steps, case studies of actions taken in seven pilot organisations, and links to additional resources. The pilot demonstrated the feasibility of conducting a meaningful self-assessment over a period of three months and the usefulness of the results for developing longer-term action plans. CONCLUSION: The Framework represents the first self-assessment tool for addressing racial equality in public involvement. Co-design with REPAG public members enhanced its authenticity and practicality. Organisations in the field of health and care research and any other organisations that use partnerships with the public are encouraged to adopt the Framework.

For a long time, race equality within research has not been a priority. To address this the NIHR created a group to come up with solutions to tackle this ­ the Race Equality Public Action Group. Recognising the need to help research organisations with how they involved members of the public from diverse groups, the Race Equality Framework was born. The Race Equality Framework was devised to help organisations become more inclusive, develop better links with diverse communities and make their work more equitable.Consultation with members of the public from Black African-, Asian- and Caribbean-heritage communities were held and were essential in developing the Framework. Sixteen organisations who are involved in health and care research were recruited as pilot partners. They worked through the Framework and provided further feedback and input.The final product is a self-assessment tool which comprises of 50 questions across five domains. These domains are: 1) individual responsibility, 2) leadership, 3) public partnerships, 4) recruitment, and 5) systems and processes. The questions are designed to promote reflection and improve organisational good practice.This is the first tool of its kind, and we recommend its use for health and care research organisations that work closely and develop partnerships with members of the public.

Public involvement in UK health and care research 1995-2020: reflections from a witness seminar.

BACKGROUND: Public involvement is important to the relevance and impact of health and care research, as well as supporting the democratisation of research. In 2020, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) reorganized and eliminated INVOLVE, an internationally recognised group that had played a central role in public involvement in the UK since 1996. Its remit was subsumed within a new center tasked with public involvement, participant recruitment, and evidence dissemination. A year later, in 2021, interested parties came together to discuss the evolution of INVOLVE and consider how to retain some of the important historical details and learn lessons from its long and important tenure. METHODS: We hosted a witness seminar in 2022 that was one of four work groups and brought together public involvement leaders that had been part of the conception, development, and evolution of INVOLVE between 1995 and 2020. Witness seminars are a method used to capture the complexity and nuance of historical events or initiatives. They support critical thinking and reflection rather than simple commemoration. We identified those who had played a role in INVOLVE history, ensuring diversity of perspective, and invited them to attend and speak at the seminar. This took place during two sessions where witnesses provided their recollections and participated in a facilitated discussion. RESULTS: Across the two online sessions, 29 witnesses attended and contributed thoughts and recollections. Two authors (SS, MP) identified six themes that were described in the witness seminar report and have been discussed, elaborated, and illustrated with witness quotations. These are: the importance of historical perspective; INVOLVE as a social movement; how INVOLVE worked (e.g. its hospitality, kindness, and inclusivity); INVOLVE as a quiet disruptor; public involvement evidence, knowledge, and learning; the infrastructure, processes, and systems developed by INVOLVE; and the demise and loss of INVOLVE as an internationally recognized center of excellence. DISCUSSION: The authors of this commentary reflected on the discussions that took place during the witness seminar and the themes that emerged, and share six broad learnings for future practice; (1) it is important to create and nurture public involvement communities of practice; (2) collaborative ways of working support open discussion amongst diverse groups; (3) be aware of the tensions between activism and being part of the establishment; (4) continued efforts should be made to build an evidence base for public involvement practice; (5) there are both benefits and drawbacks to having a centralized organization leading public involvement; and (6) support for public involvement in research requires a fit-for-purpose tendering process that embeds robust public involvement.

BACKGROUND: Involving members of the public in research can improve the way that research is planned, managed, and shared. Between 1996 and 2020 an organization in the UK called INVOLVE had an important role in public involvement in research. When INVOLVE lost this role, some people who had been part of the group got together to think about how to save some of the important information and learn lessons from the time it had existed. METHODS: A meeting was arranged where people who have been part of an event or topic get together to share what it was like for them. This was called a witness seminar and it took place online over two days in 2022. Twenty-nine people attended and spoke about their experiences. RESULTS: The people who attended the witness seminar had different ideas about why INVOLVE was important and agree that it is now missed. People talked about INVOLVE as part of a certain time in history and said it was a social movement. They felt that it was kind and caring, brought together lots of people with different ideas, and supported changes in thinking. INVOLVE had a focus on evidence and learning and created structure and systems to support public involvement in research. Losing INVOLVE was difficult because a lot of people within the UK and beyond looked to them as a leader in public involvement. We share quotes on all of these topics. DISCUSSION: In this article we looked at how people remembered INVOLVE and thought about what information could be saved. We share lessons that will support thinking about the future of public involvement. These include things like how important it is for there to be spaces for people to come together to learn, discuss, and share, and that we have more work to do to understand public involvement and fully include it in research.

United Kingdom oral and maxillofacial surgeons support changes to current specialty recruitment process, which could include 'Walport' style local selection and national benchmarking.

Recruitment to oral and maxillofacial Surgical (OMFS) specialty training was centralised in 2010. The 'flexibility' for OMFS to respond to specialty specific recruitment issues is reducing and many Specialty Trainees' (ST) posts are left unfilled. The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) appointment process designed to address the problem of recruiting and appointing academic surgeons with local selection with national benchmarking has worked. Using a database of all UK OMFS consultants/trainees, an electronic questionnaire was shared by e-mail, WhatsApp, and other social media. Of 306 replies, 125 (41%) were Consultants/post-certificate of completion training (CCT) individuals, 66 (22%) ST, 61 (20%) second degree students, 27 (9%) pre-second degree, 26 (9%) dual degree pre-ST trainees, and one did not indicate their status. A total of 249 (76%) studied dentistry first and 230 (75%) were male. Of those replying, 147 (48%) had no direct experience of national selection. 120 (39%) had experience as a candidate, 20 (7%) as a selector only, 17 (6%) as a candidate and selector, and two did not record their experience. Of 250 expressing an opinion, 156 (62%) supported local selection with 140 (56%) supporting local selection and national benchmarking, which is a process used for research training posts by the NIHR. Geographical continuity was most important for 78% of pre-second-degree trainees, 45% of STs, and 54% of second-degree students. A total of 57 respondents completed free text comments. There is support for changes in OMFS ST selection including creating OMFS posts which include Foundation and second-degree training in NIHR style locally recruited nationally benchmarked posts.

Leading co-production in five UK collaborative research partnerships (2008-2018): responses to four tensions from senior leaders using auto-ethnography.

BACKGROUND: Despite growing enthusiasm for co-production in healthcare services and research, research on co-production practices is lacking. Multiple frameworks, guidelines and principles are available but little empirical research is conducted on 'how to do' co-production of research to improve healthcare services. This paper brings together insights from UK-based collaborative research partnerships on leading co-production. Its aim is to inform practical guidance for new partnerships planning to facilitate the co-production of applied health research in the future. METHODS: Using an auto-ethnographic approach, experiential evidence was elicited through collective sense making from recorded conversations between the research team and senior leaders of five UK-based collaborative research partnerships. This approach applies a cultural analysis and interpretation of the leaders' behaviours, thoughts and experiences of co-production taking place in 2008-2018 and involving academics, health practitioners, policy makers and representatives of third sector organisations. RESULTS: The findings highlight a variety of practices across CLAHRCs, whereby the intersection between the senior leaders' vision and local organisational context in which co-production occurs largely determines the nature of co-production process and outcomes. We identified four tensions in doing co-production: (1) idealistic, tokenistic vs realistic narratives, (2) power differences and (lack of) reciprocity, (3) excluding vs including language and communication, (4) individual motivation vs structural issues. CONCLUSIONS: The tensions were productive in helping collaborative research partnerships to tailor co-production practices to their local needs and opportunities. Resulting variation in co-production practices across partnerships can therefore be seen as highly advantageous creative adaptation, which makes us question the utility of seeking a unified 'gold standard' of co-production. Strategic leadership is an important starting point for finding context-tailored solutions; however, development of more distributed forms of leadership over time is needed to facilitate co-production practices between partners. Facilitating structures for co-production can enable power sharing and boost capacity and capability building, resulting in more inclusive language and communication and, ultimately, more credible practices of co-production in research. We provide recommendations for creating more realistic narratives around co-production and facilitating power sharing between partners.

Developing an application for the UK Pre-Doctoral Clinical and Practitioner Academic Fellowship (PCAF): the collective experience of a community of physiotherapists.

For physiotherapists and other healthcare professionals, developing capability and expertise in research can be challenging. However, involvement in research is beneficial at organisational and individual levels, both for clinicians and patients. One way to embark on research is to apply for a personal fellowship such as the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Pre-Doctoral Clinical Academic Fellowship (PCAF). While the NIHR has guidance on how to complete the application form, it can be difficult to implement this guidance and understand what a competitive application looks like. As a group of physiotherapists and academic supervisors, who have applied for NIHR PCAFs, what follows is a supportive resource, to inform others who might be thinking of applying. CONTRIBUTION OF PAPER.

Optimising the process of knowledge mobilisation in Communities of Practice: recommendations from a (multi-method) qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Communities of Practice (CoPs) offer a strategy for mobilising knowledge and integrating evidence-based interventions into musculoskeletal practice, yet little is known about their practical application in this context. This study aimed to (i) explore the process of knowledge mobilisation in the context of a CoP to implement evidence-based interventions in musculoskeletal care and (ii) co-develop recommendations to optimise the process of knowledge mobilisation in CoPs. METHODS: A qualitative study comprising observation of a CoP and related planning meetings (n = 5), and interviews with CoP stakeholders (including clinicians, lay members, managers, commissioners, academics) (n = 15) was undertaken. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and interpreted considering the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services theory. Public contributors were collaboratively involved at key stages of the study. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: identifying and interpreting knowledge, practical implementation of a CoP, culture and relationship building, and responding to the external context. Resource and infrastructure enabled the set-up, delivery and running of the CoP. Support for lay members is recommended to ensure effective participation and equity of power. CoP aims and purpose can develop iteratively, and this may enhance the ability to respond to contextual changes. Several recommendations for the practical application of CoPs are suggested to create the best environment for knowledge exchange and creation, support an equitable platform for participation, and help members to navigate and make sense of the CoP in a flexible way. CONCLUSION: This study identified how a CoP with diverse membership can promote partnership working at the intersection between knowledge and practice. Several important considerations for preparing for and operationalising the approach in implementation have been identified. Evaluation of the costs, effectiveness and impact of CoPs is needed to better understand the value added by the approach. More broadly, research is needed to explore the practical application of online CoPs and the role of international CoPs in optimising the uptake of innovations and best practice.

Academic Training in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery - when and how to enter the pathway.

Entering into surgical academia can seem a daunting prospect for an oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) trainee. However, the streamlining of academic training by the NIHR to create the integrated academic training (IAT) pathway has simplified academic training and more clearly defined academic positions and entry points for trainees. In this article we review the current NIHR IAT pathway and the various grades and entry points available to OMF surgeons, both pre- and post-doctoral. We highlight the unique challenges facing OMF trainees and provide advice and insight from both junior and senior OMFS academics. Finally, we focus on the planning and application for a doctoral research fellowship - discussing funding streams available to OMF surgeons.

Where are all the surgeons in clinical academia?

INTRODUCTION: High-quality research into surgical disease will benefit surgical patients. Whereas nearly one-fifth of National Health Service (NHS) England consultants are surgeons, less than 5% of the government's health research funding supports surgical research. METHODS: Using an observational study, we identified surgeons in active research fellowships and on selection panels for the three largest pan-specialty medical funding bodies in the UK. We quantified the proportion of editorial board members that are surgeons, and the proportion of surgical research published over a 1-year period in the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal. RESULTS: Some 185/1,579 (12%) of research fellowships held by clinicians were awarded to surgeons, with relatively fewer surgeons holding senior fellowships compared with predoctoral fellowships. Across the three research funding bodies, 9/165 (5%) of the clinical panel members were surgeons, whereas for the three pan-specialty journals, 5/84 (6%) of the clinical editorial board members were surgeons. Of the 541 original articles published by the same three journals, only 45 (8%) were classified as surgical. CONCLUSIONS: We show that surgeons were underrepresented across differing domains of clinical academia. The causes of this are likely multifactorial; there are fewer senior surgeons occupying decision-making positions, fewer role models in senior fellowship positions and surgical training may leave less time to engage in research. We propose further qualitative research within the surgical community, funding bodies and journals to understand the origins of the problem and begin to form evidence-based solutions.

Prevalence, progress, and subgroup disparities in pharmacological antidepressant treatment of those who screen positive for depressive symptoms: A repetitive cross-sectional study in 19 European countries.

Background: The European Mental Health Action Plan (EMHAP) 2013-2020 promoted community-based mental health services. One potential success indicator is the provision of antidepressant medication to those needing it. Methods: Public data from two surveys (Health Survey for England, UK; Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe) covered 19 European countries across EMHAP phases one (2011-2015) and two (2015-2018). People screening positive for depressive symptoms by self-report were included. The primary outcome was antidepressant use: using country-specific weighted regression models, we estimated temporal trends and subgroup disparities in antidepressant receipt, with secondary analysis by country-level measures including healthcare expenditure. Findings: Across 37,250 participants, after controlling for age, sex, wealth, and physical disability, antidepressant use (amongst those screening positive) increased significantly in 14/19 countries, with the smallest increase being in Slovenia (adjusted OR[AOR] for trend=1.68[1.20-2.36]) and the highest increase being in Germany (AOR for trend=10.07[7.54-13.46]) and Austria (AOR for trend=10.07[7.32-13.74]). The overall proportion using antidepressants was positively associated with national health expenditure (coefficient=5.43[1.62-9.25]), but not with gross national income per capita or the number of psychiatrists, general practitioners, or psychiatric hospital beds. In 15/19 countries, antidepressants were used less by ≥65-year-olds than 50-64-year-olds, with the smallest differential reported in Luxembourg (AOR=0.70[0.49, 0.98]) and the highest in Germany (AOR=0.28[0.21, 0.37]); this disparity widened in 12/15 countries. Men used antidepressants less than women in 8/19 countries, across phases. In 13/19 countries, people with physical disability were more likely to receive antidepressants, with the smallest gap in Italy (AOR=1.42[1.12-1.80]) and the largest in Israel (AOR=2.34[1.46-3.74]); this disparity narrowed in 5/13 countries. Disparity by wealth was found in 8/19 countries, but its temporal trend varied. Interpretation: Usage of antidepressants by those with depressive symptoms has increased, with wide variation between countries and subgroups. Disparities across age, sex, and disability should prompt further research. Funding: Medical Research Council (grants MC_PC_17213 and MR/W014386/1), UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) East of England, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014).

Rationalising Antipsychotic Prescribing in Dementia (RAPID) complex intervention: A mixed-methods feasibility intervention study.

Background: To help address the issue of inappropriate antipsychotic prescribing to nursing home residents with dementia, the 'Rationalising Antipsychotic Prescribing in Dementia' (RAPID) complex intervention was developed, comprising staff education and training, academic detailing and a novel resident assessment tool. Objectives: The primary objective was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the RAPID complex intervention in a nursing home setting. The secondary objective was to describe associated trends in psychotropic prescribing, falls, and behavioural symptoms. Methods: A mixed-methods feasibility intervention study in one large nursing home in Ireland was undertaken between 07/2017 and 01/2018. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews were conducted with nursing home staff and GPs at the end of the 3-month follow up period to assess participants' experience of the intervention. Quantitative measurements included pre- and post-course evaluation and psychotropic prescribing rates. Results: Sixteen nursing home staff members attended the two education and training days (21% attendance rate), and four GPs participated in the academic detailing sessions (100% attendance rate). Participants of the focus groups and interviews (n = 18) found the education and training beneficial for their work and expressed a desire to continue educating new staff after the study's completion. However, there was limited usage of the resident assessment tool. Participants also offered recommendations to enhance the intervention.The proportion of dementia residents prescribed at least one regular antipsychotic was stable over the 3-months pre-intervention at 45% (n = 18), and at baseline at 44% (n = 19) but decreased slightly to 36% (n = 14) at 3-months post-intervention. At the same time the absolute number of 'PRN' psychotropics administered monthly to dementia residents decreased substantially from 90 at baseline to 69 at 3-months post-intervention. Conclusion: The RAPID complex intervention was broadly feasible to conduct and may be acceptable to stakeholders. However, before it can be evaluated in larger scale studies, certain protocol modifications and further exploratory work are required to improve implementation.

Protocol for a cluster randomised controlled feasibility study of Prehospital Optimal Shock Energy for Defibrillation (POSED).

Aims: The Prehospital Optimal Shock Energy for Defibrillation (POSED) study will assess the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled study of clinical effectiveness in UK ambulance services to identify the optimal shock energy for defibrillation. Methods: POSED is a pragmatic, allocation concealed, open label, cluster randomised, controlled feasibility study. Defibrillators within a single UK ambulance service will be randomised in an equal ratio to deliver one of three shock strategies 120-150-200 J, 150-200-200 J, 200-200-200 J. Consecutive adults (≥18 years) presenting with out of hospital cardiac arrest requiring defibrillation will be eligible. The study plans to enrol 90 patients (30 in each group). Patients (or their relatives for non-survivors) will be informed about trial participation after the initial emergency has resolved. Survivors will be invited to consent to participate in follow-up (i.e., at 30 days or discharge).The primary feasibility outcome is the proportion of eligible patients who receive the randomised study intervention. Secondary feasibility outcomes will include recruitment rate, adherence to allocated treatment and data completeness. Clinical outcomes will include Return of an Organised Rhythm (ROOR) at 2 minutes post-shock, refibrillation rate, Return of Spontaneous Circulation (ROSC) at hospital handover, survival and neurological outcome at 30 days. Conclusion: The POSED study will assess the feasibility of a large-scale trial and explore opportunities to optimise the trial protocol.Trial registration: ISRCTN16327029.

Quality assurance of dysphagia-optimised intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning for head and neck cancer.

This study aimed to assess the impact of the margin applied to the clinical target volume, to create the planning target volume, on plan quality of a novel dysphagia-optimised intensity modulated radiotherapy technique developed within a head and neck cancer multicentre randomised controlled trial. Protocol compliant plans were used for a single benchmark planning case. Larger margins were associated with higher doses to adjacent organs at risk, particularly the inferior pharyngeal constrictor muscle, but coincided with some improved low dose target coverage. A 3 mm margin is recommended for this technique if local practices allow.

Multicentre clinical evaluation of the safety and performance of a simple transperineal access system for prostate biopsies for suspected prostate cancer: The CAMbridge PROstate Biopsy DevicE (CamPROBE) study.

OBJECTIVES: To report the prospective multicentre clinical evaluation of a first-in-man disposable device, Cambridge Prostate Biopsy Device, to undertake local anaesthetic outpatient transperineal prostate biopsies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Disposable single-use Cambridge Prostate Biopsy devices were manufactured based on a previous prototype. The lead site developed a user training course and disseminated the method to other sites. The Cambridge Prostate Biopsy Device (CamPROBE) was offered as an alternative to transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy to men due for a biopsy as part of their clinical management. Data on safety (infections and device performance), clinical utility, patient reported experience, biopsy quality and cancer detection were collected. Procedure time and local anaesthetic use was recorded in the lead site. The study was funded by a United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) i4i product development award. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients were recruited (median age 69 y) across six sites; five sites were new to the procedure. Overall, 19/40 were first prostate biopsies and 21/40 repeat procedures. Both image-targeted and systematic biopsy cores taken. There were no infections, device deficiencies or safety issues reported. The procedure was well tolerated with excellent patient-reported perception and low pain scores (median of 3, scale 0-10). Histopathology quality was good and the overall cancer diagnosis rate (first diagnostic procedures) was 68% (13/19) and for significant cancers (⩾ histological Grade Group 2), 47% (9/19). In the lead centre (most experienced), median procedure time was 25 minutes, and median local anaesthetic use 11 ml (n=17). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this device evaluation study demonstrate that the United Kingdom-developed Cambridge Prostate Biopsy Device/method for transperineal biopsies is safe, transferable and maintains high diagnostic yields. The procedure is well tolerated by patients, suited to the local anaesthetic outpatient setting and could directly replace transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.