Using willingness-to-pay to establish patient preferences for cancer testing in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making is a stated aim of several healthcare systems. In the area of cancer, patients' views have informed policy on screening and treatment but there is little information about their views on diagnostic testing in relation to symptom severity. METHODS: We used the technique of willingness-to-pay to determine public preferences around diagnostic testing for colorectal, lung, and pancreatic cancer in primary care in the UK. Participants were approached in general practice waiting rooms and asked to complete a two-stage electronic survey that described symptoms of cancer, the likelihood that the symptoms indicate cancer, and information about the appropriate diagnostic test. Part 1 asked for a binary response (yes/no) as to whether they would choose to have a test if it were offered. Part 2 elicited willingness-to-pay values of the tests using a payment scale followed by a bidding exercise, with the aim that these values would provide a strength of preference not detectable using the binary approach. RESULTS: A large majority of participants chose to be tested for all cancers, with only colonoscopy (colorectal cancer) demonstrating a risk gradient. In the willingness-to-pay exercise participants placed a lower value on an X-ray (lung cancer) than the tests for colorectal or pancreatic cancer and X-ray was the only test where risk was clearly related to the willingness-to-pay value. CONCLUSION: Willingness-to-pay values did not enhance the binary responses in the way intended; participants appeared to be motivated differently when responding to the two parts of the questionnaire. More work is needed to understand how participants perceive risk in this context and how they respond to questions about willingness-to-pay. Qualitative methods could provide useful insights.

Telehealth for patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease: pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE:  To assess whether non-clinical staff can effectively manage people at high risk of cardiovascular disease using digital health technologies. DESIGN:  Pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING:  42 general practices in three areas of England. PARTICIPANTS:  Between 3 December 2012 and 23 July 2013 we recruited 641 adults aged 40 to 74 years with a 10 year cardiovascular disease risk of 20% or more, no previous cardiovascular event, at least one modifiable risk factor (systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg, body mass index ≥30, current smoker), and access to a telephone, the internet, and email. Participants were individually allocated to intervention (n=325) or control (n=316) groups using automated randomisation stratified by site, minimised by practice and baseline risk score. INTERVENTIONS:  Intervention was the Healthlines service (alongside usual care), comprising regular telephone calls from trained lay health advisors following scripts generated by interactive software. Advisors facilitated self management by supporting participants to use online resources to reduce risk factors, and sought to optimise drug use, improve treatment adherence, and encourage healthier lifestyles. The control group comprised usual care alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:  The primary outcome was the proportion of participants responding to treatment, defined as maintaining or reducing their cardiovascular risk after 12 months. Outcomes were collected six and 12 months after randomisation and analysed masked. Participants were not masked. RESULTS:  50% (148/295) of participants in the intervention group responded to treatment compared with 43% (124/291) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 1.9; number needed to treat=13); a difference possibly due to chance (P=0.08). The intervention was associated with reductions in blood pressure (difference in mean systolic -2.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval -4.7 to -0.6 mm Hg), mean diastolic -2.8 (-4.0 to -1.6 mm Hg); weight -1.0 kg (-1.8 to -0.3 kg), and body mass index -0.4 ( -0.6 to -0.1) but not cholesterol -0.1 (-0.2 to 0.0), smoking status (adjusted odds ratio 0.4, 0.2 to 1.0), or overall cardiovascular risk as a continuous measure (-0.4, -1.2 to 0.3)). The intervention was associated with improvements in diet, physical activity, drug adherence, and satisfaction with access to care, treatment received, and care coordination. One serious related adverse event occurred, when a participant was admitted to hospital with low blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS:  This evidence based telehealth approach was associated with small clinical benefits for a minority of people with high cardiovascular risk, and there was no overall improvement in average risk. The Healthlines service was, however, associated with improvements in some risk behaviours, and in perceptions of support and access to care.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 27508731.

Improving the management of multimorbidity in general practice: protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial (The 3D Study).

INTRODUCTION: An increasing number of people are living with multimorbidity. The evidence base for how best to manage these patients is weak. Current clinical guidelines generally focus on single conditions, which may not reflect the needs of patients with multimorbidity. The aim of the 3D study is to develop, implement and evaluate an intervention to improve the management of patients with multimorbidity in general practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. 32 general practices around Bristol, Greater Manchester and Glasgow will be randomised to receive either the '3D intervention' or usual care. 3D is a complex intervention including components affecting practice organisation, the conduct of patient reviews, integration with secondary care and measures to promote change in practice organisation. Changes include improving continuity of care and replacing reviews of each disease with patient-centred reviews with a focus on patients' quality of life, mental health and polypharmacy. We aim to recruit 1383 patients who have 3 or more chronic conditions. This provides 90% power at 5% significance level to detect an effect size of 0.27 SDs in the primary outcome, which is health-related quality of life at 15 months using the EQ-5D-5L. Secondary outcome measures assess patient centredness, illness burden and treatment burden. The primary analysis will be a multilevel regression model adjusted for baseline, stratification/minimisation, clustering and important co-variables. Nested process evaluation will assess implementation, mechanisms of effectiveness and interaction of the intervention with local context. Economic analysis of cost-consequences and cost-effectiveness will be based on quality-adjusted life years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has approval from South-West (Frenchay) National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (14/SW/0011). Findings will be disseminated via final report, peer-reviewed publications and guidance to healthcare professionals, commissioners and policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN06180958; Pre-results.

Can oral corticosteroids reduce the severity or duration of an acute cough, and the associated National Health Service and societal costs, in adults presenting to primary care? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) is one of the most common conditions managed internationally and is costly to health services and patients. Despite good evidence that antibiotics are not effective for improving the symptoms of uncomplicated LRTI, they are widely prescribed, contributing to antimicrobial resistance. Many of the symptoms observed in LRTI are mediated by inflammatory processes also observed in exacerbations of asthma, for which there is strong evidence of corticosteroid effectiveness. The primary aim of the OSAC (Oral Steroids for Acute Cough) Trial is to determine whether oral prednisolone (40 mg daily for 5 days) can reduce the duration of moderately bad (or worse) cough and the severity of all its associated symptoms on days 2 to 4 post-randomisation (day 1 is trial entry) by at least 20% in adults ≥18 years with acute LRTI presenting to primary care. METHODS/DESIGN: OSAC is a two-arm, multi-centre, placebo-controlled, randomised superiority trial. The target sample size is 436 patients, which allows for a 20% dropout rate. Patients will be recruited from primary care sites (General Practitioner surgeries) across England and followed up until symptom resolution. The two primary clinical outcomes are the duration of moderately bad (or worse) cough, and the severity of all its associated symptoms on days 2 to 4 post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: antibiotic consumption; symptom burden; adverse events; participant satisfaction with treatment and intention to consult for future similar illnesses. A parallel economic evaluation will investigate the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. DISCUSSION: Results from the OSAC trial will increase knowledge regarding the clinical and cost-effectiveness of corticosteroids for LRTI, and will establish the potential of a new treatment option that could substantially improve patient health. We have chosen a relatively high 'efficacy dose' as this will enable us to decide on the potential for further research into lower dose oral and/or inhaled corticosteroids. This trial will also contribute to a growing body of research investigating the natural course of this very common illness, as well as the effects of steroids on the undesirable inflammatory symptoms associated with infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN57309858 (31 January 2013).

Preferences for cancer investigation: a vignette-based study of primary-care attendees.

BACKGROUND: The UK lags behind many European countries in terms of cancer survival. Initiatives to address this disparity have focused on barriers to presentation, symptom recognition, and referral for specialist investigation. Selection of patients for further investigation has come under particular scrutiny, although preferences for referral thresholds in the UK population have not been studied. We investigated preferences for diagnostic testing for colorectal, lung, and pancreatic cancers in primary-care attendees. METHODS: In a vignette-based study, researchers recruited individuals aged at least 40 years attending 26 general practices in three areas of England between Dec 6, 2011, and Aug 1, 2012. Participants completed up to three of 12 vignettes (four for each of lung, pancreatic, and colorectal cancers), which were randomly assigned. The vignettes outlined a set of symptoms, the risk that these symptoms might indicate cancer (1%, 2%, 5%, or 10%), the relevant testing process, probable treatment, possible alternative diagnoses, and prognosis if cancer were identified. Participants were asked whether they would opt for diagnostic testing on the basis of the information in the vignette. FINDINGS: 3469 participants completed 6930 vignettes. 3052 individuals (88%) opted for investigation in their first vignette. We recorded no strong evidence that participants were more likely to opt for investigation with a 1% increase in risk of cancer (odds ratio [OR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·99-1·06; p=0·189), although the association between risk and opting for investigation was strong when colorectal cancer was analysed alone (1·08, 1·03-1·13; p=0·0001). In multivariable analysis, age had an effect in all three cancer models: participants aged 60-69 years were significantly more likely to opt for investigation than were those aged 40-59 years, and those aged 70 years or older were less likely. Other variables associated with increased likelihood of opting for investigation were shorter travel times to testing centre (colorectal and lung cancers), a family history of cancer (colorectal and lung cancers), and higher household income (colorectal and pancreatic cancers). INTERPRETATION: Participants in our sample expressed a clear preference for diagnostic testing at all risk levels, and individuals want to be tested at risk levels well below those stipulated by UK guidelines. This willingness should be considered during design of cancer pathways, particularly in primary care. The public engagement with our study should encourage general practitioners to involve patients in referral decision making. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Randomised controlled trial of Alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage (ATEAM) for chronic and recurrent back pain: economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: An economic evaluation of therapeutic massage, exercise, and lessons in the Alexander technique for treating persistent back pain. DESIGN: Cost consequences study and cost effectiveness analysis at 12 month follow-up of a factorial randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: 579 patients with chronic or recurrent low back pain recruited from primary care. INTERVENTIONS: Normal care (control), massage, and six or 24 lessons in the Alexander technique. Half of each group were randomised to a prescription for exercise from a doctor plus behavioural counselling from a nurse. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs to the NHS and to participants. Comparison of costs with Roland-Morris disability score (number of activities impaired by pain), days in pain, and quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Comparison of NHS costs with QALY gain, using incremental cost effectiveness ratios and cost effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: Intervention costs ranged from pound30 for exercise prescription to pound596 for 24 lessons in Alexander technique plus exercise. Cost of health services ranged from pound50 for 24 lessons in Alexander technique to pound124 for exercise. Incremental cost effectiveness analysis of single therapies showed that exercise offered best value ( pound61 per point on disability score, pound9 per additional pain-free day, pound2847 per QALY gain). For two-stage therapy, six lessons in Alexander technique combined with exercise was the best value (additional pound64 per point on disability score, pound43 per additional pain-free day, pound5332 per QALY gain). CONCLUSIONS: An exercise prescription and six lessons in Alexander technique alone were both more than 85% likely to be cost effective at values above pound20 000 per QALY, but the Alexander technique performed better than exercise on the full range of outcomes. A combination of six lessons in Alexander technique lessons followed by exercise was the most effective and cost effective option.

Protocol for the combined immunosuppression & radiotherapy in thyroid eye disease (CIRTED) trial: a multi-centre, double-masked, factorial randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Medical management of thyroid eye disease remains controversial due to a paucity of high quality evidence on long-term treatment outcomes. Glucocorticoids are known to be effective initially but have significant side-effects with long-term use and recrudescence can occur on cessation. Current evidence is conflicting on the efficacy of radiotherapy and non-steroid systemic immunosuppression, and the majority of previous studies have been retrospective, uncontrolled, small or poorly designed.The Combined Immunosuppression and Radiotherapy in Thyroid Eye Disease (CIRTED) trial was designed to investigate the efficacy of radiotherapy and azathioprine in combination with a standard course of oral prednisolone in patients with active thyroid eye disease. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients with active thyroid eye disease will be randomised to receive (i) azathioprine or oral placebo and (ii) radiotherapy or sham-radiotherapy in this multi-centre, factorial randomised control trial. The primary outcome is improvement in disease severity (assessed using a composite binary measure) at 12 months and secondary end-points include quality of life scores and health economic measures. DISCUSSION: The CIRTED trial is the first study to evaluate the role of radiotherapy and azathioprine as part of a long-term, combination immunosuppressive treatment regime for Thyroid Eye Disease. It will provide evidence for the role of radiotherapy and prolonged immunosuppression in the management of this condition, as well as pilot data on their use in combination. We have paid particular attention in the trial design to establishing (a) robust placebo controls and masking protocols which are effective and safe for both radiotherapy and the systemic administration of an antiproliferative drug; (b) constructing effective inclusion and exclusion criteria to select for active disease; and (c) selecting pragmatic outcome measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN22471573.

Targeted routine asthma care in general practice using telephone triage.

BACKGROUND: There is a high non-attendance rate for traditional clinic-based routine asthma care in general practice. Alternative methods of providing routine asthma care need to be examined. AIM: To examine the cost and effectiveness of targeted routine asthma care in general practice using telephone triage, compared to usual clinic care. DESIGN OF STUDY: An open randomised controlled trial. SETTING: A single semi-rural practice in the southwest of England. METHOD: Adult patients with asthma were randomised to receive either their routine asthma care in the surgery or care by telephone triage. Asthma control parameters, health status and NHS resource utilisation were measured over the 12-month study period. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-four patients were randomised and 35% per cent more patients (n = 84 versus n = 62) received more than one consultation in the telephone group. Asthma control as measured by the asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) was similar in the clinic and telephone groups: mean change in ACQ = -0.11 (95% CI = -0.32 to 0.11) versus -0.18 (95% CI = -0.38 to 0.02). Mean NHS costs were 210 pounds sterling per patient per year in the telephone group compared to 334 pounds sterling in the clinic group (P-value of bootstrapped difference = 0.071). CONCLUSION: Targeted routine asthma care by telephone triage of adult asthmatics can lead to more asthma patients being reviewed, at less cost per patient and without loss of asthma control compared to usual routine care in the surgery.

Systematic review of the use and value of computer simulation modelling in population health and health care delivery.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the review was to evaluate the extent, quality and value of computer simulation modelling in population health and health care delivery. METHODS: A narrative systematic review was carried out of world literature from 1980 to 1999, searching Medline, INSPEC, Embase, HealthSTAR, Science Citation Index, CINAHL, MathSci, INFORMS Online and SIGLE databases, and researchers in the field were contacted. Papers were included if they contained a computer simulation model of individuals in a stochastic system and the topic or setting related to population health or health service delivery. RESULTS: A total of 182 papers met the inclusion criteria. Simulation modelling has been undertaken in a wide range of health care topic areas, including hospital scheduling and organization, communicable disease, screening, costs of illness and economic evaluation. However, the quality of published papers was variable and few reported on the outcomes of implementation of models, so that the value of modelling could not be assessed. CONCLUSION: Simulation modelling is a powerful method for modelling both small and large populations to inform policy makers in the provision of health care. It has been applied to a wide variety of health care problems. Although the number of modelling papers has grown substantially over recent years, further research is required to assess the value of modelling.