Exercise to prevent shoulder problems after breast cancer surgery: the PROSPER RCT.

BACKGROUND: Upper limb problems are common after breast cancer treatment. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a structured exercise programme compared with usual care on upper limb function, health-related outcomes and costs in women undergoing breast cancer surgery. DESIGN: This was a two-arm, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative research, process evaluation and parallel economic analysis; the unit of randomisation was the individual (allocated ratio 1 : 1). SETTING: Breast cancer centres, secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged ≥ 18 years who had been diagnosed with breast cancer and were at higher risk of developing shoulder problems. Women were screened to identify their risk status. INTERVENTIONS: All participants received usual-care information leaflets. Those randomised to exercise were referred to physiotherapy for an early, structured exercise programme (three to six face-to-face appointments that included strengthening, physical activity and behavioural change strategies). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was upper limb function at 12 months as assessed using the Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were function (Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire subscales), pain, complications (e.g. wound-related complications, lymphoedema), health-related quality of life (e.g. EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; Short Form questionnaire-12 items), physical activity and health service resource use. The economic evaluation was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year and incremental net monetary benefit gained from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. Participants and physiotherapists were not blinded to group assignment, but data collectors were blinded. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2017, we randomised 392 participants from 17 breast cancer centres across England: 196 (50%) to the usual-care group and 196 (50%) to the exercise group. Ten participants (10/392; 3%) were withdrawn at randomisation and 32 (8%) did not provide complete baseline data. A total of 175 participants (89%) from each treatment group provided baseline data. Participants' mean age was 58.1 years (standard deviation 12.1 years; range 28-88 years). Most participants had undergone axillary node clearance surgery (327/392; 83%) and 317 (81%) had received radiotherapy. Uptake of the exercise treatment was high, with 181 out of 196 (92%) participants attending at least one physiotherapy appointment. Compliance with exercise was good: 143 out of 196 (73%) participants completed three or more physiotherapy sessions. At 12 months, 274 out of 392 (70%) participants returned questionnaires. Improvement in arm function was greater in the exercise group [mean Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire score of 16.3 (standard deviation 17.6)] than in the usual-care group [mean Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire score of 23.7 (standard deviation 22.9)] at 12 months for intention-to-treat (adjusted mean difference Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire score of -7.81, 95% confidence interval -12.44 to -3.17; p = 0.001) and complier-average causal effect analyses (adjusted mean difference -8.74, 95% confidence interval -13.71 to -3.77; p ≤ 0.001). At 12 months, pain scores were lower and physical health-related quality of life was higher in the exercise group than in the usual-care group (Short Form questionnaire-12 items, mean difference 4.39, 95% confidence interval 1.74 to 7.04; p = 0.001). We found no differences in the rate of adverse events or lymphoedema over 12 months. The qualitative findings suggested that women found the exercise programme beneficial and enjoyable. Exercise accrued lower costs (-£387, 95% CI -£2491 to £1718) and generated more quality-adjusted life years (0.029, 95% CI 0.001 to 0.056) than usual care over 12 months. The cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that exercise was more cost-effective and that the results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Exercise was relatively cheap to implement (£129 per participant) and associated with lower health-care costs than usual care and improved health-related quality of life. Benefits may accrue beyond the end of the trial. LIMITATIONS: Postal follow-up was lower than estimated; however, the study was adequately powered. No serious adverse events directly related to the intervention were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This trial provided robust evidence that referral for early, supported exercise after breast cancer surgery improved shoulder function in those at risk of shoulder problems and was associated with lower health-care costs than usual care and improved health-related quality of life. FUTURE WORK: Future work should focus on the implementation of exercise programmes in clinical practice for those at highest risk of shoulder problems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN35358984. 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. 26, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?: Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women. Women now live longer because the detection and treatment of cancer has improved over the last 40 years. The side effects of breast cancer treatments can lead to complications, such as difficulties with arm movements, arm swelling (lymphoedema), pain and poor quality of life. These problems can last for many years after the cancer has been treated. Usual care after breast cancer surgery is to give patients an information leaflet explaining arm exercises that they can undertake after their operation. Offering exercise support from a physiotherapist may be a better way to help those at risk of developing shoulder problems after breast cancer treatment than providing a leaflet only. WHAT DID WE DO?: We compared two strategies to prevent shoulder problems in women having breast cancer treatment: information leaflets and an exercise programme. We invited women with a new diagnosis of breast cancer who were at higher risk of developing shoulder problems than other women with a new diagnosis of breast cancer. We recruited 392 women aged 28­88 years from 17 breast cancer units across England. Women were allocated to one of two groups by chance using a computer. Everyone was given information leaflets that explained what type of exercises to do after surgery. Half of the women (n = 196) were then invited to take part in an exercise programme, supported by a trained physiotherapist. These women followed a programme of shoulder mobility, stretching and strengthening exercises for up to 1 year. We measured changes in arm function, pain, arm swelling (lymphoedema) and physical and mental quality of life, and the cost of treatments during the whole first year of recovery, in everyone. We also spoke to the women and physiotherapists to find out whether or not these treatment strategies were acceptable to them. WHAT DID WE FIND OUT?: Women doing the exercise programme had better arm function, less pain and better quality of life than the women given an information leaflet only. Women said that the exercise programme helped with their recovery during cancer treatment. Exercise was cheap to deliver (£129 per person) and led to improved overall quality of life at 1 year after breast cancer surgery.

Exercise versus usual care after non-reconstructive breast cancer surgery (UK PROSPER): multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a structured exercise programme improved functional and health related quality of life outcomes compared with usual care for women at high risk of upper limb disability after breast cancer surgery. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, superiority, randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation. SETTING: 17 UK National Health Service cancer centres. PARTICIPANTS: 392 women undergoing breast cancer surgery, at risk of postoperative upper limb morbidity, randomised (1:1) to usual care with structured exercise (n=196) or usual care alone (n=196). INTERVENTIONS: Usual care (information leaflets) only or usual care plus a physiotherapy led exercise programme, incorporating stretching, strengthening, physical activity, and behavioural change techniques to support adherence to exercise, introduced at 7-10 days postoperatively, with two further appointments at one and three months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disability of Arm, Hand and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes included DASH subscales, pain, complications, health related quality of life, and resource use, from a health and personal social services perspective. RESULTS: Between 26 January 2016 and 31 July 2017, 951 patients were screened and 392 (mean age 58.1 years) were randomly allocated, with 382 (97%) eligible for intention to treat analysis. 181 (95%) of 191 participants allocated to exercise attended at least one appointment. Upper limb function improved after exercise compared with usual care (mean DASH 16.3 (SD 17.6) for exercise (n=132); 23.7 (22.9) usual care (n=138); adjusted mean difference 7.81, 95% confidence interval 3.17 to 12.44; P=0.001). Secondary outcomes favoured exercise over usual care, with lower pain intensity at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on numerical rating scale -0.68, -1.23 to -0.12; P=0.02) and fewer arm disability symptoms at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast+4 (FACT-B+4) -2.02, -3.11 to -0.93; P=0.001). No increase in complications, lymphoedema, or adverse events was noted in participants allocated to exercise. Exercise accrued lower costs per patient (on average -£387 (€457; $533) (95% confidence interval -£2491 to £1718; 2015 pricing) and was cost effective compared with usual care. CONCLUSIONS: The PROSPER exercise programme was clinically effective and cost effective and reduced upper limb disability one year after breast cancer treatment in patients at risk of treatment related postoperative complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN35358984.

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.

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.

Close Contact Casting vs Surgery for Initial Treatment of Unstable Ankle Fractures in Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Ankle fractures cause substantial morbidity in older persons. Surgical fixation is the contemporary intervention but is associated with infection and other healing complications. Objective: To determine whether initial fracture treatment with close contact casting, a molded below-knee cast with minimal padding, offers outcome equivalent to that with immediate surgery, with fewer complications and less health resource use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a pragmatic, equivalence, randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessors. A pilot study commenced in May 2004, followed by multicenter recruitment from July 2010 to November 2013; follow-up was completed May 2014. Recruitment was from 24 UK major trauma centers and general hospitals. Participants were 620 adults older than 60 years with acute, overtly unstable ankle fracture. Exclusions were serious limb or concomitant disease or substantial cognitive impairment. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to surgery (n = 309) or casting (n = 311). Casts were applied in the operating room under general or spinal anesthesia by a trained surgeon. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary 6-month, per-protocol outcome was the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score at 6 months (OMAS; range, 0-100; higher scores indicate better outcomes and fewer symptoms), equivalence prespecified as ±6 points. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, pain, ankle motion, mobility, complications, health resource use, and patient satisfaction. Results: Among 620 adults (mean age, 71 years; 460 [74%] women) who were randomized, 593 (96%) completed the study. Nearly all participants (579/620; 93%) received allocated treatment; 52 of 275 (19%) who initially received casting later converted to surgery, which was allowable in the casting treatment pathway to manage early loss of fracture reduction. At 6 months, casting resulted in ankle function equivalent to that with surgery (OMAS score, 66.0 [95% CI, 63.6-68.5] for surgery vs 64.5 [95% CI, 61.8-67.2] for casting; mean difference, -0.6 [95% CI, -3.9 to 2.6]; P for equivalence = .001). Infection and wound breakdown were more common with surgery (29/298 [10%] vs 4/275 [1%]; odds ratio [OR], 7.3 [95% CI, 2.6-20.2]), as were additional operating room procedures (18/298 [6%] for surgery and 3/275 [1%] for casting; OR, 5.8 [95% CI, 1.8-18.7]). Radiologic malunion was more common in the casting group (38/249 [15%] vs 8/274 [3%] for surgery; OR, 6.0 [95% CI, 2.8-12.9]). Casting required less operating room time compared with surgery (mean difference [minutes/participant], -54 [95% CI, -58 to -50]). There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes: quality of life, pain, ankle motion, mobility, and patient satisfaction. Conclusions and Relevance: Among older adults with unstable ankle fracture, the use of close contact casting compared with surgery resulted in similar functional outcomes at 6 months. Close contact casting may be an appropriate treatment for such patients. Trial Registration: isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN04180738.

The Ankle Injury Management (AIM) trial: a pragmatic, multicentre, equivalence randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation comparing close contact casting with open surgical reduction and internal fixation in the treatment of unstable ankle fractures in patients aged over 60 years.

BACKGROUND: Close contact casting (CCC) may offer an alternative to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) surgery for unstable ankle fractures in older adults. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to (1) determine if CCC for unstable ankle fractures in adults aged over 60 years resulted in equivalent clinical outcome compared with ORIF, (2) estimate cost-effectiveness to the NHS and society and (3) explore participant experiences. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, equivalence randomised controlled trial incorporating health economic evaluation and qualitative study. SETTING: Trauma and orthopaedic departments of 24 NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged over 60 years with unstable ankle fracture. Those with serious limb or concomitant disease or substantial cognitive impairment were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: CCC was conducted under anaesthetic in theatre by surgeons who attended training. ORIF was as per local practice. Participants were randomised in 1 : 1 allocation via remote telephone randomisation. Sequence generation was by random block size, with stratification by centre and fracture pattern. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Follow-up was conducted at 6 weeks and, by blinded outcome assessors, at 6 months after randomisation. The primary outcome was the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), a patient-reported assessment of ankle function, at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were quality of life (as measured by the European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items), pain, ankle range of motion and mobility (as measured by the timed up and go test), patient satisfaction and radiological measures. In accordance with equivalence trial US Food and Drug Administration guidance, primary analysis was per protocol. RESULTS: We recruited 620 participants, 95 from the pilot and 525 from the multicentre phase, between June 2010 and November 2013. The majority of participants, 579 out of 620 (93%), received the allocated treatment; 52 out of 275 (19%) who received CCC later converted to ORIF because of loss of fracture reduction. CCC resulted in equivalent ankle function compared with ORIF at 6 months {OMAS 64.5 points [standard deviation (SD) 22.4 points] vs. OMAS 66.0 points (SD 21.1 points); mean difference -0.65 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.98 to 2.68 points; standardised effect size -0.04, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.15}. There were no differences in quality of life, ankle motion, pain, mobility and patient satisfaction. Infection and/or wound problems were more common with ORIF [29/298 (10%) vs. 4/275 (1%)], as were additional operating theatre procedures [17/298 (6%) vs. 3/275 (1%)]. Malunion was more common with CCC [38/249 (15%) vs. 8/274 (3%); p < 0.001]. Malleolar non-union was lower in the ORIF group [lateral: 0/274 (0%) vs. 8/248 (3%); p = 0.002; medial: 3/274 (1%) vs. 18/248 (7%); p < 0.001]. During the trial, CCC showed modest mean cost savings [NHS mean difference -£644 (95% CI -£1390 to £76); society mean difference -£683 (95% CI -£1851 to £536)]. Estimates showed some imprecision. Incremental quality-adjusted life-years following CCC were no different from ORIF. Over common willingness-to-pay thresholds, the probability that CCC was cost-effective was very high (> 95% from NHS perspective and 85% from societal perspective). Experiences of treatments were similar; both groups endured the impact of fracture, uncertainty regarding future function and the need for further interventions. LIMITATIONS: Assessors at 6 weeks were necessarily not blinded. The learning-effect analysis was inconclusive because of limited CCC applications per surgeon. CONCLUSIONS: CCC provides a clinically equivalent outcome to ORIF at reduced cost to the NHS and to society at 6 months. FUTURE WORK: Longer-term follow-up of trial participants is under way to address concerns over potential later complications or additional procedures and their potential to impact on ankle function. Further study of the patient factors, radiological fracture patterns and outcomes, treatment responses and prognosis would also contribute to understanding the treatment pathway. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04180738. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This report was developed in association with the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Unit funding scheme. The pilot phase was funded by the AO Research Foundation.

Active Treatment for Idiopathic Adolescent Scoliosis (ACTIvATeS): a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: The feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of scoliosis-specific exercises (SSEs) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a large, multicentre trial of SSE treatment for patients with AIS, in comparison with standard care, and to refine elements of the study design. The objectives were to (1) update a systematic review of controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of SSE in AIS; (2) survey UK orthopaedic surgeons and physiotherapists to determine current practice, patient populations and equipoise; (3) randomise 50 adolescents to a feasibility trial of either usual care or SSE interventions across a range of sites; (4) develop, document and assess acceptability and adherence of interventions; (5) assess and describe training requirements of physiotherapists; and (6) gain user input in all relevant stages of treatment and protocol design. DESIGN: Multicomponent feasibility study including UK clinician survey, systematic literature review and a randomised feasibility trial. SETTING: The randomised feasibility study involved four secondary care NHS trusts providing specialist care for patients with AIS. PARTICIPANTS: The randomised feasibility study recruited people aged 10-16 years with mild AIS (Cobb angle of < 50°). INTERVENTIONS: The randomised study allocated participants to standard practice of advice and education or a physiotherapy SSE programme supported by a home exercise plan. Our choice of intervention was informed by a systematic review of exercise interventions for AIS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was feasibility of recruitment to the randomised study. Other elements were to inform choice of outcomes for a definitive trial and included curve severity, quality of life, requirement for surgery/brace, adverse events, psychological symptoms, costs and health utilities. RESULTS: A UK survey of orthopaedic consultants and physiotherapists indicated a wide variation in current provision of exercise therapy through physiotherapy services. It also found that clinicians from at least 15 centres would be willing to have their patients involved in a full study. A systematic review update found five new studies that were generally of low quality but showed some promise of effectiveness of SSE. The randomised study recruited 58 patients from four NHS trusts over 11 months and exceeded the pre-specified target recruitment rate of 1.4 participants per centre per month, with acceptable 6-month follow-up (currently 73%). Adherence to treatment was variable (56% of participants completed treatment offered). The qualitative study found the exercise programme to be highly acceptable. We learnt important lessons from patient and public involvement during the study in terms of study and intervention presentation, as well as practical elements such as scheduling of intervention sessions. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive RCT evaluating clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SSE for idiopathic scoliosis is warranted and feasible. Such a RCT is a priority for future work in the area. There is a sufficiently large patient base, combined with willingness to be randomised within specialist UK centres. Interventions developed during the feasibility study were acceptable to patients, families and physiotherapists and can be given within the affordability envelope of current levels of physiotherapy commissioning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN90480705. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 55. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Ankle Injury Management (AIM): design of a pragmatic multi-centre equivalence randomised controlled trial comparing Close Contact Casting (CCC) to Open surgical Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of unstable ankle fractures in patients over 60 years.

BACKGROUND: Ankle fractures account for 9% of all fractures with a quarter of these occurring in adults over 60 years. The short term disability and long-term consequences of this injury can be considerable. Current opinion favours open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) over non-operative treatment (fracture manipulation and the application of a standard moulded cast) for older people. Both techniques are associated with complications but the limited published research indicates higher complication rates of fracture malunion (poor position at healing) with casting. The aim of this study is to compare ORIF with a modification of existing casting techniques, Close Contact Casting (CCC). We propose that CCC may offer an equivalent functional outcome to ORIF and avoid the risks associated with surgery. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a pragmatic multi-centre equivalence randomised controlled trial. 620 participants will be randomised to receive ORIF or CCC after sustaining an isolated displaced unstable ankle fracture. Participants will be recruited from a minimum of 20 National Health Service (NHS) acute hospitals throughout England and Wales. Participants will be aged over 60 years and be ambulatory prior to injury. Follow-up will be at six weeks and six months after randomisation. The primary outcome is the Olerud & Molander Ankle Score, a functional patient reported outcome measure, at 6 months. Follow-up will also include assessments of mobility, ankle range of movement, health related quality of life and complications. The six-month follow-up will be conducted face-to-face by an assessor blinded to the allocated intervention. A parallel economic evaluation will consider both a health service and a broader societal perspective including the individual and their family. In order to explore patient experience of their treatment and recovery, a purposive sample of 40 patients will also be interviewed using a semi-structured interview schedule between 6-10 weeks post treatment. DISCUSSION: This multicentre study was open to recruitment July 2010 and recruitment is due to be completed in December 2013. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04180738.

The role and impact of facilitators in primary care: findings from the implementation of the Gold Standards Framework for palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Facilitation is the process of providing support to individuals or groups to achieve beneficial change. It is intrinsic to the Gold Standards Framework (GSF) for palliative care, a programme introduced widely in UK general practices. OBJECTIVES: To explore how GSF facilitators fulfil their role and the impact of the facilitators' backgrounds and approach on practices' uptake of the programme. SETTING: Primary care organizations and general practices in England and Northern Ireland. METHODS: Self-completed questionnaire and semi-structured interviews with facilitators. Practice audit questionnaire. Descriptive statistics. Thematic analysis. Linear and random effects models. RESULTS: A total of 102 (59.6%) facilitators completed a questionnaire; interviews were performed with nine facilitators. A large variability was found in the facilitators' professional backgrounds, role setup and activities. The impact of several facilitation characteristics on practice change was modelled for 63 (36.8%) facilitators and 266 practices (20.4%). No evidence was found of an association between practice change and facilitators' specialist knowledge of palliative care, mean facilitation time per practice, mean number of visits, facilitator budget and incentives offered to practices. Facilitators with a GP background were associated with higher levels of GSF change than those with a clinical nurse specialist background (P = 0.0078 with Bonferroni correction, significance threshold for corrected P = 0.008). The interviews indicated that the differential implementation of the framework might have been strongly affected by internal and external practice-related factors that were not readily amenable to facilitation. CONCLUSION: This study goes some way towards untangling aspects of facilitation associated with successful implementation of the GSF. Further prospective research and evaluation is needed to identify ways of improving its sustainability, effect on patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Estimating the number needed to treat from continuous outcomes in randomised controlled trials: methodological challenges and worked example using data from the UK Back Pain Exercise and Manipulation (BEAM) trial.

BACKGROUND: Reporting numbers needed to treat (NNT) improves interpretability of trial results. It is unusual that continuous outcomes are converted to numbers of individual responders to treatment (i.e., those who reach a particular threshold of change); and deteriorations prevented are only rarely considered. We consider how numbers needed to treat can be derived from continuous outcomes; illustrated with a worked example showing the methods and challenges. METHODS: We used data from the UK BEAM trial (n = 1, 334) of physical treatments for back pain; originally reported as showing, at best, small to moderate benefits. Participants were randomised to receive 'best care' in general practice, the comparator treatment, or one of three manual and/or exercise treatments: 'best care' plus manipulation, exercise, or manipulation followed by exercise. We used established consensus thresholds for improvement in Roland-Morris disability questionnaire scores at three and twelve months to derive NNTs for improvements and for benefits (improvements gained+deteriorations prevented). RESULTS: At three months, NNT estimates ranged from 5.1 (95% CI 3.4 to 10.7) to 9.0 (5.0 to 45.5) for exercise, 5.0 (3.4 to 9.8) to 5.4 (3.8 to 9.9) for manipulation, and 3.3 (2.5 to 4.9) to 4.8 (3.5 to 7.8) for manipulation followed by exercise. Corresponding between-group mean differences in the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire were 1.6 (0.8 to 2.3), 1.4 (0.6 to 2.1), and 1.9 (1.2 to 2.6) points. CONCLUSION: In contrast to small mean differences originally reported, NNTs were small and could be attractive to clinicians, patients, and purchasers. NNTs can aid the interpretation of results of trials using continuous outcomes. Where possible, these should be reported alongside mean differences. Challenges remain in calculating NNTs for some continuous outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UK BEAM trial registration: ISRCTN32683578.