Play brick therapy to aid the social skills of children and young people with autism spectrum disorder: the I-SOCIALISE cluster RCT.

Background: Social skills interventions are commonly recommended to help children and young people with autism spectrum disorder develop social skills, but some struggle to engage in these interventions. LEGO® (LEGO System A/S, Billund, Denmark) based therapy, a group social skills intervention, aims to be more interesting and engaging. Objective: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of LEGO® based therapy on the social and emotional skills of children and young people with autism spectrum disorder in school settings compared with usual support. Secondary objectives included evaluations of cost-effectiveness, acceptability and treatment fidelity. Design: A cluster randomised controlled trial randomly allocating participating schools to either LEGO® based therapy and usual support or usual support only. Setting: Mainstream schools in the north of England. Participants: Children and young people (aged 7-15 years) with autism spectrum disorder, their parent/guardian, an associated teacher/teaching assistant and a facilitator teacher/teaching assistant (intervention schools only). Intervention: Schools randomised to the intervention arm delivered 12 weekly sessions of LEGO® based therapy, which promotes collaborative play and encourages social problem-solving in groups of three children and young people with a facilitator (trained teacher or teaching assistant). Participants received usual support from school and community services. Participants in the control arm received usual support only. Research assistants and statisticians were blind to treatment allocation. Main outcome measure: The social skills subscale of the Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS), completed by the children and young people's unblinded teacher pre randomisation and 20 weeks post randomisation. The SSIS social skills subscale measures social skills including social communication, co-operation, empathy, assertion, responsibility and self-control. Participants completed a number of other pre- and post-randomisation measures of emotional health, quality of life, loneliness, problem behaviours, academic competence, service resource utilisation and adverse events. Results: A total of 250 children and young people from 98 schools were randomised: 127 to the intervention arm and 123 to the control arm. Intention-to-treat analysis of the main outcome measure showed a modest positive difference of 3.74 points (95% confidence interval -0.16 to 7.63 points, standardised effect size 0.18; p = 0.06) in favour of the intervention arm. Statistical significance increased in per-protocol analysis, with a modest positive difference (standardised effect size 0.21; p = 0.036). Cost-effectiveness of the intervention was found in reduced service use costs and a small increase in quality-adjusted life-years. Intervention fidelity and acceptability were positive. No intervention-related adverse events or effects were reported. Conclusions: The primary and pre-planned sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome consistently showed a positive clinical difference, with modest standardised effect sizes of between 0.15 and 0.21. There were positive health economics and qualitative findings, corroborated by the difference between arms for the majority of secondary outcomes, which were not statistically significant but favoured the intervention arm. Post hoc additional analysis was exploratory and was not used in drawing this conclusion. Given the small positive change, LEGO® based therapy for children and young people with autism spectrum disorder in schools should be considered. Limitations: The primary outcome measure was completed by an unblinded teacher (rather than by the facilitator). Future work: The study team recommends future research into LEGO® based therapy, particularly in school environments. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN64852382. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/49/32) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 12. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Autism spectrum disorder is characterised by difficulties with social relationships and communication, which can make it difficult to make friends. Social skills training is commonly used to help children and young people learn different social skills, but some children and young people do not enjoy these therapies. LEGO^® (LEGO System A/S, Billund, Denmark) based therapy takes a new approach by focusing on making the process interesting and fun. This research investigated the effect of LEGO^® based therapy groups in schools on the social and emotional abilities of children and young people with autism spectrum disorder. It was a randomised controlled trial, so each school that was taking part was randomly chosen to provide either usual support (from the school or NHS services) or 12 sessions of LEGO^® based therapy with a trained school staff member as well as usual support. Children and young people played one of three roles ­ the 'engineer' (gives instructions), the 'supplier' (finds the pieces) or the 'builder' (builds the model) ­ and worked together. Questionnaires completed by children and young people, their parents/guardians and teachers were used to look at the intervention's effects. The main objective was to see if there was a change in social skills measured by a teacher-completed questionnaire. Results showed that the social skills of children and young people in the LEGO^® based therapy groups did improve a little. We found that the intervention is not very costly for schools to run. Many parents/guardians and teachers thought that the intervention was beneficial and that the children and young people enjoyed it.

Appropriate design and reporting of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority clinical trials incorporating a benefit-risk assessment: the BRAINS study including expert workshop.

Background: Randomised controlled trials are designed to assess the superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority of a new health technology, but which trial design should be used is not always obvious in practice. In particular, when using equivalence or non-inferiority designs, multiple outcomes of interest may be important for the success of a trial, despite the fact that usually only a single primary outcome is used to design the trial. Benefit-risk methods are used in the regulatory clinical trial setting to assess multiple outcomes and consider the trade-off of the benefits against the risks, but are not regularly implemented in publicly funded trials. Objectives: The aim of the project is to aid the design of clinical trials with multiple outcomes of interest by defining when each trial design is appropriate to use and identifying when to use benefit-risk methods to assess outcome trade-offs (qualitatively or quantitatively) in a publicly funded trial setting. Methods: A range of methods was used to elicit expert opinion to answer the project objectives, including a web-based survey of relevant researchers, a rapid review of current literature and a 2-day consensus workshop of experts (in 2019). Results: We created a list of 19 factors to aid researchers in selecting the most appropriate trial design, containing the following overarching sections: population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, feasibility and perspectives. Six key reasons that indicate a benefit-risk method should be considered within a trial were identified: (1) when the success of the trial depends on more than one outcome; (2) when important outcomes within the trial are in competing directions (i.e. a health technology is better for one outcome, but worse for another); (3) to allow patient preferences to be included and directly influence trial results; (4) to provide transparency on subjective recommendations from a trial; (5) to provide consistency in the approach to presenting results from a trial; and (6) to synthesise multiple outcomes into a single metric. Further information was provided to support the use of benefit-risk methods in appropriate circumstances, including the following: methods identified from the review were collated into different groupings and described to aid the selection of a method; potential implementation of methods throughout the trial process were provided and discussed (with examples); and general considerations were described for those using benefit-risk methods. Finally, a checklist of five pieces of information that should be present when reporting benefit-risk methods was defined, with two additional items specifically for reporting the results. Conclusions: These recommendations will assist research teams in selecting which trial design to use and deciding whether or not a benefit-risk method could be included to ensure research questions are answered appropriately. Additional information is provided to support consistent use and clear reporting of benefit-risk methods in the future. The recommendations can also be used by funding committees to confirm that appropriate considerations of the trial design have been made. Limitations: This research was limited in scope and should be considered in conjunction with other trial design methodologies to assess appropriateness. In addition, further research is needed to provide concrete information about which benefit-risk methods are best to use in publicly funded trials, along with recommendations that are specific to each method. Study registration: The rapid review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019144882. Funding: Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health and Care Research Methodology Research programme.

Randomised controlled trials are considered the best way to gather evidence about potential NHS treatments. They can be designed from different perspectives depending whether the aim is to show that a new treatment is better than, equal to or no worse than the current best available treatment. The selection of this design relates to the single most important outcome; however, often multiple outcomes can be affected by a treatment. For example, a new treatment may improve disease management but increase side effects. Patients want a treatment to work but not at the price of poor quality of life; therefore, a trade-off must be made, and the recommended treatment depends on this trade-off. Benefit­risk methods can assess the trade-off between multiple outcomes and can include patient preference. These methods could improve the way that decisions are made about treatments in the NHS, but there is currently limited research about the use of these methods in publicly funded trials. The aim of this report is to improve the design of clinical trials by helping researchers to select the most appropriate trial design and to decide when to include a benefit­risk method. The recommendations were created using the opinions of experts within the field and consisted of a survey, review of the literature and a workshop. The project created a list of 19 factors that can assist researchers to select the most appropriate trial design. Furthermore, six key areas were identified in which researchers may consider including a benefit­risk method within a trial. Finally, if a benefit­risk assessment is being used, a checklist of items has been created that identifies the information important to include in reports. This report is, however, limited in its applicability and further research should extend this work, as well as provide more detail on individual methods that are available.

Process Evaluation of a Collaborative Social Media Health Campaign: An Analysis of Partner and User Engagement.

Collaborative health promotion campaigns are advantageous because they extend the resources and reach of any single organization. Yet, they can be challenging because they require partner commitment and compromise. On social media, however, these campaigns are especially beneficial due to the high demand for ongoing content that facilitates user engagement. This study is a content analysis of an annual collaborative campaign, Preteen Vaccine Week, conducted by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to promote preteen immunizations. Campaign partners are encouraged to use creative assets provided by CDPH and to follow a themed content calendar. Message characteristics and audience engagement were evaluated for 2 years of the campaign (2019-2020). Results indicate that when there was a specific health issue scheduled as the daily theme, 85% of posts reflected that health topic. However, when the theme was general awareness, only 15% of posts aligned. Furthermore, the majority of posts included supplemental audiovisual assets of which nearly half were provided by CDPH. These findings suggest partners attempted to work together. Analyses of message characteristics indicate there was little effort to encourage online user engagement; however, a majority of messages included a call-to-action. These findings indicate that health organizations continue to use social media much like they use mass media: for information dissemination and behavioral recommendations.

Patient preferences and current practice for adults with steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis: POPSTER mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are a mainstay of the treatment of moderately severe relapses of ulcerative colitis, yet almost 50% of patients do not respond fully to these and risk prolonged steroid use and side effects. There is a lack of clarity about the definitions of steroid resistance, the optimum choice of treatment, and patient and health-care professional treatment preferences. OBJECTIVES: The overall aim of this research was to understand how steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis is managed in adult secondary care and how current practice compares with patient and health-care professional preferences. DESIGN: A mixed-methods study, including an online survey, qualitative interviews and discrete choice experiments. SETTING: NHS inflammatory bowel disease services in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with ulcerative colitis and health-care professionals treating inflammatory bowel disease. RESULTS: We carried out a survey of health-care professionals (n = 168), qualitative interviews with health-care professionals (n = 20) and patients (n = 33), discrete choice experiments with health-care professionals (n = 116) and patients (n = 115), and a multistakeholder workshop (n = 9). The interviews with and survey of health-care professionals showed that most health-care professionals define steroid resistance as an incomplete response to 40 mg per day of prednisolone after 2 weeks. The survey also found that anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs (particularly infliximab) are the most frequently offered drugs across most steroid-resistant (and steroid-dependent) patient scenarios, but they are less frequently offered to thiopurine-naive patients. Patient interviews identified several factors influencing their treatment choices, including effectiveness of treatment, recommendations from health-care professionals, route of administration and side effects. Over time, depending on the severity and duration of symptoms and, crucially, as medical treatment options become exhausted, patients are willing to try alternative treatments and, eventually, to undergo surgery. The discrete choice experiments found that the probability of remission and of side effects strongly influences the treatment choices of both patients and health-care professionals. Patients are less likely to choose a treatment that takes longer to improve symptoms. Health-care professionals are willing to make difficult compromises by tolerating greater safety risks in exchange for therapeutic benefits. The treatments ranked most positively by patients were infliximab and tofacitinib (each preferred by 38% of patients), and the predicted probability of uptake by health-care professionals was greatest for infliximab (62%). LIMITATIONS: The survey and the discrete choice experiments with patients and health-care professionals are limited by their relatively small sample sizes. The qualitative studies are subject to selection bias. The timing of the different substudies, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, is a potential limitation. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified factors influencing treatment decisions for steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis and the characteristics to consider when choosing treatments to evaluate in future randomised controlled trials. The findings may be used to improve discussions between patients and health-care professionals when they review treatment options for steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis. FUTURE WORK: This research highlights the need for consensus work to establish an agreed definition of steroid resistance in ulcerative colitis and a greater understanding of the optimal use of tofacitinib and surgery for this patient group. A randomised controlled trial comparing infliximab with tofacitinib is also recommended. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Steroids are one of the main treatments for ulcerative colitis; however, steroids work well for only about 50% of people who take them. There are many other treatments that can be given when steroids do not work, but evidence is limited about how these treatments are best used. To carry out better research about the best treatment options and to improve clinical practice in the future, this study aimed to find out how adults with steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis are managed in hospital and why patients and health-care professionals prefer different treatments. The study combined various methods of research, including an online survey of health-care professionals (n = 168), interviews with health-care professionals (n = 20) and patients (n = 33), a survey of health-care professionals (n = 116) and patients (n = 115) to ask them about treatment preferences, and a multistakeholder workshop (n = 9). The interviews with and survey of health-care professionals found that most health-care professionals define steroid resistance as an incomplete response to 40 mg per day of prednisolone after 2 weeks. The survey also found that the most frequently offered drugs are anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs (particularly infliximab). Patient interviews found that several factors influenced treatment choices, including effectiveness of treament, guidance from health-care professionals, route of administration and side effects. Patients were willing to try alternative treatments and surgery over time. The survey found that a higher level of remission and a lower chance of side effects strongly influenced treatment choices. Patients are less likely to choose a treatment that takes longer to improve symptoms. Health-care professionals are willing to make difficult compromises by tolerating greater safety risks in exchange for therapeutic benefits. Infliximab and tofacitinib were ranked most positively by patients, and the predicted uptake by health-care professionals was greatest for infliximab. The results of this study help improve understanding of why people choose certain treatments, improve decision-making in partnership and inform the design of future research.

The use of co-production, co-design and co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge mobilisation is a term used in healthcare research to describe the process of generating, sharing and using evidence. 'Co'approaches, such as co-production, co-design and co-creation, have been proposed as a way of overcoming the knowledge to practice gap. There is a need to understand why researchers choose to adopt these approaches, how they achieve knowledge mobilisation in the management of health conditions, and the extent to which knowledge mobilisation is accomplished. METHODS: Studies that explicitly used the terms co-production, co-design or co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions were included. Web of Science, EMBASE via OvidSP, MEDLINE via OvidSP and CINHAL via EBSCO databases were searched up to April 2021. Quality assessment was carried out using the Joanna Briggs Institute qualitative quality assessment checklist. Pluye and Hong's seven steps for mixed studies reviews were followed. Data were synthesised using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: Twenty four international studies were included. These were qualitative studies, case studies and study protocols. Key aspects of 'co'approaches were bringing people together as active and equal partners, valuing all types of knowledge, using creative approaches to understand and solve problems, and using iterative prototyping techniques. Authors articulated mechanisms of action that included developing a shared understanding, identifying and meeting needs, giving everyone a voice and sense of ownership, and creating trust and confidence. They believed these mechanisms could produce interventions that were relevant and acceptable to stakeholders, more useable and more likely to be implemented in healthcare. Varied activities were used to promote these mechanisms such as interviews and creative workshops. There appeared to be a lack of robust evaluation of the interventions produced so little evidence in this review that 'co'approaches improved the management of health conditions. CONCLUSION: Those using 'co'approaches believed that they could achieve knowledge mobilisation through a number of mechanisms, but there was no evidence that these led to improved health. The framework of key aspects and mechanisms of 'co'approaches developed here may help researchers to meet the principles of these approaches. There is a need for robust evaluation to identify whether 'co'approaches produce improved health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020187463 .

Adverse event recording failed to reflect potential harms: a review of trial protocols of behavioral, lifestyle and psychological therapy interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how potential harms are assessed in trials of behavioral, lifestyle and psychological therapy interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study was a review of protocols from the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment and Public Health Research programmes. Protocols were included if the study was a randomized controlled trial and the intervention intended to change lifestyle or behavior to improve health or improve psychological outcomes. RESULTS: 95 of 151 protocols planned to record adverse events (AEs). Definitions of AEs were often not given and varied widely. Serious AEs were mostly defined using standards originally devised for pharmacological trials. Twenty-two protocols listed expected AEs. Few protocols described assessment of causation between AEs and intervention. Examples of useful AE recording practice were identified. CONCLUSION: Monitoring and recording AEs in behavioral intervention trials was variable and frequently based on reporting guidelines for pharmacological trials. This may mean potential harms are being missed. Future trials should consider: 1) Potential harms posed by the intervention 2) How to define serious AEs 3) What are expected AEs. Further research to achieve consensus on AE recording is required, including identification of core adverse outcomes in clinical areas or caused by interventions.

The DAFNEplus programme for sustained type 1 diabetes self management: Intervention development using the Behaviour Change Wheel.

AIMS: Self-management programmes for type 1 diabetes, such as the UK's Dose Adjustment for Normal Eating (DAFNE), improve short-term clinical outcomes but difficulties maintaining behavioural changes attenuate long-term impact. This study used the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) framework to revise the DAFNE intervention to support sustained behaviour change. METHODS: A four-step method was based on the BCW intervention development approach: (1) Identifying self-management behaviours and barriers/enablers to maintain them via stakeholder consultation and evidence synthesis, and mapping barriers/enablers to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model. (2) Specifying behaviour change techniques (BCTs) in the existing DAFNE intervention using the Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy (BCTTv1). (3) Identifying additional BCTs to target the barriers/enablers using the BCW and BCTTv1. (4) Parallel stakeholder consultation to generate recommendations for intervention revision. Revised materials were co-designed by stakeholders (diabetologists, psychologists, specialist nurses and dieticians). RESULTS: In all, 34 barriers and 5 enablers to sustaining self-management post-DAFNE were identified. The existing DAFNE intervention contained 24 BCTs, which partially addressed the enablers. In all, 27 BCTs were added, including 'Habit formation', 'Credible source' and 'Conserving mental resources'. In total, 15 stakeholder-agreed recommendations for content and delivery were incorporated into the final DAFNEplus intervention, comprising three co-designed components: (1) face-to-face group learning course, (2) individual structured follow-up sessions and (3) technological support, including blood glucose data management. CONCLUSIONS: This method provided a systematic approach to specifying and revising a behaviour change intervention incorporating stakeholder input. The revised DAFNEplus intervention aims to support the maintenance of behavioural changes by targeting barriers and enablers to sustaining self-management behaviours.

Protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial of the DAFNEplus (Dose Adjustment For Normal Eating) intervention compared with 5x1 DAFNE: a lifelong approach to promote effective self-management in adults with type 1 diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: The successful treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D) requires those affected to employ insulin therapy to maintain their blood glucose levels as close to normal to avoid complications in the long-term. The Dose Adjustment For Normal Eating (DAFNE) intervention is a group education course designed to help adults with T1D develop and sustain the complex self-management skills needed to adjust insulin in everyday life. It leads to improved glucose levels in the short term (manifest by falls in glycated haemoglobin, HbA1c), reduced rates of hypoglycaemia and sustained improvements in quality of life but overall glucose levels remain well above national targets. The DAFNEplus intervention is a development of DAFNE designed to incorporate behavioural change techniques, technology and longer-term structured support from healthcare professionals (HCPs). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in adults with T1D, delivered in diabetes centres in National Health Service secondary care hospitals in the UK. Centres will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to standard DAFNE or DAFNEplus. Primary clinical outcome is the change in HbA1c and the primary endpoint is HbA1c at 12 months, in those entering the trial with HbA1c >7.5% (58 mmol/mol), and HbA1c at 6 months is the secondary endpoint. Sample size is 662 participants (approximately 47 per centre); 92% power to detect a 0.5% difference in the primary outcome of HbA1c between treatment groups. The trial also measures rates of hypoglycaemia, psychological outcomes, an economic evaluation and process evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was granted by South West-Exeter Research Ethics Committee (REC ref: 18/SW/0100) on 14 May 2018. The results of the trial will be published in a National Institute for Health Research monograph and relevant high-impact journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN42908016.

The Ministry of Health and Sanitation, Sierra Leone - Public Health England (MOHS-PHE) Ebola Biobank.

During the Ebola outbreak in 2014-2015 in Sierra Leone, residual clinical specimens and accompanying data were collected from routine diagnostic testing in Public Health England (PHE) led laboratories. Most of the samples with all the accompanying data were transferred to PHE laboratories in the UK for curation by PHE.  The remainder have been kept securely in Sierra Leone. The biobank holds approximately 9955 samples of which 1108 tested positive for Ebola virus. Researchers from the UK and overseas, from academia, government other research organisations and commercial companies can submit proposals to the biobank to access and use the samples. The Ministry of Health and Sanitation in Sierra Leone (MOHS) retains ownership of the data and materials and is working with PHE and other researchers to develop and conduct a series of research projects that will inform future healthcare and public health strategies relating to Ebola.  The Ebola Biobank Governance Group (EBGG) was established to guarantee equality of access to the biobank for the most scientifically valuable research including by researchers from low and middle-income countries. Ensuring benefit to the people of Sierra Leone is an over-arching principle for decisions of the EBGG.  Four ongoing research collaborations are based on the first wave of biobank proposals approved by EBGG.  Whilst the biobank is a valuable resource its completeness and sample quality are consistent with the outbreak conditions under which they were collected.

Behavioural activation therapy for post-stroke depression: the BEADS feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: There is currently insufficient evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychological therapies for post-stroke depression. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of undertaking a definitive trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural activation (BA) compared with usual stroke care for treating post-stroke depression. DESIGN: Parallel-group, feasibility, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative research and a health economic evaluation. SETTING: Acute and community stroke services in three sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults 3 months to 5 years post stroke who are depressed, as determined by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) or the Visual Analogue Mood Scales 'Sad' item. Exclusions: patients who are blind and/or deaf, have dementia, are unable to communicate in English, do not have mental capacity to consent, are receiving treatment for depression at the time of stroke onset or are currently receiving psychological intervention. RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING: Participants were randomised (1 : 1 ratio) to BA or usual stroke care. Randomisation was conducted using a computer-generated list with random permuted blocks of varying sizes, stratified by site. Participants and therapists were aware of the allocation, but outcome assessors were blind. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention arm received up to 15 sessions of BA over 4 months. BA aims to improve mood by increasing people's level of enjoyable or valued activities. The control arm received usual care only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary feasibility outcomes concerned feasibility of recruitment to the main trial, acceptability of research procedures and measures, appropriateness of baseline and outcome measures, retention of participants and potential value of conducting the definitive trial. Secondary feasibility outcomes concerned the delivery of the intervention. The primary clinical outcome 6 months post randomisation was the PHQ-9. Secondary clinical outcomes were Stroke Aphasic Depression Questionnaire - Hospital version, Nottingham Leisure Questionnaire, Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living, Carer Strain Index, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version and health-care resource use questionnaire. RESULTS: Forty-eight participants were recruited in 27 centre-months of recruitment, at a recruitment rate of 1.8 participants per centre per month. The 25 participants randomised to receive BA attended a mean of 8.5 therapy sessions [standard deviation (SD) 4.4 therapy sessions]; 23 participants were allocated to usual care. Outcome assessments were completed by 39 (81%) participants (BA, n = 18; usual care, n = 21). Mean PHQ-9 scores at 6-month follow-up were 10.1 points (SD 6.9 points) and 14.4 points (SD 5.1 points) in the BA and control groups, respectively, a difference of -3.8 (95% confidence interval -6.9 to -0.6) after adjusting for baseline PHQ-9 score and centre, representing a reduction in depression in the BA arm. Therapy was delivered as intended. BA was acceptable to participants, carers and therapists. Value-of-information analysis indicates that the benefits of conducting a definitive trial would be likely to outweigh the costs. It is estimated that a sample size of between 580 and 623 participants would be needed for a definitive trial. LIMITATIONS: Target recruitment was not achieved, although we identified methods to improve recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: The Behavioural Activation Therapy for Depression after Stroke trial was feasible with regard to the majority of outcomes. The outstanding issue is whether or not a sufficient number of participants could be recruited within a reasonable time frame for a definitive trial. Future work is required to identify whether or not there are sufficient sites that are able to deliver the services required for a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12715175. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Approximately one-third of stroke patients experience depression, which can have negative effects on recovery and quality of life (QoL). Currently, we do not have sufficient evidence to indicate which psychological interventions are effective and affordable to the NHS for treating post-stroke depression. We aimed to determine whether or not it is feasible to conduct a future large-scale study to evaluate a psychological intervention, called behavioural activation (BA) therapy, for treating post-stroke depression. BA aims to improve mood by identifying what stroke patients enjoy doing and helping them to undertake these activities. BA can be used with all stroke patients with depression, including people with cognitive or communication difficulties. We recruited 48 post-stroke patients who had suffered a stroke between 3 months and 5 years previously. People with dementia or significant aphasia were excluded. Participants were divided into two groups at random. About half of the participants received BA over a 4-month period and the other half did not. Participants received all other available care. After 6 months, participants completed questionnaires about their mood, activity level and QoL. We also interviewed 16 participants and 10 carers about their views on the actual research process and therapy. Although we were able to recruit participants to the study, we recruited fewer than the original target of 72 participants owing to delays in starting recruitment. However, we have identified ways to improve participant recruitment in a future study. We found that it was feasible to deliver BA, and the therapy was found to be acceptable to participants, carers and therapists. The results indicate that the benefits of conducting a large-scale future study would outweigh the costs. However, the main consideration will be whether or not we could identify enough stroke services able to run the study for a long enough period to recruit the large number of participants required.

Behavioural Activation Therapy for Depression after Stroke (BEADS): a study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled pilot trial of a psychological intervention for post-stroke depression.

BACKGROUND: There is currently insufficient evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of psychological therapies for treating post-stroke depression. METHODS/DESIGN: BEADS is a parallel group feasibility multicentre randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative research and economic evaluation. The aim is to evaluate the feasibility of undertaking a full trial comparing behavioural activation (BA) to usual stroke care for 4 months for patients with post-stroke depression. We aim to recruit 72 patients with post-stroke depression over 12 months at three centres, with patients identified from the National Health Service (NHS) community and acute services and from the voluntary sector. They will be randomly allocated to receive behavioural activation in addition to usual care or usual care alone. Outcomes will be measured at 6 months after randomisation for both participants and their carers, to determine their effectiveness. The primary clinical outcome measure for the full trial will be the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Rates of consent, recruitment and follow-up by centre and randomised group will be reported. The acceptability of the intervention to patients, their carers and therapists will also be assessed using qualitative interviews. The economic evaluation will be undertaken from the National Health Service and personal social service perspective, with a supplementary analysis from the societal perspective. A value of information analysis will be completed to identify the areas in which future research will be most valuable. DISCUSSION: The feasibility outcomes from this trial will provide the data needed to inform the design of a definitive multicentre randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of behavioural activation for treating post-stroke depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN12715175.