Cost-effectiveness of a Novel Hypoglycaemia Programme: The 'HARPdoc vs BGAT' RCT.

AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of HARPdoc (Hypoglycaemia Awareness Restoration Programme for adults with type 1 diabetes and problematic hypoglycaemia despite optimised care), focussed upon cognitions and motivation, versus BGAT (Blood Glucose Awareness Training), focussed on behaviours and education, as adjunctive treatments for treatment-resistant problematic hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes, in a randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Eligible adults were randomised to either intervention. Quality of life (QoL, measured using EQ-5D-5L); cost of utilisation of health services (using the adult services utilization schedule, AD-SUS) and of programme implementation and curriculum delivery were measured. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as a measure of trial participant outcome and cost-effectiveness was evaluated with reference to the incremental net benefit (INB) of HARPdoc compared to BGAT. RESULTS: Over 24 months mean total cost per participant was £194 lower for HARPdoc compared to BGAT (95% CI: -£2498 to £1942). HARPdoc was associated with a mean incremental gain of 0.067 QALYs/participant over 24 months post-randomisation: an equivalent gain of 24 days in full health. The mean INB of HARPdoc compared to BGAT over 24 months was positive: £1521/participant, indicating comparative cost-effectiveness, with an 85% probability of correctly inferring an INB > 0. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing health cognitions in people with treatment-resistant hypoglycaemia achieved cost-effectiveness compared to an alternative approach through improved QoL and reduced need for medical services, including hospital admissions. Compared to BGAT, HARPdoc offers a cost-effective adjunct to educational and technological solutions for problematic hypoglycaemia.

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.

Enhanced motivational interviewing for reducing weight and increasing physical activity in adults with high cardiovascular risk: the MOVE IT three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Motivational interviewing (MI) enhanced with behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and deployed by health trainers targeting multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) may be more effective than interventions targeting a single risk factor. OBJECTIVES: The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an enhanced lifestyle motivational interviewing intervention for patients at high risk of CVD in group settings versus individual settings and usual care (UC) in reducing weight and increasing physical activity (PA) were tested. DESIGN: This was a three-arm, single-blind, parallel randomised controlled trial. SETTING: A total of 135 general practices across all 12 South London Clinical Commissioning Groups were recruited. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1742 participants aged 40-74 years with a ≥ 20.0% risk of a CVD event in the following 10 years were randomised. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention was designed to integrate MI and cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), delivered by trained healthy lifestyle facilitators in 10 sessions over 1 year, in group or individual format. The control group received UC. RANDOMISATION: Simple randomisation was used with computer-generated randomisation blocks. In each block, 10 participants were randomised to the group, individual or UC arm in a 4 : 3 : 3 ratio. Researchers were blind to the allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes are change in weight (kg) from baseline and change in PA (average number of steps per day over 1 week) from baseline at the 24-month follow-up, with an interim follow-up at 12 months. An economic evaluation estimates the relative cost-effectiveness of each intervention. Secondary outcomes include changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and CVD risk score. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 69.75 years (standard deviation 4.11 years), 85.5% were male and 89.4% were white. At the 24-month follow-up, the group and individual intervention arms were not more effective than UC in increasing PA [mean 70.05 steps, 95% confidence interval (CI) -288 to 147.9 steps, and mean 7.24 steps, 95% CI -224.01 to 238.5 steps, respectively] or in reducing weight (mean -0.03 kg, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.44 kg, and mean -0.42 kg, 95% CI -0.93 to 0.09 kg, respectively). At the 12-month follow-up, the group and individual intervention arms were not more effective than UC in increasing PA (mean 131.1 steps, 95% CI -85.28 to 347.48 steps, and mean 210.22 steps, 95% CI -19.46 to 439.91 steps, respectively), but there were reductions in weight for the group and individual intervention arms compared with UC (mean -0.52 kg, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.13 kg, and mean -0.55 kg, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.14 kg, respectively). The group intervention arm was not more effective than the individual intervention arm in improving outcomes at either follow-up point. The group and individual interventions were not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced MI, in group or individual formats, targeted at members of the general population with high CVD risk is not effective in reducing weight or increasing PA compared with UC. Future work should focus on ensuring objective evidence of high competency in BCTs, identifying those with modifiable factors for CVD risk and improving engagement of patients and primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84864870. 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. 23, No. 69. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This research was part-funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London.

People who have a high risk of heart disease can reduce this risk by changing their lifestyles, such as by improving their diets and increasing their physical activity levels. However, there is no good evidence on how best to support people to change and then maintain healthier lifestyles. It is thought that support from others might be helpful. An intervention based on two talking therapies, called motivational interviewing and cognitive­behavioural therapy, to help people make a commitment to living healthier lives was developed. People from the local community with a health-related background were recruited and trained in these skills. Then general practitioners invited patients on their register who were at high risk of heart disease to participate. Those patients who replied and met the study criteria were randomly allocated to one of three arms. Participants received either group- or individual-based intensive lifestyle sessions or usual care. Those who were randomised to the lifestyle course were offered 10 sessions of therapy over 12 months by lifestyle trainers. Two years later, it was found that there were no differences in weight or physical activity levels between the three arms. The lifestyle interventions were not cost-effective compared with usual care. When the possible explanations were studied, it was found that those who could have benefited the most from the therapy (such as those who were most overweight, those from poorer backgrounds and those who were of African Caribbean ethnicity) were less likely to participate. Whether or not the skills of the therapists made a difference could not be properly assessed. Sometimes, patients and their doctors were not sure why they were invited. Future research should focus on people who have lifestyles that can be changed (e.g. more overweight individuals with unhealthy diets), on finding ways of improving the quality of the intervention and on ensuring that patients have more information.

Nurse-led psychological intervention for type 2 diabetes: a cluster randomised controlled trial (Diabetes-6 study) in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes (T2D) is common and associated with psychological barriers. AIM: To investigate whether it was possible to train practice nurses in six psychological skills (Diabetes-6 [D6]) based on motivational interviewing (MI) and basic cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), and whether integrating these with diabetes care was associated with improved glycaemic control over 18 months compared with standard care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Two-arm, single-blind, parallel cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care. METHOD: Adult participants (n = 334) with T2D and persistent HbA1c ≥69.4 mmol/mol were randomised to receive 12 sessions of either the D6 intervention or standard care over 12 months. Practice nurses were trained in the six psychological skills and their competencies were measured by standardised rating scales. Primary outcome was a change in HbA1c level at 18 months from randomisation. Secondary outcomes were changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, body mass index, waist circumference, depressive symptoms, harmful alcohol intake, diabetes-specific distress, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Using intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference between D6 intervention and standard care in HbA1c (mean difference -0.79 mmol/mol, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -5.75 to 4.18) or for any of the secondary outcomes. The competency level of D6 nurses was below the beginner proficiency level and similar to the standard-care nurses. CONCLUSION: Training nurses in MI and basic CBT to support self-management did not lead to improvements in glycaemic control or other secondary outcomes in people with T2D at 18 months. It was also unlikely to be cost-effective. Furthermore, the increased contact with standard-care nurses did not improve glycaemic control.

Comparing the effectiveness of an enhanced MOtiVational intErviewing InTervention (MOVE IT) with usual care for reducing cardiovascular risk in high risk subjects: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Interventions targeting multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD), including poor diet and physical inactivity, are more effective than interventions targeting a single risk factor. A motivational interviewing (MI) intervention can provide modest dietary improvements and physical activity increases, while adding cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) skills may enhance the effects of MI. We designed a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine whether specific behaviour change techniques integrating MI and CBT result in favourable changes in weight and physical activity in those at high risk of CVD. A group and individual intervention will be compared to usual care. A group intervention offers potential benefits from social support and may be more cost effective. METHODS/DESIGN: Individuals aged between 40 and 74 years in 11 South London Clinical Commissioning Groups who are at high risk of developing CVD (≥20%) in the next 10 years will be recruited. A sample of 1,704 participants will be randomised to receive the enhanced MI intervention, delivered by trained healthy lifestyle facilitators (HLFs), in group or individual formats, in 10 sessions (plus an introductory session) over one year, or usual care. Randomisation will be conducted by King's College London Clinical Trials Unit and researchers collecting outcome data will be blinded to treatment allocation. At 12-month and 24-month follow-up assessments, primary outcomes will be change in weight and physical activity (average steps per day). Secondary outcomes include changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and CVD risk score. Incidence of CVD events since baseline will be recorded. A process evaluation will be conducted to evaluate factors which impact on delivery, adherence and outcome. An economic evaluation will estimate relative cost-effectiveness of each type of intervention delivery. DISCUSSION: This RCT assesses the effectiveness of a healthy lifestyle intervention for people at high risk of CVD. Benefits of the study include the ethnic and socioeconomic diversity of the study population and that, via social support within the group setting and long-term follow-up period, the intervention offers the potential to support maintenance of a healthy lifestyle. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (identifier: ISRCTN84864870, registered 15 May 2012).