Personalised Exercise-Rehabilitation FOR people with Multiple long-term conditions (PERFORM): protocol for a randomised feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: Personalised Exercise-Rehabilitation FOR people with Multiple long-term conditions (PERFORM) is a research programme that seeks to develop and evaluate a comprehensive exercise-based rehabilitation intervention designed for people with multimorbidity, the presence of multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs). This paper describes the protocol for a randomised trial to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the PERFORM intervention, study design and processes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, parallel two-group randomised trial with individual 2:1 allocation to the PERFORM exercise-based intervention plus usual care (intervention) or usual care alone (control). The primary outcome of this feasibility trial will be to assess whether prespecified progression criteria (recruitment, retention, intervention adherence) are met to progress to the full randomised trial. The trial will be conducted across three UK sites and 60 people with MLTCs, defined as two or more LTCs, with at least one having evidence of the beneficial effect of exercise. The PERFORM intervention comprises an 8-week (twice a week for 6 weeks and once a week for 2 weeks) supervised rehabilitation programme of personalised exercise training and self-management education delivered by trained healthcare professionals followed by two maintenance sessions. Trial participants will be recruited over a 4.5-month period, and outcomes assessed at baseline (prerandomisation) and 3 months postrandomisation and include health-related quality of life, psychological well-being, symptom burden, frailty, exercise capacity, physical activity, sleep, cognition and serious adverse events. A mixed-methods process evaluation will assess acceptability, feasibility and fidelity of intervention delivery and feasibility of trial processes. An economic evaluation will assess the feasibility of data collection and estimate the costs of the PERFORM intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been given favourable opinion by the West Midlands, Edgbaston Research Ethics Service (Ref: 23/WM/0057). Participants will be asked to give full, written consent to take part by trained researchers. Findings will be disseminated via journals, presentations and targeted communications to clinicians, commissioners, service users and patients and the public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN68786622. PROTOCOL VERSION: 2.0 (16 May 2023).

Reducing the burden of knee osteoarthritis through community pharmacy: Protocol for a randomised controlled trial of the Knee Care for Arthritis through Pharmacy Service.

INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) negatively impacts the health outcomes and equity, social and employment participation, and socio-economic wellbeing of those affected. Little community-based support is offered to people with knee OA in Aotearoa New Zealand. Identifying Maori and non-Maori with knee OA in community pharmacy and providing co-ordinated, evidence- and community-based care may be a scalable, sustainable, equitable, effective and cost-effective approach to improve health and wellbeing. AIM: Assess whether the Knee Care for Arthritis through Pharmacy Service (KneeCAPS) intervention improves knee-related physical function and pain (co-primary outcomes). Secondary aims assess impacts on health-related quality of life, employment participation, medication use, secondary health care utilisation, and relative effectiveness for Maori. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial will compare the KneeCAPS intervention to the Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand Arthritis Fact Sheet and usual care (active control) at 12 months for Maori and non-Maori who have knee OA. Participants will be recruited in community pharmacies. Knee-related physical function will be measured using the function subscale of the Short Form of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Knee-related pain will be measured using an 11-point numeric pain rating scale. Primary outcome analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using linear mixed models. Parallel within-trial health economic analysis and process evaluation will also be conducted. ETHICS AND TRIAL DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Central Health and Ethics Committee (2022-EXP-11725). The trial is registered with ANZCTR (ACTRN12622000469718). Findings will be submitted for publication and shared with participants.

Protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Electronic RIsk-assessment for CAncer for patients in general practice (ERICA).

INTRODUCTION: The UK has worse cancer outcomes than most comparable countries, with a large contribution attributed to diagnostic delay. Electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) have been developed to identify primary care patients with a ≥2% risk of cancer using features recorded in the electronic record. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in English primary care. Individual general practices will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to intervention (provision of eRATs for six common cancer sites) or to usual care. The primary outcome is cancer stage at diagnosis, dichotomised to stage 1 or 2 (early) or stage 3 or 4 (advanced) for these six cancers, assessed from National Cancer Registry data. Secondary outcomes include stage at diagnosis for a further six cancers without eRATs, use of urgent referral cancer pathways, total practice cancer diagnoses, routes to cancer diagnosis and 30-day and 1-year cancer survival. Economic and process evaluations will be performed along with service delivery modelling. The primary analysis explores the proportion of patients with early-stage cancer at diagnosis. The sample size calculation used an OR of 0.8 for a cancer being diagnosed at an advanced stage in the intervention arm compared with the control arm, equating to an absolute reduction of 4.8% as an incidence-weighted figure across the six cancers. This requires 530 practices overall, with the intervention active from April 2022 for 2 years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has approval from London City and East Research Ethics Committee, reference number 19/LO/0615; protocol version 5.0, 9 May 2022. It is sponsored by the University of Exeter. Dissemination will be by journal publication, conferences, use of appropriate social media and direct sharing with cancer policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN22560297.

A Guideline-Implementation Intervention to Improve the Management of Low Back Pain in Primary Care: A Difference-in-Difference-in-Differences Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Real-world adherence to clinical practice guidelines is often poor, resulting in sub-standard patient care and unnecessary healthcare costs. This study evaluates the effect of a guideline-implementation intervention for the management of low back pain (LBP) in general practice-the Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach-on LBP-related injury insurance claims, healthcare utilisation, and costs of treatment. DESIGN: Data were extracted from comprehensive nationwide New Zealand injury insurance claims records. Data were analysed using a 'triple-difference' (difference-in-difference-in-differences) method to isolate the causal effect of FREE training on LBP claims activity, comparing the difference in general practitioner (GP) LBP claims and associated activity before and after training with their non-musculoskeletal injury claims for the same periods (assumed to be unaffected by training), relative to the same comparisons for GPs not trained in the FREE approach. RESULTS: Training GPs in the FREE approach resulted in significant reductions in the number of LBP injury claims lodged (- 19%, 95% CI -34 to -5), the use of physiotherapy (-30%, 95% CI - 42 to - 18) and imaging (- 27%, 95% CI - 46 to - 8%), and the healthcare costs (- 21%, 95% CI - 41 to - 1) of LBP injury. Changes in claims for earnings' compensation (- 10%, 95% CI - 34 to 13) were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: A brief guideline-implementation intervention following best-practice LBP management and guideline-implementation strategies achieved significant reductions, persisting over at least 6 to18 months, in healthcare utilisation consistent with improved delivery of guideline-concordant care.

How do electronic risk assessment tools affect the communication and understanding of diagnostic uncertainty in the primary care consultation? A systematic review and thematic synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and synthesise qualitative research of electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) in primary care, examining how they affect the communication and understanding of diagnostic risk and uncertainty. eRATs are computer-based algorithms designed to help clinicians avoid missing important diagnoses, pick up possible symptoms early and facilitate shared decision-making. DESIGN: Systematic search, using predefined criteria of the published literature and synthesis of the qualitative data, using Thematic Synthesis. Database searches on 27 November 2019 were of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science, and a secondary search of the references of included articles. Included studies were those involving electronic risk assessment or decision support, pertaining to diagnosis in primary care, where qualitative data were presented. Non-empirical studies and non-English language studies were excluded. 5971 unique studies were identified of which 441 underwent full-text review. 26 studies were included for data extraction. A further two were found from citation searches. Quality appraisal was via the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Program) tool. Data extraction was via line by line coding. A thematic synthesis was performed. SETTING: Primary care. RESULTS: eRATs included differential diagnosis suggestion tools, tools which produce a future risk of disease development or recurrence or calculate a risk of current undiagnosed disease. Analytical themes were developed to describe separate aspects of the clinical consultation where risk and uncertainty are both central and altered via the use of an eRAT: 'Novel risk', 'Risk refinement', 'Autonomy', 'Communication', 'Fear' and 'Mistrust'. CONCLUSION: eRATs may improve the understanding and communication of risk in the primary care consultation. The themes of 'Fear' and 'Mistrust' could represent potential challenges with eRATs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD219446.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of an online-delivered group-based pain management programme in improving pain-related disability for people with persistent pain-protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial (iSelf-help trial).

INTRODUCTION: Persistent non-cancer pain affects one in five adults and is more common in Maori-the Indigenous population of New Zealand (NZ), adults over 65 years, and people living in areas of high deprivation. Despite the evidence supporting multidisciplinary pain management programmes (PMPs), access to PMPs is poor due to long waiting lists. Although online-delivered PMPs enhance access, none have been codesigned with patients or compared with group-based, in-person PMPs. This non-inferiority trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a cocreated, culturally appropriate, online-delivered PMP (iSelf-help) compared with in-person PMP in reducing pain-related disability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Mixed-methods, using a modified participatory action research (PAR) framework, involving three phases. Phase I involved cocreation and cultural appropriateness of iSelf-help by PAR team members. Phase II: The proposed iSelf-help trial is a pragmatic, multicentred, assessor-blinded, two-arm, parallel group, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. Adults (n=180, age ≥18 years) with persistent non-cancer pain eligible for a PMP will be recruited and block randomised (with equal probabilities) to intervention (iSelf-help) and control groups (in-person PMP). The iSelf-help participants will participate in two 60-minute video-conferencing sessions weekly for 12 weeks with access to cocreated resources via smartphone application and a password-protected website. The control participants will receive group-based, in-person delivered PMP. Primary outcome is pain-related disability assessed via modified Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire at 6 months post intervention. Secondary outcomes include anxiety, depression, stress, pain severity, quality of life, acceptance, self-efficacy, catastrophising and fear avoidance. Data will be collected at baseline, after the 12-week intervention, and at 3 and 6 months post intervention. We will conduct economic analyses and mixed-method process evaluations (Phase IIA). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Health and Disability Ethics Committee approved the study protocol (HDEC18/CEN/162). Phase III involves dissemination of findings guided by the PAR team as outcomes become apparent. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN 12619000771156.

Singing for people with aphasia (SPA): results of a pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial of a group singing intervention investigating acceptability and feasibility.

OBJECTIVES: Pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) for the singing groups for people with aphasia (SPA) intervention to assess: (1) the acceptability and feasibility of participant recruitment, randomisation and allocation concealment; (2) retention rates; (3) variance of continuous outcome measures; (4) outcome measure completion and participant burden; (5) fidelity of intervention delivery; (6) SPA intervention costs; (7) acceptability and feasibility of trial and intervention to participants and others involved. DESIGN: A two-group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled external pilot trial with parallel mixed methods process evaluation and economic evaluation. SETTING: Three community-based cohorts in the South-West of England. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants with post-stroke aphasia were randomised 1:1 to SPA or control. INTERVENTION: The manualised SPA intervention was delivered over 10 weekly singing group sessions, led by a music facilitator and assisted by an individual with post-stroke aphasia. The intervention was developed using the Information-Motivation-Behavioural skills model of behaviour change and targeted psychosocial outcomes. Control and intervention participants all received an aphasia information resource pack. OUTCOME MEASURES: Collected at baseline, 3 and 6 months post-randomisation, candidate primary outcomes were measured (well-being, quality of life and social participation) as well as additional clinical outcomes. Feasibility, acceptability and process outcomes included recruitment and retention rates, and measurement burden; and trial experiences were explored in qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Of 87 individuals screened, 42 participants were recruited and 41 randomised (SPA=20, control=21); 36 participants (SPA=17, control=19) completed 3-month follow-up, 34 (SPA=18, control=16) completed 6-month follow-up. Recruitment and retention (83%) were acceptable for a definitive RCT, and participants did not find the study requirements burdensome. High fidelity of the intervention delivery was shown by high attendance rates and facilitator adherence to the manual, and participants found SPA acceptable. Sample size estimates for a definitive RCT and primary/secondary outcomes were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The SPA pilot RCT fulfilled its objectives, and demonstrated that a definitive RCT of the intervention would be both feasible and acceptable. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03076736.

Basic versus biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training for women with urinary incontinence: the OPAL RCT.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence affects one in three women worldwide. Pelvic floor muscle training is an effective treatment. Electromyography biofeedback (providing visual or auditory feedback of internal muscle movement) is an adjunct that may improve outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training (biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training) compared with basic pelvic floor muscle training for treating female stress urinary incontinence or mixed urinary incontinence. DESIGN: A multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training compared with basic pelvic floor muscle training, with a mixed-methods process evaluation and a longitudinal qualitative case study. Group allocation was by web-based application, with minimisation by urinary incontinence type, centre, age and baseline urinary incontinence severity. Participants, therapy providers and researchers were not blinded to group allocation. Six-month pelvic floor muscle assessments were conducted by a blinded assessor. SETTING: This trial was set in UK community and outpatient care settings. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged ≥ 18 years, with new stress urinary incontinence or mixed urinary incontinence. The following women were excluded: those with urgency urinary incontinence alone, those who had received formal instruction in pelvic floor muscle training in the previous year, those unable to contract their pelvic floor muscles, those pregnant or < 6 months postnatal, those with prolapse greater than stage II, those currently having treatment for pelvic cancer, those with cognitive impairment affecting capacity to give informed consent, those with neurological disease, those with a known nickel allergy or sensitivity and those currently participating in other research relating to their urinary incontinence. INTERVENTIONS: Both groups were offered six appointments over 16 weeks to receive biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training or basic pelvic floor muscle training. Home biofeedback units were provided to the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group. Behaviour change techniques were built in to both interventions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was urinary incontinence severity at 24 months (measured using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Urinary Incontinence Short Form score, range 0-21, with a higher score indicating greater severity). The secondary outcomes were urinary incontinence cure/improvement, other urinary and pelvic floor symptoms, urinary incontinence-specific quality of life, self-efficacy for pelvic floor muscle training, global impression of improvement in urinary incontinence, adherence to the exercise, uptake of other urinary incontinence treatment and pelvic floor muscle function. The primary health economic outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted-life-year gained at 24 months. RESULTS: A total of 300 participants were randomised per group. The primary analysis included 225 and 235 participants (biofeedback and basic pelvic floor muscle training, respectively). The mean 24-month International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Urinary Incontinence Short Form score was 8.2 (standard deviation 5.1) for biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training and 8.5 (standard deviation 4.9) for basic pelvic floor muscle training (adjusted mean difference -0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.92 to 0.75; p = 0.84). A total of 48 participants had a non-serious adverse event (34 in the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group and 14 in the basic pelvic floor muscle training group), of whom 23 (21 in the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group and 2 in the basic pelvic floor muscle training group) had an event related/possibly related to the interventions. In addition, there were eight serious adverse events (six in the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group and two in the basic pelvic floor muscle training group), all unrelated to the interventions. At 24 months, biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training was not significantly more expensive than basic pelvic floor muscle training, but neither was it associated with significantly more quality-adjusted life-years. The probability that biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training would be cost-effective was 48% at a £20,000 willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year threshold. The process evaluation confirmed that the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group received an intensified intervention and both groups received basic pelvic floor muscle training core components. Women were positive about both interventions, adherence to both interventions was similar and both interventions were facilitated by desire to improve their urinary incontinence and hindered by lack of time. LIMITATIONS: Women unable to contract their muscles were excluded, as biofeedback is recommended for these women. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a difference between biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training and basic pelvic floor muscle training. FUTURE WORK: Research should investigate other ways to intensify pelvic floor muscle training to improve continence outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trial ISRCTN57746448. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 70. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Urinary incontinence (accidental leakage of urine) is a common and embarrassing problem for women. Pregnancy and childbirth may contribute by leading to less muscle support and bladder control. Pelvic floor exercises and 'biofeedback' equipment (a device that lets women see the muscles working as they exercise) are often used in treatment. There is good evidence that exercises (for the pelvic floor) can help, but less evidence about whether or not adding biofeedback provides better results. This trial compared pelvic floor exercises alone with pelvic floor exercises plus biofeedback. Six hundred women with urinary incontinence participated. Three hundred women were randomly assigned to the exercise group and 300 women were randomised to the exercise plus biofeedback group. Each woman had an equal chance of being in either group. Women were offered six appointments with a therapist over 16 weeks to receive their allocated treatment. After 2 years, there was no difference between the groups in the severity of women's urinary incontinence. Women in both groups varied in how much exercise they managed to do. Some managed to exercise consistently over the 2 years and others less so. There were many factors (other than the treatment received) that affected a woman's ability to exercise. Notably, women viewed the therapists' input very positively. The therapists reported some problems fitting biofeedback into the appointments, but, overall, they delivered both treatments as intended. Women carried out exercises at home and many in the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group also used biofeedback at home; however, for both groups, time issues, forgetting and other health problems affected their adherence. There were no serious complications related to either treatment. Overall, exercise plus biofeedback was not significantly more expensive than exercise alone and the quality of life associated with exercise plus biofeedback was not better than the quality of life for exercise alone. In summary, exercises plus biofeedback was no better than exercise alone. The findings do not support using biofeedback routinely as part of pelvic floor exercise treatment for women with urinary incontinence.

Adding web-based behavioural support to exercise referral schemes for inactive adults with chronic health conditions: the e-coachER RCT.

BACKGROUND: There is modest evidence that exercise referral schemes increase physical activity in inactive individuals with chronic health conditions. There is a need to identify additional ways to improve the effects of exercise referral schemes on long-term physical activity. OBJECTIVES: To determine if adding the e-coachER intervention to exercise referral schemes is more clinically effective and cost-effective in increasing physical activity after 1 year than usual exercise referral schemes. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm randomised controlled trial, with a mixed-methods process evaluation and health economic analysis. Participants were allocated in a 1 : 1 ratio to either exercise referral schemes plus e-coachER (intervention) or exercise referral schemes alone (control). SETTING: Patients were referred to exercise referral schemes in Plymouth, Birmingham and Glasgow. PARTICIPANTS: There were 450 participants aged 16-74 years, with a body mass index of 30-40 kg/m2, with hypertension, prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, lower limb osteoarthritis or a current/recent history of treatment for depression, who were also inactive, contactable via e-mail and internet users. INTERVENTION: e-coachER was designed to augment exercise referral schemes. Participants received a pedometer and fridge magnet with physical activity recording sheets, and a user guide to access the web-based support in the form of seven 'steps to health'. e-coachER aimed to build the use of behavioural skills (e.g. self-monitoring) while strengthening favourable beliefs in the importance of physical activity, competence, autonomy in physical activity choices and relatedness. All participants were referred to a standard exercise referral scheme. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Minutes of moderate and vigorous physical activity in ≥ 10-minute bouts measured by an accelerometer over 1 week at 12 months, worn ≥ 16 hours per day for ≥ 4 days including ≥ 1 weekend day. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Other accelerometer-derived physical activity measures, self-reported physical activity, exercise referral scheme attendance and EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores were collected at 4 and 12 months post randomisation. RESULTS: Participants had a mean body mass index of 32.6 (standard deviation) 4.4 kg/m2, were referred primarily for weight loss and were mostly confident self-rated information technology users. Primary outcome analysis involving those with usable data showed a weak indicative effect in favour of the intervention group (n = 108) compared with the control group (n = 124); 11.8 weekly minutes of moderate and vigorous physical activity (95% confidence interval -2.1 to 26.0 minutes; p = 0.10). Sixty-four per cent of intervention participants logged on at least once; they gave generally positive feedback on the web-based support. The intervention had no effect on other physical activity outcomes, exercise referral scheme attendance (78% in the control group vs. 75% in the intervention group) or EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, or Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores, but did enhance a number of process outcomes (i.e. confidence, importance and competence) compared with the control group at 4 months, but not at 12 months. At 12 months, the intervention group incurred an additional mean cost of £439 (95% confidence interval -£182 to £1060) compared with the control group, but generated more quality-adjusted life-years (mean 0.026, 95% confidence interval 0.013 to 0.040), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of an additional £16,885 per quality-adjusted life-year. LIMITATIONS: A significant proportion (46%) of participants were not included in the primary analysis because of study withdrawal and insufficient device wear-time, so the results must be interpreted with caution. The regression model fit for the primary outcome was poor because of the considerable proportion of participants [142/243 (58%)] who recorded no instances of ≥ 10-minute bouts of moderate and vigorous physical activity at 12 months post randomisation. FUTURE WORK: The design and rigorous evaluation of cost-effective and scalable ways to increase exercise referral scheme uptake and maintenance of moderate and vigorous physical activity are needed among patients with chronic conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Adding e-coachER to usual exercise referral schemes had only a weak indicative effect on long-term rigorously defined, objectively assessed moderate and vigorous physical activity. The provision of the e-coachER support package led to an additional cost and has a 63% probability of being cost-effective based on the UK threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. The intervention did improve some process outcomes as specified in our logic model. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15644451. 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. 24, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

When health-care professionals refer patients with chronic conditions to an exercise referral scheme, the effects on long-term increases in physical activity are limited. We therefore developed the e-coachER support package to add to usual exercise referral schemes and to prompt the use of skills such as self-monitoring and goal-setting. This package was also intended to empower patients to increase their levels of physical activity long term. The seven-step programme was delivered online (via an interactive website). As part of the package, we mailed participants a guide for accessing the online programme, a pedometer and a fridge magnet with a notepad to record physical activity. We aimed to determine whether or not adding the e-coachER support to usual exercise referral schemes resulted in lasting changes in moderate and vigorous physical activity and whether or not it offers good value for money compared with exercise referral schemes alone. A total of 450 inactive individuals were recruited across Plymouth, Birmingham and Glasgow and were referred to an exercise referral scheme for the following participant-reported main reasons: weight loss (50%), low mood (19%), osteoarthritis (12%), type 2 diabetes (10%) and high blood pressure (8%). Half of the individuals were given access to the e-coachER support and the other half were not. All individuals were mailed a wrist-worn movement sensor (accelerometer) to wear for 1 week and a survey to assess other outcomes at the start of the study as well as at 4 and 12 months post randomisation. At the start of the study, the participants were inactive and most had multiple health conditions. The participants had an average body mass index of 33 kg/m² and an average age of 50 years. Most (83%) were white. Participants with access to e-coachER support were only slightly more active at 12 months than those who did not have access, but we cannot be confident in the findings because we had data from fewer participants than planned. The lack of a clear effect may have been as a result of around one-third of participants not accessing the website, but otherwise there was reasonable engagement. The provision of the e-coachER support package led to an additional cost of £439 per participant over a 12-month period.

Workforce predictive risk modelling: development of a model to identify general practices at risk of a supply-demand imbalance.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a risk prediction model identifying general practices at risk of workforce supply-demand imbalance. DESIGN: This is a secondary analysis of routine data on general practice workforce, patient experience and registered populations (2012 to 2016), combined with a census of general practitioners' (GPs') career intentions (2016). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A hybrid approach was used to develop a model to predict workforce supply-demand imbalance based on practice factors using historical data (2012-2016) on all general practices in England (with over 1000 registered patients n=6398). The model was applied to current data (2016) to explore future risk for practices in South West England (n=368). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was a practice being in a state of workforce supply-demand imbalance operationally defined as being in the lowest third nationally of access scores according to the General Practice Patient Survey and the highest third nationally according to list size per full-time equivalent GP (weighted to the demographic distribution of registered patients and adjusted for deprivation). RESULTS: Based on historical data, the predictive model had fair to good discriminatory ability to predict which practices faced supply-demand imbalance (area under receiver operating characteristic curve=0.755). Predictions using current data suggested that, on average, practices at highest risk of future supply-demand imbalance are currently characterised by having larger patient lists, employing more nurses, serving more deprived and younger populations, and having considerably worse patient experience ratings when compared with other practices. Incorporating findings from a survey of GP's career intentions made little difference to predictions of future supply-demand risk status when compared with expected future workforce projections based only on routinely available data on GPs' gender and age. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to make reasonable predictions of an individual general practice's future risk of undersupply of GP workforce with respect to its patient population. However, the predictions are inherently limited by the data available.

The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to management of low back pain in general practice: A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective and cost-effective primary care treatments for low back pain (LBP) are required to reduce the burden of the world's most disabling condition. This study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to LBP (intervention) with usual general practitioner (GP) care (control). METHODS AND FINDINGS: This pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial with process evaluation and parallel economic evaluation was conducted in the Hutt Valley, New Zealand. Eight general practices were randomly assigned (stratified by practice size) with a 1:1 ratio to intervention (4 practices; 34 GPs) or control group (4 practices; 29 GPs). Adults presenting to these GPs with LBP as their primary complaint were recruited. GPs in the intervention practices were trained in the FREE approach, and patients presenting to these practices received care based on the FREE approach. The FREE approach restructures LBP consultations to prioritise early identification and management of barriers to recovery. GPs in control practices did not receive specific training for this study, and patients presenting to these practices received usual care. Between 23 September 2016 and 31 July 2017, 140 eligible patients presented to intervention practices (126 enrolled) and 110 eligible patients presented to control practices (100 enrolled). Patient mean age was 46.1 years (SD 14.4), and 46% were female. The duration of LBP was less than 6 weeks in 88% of patients. Primary outcome was change from baseline in patient participant Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 6 months. Secondary patient outcomes included pain, satisfaction, and psychosocial indices. GP outcomes included attitudes, knowledge, confidence, and GP LBP management behaviour. There was active and passive surveillance of potential harms. Patients and outcome assessors were blind to group assignment. Analysis followed intention-to-treat principles. A total of 122 (97%) patients from 32 GPs in the intervention group and 99 (99%) patients from 25 GPs in the control group were included in the primary outcome analysis. At 6 months, the groups did not significantly differ on the primary outcome (adjusted mean RMDQ score difference 0.57, 95% CI -0.64 to 1.78; p = 0.354) or secondary patient outcomes. The RMDQ difference met the predefined criterion to indicate noninferiority. One control group participant experienced an activity-related gluteal tear, with no other adverse events recorded. Intervention group GPs had improvements in attitudes, knowledge, and confidence compared with control group GPs. Intervention group GP LBP management behaviour became more guideline concordant than the control group. In cost-effectiveness, the intervention dominated control with lower costs and higher Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gains. Limitations of this study were that although adequately powered for primary outcome assessment, the study was not powered for evaluating some employment, healthcare use, and economic outcomes. It was also not possible for research nurses (responsible for patient recruitment) to be masked on group allocation for practices. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest that the FREE approach improves GP concordance with LBP guideline recommendations but does not improve patient recovery outcomes compared with usual care. The FREE approach may reduce unnecessary healthcare use and produce economic benefits. Work participation or health resource use should be considered for primary outcome assessment in future trials of undifferentiated LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12616000888460.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial of basic versus biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training for female stress or mixed urinary incontinence: protocol for the OPAL (optimising pelvic floor exercises to achieve long-term benefits) trial mixed methods longitudinal qualitative case study and process evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Female urinary incontinence (UI) is common affecting up to 45% of women. Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is the first-line treatment but there is uncertainty whether intensive PFMT is better than basic PFMT for long-term symptomatic improvement. It is also unclear which factors influence women's ability to perform PFMT long term and whether this has impacts on long-term outcomes. OPAL (optimising PFMT to achieve long-term benefits) trial examines the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basic PFMT versus biofeedback-mediated PFMT and this evaluation explores women's experiences of treatment and the factors which influence effectiveness. This will provide data aiding interpretation of the trial findings; make recommendations for optimising the treatment protocol; support implementation in practice; and address gaps in the literature around long-term adherence to PFMT for women with stress or mixed UI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This evaluation comprises a longitudinal qualitative case study and process evaluation (PE). The case study aims to explore women's experiences of treatment and adherence and the PE will explore factors influencing intervention effectiveness. The case study has a two-tailed design and will recruit 40 women, 20 from each trial group; they will be interviewed four times over 2 years. Process data will be collected from women through questionnaires at four time-points, from health professionals through checklists and interviews and by sampling 100 audio recordings of appointments. Qualitative analysis will use case study methodology (qualitative study) and the framework technique (PE) and will interrogate for similarities and differences between the trial groups regarding barriers and facilitators to adherence. Process data analyses will examine fidelity, engagement and mediating factors using descriptive and interpretative statistics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval from West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 4 (16/LO/0990). Findings will be published in journals, disseminated at conferences and through the final report. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN57746448.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basic versus biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training for female stress or mixed urinary incontinence: protocol for the OPAL randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Accidental urine leakage is a distressing problem that affects around one in three women. The main types of urinary incontinence (UI) are stress, urgency and mixed, with stress being most common. Current UK guidelines recommend that women with UI are offered at least 3 months of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT). There is evidence that PFMT is effective in treating UI, however it is not clear how intensively women have to exercise to give the maximum sustained improvement in symptoms, and how we enable women to achieve this. Biofeedback is an adjunct to PFMT that may help women exercise more intensively for longer, and thus may improve continence outcomes when compared with PFMT alone. A Cochrane review was inconclusive about the benefit of biofeedback, indicating the need for further evidence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre randomised controlled trial will compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PFMT versus biofeedback-mediated PFMT for women with stress UI or mixed UI. The primary outcome is UI severity at 24 months after randomisation. The primary economic outcome measure is incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 24 months. Six hundred women from UK community, outpatient and primary care settings will be randomised and followed up via questionnaires, diaries and pelvic floor assessment. All participants are offered six PFMT appointments over 16 weeks. The use of clinic and home biofeedback is added to PFMT for participants in the biofeedback group. Group allocation could not be masked from participants and healthcare staff. An intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome will estimate the mean difference between the trial groups at 24 months using a general linear mixed model adjusting for minimisation covariates and other important prognostic covariates, including the baseline score. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval granted by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 4 (16/LO/0990). Written informed consent will be obtained from participants by the local research team. Serious adverse events will be reported to the data monitoring and ethics committee, the ethics committee and trial centres as required. A Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials checklist and figure are available for this protocol. The results will be published in international journals and included in the relevant Cochrane review. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN57746448; Pre-results.

Multicentred randomised controlled trial of an augmented exercise referral scheme using web-based behavioural support in individuals with metabolic, musculoskeletal and mental health conditions: protocol for the e-coachER trial.

INTRODUCTION: Physical activity is recommended for improving health among people with common chronic conditions such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis and low mood. One approach to promote physical activity is via primary care exercise referral schemes (ERS). However, there is limited support for the effectiveness of ERS for increasing long-term physical activity and additional interventions are needed to help patients overcome barriers to ERS uptake and adherence.This study aims to determine whether augmenting usual ERS with web-based behavioural support, based on the LifeGuide platform, will increase long-term physical activity for patients with chronic physical and mental health conditions, and is cost-effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre parallel two-group randomised controlled trial with 1:1 individual allocation to usual ERS alone (control) or usual ERS plus web-based behavioural support (intervention) with parallel economic and mixed methods process evaluations. Participants are low active adults with obesity, diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis or a history of depression, referred to an ERS from primary care in the UK.The primary outcome measure is the number of minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in ≥10 min bouts measured by accelerometer over 1 week at 12 months.We plan to recruit 413 participants, with 88% power at a two-sided alpha of 5%, assuming 20% attrition, to demonstrate a between-group difference of 36-39 min of MVPA per week at 12 months. An improvement of this magnitude represents an important change in physical activity, particularly for inactive participants with chronic conditions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by North West Preston NHS Research Ethics Committee (15/NW/0347). Dissemination will include publication of findings for the stated outcomes, parallel process evaluation and economic evaluation in peer-reviewed journals.Results will be disseminated to ERS services, primary healthcare providers and trial participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15644451; Pre-results.

Singing for people with aphasia (SPA): a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of a group singing intervention to improve well-being.

INTRODUCTION: The singing for people with aphasia (SPA) intervention aims to improve quality of life and well-being for people with poststroke aphasia. A definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) is required to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of SPA. The purpose of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of such a definitive trial and inform its design. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled external pilot trial with parallel mixed methods process evaluation and economic evaluation. Forty-eight participants discharged from clinical speech and language therapy will be individually randomised 1:1 to SPA (10 group sessions plus a resource booklet) or control (resource booklet only). Outcome assessment at baseline, 3 and 6 months postrandomisation include: ICEpop CAPability measure for adults, Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life, EQ-5D-5L, modified Reintegration into Normal Living Index, Communication Outcome After Stroke, Very Short Version of the Minnesota Aphasia Test, Service Receipt Inventory and Care Related Quality of Life. Feasibility, acceptability and process outcomes include recruitment and retention rates, with measurement burden and trial experiences being explored in qualitative interviews (15 participants, 2 music facilitators and 2 music champions). Analyses include: descriptive statistics, with 95% CIs where appropriate; qualitative themes; intervention fidelity from videos and session checklists; rehearsal of health economic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: NHS National Research Ethics Service and the Health Research Authority confirmed approval in April 2017; recruitment commenced in June 2017. Outputs will include: pilot data to inform whether to proceed to a definitive RCT and support a funding application; finalised intervention manual for multicentre replication of SPA; presentations at conferences, public involvement events; internationally recognised peer reviewed journal publications, open access sources and media releases. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03076736.

Community-based rehabilitation training after stroke: results of a pilot randomised controlled trial (ReTrain) investigating acceptability and feasibility.

OBJECTIVES: To assess acceptability and feasibility of trial processes and the Rehabilitation Training (ReTrain) intervention including an assessment of intervention fidelity. DESIGN: A two-group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial with parallel mixed methods process and economic evaluations. SETTING: Community settings across two sites in Devon. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were: 18 years old or over, with a diagnosis of stroke and with self-reported mobility issues, no contraindications to physical activity, discharged from National Health Service or any other formal rehabilitation programme at least 1 month before, willing to be randomised to either control or ReTrain and attend the training venue, possessing cognitive capacity and communication ability sufficient to participate. Participants were individually randomised (1:1) via a computer-generated randomisation sequence minimised for time since stroke and level of functional disability. Only outcome assessors independent of the research team were blinded to group allocation. INTERVENTIONS: ReTrain comprised (1) an introductory one-to-one session; (2) ten, twice-weekly group classes with up to two trainers and eight clients; (3) a closing one-to-one session, followed by three drop-in sessions over the subsequent 3 months. Participants received a bespoke home-based training programme. All participants received treatment as usual. The control group received an exercise after stroke advice booklet. OUTCOME MEASURES: Candidate primary outcomes included functional mobility and physical activity. RESULTS: Forty-five participants were randomised (ReTrain=23; Control=22); data were available from 40 participants at 6 months of follow-up (ReTrain=21; Control=19) and 41 at 9 months of follow-up (ReTrain=21; Control=20). We demonstrated ability to recruit and retain participants. Participants were not burdened by the requirements of the study. We were able to calculate sample estimates for candidate primary outcomes and test procedures for process and health economic evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: All objectives were fulfilled and indicated that a definitive trial of ReTrain is feasible and acceptable. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02429180; Results.

Intervention fidelity in the definitive cluster randomised controlled trial of the Healthy Lifestyles Programme (HeLP) trial: findings from the process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The Healthy Lifestyles Programme (HeLP) was a novel school-located intervention for 9-10 year olds, designed to prevent obesity by changing patterns of child behaviour through the creation of supportive school and home environments using dynamic and creative delivery methods. This paper reports on both the quantitative and qualitative data regarding the implementation of the HeLP intervention in the definitive cluster randomised controlled trial, which was part of the wider process evaluation. METHODS: Mixed methods were used to collect data on intervention uptake, fidelity of delivery in terms of content and quality of delivery of the intervention, as well as school and child engagement with the programme. Data were collected using registers of attendance, observations and checklists, field notes, focus groups with children and semi-structured interviews with teachers. Qualitative data were analysed thematically and quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: All 16 intervention schools received a complete or near complete programme (94-100%), which was delivered in the spirit in which it had been designed. Of the 676 children in the intervention schools, over 90% of children participated in each phase of HeLP; 92% of children across the socio-economic spectrum were deemed to be engaged with HeLP and qualitative data revealed a high level of enjoyment by all children, particularly to the interactive drama workshops. Further evidence of child engagment with the programme was demonstrated by children's clear understanding of programme messages around marketing, moderation and food labelling. Thirteen of the intervention schools were deemed to be fully engaged with HeLP and qualitative data revealed a high level of teacher 'buy in', due to the programme's compatability with the National Curriculum, level of teacher support and use of innovative and creative delivery methods by external drama practitioners. CONCLUSION: Our trial shows that it is possible to successfully scale up complex school-based interventions, engage schools and children across the socio-economic spectrum and deliver an intervention as designed. As programme integrity was maintained throughout the HeLP trial, across all intervention schools, we can be confident that the trial findings are a true reflection of the effectiveness of the intervention, enabling policy recommendations to be made. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15811706.

The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to low back pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a major health issue associated with considerable health loss and societal costs. General practitioners (GPs) play an important role in the management of LBP; however, GP care has not been shown to be the most cost-effective approach unless exercise and behavioural counselling are added to usual care. The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to LBP has been developed to assist GPs to manage LBP by empowering exploration and management of psychosocial barriers to recovery and provision of evidence-based care and information. The aim of the Low Back Pain in General Practice (LBPinGP) trial is to explore whether patients with LBP who receive care from GPs trained in the FREE approach have better outcomes than those who receive usual care. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a cluster randomised controlled superiority trial comparing the FREE approach with usual care for LBP management with investigator-blinded assessment of outcomes. GPs will be recruited and then cluster randomised (in practice groups) to the intervention or control arm. Intervention arm GPs will receive training in the FREE approach, and control arm GPs will continue to practice as usual. Patients presenting to their GP with a primary complaint of LBP will be allocated on the basis of allocation of the GP they consult. We aim to recruit 60 GPs and 275 patients (assuming patients are recruited from 75% of GPs and an average of 5 patients per GP complete the study, accounting for 20% patient participant dropout). Patient participants and the trial statistician will be blind to group allocation throughout the study. Analyses will be undertaken on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome will be back-related functional impairment 6 months post-initial LBP consultation (interim data at 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 3 months), measured with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Secondary patient outcomes include pain, satisfaction, quality of life, days off from work and costs of care. Secondary GP outcomes include beliefs about pain and impairment, GP confidence, and actual and reported clinical behaviour. Health economic and process evaluations will be conducted. DISCUSSION: In the LBPinGP trial, we will investigate providing an intervention during the first interaction a person with back pain has with their GP. Because the FREE approach is used within a normal GP consultation, if effective, it may be a cost-effective means of improving LBP care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616000888460 . Registered on 6 July 2016.

Opportunities, challenges and concerns for the implementation and uptake of pelvic floor muscle assessment and exercises during the childbearing years: protocol for a critical interpretive synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy and childbirth are important risk factors for urinary incontinence (UI) in women. Pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFME) are effective for prevention of UI. Guidelines for the management of UI recommend offering pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) to women during their first pregnancy as a preventive strategy. The objective of this review is to understand the relationships between individual, professional, inter-professional and organisational opportunities, challenges and concerns that could be essential to maximise the impact of PFMT during childbearing years and to effect the required behaviour change. METHODS: Following systematic searches to identify sources for inclusion, we shall use a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach to produce a conceptual model, mapping the relationships between individual, professional, inter-professional and organisational factors and the implementation, acceptability and uptake of PFME education, assessment and training during the childbearing years. Purposive sampling will be used to identify potentially relevant material relating to topics or areas of interest which emerge as the review progresses. A wide range of empirical and non-empirical sources will be eligible for inclusion to encompass the breadth of relevant individual, professional, inter-professional and organisational issues relating to PFME during childbearing years. Data analysis and synthesis will identify key themes, concepts, connections and relationships between these themes. Findings will be interpreted in relation to existing frameworks of implementation, attitudes and beliefs of individuals and behaviour change. We will collate examples to illustrate relationships expressed in the conceptual model and identify potential links between the model and drivers for change. DISCUSSION: The CIS review findings and resulting conceptual model will illustrate relationships between factors that might affect the implementation, acceptability and uptake of PFME education, assessment and training during the childbearing years. The model will inform the development and evaluation of a training package to support midwives with implementation and delivery of effective PFME during the antenatal period. The review forms part of the first phase of the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research funded 'Antenatal Preventative Pelvic floor Exercises And Localisation (APPEAL)' programme (grant number: RP-PG-0514-20002) to prevent poor health linked to pregnancy and childbirth-related UI. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42016042792.