Flexor Injury Rehabilitation Splint Trial (FIRST): protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing three splints for finger flexor tendon repairs.

BACKGROUND: Without surgical repair, flexor tendon injuries do not heal and patients' ability to bend fingers and grip objects is impaired. However, flexor tendon repair surgery also requires optimal rehabilitation. There are currently three custom-made splints used in the rehabilitation of zone I/II flexor tendon repairs, each with different assumed harm/benefit profiles: the dorsal forearm and hand-based splint (long), the Manchester short splint (short), and the relative motion flexion splint (mini). There is, however, no robust evidence as to which splint, if any, is most clinical or cost effective. The Flexor Injury Rehabilitation Splint Trial (FIRST) was designed to address this evidence gap. METHODS: FIRST is a parallel group, superiority, analyst-blind, multi-centre, individual participant-randomised controlled trial. Participants will be assigned 1:1:1 to receive either the long, short, or mini splint. We aim to recruit 429 participants undergoing rehabilitation following zone I/II flexor tendon repair surgery. Potential participants will initially be identified prior to surgery, in NHS hand clinics across the UK, and consented and randomised at their splint fitting appointment post-surgery. The primary outcome will be the mean post-randomisation score on the patient-reported wrist and hand evaluation measure (PRWHE), assessed at 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures include blinded grip strength and active range of movement (AROM) assessments, adverse events, adherence to the splinting protocol (measured via temperature sensors inserted into the splints), quality of life assessment, and further patient-reported outcomes. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness of each splint, and a qualitative sub-study will evaluate participants' preferences for, and experiences of wearing, the splints. Furthermore, a mediation analysis will determine the relationship between patient preferences, splint adherence, and splint effectiveness. DISCUSSION: FIRST will compare the three splints with respect to clinical efficacy, complications, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. FIRST is a pragmatic trial which will recruit from 26 NHS sites to allow findings to be generalisable to current clinical practice in the UK. It will also provide significant insights into patient experiences of splint wear and how adherence to splinting may impact outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 10236011.

The Acute VertEbRal AugmentaTion (AVERT) study: protocol for a randomised controlled, feasibility trial of spinal medial branch nerve block in hospitalised older patients with vertebral fragility fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs) are the most common type of osteoporotic fracture found in older people, resulting in increasing morbidity and excess mortality. These fractures can cause significant pain, requiring admission to hospital. Vertebroplasty (VP) is effective in reducing pain and allowing early mobilisation in hospitalised patients. However, it may be associated with complications such as cement leakage, infection, bleeding at the injection site and fracture of adjacent vertebrae. It is also costly and not readily accessible in many UK hospitals.A recent retrospective study reported that spinal medial branch nerve block (MBNB), typically used to treat facet arthropathy, had similar efficacy in terms of pain relief compared with VP for the treatment of painful VFF. However, to date, no study has prospectively compared MBNB to VP. We therefore propose a prospective feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) to compare the role of MBNB to VP, in hospitalised older patients. METHOD: A parallel, two-arm RCT with participants allocated on a 1:1 ratio to either standard care-VP or MBNB in hospitalised patients aged over 70 with acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Follow-up will be at weeks 1, 4 and 8 post intervention. The primary objective is to determine the feasibility and design of a future trial, including specific outcomes of recruitment, adherence to randomisation and safety. Embedded within the trial will be a health economic evaluation to understand resource utilisation and implications of the intervention and a qualitative study of the experiences and insights of trial participants and clinicians. Secondary outcomes will include pain scores, analgesia requirements, resource use and quality of life data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the Yorkshire & the Humber Research Ethics Committee (reference 21/YH/0065). AVERT (Acute VertEbRal AugmentaTion) has received approval by the Health Research Authority (reference IRAS 293210) and is sponsored by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (reference 21HC001). Recruitment is ongoing. Results will be presented at relevant conferences and submitted to appropriate journals for publication on completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18334053.

Protocol of a randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of Recovery-focused Community support to Avoid readmissions and improve Participation after Stroke (ReCAPS).

RATIONALE: To address unmet needs, electronic messages to support person-centered goal attainment and secondary prevention may avoid hospital presentations/readmissions after stroke, but evidence is limited. HYPOTHESIS: Compared to control participants, there will be a 10% lower proportion of intervention participants who represent to hospital (emergency/admission) within 90 days of randomization. METHODS AND DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. The intervention group receives 12 weeks of personalized, goal-centered, and administrative electronic messages, while the control group only receive administrative messages. The trial includes a process evaluation, assessment of treatment fidelity, and an economic evaluation. Participants: Confirmed stroke (modified Rankin Score: 0-4), aged ≥18 years with internet/mobile phone access, discharged directly home from hospital. Randomization: 1:1 computer-generated, stratified by age and baseline disability. Outcomes assessments: Collected at 90 days and 12 months following randomization. OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes include hospital emergency presentations/admissions within 90 days of randomization. Secondary outcomes include goal attainment, self-efficacy, mood, unmet needs, disability, quality-of-life, recurrent stroke/cardiovascular events/deaths at 90 days and 12 months, and death and cost-effectiveness at 12 months. Sample size: To test our primary hypothesis, we estimated a sample size of 890 participants (445 per group) with 80% power and two-tailed significance threshold of α = 0.05. Given uncertainty for the effect size of this novel intervention, the sample size will be adaptively re-estimated when outcomes for n = 668 are obtained, with maximum sample capped at 1100. DISCUSSION: We will provide new evidence on the potential effectiveness, implementation, and cost-effectiveness of a tailored eHealth intervention for survivors of stroke.

Cognitive assessment in multiple sclerosis clinical care: A qualitative evaluation of stakeholder perceptions and preferences.

There is a growing consensus that cognitive assessments should form part of routine clinical care in Multiple Sclerosis (MS). However, what remains unclear is which assessments are preferred by "stakeholders" (including people with MS, family members, charity volunteers, clinicians, and healthcare commissioners), in which contexts, and in which formats. Therefore, the aim of this study was to collect and synthesize stakeholders' perceptions of the assessments that are acceptable and feasible for routine administration in the UK healthcare system.We interviewed 44 stakeholders and held one focus group (n = 5). We asked stakeholders about their experience with cognitive impairment and assessment and their views on how cognitive assessment could be implemented within routine clinical care.Using framework analysis, we summarized three themes: the current cognitive screening situation; the suitability of commonly used assessments; and feasibility aspects, including modality and location of testing. All participants acknowledged that cognitive impairment could have a significant impact on the quality of life, but that assessment and monitoring are not routinely performed in clinics. Barriers and enablers were described, and most participants reported that brief, routine screening with tests such as symbol substitution was acceptable. Electronic, self-administration of cognitive screening would be beneficial in minimizing clinic attendance and staff time.

Home-based rehabilitation programme compared with traditional physiotherapy for patients at risk of poor outcome after knee arthroplasty: the CORKA randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether a home-based rehabilitation programme for people assessed as being at risk of a poor outcome after knee arthroplasty offers superior outcomes to traditional outpatient physiotherapy. DESIGN: A prospective, single-blind, two-arm randomised controlled superiority trial. SETTING: 14 National Health Service physiotherapy departments in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 621 participants identified at high risk of a poor outcome after knee arthroplasty using a bespoke screening tool. INTERVENTIONS: A multicomponent home-based rehabilitation programme delivered by rehabilitation assistants with supervision from qualified therapists versus usual care outpatient physiotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the Oxford Knee Score (a disease-specific measure of function), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Quality of Life subscale, Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly, 5 dimension, 5 level version of Euroqol (EQ-5D-5L) and physical function assessed using the Figure of 8 Walk test, 30 s Chair Stand Test and Single Leg Stance. RESULTS: 621 participants were randomised between March 2015 and January 2018. 309 were assigned to CORKA (Community Rehabilitation after Knee Arthroplasty) home-based rehabilitation, receiving a median five treatment sessions (IQR 4-7). 312 were assigned to usual care, receiving a median 4 sessions (IQR 2-6). The primary outcome, LLFDI function total score at 12 months, was collected for 279 participants (89%) in the home-based CORKA group and 287 participants (92%) in the usual care group. No clinically or statistically significant difference was found between the groups (intention-to-treat adjusted difference=0.49 points; 95% CI -0.89 to 1.88; p=0.48). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups on any of the patient-reported or physical secondary outcome measures at 6 or 12 months.There were 18 participants in the intervention group reporting a serious adverse event (5.8%), only one directly related to the intervention, all other adverse events recorded throughout the trial related to underlying chronic medical conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The CORKA intervention was not superior to usual care. The trial detected no significant differences, clinical or statistical, between the two groups on either primary or secondary outcomes. CORKA offers an evaluation of an intervention utilising a different service delivery model for this patient group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13517704.

Home environmental assessments and modification delivered by occupational therapists to reduce falls in people aged 65 years and over: the OTIS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Falls and fall-related fractures are highly prevalent among older people and are a major contributor to morbidity and costs to individuals and society. Only one small pilot trial has evaluated the effectiveness of a home hazard assessment and environmental modification in the UK. This trial reported a reduction in falls as a secondary outcome, and no economic evaluation was undertaken. Therefore, the results need to be confirmed and a cost-effectiveness analysis needs to be undertaken. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a home hazard assessment and environmental modification delivered by occupational therapists for preventing falls among community-dwelling people aged ≥ 65 years who are at risk of falling, relative to usual care. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, modified cohort randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and a qualitative study. SETTING: Eight NHS trusts in primary and secondary care in England. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 1331 participants were randomised (intervention group, n = 430; usual-care group, n = 901) via a secure, remote service. Blinding was not possible. INTERVENTIONS: All participants received a falls prevention leaflet and routine care from their general practitioner. The intervention group were additionally offered one home environmental assessment and modifications recommended or provided to identify and manage personal fall-related hazards, delivered by an occupational therapist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of falls per participant during the 12 months from randomisation. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of fallers and multiple fallers, time to fall, fear of falling, fracture rate, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The primary analysis included all 1331 randomised participants and indicated weak evidence of a difference in fall rate between the two groups, with an increase in the intervention group relative to usual care (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.38; p = 0.07). A similar proportion of participants in the intervention group (57.0%) and the usual-care group (56.2%) reported at least one fall over 12 months. There were no differences in any of the secondary outcomes. The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective found that, on average per participant, the intervention was associated with additional costs (£18.78, 95% confidence interval £16.33 to £21.24), but was less effective (mean quality-adjusted life-year loss -0.0042, 95% confidence interval -0.0041 to -0.0043). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated uncertainty in these findings. No serious, related adverse events were reported. The intervention was largely delivered as intended, but recommendations were followed to a varying degree. LIMITATIONS: Outcome data were self-reported by participants, which may have led to inaccuracies in the reported falls data. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that an occupational therapist-delivered home assessment and modification reduced falls in this population of community-dwelling participants aged ≥ 65 years deemed at risk of falling. The intervention was more expensive and less effective than usual care, and therefore it does not provide a cost-effective alternative to usual care. FUTURE WORK: An evaluation of falls prevention advice in a higher-risk population, perhaps those previously hospitalised for a fall, or given by other professional staff could be justified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22202133. 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. 25, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Falling is a common problem among older people. In fact, up to half of people aged over 80 years fall each year, with most falls happening inside the home. Unfortunately, some falls cause serious injuries, such as broken bones. People often think that falls are part of getting older and that little can be done to stop them from falling. However, there are many ways to reduce falls. The Occupational Therapist Intervention Study (OTIS) explored whether or not a home assessment visit by an NHS occupational therapist could reduce falls among older people who are likely to be at risk of falling. In total, 1331 people aged 65 years or older living in England took part in the study. These people were all sent an Age UK leaflet about how to prevent falls, and 430 people were selected at random to receive a visit from an occupational therapist. The occupational therapist assessed their homes for hazards, such as slippery floors or poor lighting, and made suggestions for changes. We collected information from participants using monthly falls calendars and postal questionnaires to ask them about their falls, their quality of life, how often they used NHS services and how often they used paid care workers. We also asked them about whether they had had equipment and adaptations installed as a result of the assessments. We found that the home assessment visits did not reduce the number of falls people had or make any difference to participants' quality of life. However, many of the recommendations made by the occupational therapists were not carried out. The home assessment visits by an occupational therapist were not good value for money.

ASSERT (Acute Sacral inSufficiEncy fractuRe augmenTation): Perceptions in the Assessment and Treatment of Pubic Rami and Sacral Fragility Fractures Amongst Healthcare Professionals in Geriatric Medicine and Surgery-A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Pubic rami fragility fractures are common in older people and result in significant morbidity and increased mortality. Co-existing fractures of the sacrum are common, but routinely missed. The aim of the study was to explore the perceptions in the assessment and treatment of pubic rami and sacral fragility fractures amongst healthcare professionals. METHODS: We interviewed 14 participants about their experience in the assessment and treatment of patients presenting with pubic rami fragility fractures. Data was analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: The majority of patients presenting with a pubic rami fragility fracture were managed by geriatricians. However, many of the geriatricians were not aware that these fractures have a high association with co-existing sacral fragility fractures. Furthermore, they were not aware of the limitations of standard x-ray imaging, nor of the potential benefits of surgical intervention for sacral fragility fractures. Spinal surgeons recommended that early, more specialist imaging in patients with pubic rami fragility fractures failing to mobilize, would change clinical management, if found to have a coexisting sacral fragility fracture, amenable to surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The awareness, assessment and management of sacral fragility fractures in patients presenting with pubic rami fragility fractures is poor amongst healthcare professionals in geriatric medicine. Spinal surgeons in this study advocate early further imaging and surgical intervention in patients confirmed to have a concomitant sacral fragility fracture who are failing to mobilize.

Outpatient physiotherapy versus home-based rehabilitation for patients at risk of poor outcomes after knee arthroplasty: CORKA RCT.

BACKGROUND: Over 100,000 primary knee arthroplasty operations are undertaken annually in the UK. Around 15-30% of patients do not report a good outcome. Better rehabilitation strategies may improve patient-reported outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes from a traditional outpatient physiotherapy model with those from a home-based rehabilitation programme for people assessed as being at risk of a poor outcome after knee arthroplasty. DESIGN: An individually randomised, two-arm controlled trial with a blinded outcome assessment, a parallel health economic evaluation and a nested qualitative study. SETTING: The trial took place in 14 NHS physiotherapy departments. PARTICIPANTS: People identified as being at high risk of a poor outcome after knee arthroplasty. INTERVENTIONS: A multicomponent home-based rehabilitation package delivered by rehabilitation assistants with supervision from qualified therapists compared with usual-care outpatient physiotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Late Life Function and Disability Instrument at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the Oxford Knee Score (a disease-specific measure of function); Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; Quality of Life subscale; Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly; EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; and physical function assessed using the Figure-of-8 Walk Test, 30-Second Chair Stand Test and Single Leg Stance. Data on the use of health-care services, time off work and informal care were collected using participant diaries. RESULTS: In total, 621 participants were randomised. A total of 309 participants were assigned to the COmmunity based Rehabilitation after Knee Arthroplasty (CORKA) home-based rehabilitation programme, receiving a median of five treatment sessions (interquartile range 4-7 sessions). A total of 312 participants were assigned to usual care, receiving a median of four sessions (interquartile range 2-6 sessions). The primary outcome, Late Life Function and Disability Instrument function total score at 12 months, was collected for 279 participants (89%) in the home-based CORKA group and 287 participants (92%) in the usual-care group. No clinically or statistically significant difference was found between the groups (intention-to-treat adjusted difference 0.49 points, 95% confidence interval -0.89 to 1.88 points; p = 0.48). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in any of the patient-reported or physical secondary outcome measures at 6 or 12 months post randomisation. The health economic analysis found that the CORKA intervention was cheaper to provide than usual care (£66 less per participant). Total societal costs (combining health-care costs and other costs) were lower for the CORKA intervention than usual care (£316 less per participant). Adopting a societal perspective, CORKA had a 75% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Adopting the narrower health and social care perspective, CORKA had a 43% probability of being cost-effective at the same threshold. LIMITATIONS: The interventions were of short duration and were set within current commissioning guidance for UK physiotherapy. Participants and treating therapists could not be blinded. CONCLUSIONS: This randomised controlled trial found no important differences in outcomes when post-arthroplasty rehabilitation was delivered using a home-based, rehabilitation assistant-delivered rehabilitation package or a traditional outpatient model. However, the health economic evaluation found that when adopting a societal perspective, the CORKA home-based intervention was cost-saving and more effective than, and thus dominant over, usual care, owing to reduced time away from paid employment for this group. Further research could look at identifying the risk of poor outcome and further evaluation of a cost-effective treatment, including the workforce model to deliver it. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13517704. 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. 65. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Knee replacement is a common treatment for knee osteoarthritis. Most people do well after surgery; however, a small group of people do not report a good outcome. One way we could try to improve this is by considering the way that rehabilitation is offered after surgery. We identified people thought to be at risk of a poor outcome after knee replacement. We compared a newly designed rehabilitation programme that was undertaken in people's own homes with physiotherapy as it is currently offered. This new programme was delivered by rehabilitation assistants under the guidance of qualified therapists. We assessed these treatments by measuring three functional tests: walking in a figure of eight, sitting and standing from a chair in 30 seconds and standing on one leg. In addition, we asked people to complete questionnaires about their knee, what activities they could perform, how physically active they were and their quality of life. We also recorded the use of health-care services, time off work and any informal care that people received. The results showed that both groups had improved by a similar amount at 6 months and 12 months after surgery. The new rehabilitation programme that was designed for the study was cheaper to deliver than standard physiotherapy, when all costs were considered. We think that future research should look at developing better tools to predict who might be at risk of not doing well after surgery, and to determine the ideal make-up of the rehabilitation team that delivers treatment after knee replacement.

Occupational advice to help people return to work following lower limb arthroplasty: the OPAL intervention mapping study.

BACKGROUND: Hip and knee replacements are regularly carried out for patients who work. There is little evidence about these patients' needs and the factors influencing their return to work. There is a paucity of guidance to help patients return to work after surgery and a need for structured occupational advice to enable them to return to work safely and effectively. OBJECTIVES: To develop an occupational advice intervention to support early recovery to usual activities including work that is tailored to the requirements of patients undergoing hip or knee replacements. To test the acceptability, practicality and feasibility of this intervention within current care frameworks. DESIGN: An intervention mapping approach was used to develop the intervention. The research methods employed were rapid evidence synthesis, qualitative interviews with patients and stakeholders, a prospective cohort study, a survey of clinical practice and a modified Delphi consensus process. The developed intervention was implemented and assessed during the final feasibility stage of the intervention mapping process. SETTING: Orthopaedic departments in NHS secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who were in work and intending to return to work following primary elective hip or knee replacement surgery, health-care professionals and employers. INTERVENTIONS: Occupational advice intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Development of an occupational advice intervention, fidelity of the developed intervention when delivered in a clinical setting, patient and clinician perspectives of the intervention and preliminary assessments of intervention effectiveness and cost. RESULTS: A cohort study (154 patients), 110 stakeholder interviews, a survey of practice (152 respondents) and evidence synthesis provided the necessary information to develop the intervention. The intervention included information resources, a personalised return-to-work plan and co-ordination from the health-care team to support the delivery of 13 patient and 20 staff performance objectives. To support delivery, a range of tools (e.g. occupational checklists, patient workbooks and employer information), roles (e.g. return-to-work co-ordinator) and training resources were created. Feasibility was assessed for 21 of the 26 patients recruited from three NHS trusts. Adherence to the defined performance objectives was 75% for patient performance objectives and 74% for staff performance objectives. The intervention was generally well received, although the short time frame available for implementation and concurrent research evaluation led to some confusion among patients and those delivering the intervention regarding its purpose and the roles and responsibilities of key staff. LIMITATIONS: Implementation and uptake of the intervention was not standardised and was limited by the study time frame. Evaluation of the intervention involved a small number of patients, which limited the ability to assess it. CONCLUSIONS: The developed occupational advice intervention supports best practice. Evaluation demonstrated good rates of adherence against defined performance objectives. However, a number of operational and implementation issues require further attention. FUTURE WORK: The intervention warrants a randomised controlled trial to assess its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to improve rates and timing of sustained return to work after surgery. This research should include the development of a robust implementation strategy to ensure that adoption is sustained. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27426982 and PROSPERO CRD42016045235. 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. 45. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Hip and knee replacements are regularly carried out for patients who work. There is a lack of evidence about these patients' needs and how they return to work. Guidance to enable return to work after surgery is limited. There is, therefore, a need for structured occupational advice to help these patients. The aim of this project was to develop a multidisciplinary occupational advice intervention for this patient population and assess if it could be delivered. The study also aimed to make recommendations about its further assessment in a clinical trial. The study combined different methods of research (quantitative and qualitative) to identify the population likely to benefit, their current care, and the outcomes important to patients and health-care professionals. All of the information gathered was mapped through a framework (intervention mapping), which included a consensus process with stakeholders to develop the intervention. The intervention delivery was assessed for a small number of patients across orthopaedic departments, employer organisations and primary care networks. The study involved 154 patients, 110 stakeholders (general practitioners, surgeons, employers and health professionals/nurses) and a survey of current care (152 respondents) to develop the intervention. The intervention included information resources, a personalised return-to-work plan and co-ordination from the health-care team to support the delivery of 33 patient and staff performance objectives. To support delivery, a range of tools (e.g. occupational checklists, patient workbooks and employer information), roles (e.g. return-to-work co-ordinator) and training resources were created. The intervention was assessed in 26 patients and staff, and showed high rates of adherence to the defined performance objectives. The overall results demonstrated that the occupational advice intervention developed for hip and knee replacement patients is deliverable. The intervention warrants further research to assess its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness as a tool to improve rates and timing of sustained return to work after surgery.

Development of an occupational advice intervention for patients undergoing elective hip and knee replacement: a Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: To obtain consensus on the content and delivery of an occupational advice intervention for patients undergoing primary hip and knee replacement surgery. The primary targets for the intervention were (1) patients, carers and employers through the provision of individualised support and information about returning to work and (2) hospital orthopaedic teams through the development of a framework and materials to enable this support and information to be delivered. DESIGN: Modified Delphi study as part of a wider intervention development study (The Occupational advice for Patients undergoing Arthroplasty of the Lower limb (OPAL) study: Health Technology Assessment Reference 15/28/02) (ISRCTN27426982). SETTING: Five stakeholder groups (patients, employers, orthopaedic surgeons, general practitioners, allied health professionals and nurses) recruited from across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-six participants. METHODS: Statements for the Delphi process were developed relating to the content, format, delivery, timing and measurement of an occupational advice intervention. The statements were based on evidence gathered through the OPAL study that was processed using an intervention mapping framework. Intervention content was examined in round 1 and intervention format, delivery, timing and measurement were examined in round 2. In round 3, the developed intervention was presented to the stakeholder groups for comment. CONSENSUS: For rounds 1 and 2, consensus was defined as 70% agreement or disagreement on a 4-point scale. Statements reaching consensus were ranked according to the distribution of responses to create a hierarchy of agreement. Round 3 comments were used to revise the final version of the developed occupational advice intervention. RESULTS: Consensus was reached for 36 of 64 round 1 content statements (all agreement). In round 2, 13 questions were carried forward and an additional 81 statements were presented. Of these, 49 reached consensus (44 agreement/5 disagreement). Eleven respondents provided an appraisal of the intervention in round 3. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi process informed the development of an occupational advice intervention as part of a wider intervention development study. Stakeholder agreement was achieved for a large number of intervention elements encompassing the content, format, delivery and timing of the intervention. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the developed intervention will require evaluation in a randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number Trial ID: ISRCTN27426982.

An extended stroke rehabilitation service for people who have had a stroke: the EXTRAS RCT.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence about the effectiveness of rehabilitation in meeting the longer-term needs of stroke patients and their carers. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS). DESIGN: A pragmatic, observer-blind, parallel-group, multicentre randomised controlled trial with embedded health economic and process evaluations. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) to receive EXTRAS or usual care. SETTING: Nineteen NHS study centres. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a new stroke who received early supported discharge and their informal carers. INTERVENTIONS: Five EXTRAS reviews provided by an early supported discharge team member between 1 and 18 months post early supported discharge, usually over the telephone. Reviewers assessed rehabilitation needs, with goal-setting and action-planning. Control treatment was usual care post early supported discharge. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was performance in extended activities of daily living (Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale) at 24 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes at 12 and 24 months included patient mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), health status (Oxford Handicap Scale), experience of services and adverse events. For carers, secondary outcomes included carers' strain (Caregiver Strain Index) and experience of services. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using resource utilisation costs (adaptation of the Client Service Receipt Inventory) and quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: A total of 573 patients (EXTRAS, n = 285; usual care, n = 288) with 194 carers (EXTRAS, n = 103; usual care, n = 91) were randomised. Mean 24-month Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale scores were 40.0 (standard deviation 18.1) for EXTRAS (n = 219) and 37.2 (standard deviation 18.5) for usual care (n = 231), giving an adjusted mean difference of 1.8 (95% confidence interval -0.7 to 4.2). The mean intervention group Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores were not significantly different at 12 and 24 months. The intervention did not improve patient health status or carer strain. EXTRAS patients and carers reported greater satisfaction with some aspects of care. The mean cost of resource utilisation was lower in the intervention group: -£311 (95% confidence interval -£3292 to £2787), with a 68% chance of EXTRAS being cost-saving. EXTRAS was associated with 0.07 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.12) additional quality-adjusted life-years. At current conventional thresholds of willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year, there is a 90% chance that EXTRAS is cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: EXTRAS did not improve stroke survivors' performance in extended activities of daily living but did improve their overall satisfaction with services. Given the impact on costs and quality-adjusted life-years, there is a high chance that EXTRAS could be considered cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: Further research is required to identify whether or not community-based interventions can improve performance of extended activities of daily living, and to understand the improvements in health-related quality of life and costs seen by provision of intermittent longer-term specialist review. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45203373. 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. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Early supported discharge enables stroke patients with mild or moderate disability to be discharged earlier than usual from hospital to continue rehabilitation at home. Randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that early supported discharge leads to increased independence for stroke survivors, and that early supported discharge is cost-effective. Early supported discharge is usually provided for up to 6 weeks and patients with ongoing physical, psychological or social needs are then referred to other services. In the UK, provision of longer-term rehabilitation is often limited. Lack of research evidence has meant that service development in this aspect of stroke care has lagged behind service development for acute care. This clinical trial evaluated an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS) that started when early supported discharge ended. Stroke survivors and their carers were randomly assigned to receive EXTRAS or usual NHS care. EXTRAS involved five rehabilitation reviews conducted over 18 months by an early supported discharge team member, usually over the telephone. Each review consisted of an assessment of current needs, goal-setting and action-planning, and sought to improve patients' abilities and confidence to undertake extended activities of daily living (mobility, kitchen and domestic tasks, and leisure activities). There were no specific assessments or actions for carers but it was important to evaluate the impact that the new service had on carers. Patients and carers were followed up for 2 years and information was collected about their activities, mood, quality of life and services received. EXTRAS did not improve stroke survivors' performance in extended activities of daily living. However, patients who received EXTRAS reported less anxiety and less depression than those who received usual care, and patients and carers were more satisfied with some aspects of their care. EXTRAS did not improve carers' quality of life or stress. Health economic analyses suggest that EXTRAS improved patients' quality of life and may be good value for money. Further research is needed to identify other treatments to address the longer-term consequences of stroke.

Group cognitive rehabilitation to reduce the psychological impact of multiple sclerosis on quality of life: the CRAMMS RCT.

BACKGROUND: People with multiple sclerosis have problems with memory and attention. The effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation has not been established. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a cognitive rehabilitation programme for people with multiple sclerosis. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in which participants were randomised in a ratio of 6 : 5 to receive cognitive rehabilitation plus usual care or usual care alone. Participants were assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. SETTING: The trial was set in hospital neurology clinics and community services. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were people with multiple sclerosis who had cognitive problems, were aged 18-69 years, could travel to attend group sessions and gave informed consent. INTERVENTION: The intervention was a group cognitive rehabilitation programme delivered weekly by an assistant psychologist to between four and six participants for 10 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included results from the Everyday Memory Questionnaire, the 30-Item General Health Questionnaire, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version and a service use questionnaire from participants, and the Everyday Memory Questionnaire - relative version and the Modified Carer Strain Index from a relative or friend of the participant. RESULTS: Of the 449 participants randomised, 245 were allocated to cognitive rehabilitation (intervention group) and 204 were allocated to usual care (control group). Of these, 214 in the intervention group and 173 in the control group were included in the primary analysis. There was no clinically important difference in the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale score between the two groups at the 12-month follow-up (adjusted difference in means -0.6, 95% confidence interval -1.5 to 0.3; p = 0.20). There were no important differences between the groups in relation to cognitive abilities, fatigue, employment, or carer strain at follow-up. However, there were differences, although small, between the groups in the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale score at 6 months (adjusted difference in means -0.9, 95% confidence interval -1.7 to -0.1; p = 0.03) and in everyday memory on the Everyday Memory Questionnaire as reported by participants at 6 (adjusted difference in means -5.3, 95% confidence interval -8.7 to -1.9) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -4.4, 95% confidence interval -7.8 to -0.9) and by relatives at 6 (adjusted difference in means -5.4, 95% confidence interval -9.1 to -1.7) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -5.5, 95% confidence interval -9.6 to -1.5) in favour of the cognitive rehabilitation group. There were also differences in mood on the 30-Item General Health Questionnaire at 6 (adjusted difference in means -3.4, 95% confidence interval -5.9 to -0.8) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -3.4, 95% confidence interval -6.2 to -0.6) in favour of the cognitive rehabilitation group. A qualitative analysis indicated perceived benefits of the intervention. There was no evidence of a difference in costs (adjusted difference in means -£574.93, 95% confidence interval -£1878.93 to £729.07) or quality-adjusted life-year gain (adjusted difference in means 0.00, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.02). No safety concerns were raised and no deaths were reported. LIMITATIONS: The trial included a sample of participants who had relatively severe cognitive problems in daily life. The trial was not powered to perform subgroup analyses. Participants could not be blinded to treatment allocation. CONCLUSIONS: This cognitive rehabilitation programme had no long-term benefits on quality of life for people with multiple sclerosis. FUTURE WORK: Future research should evaluate the selection of those who may benefit from cognitive rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09697576. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 4. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Cognitive (or mental processing) problems, particularly those affecting memory and attention, are common in people with multiple sclerosis. Multiple sclerosis is a condition that affects the brain and causes nerve damage. Cognitive rehabilitation can involve: retraining cognitive skills, which are the core skills your brain uses to think, read, learn, remember, reason and concentrateteaching strategies to cope in daily life. Cognitive rehabilitation is rarely provided for people with multiple sclerosis. A trial was carried out to determine whether or not providing a group cognitive rehabilitation programme improved quality of life more than usual clinical care, which did not involve any cognitive rehabilitation. The effects on daily memory problems, mood, fatigue and employment were examined and also the cost-effectiveness of the treatment. A total of 449 people with multiple sclerosis took part in the trial. They all agreed to be part of the research trial, had cognitive problems, were aged 18­69 years and could travel to attend group sessions. Participants were then allocated to receive cognitive rehabilitation or not, on the basis of chance (i.e. randomly). All participants were followed up for 1 year. Although both groups showed no differences in quality of life after 1 year, those who received cognitive rehabilitation had fewer memory problems in daily life and reported better mood than those who received only their usual clinical care. There were no differences in their levels of fatigue or disability, or in employment status. The qualitative results indicated that participants found the intervention useful. Treatment cost slightly less than usual care but had modest benefits. Overall, the results suggest that there may be modest short-term benefits of cognitive rehabilitation, and future studies will consider how such benefits can be maintained and whether or not some people benefit more than others.

Cognitive rehabilitation for attention and memory in people with multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial (CRAMMS).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation for attention and memory problems in people with multiple sclerosis. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: People with multiple sclerosis aged 18-69 years, who reported cognitive problems in daily life and had cognitive problems on standardized assessment. INTERVENTIONS: A group cognitive rehabilitation programme delivered in 10 weekly sessions in comparison with usual care. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Psychological subscale at 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes included measures of everyday memory problems, mood, fatigue, cognitive abilities and employment at 6 and 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: In all, 245 participants were allocated to cognitive rehabilitation and 204 to usual care. Mean Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Psychological at 12 months was 22.2 (SD = 6.1) for cognitive rehabilitation and 23.4 (SD = 6.0) for usual care group; adjusted difference -0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.5 to 0.3, P = 0.20. No differences were observed in cognitive abilities, fatigue or employment. There were small differences in favour of cognitive rehabilitation for the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Psychological at 6 months and everyday memory and mood at 6 and 12 months. There was no evidence of an effect on costs (-£808; 95% CI = -£2248 to £632) or on quality-adjusted life year gain (0.00; 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.02). CONCLUSION: This rehabilitation programme had no long-term benefits on the impact of multiple sclerosis on quality of life, but there was some evidence of an effect on everyday memory problems and mood.

Evaluation of an Extended Stroke Rehabilitation Service (EXTRAS): A Randomized Controlled Trial and Economic Analysis.

Background and Purpose- There is limited evidence to guide rehabilitation to meet the longer term needs of stroke survivors. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS) provided following early supported discharge were determined. Methods- EXTRAS was a pragmatic parallel-group observer-blind randomized controlled trial involving 19 UK centers. Patients with stroke were individually randomized to receive EXTRAS or usual care at discharge from early supported discharge. Five EXTRAS reviews were provided by an early supported discharge team member between one and 18 months, usually by telephone. Reviews consisted of a semi-structured interview assessing progress, rehabilitation needs, and service provision, with goal setting and action planning. The primary outcome was performance in extended activities of daily living (Nottingham EADL Scale) at 24 months post-randomization. The Nottingham EADL Scale is scored 0 to 66, with higher scores indicating better performance in these activities. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using resource utilization costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years. Analyses were intention to treat. Results- Between January 9, 2013 and October 26, 2015, 573 participants were randomized (EXTRAS, n=285; usual care, n=288). Mean 24 month Nottingham EADL Scale scores were EXTRAS (n=219) 40.0 (SD 18.1) and usual care (n=231) 37.2 (SD 18.5) giving an adjusted mean difference of 1.8 (95% CI, -0.7 to 4.2). 1155/1338 (86%) of expected EXTRAS reviews were undertaken. Over 24 months, the mean cost of resource utilization was lower in the intervention group: -£311 (-$450 [95% CI, -£3292 to £2787; -$4764 to $4033]). EXTRAS provided more Quality Adjusted Life Years (0.07 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.12]). At current conventional thresholds of willingness to pay (£20 000 [$28 940] per Quality Adjusted Life Years), there was a 90% chance that EXTRAS could be considered cost-effective. Conclusions- EXTRAS did not significantly improve stroke survivors' performance in extended activities of daily living. However, given the impact on costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years, EXTRAS may be an affordable addition to improve stroke care. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: www.isrctn.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN45203373.

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.

ASSERT (Acute Sacral inSufficiEncy fractuRe augmenTation) randomised controlled, feasibility in older people trial: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Pelvic fragility fractures (PFF) are common in older people and associated with a significant burden of mortality and morbidity. This is related to the challenges of appropriate pain control and early mobilisation. The current standard for treatment of PFF is non-surgical management. Minimally invasive surgical techniques for sacral fracture stabilisation have been shown to improve outcomes in terms of pain control and mobility, and they are safe. Randomised controlled trials are required before recommendations can be made for surgical management of PFF to become the new standard of care. This feasibility study will explore several uncertainties around conducting such a trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ASSERT (Acute Sacral inSufficiEncy fractuRe augmenTation) is a single-site randomised controlled, parallel-arm, feasibility trial of surgical stabilisation versus non-surgical management of acute sacral fragility fractures in people aged 70 years and over. Patients will be randomised to either surgical or non-surgical group on a 1:1 ratio. Follow-up of participants will occur at 2, 4 and 12 weeks with safety data collected at 52 weeks. Primary objectives are to determine feasibility and design of a future trial, including outcomes on recruitment, adherence to randomisation and safety. This will be supplemented with a qualitative interview study of participants and clinicians. Secondary objectives will inform study design procedures to determine clinical and economic outcomes between groups, including scored questionnaires, analgesia requirements, resource use and quality of life data. Data analysis will be largely descriptive to inform outcomes and future sample size. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the North East Newcastle and North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (reference 18/NE/0212). ASSERT was approved and sponsored by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (reference 18HC001) and the Health Research Authority (reference IRAS 232791). Recruitment is ongoing. Results will be presented at relevant conferences and submitted to appropriate journals on study completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16719542; Pre-results.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of a group-based memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injury. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial in England. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: People with memory problems following traumatic brain injury, aged 18-69 years, able to travel to group sessions, communicate in English, and give consent. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 10 weekly group sessions of manualized memory rehabilitation plus usual care (intervention) vs. usual care alone (control). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the patient-reported Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ-p) at six months post randomization. Secondary outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months post randomization. RESULTS: We randomized 328 participants. There were no clinically important differences in the primary outcome between arms at six-month follow-up (mean EMQ-p score: 38.8 (SD 26.1) in intervention and 44.1 (SD 24.6) in control arms, adjusted difference in means: -2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): -6.7 to 2.5, p = 0.37) or 12-month follow-up. Objectively assessed memory ability favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at the 6-month, but not at the 12-month outcome. There were no between-arm differences in mood, experience of brain injury, or relative/friend assessment of patient's everyday memory outcomes, but goal attainment scores favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at both outcome time points. Health economic analyses suggested that the intervention was unlikely to be cost effective. No safety concerns were raised. CONCLUSION: This memory rehabilitation programme did not lead to reduced forgetting in daily life for a heterogeneous sample of people with traumatic brain injury. Further research will need to examine who benefits most from such interventions.

Hearing impairment and daily-life fatigue: a qualitative study.

Objective: Hearing impairment is linked to increased fatigue, yet little is known about the real-world impact of this fatigue. This qualitative study investigated the experience of daily-life fatigue in people with a hearing impairment. Design: Individual face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted. Thematic analysis was then used to analyse the data. Study sample: Fourteen hearing impaired participants (aged 44-70 years) who varied in terms of hearing loss, hearing aid status, age and gender. Results: The themes and sub-themes that emerged from the transcripts were: Fatigue (effort-driven fatigue, emotion-driven fatigue, breaks and recovery, the perceived relationship between hearing impairment and fatigue, and sleep), Effort (cognitive effort and physical effort), Coping Strategies (withdrawal, avoidance and planning), Relationships and Emotions, Hearing Aid Impact. Conclusions: The study highlights that hearing impairment-related fatigue is experienced by many but not all, and to different extents. Hearing aids were weakly linked to a beneficial effect on fatigue. In addition to the more widely researched effort-driven fatigue, participants described fatigue linked to the negative emotions related to having a hearing impairment. These findings, in conjunction with the widespread utilisation of different coping strategies, demonstrate that the experience of fatigue is varied and likely dependent on personal factors and lifestyle.

A group memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injuries: the ReMemBrIn RCT.

BACKGROUND: People with traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) commonly report memory impairments. These are persistent, debilitating and reduce quality of life, but patients do not routinely receive memory rehabilitation after discharge from hospital. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group memory rehabilitation programme for people with TBI. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Qualitative and health economic evaluations were also undertaken. SETTING: Community settings in nine sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were aged 18-69 years, had undergone a TBI > 3 months prior to recruitment, reported memory problems, were able to travel to a site to attend group sessions, could communicate in English and gave informed consent. RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING: Clusters of four to six participants were randomised to the memory rehabilitation arm or the usual-care arm on a 1 : 1 ratio. Randomisation was based on a computer-generated pseudo-random code using random permuted blocks of randomly varying size, stratified by study site. Participants and therapists were aware of the treatment allocation whereas outcome assessors were blinded. INTERVENTIONS: In the memory rehabilitation arm 10 weekly sessions of a manualised memory rehabilitation programme were provided in addition to usual care. Participants were taught restitution strategies to retrain impaired memory functions and compensation strategies to enable them to cope with memory problems. The usual-care arm received usual care only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Primary outcome: patient-completed Everyday Memory Questionnaire - patient version (EMQ-p) at 6 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes: Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test - third edition (RBMT-3), General Health Questionnaire 30-item version, European Brain Injury Questionnaire, Everyday Memory Questionnaire - relative version and individual goal attainment. Costs (based on a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective) were collected using a service use questionnaire, with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, used to derive quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A Markov model was developed to explore cost-effectiveness at 5 and 10 years, with a 3.5% discount applied. RESULTS: We randomised 328 participants (memory rehabilitation, n = 171; usual care, n = 157), with 129 in the memory rehabilitation arm and 122 in the usual-care arm included in the primary analysis. We found no clinically important difference on the EMQ-p between the two arms at 6 months' follow-up (adjusted difference in mean scores -2.1, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 2.5; p = 0.37). For secondary outcomes, differences favouring the memory rehabilitation arm were observed at 6 months' follow-up for the RBMT-3 and goal attainment, but remained only for goal attainment at 12 months' follow-up. There were no differences between arms in mood or quality of life. The qualitative results suggested positive experiences of participating in the trial and of attending the groups. Participants reported that memory rehabilitation was not routinely accessible in usual care. The primary health economics outcome at 12 months found memory rehabilitation to be £26.89 cheaper than usual care but less effective, with an incremental QALY loss of 0.007. Differences in costs and effects were not statistically significant and non-parametric bootstrapping demonstrated considerable uncertainty in these findings. No safety concerns were raised and no deaths were reported. LIMITATIONS: As a pragmatic trial, we had broad inclusion criteria and, therefore, there was considerable heterogeneity within the sample. The study was not powered to perform further subgroup analyses. Participants and therapists could not be blinded to treatment allocation. CONCLUSIONS: The group memory rehabilitation delivered in this trial is very unlikely to lead to clinical benefits or to be a cost-effective treatment for people with TBI in the community. Future studies should examine the selection of participants who may benefit most from memory rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN65792154. 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. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People with brain injuries often report memory problems. These difficulties can continue long after the injury, causing complications in daily life. Many people do not receive specific help for these memory problems after leaving hospital. Our study explored whether receiving 'memory rehabilitation' (a group treatment to help people deal with memory difficulties) was better than the treatment that people usually receive to help reduce the frequency of forgetting in daily life. We recruited 328 people who had memory problems following brain injury. About half were allocated at random to receive memory rehabilitation and half did not have any extra memory treatments, but everyone continued to receive their usual care. Those who had memory rehabilitation were offered 10 group sessions at which strategies were taught to help them cope with memory problems. We asked all participants to complete memory tests and questionnaires at the start of the study and again 6 and 12 months afterwards to find out whether the memory rehabilitation had any effect. Some participants were also interviewed about the study. At the 6- and 12-month assessments, there were no differences between those who received memory rehabilitation and those who did not in terms of how often participants reported memory problems in their daily lives or how well they performed on memory tests. We also did not find any differences in participants' mood or quality of life. However, individual goals set by the participants at the start of the study were a little better met by those who received memory rehabilitation than by those who did not. The memory rehabilitation did not represent value for money. In interviews, participants reported positive experiences of taking part in the study and of attending the group sessions. This group memory rehabilitation programme is unlikely to help people with memory problems following a brain injury more than the usual treatment that people receive. Some people may benefit more from memory rehabilitation than others, but this needs further investigation.