Effectiveness of kangaroo mother care before clinical stabilisation versus standard care among neonates at five hospitals in Uganda (OMWaNA): a parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is the leading cause of death in children younger than 5 years worldwide. WHO recommends kangaroo mother care (KMC); however, its effects on mortality in sub-Saharan Africa and its relative costs remain unclear. We aimed to compare the effectiveness, safety, costs, and cost-effectiveness of KMC initiated before clinical stabilisation versus standard care in neonates weighing up to 2000 g. METHODS: We conducted a parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial in five hospitals across Uganda. Singleton or twin neonates aged younger than 48 h weighing 700-2000 g without life-threatening clinical instability were eligible for inclusion. We randomly assigned (1:1) neonates to either KMC initiated before stabilisation (intervention group) or standard care (control group) via a computer-generated random allocation sequence with permuted blocks of varying sizes, stratified by birthweight and recruitment site. Parents, caregivers, and health-care workers were unmasked to treatment allocation; however, the independent statistician who conducted the analyses was masked. After randomisation, neonates in the intervention group were placed prone and skin-to-skin on the caregiver's chest, secured with a KMC wrap. Neonates in the control group were cared for in an incubator or radiant heater, as per hospital practice; KMC was not initiated until stability criteria were met. The primary outcome was all-cause neonatal mortality at 7 days, analysed by intention to treat. The economic evaluation assessed incremental costs and cost-effectiveness from a disaggregated societal perspective. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811432. FINDINGS: Between Oct 9, 2019, and July 31, 2022, 2221 neonates were randomly assigned: 1110 (50·0%) neonates to the intervention group and 1111 (50·0%) neonates to the control group. From randomisation to age 7 days, 81 (7·5%) of 1083 neonates in the intervention group and 83 (7·5%) of 1102 neonates in the control group died (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0·97 [95% CI 0·74-1·28]; p=0·85). From randomisation to 28 days, 119 (11·3%) of 1051 neonates in the intervention group and 134 (12·8%) of 1049 neonates in the control group died (RR 0·88 [0·71-1·09]; p=0·23). Even if policy makers place no value on averting neonatal deaths, the intervention would have 97% probability from the provider perspective and 84% probability from the societal perspective of being more cost-effective than standard care. INTERPRETATION: KMC initiated before stabilisation did not reduce early neonatal mortality; however, it was cost-effective from the societal and provider perspectives compared with standard care. Additional investment in neonatal care is needed for increased impact, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. FUNDING: Joint Global Health Trials scheme of the Department of Health and Social Care, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, UKRI Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Statistical analysis plan for a cluster randomised trial in Madhya Pradesh, India: community health promotion and medical provision and impact on neonates (CHAMPION2).

BACKGROUND: Neonatal mortality in India has fallen steadily and was estimated to be 24 per 1000 live births in the year 2017. However, neonatal mortality remains high in rural parts of the country. The Community Health Promotion and Medical Provision and Impact On Neonates (CHAMPION2) trial investigates the effect of a complex health intervention on neonatal mortality in the Satna District of Madhya Pradesh. METHODS/DESIGN: The CHAMPION2 trial forms one part of a cluster-randomised controlled trial with villages (clusters) randomised to receive either a health (CHAMPION2) or education (STRIPES2) intervention. Villages receiving the health intervention are controls for the education intervention and vice versa. The primary outcome is neonatal mortality. The effect of the active intervention on the primary outcome (compared to usual care) will be expressed as a risk ratio, estimated using a generalised estimating equation approach with robust standard errors that take account of clustering at village level. Secondary outcomes include maternal mortality, stillbirths, perinatal deaths, causes of death, health care and knowledge, hospital admissions of enrolled women during pregnancy or in the immediate post-natal care period or of their babies (during the neonatal period), maternal blood transfusions, and the cost effectiveness of the intervention. A total of 196 villages have been randomised and over 34,000 women have been recruited in CHAMPION2. DISCUSSION: This update to the published trial protocol gives a detailed plan for the statistical analysis of the CHAMPION2 trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry of India: CTRI/2019/05/019296. Registered on 23 May 2019. https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?EncHid=MzExOTg=&Enc=&userName=champion2.

Process and costs for readiness to safely implement immediate kangaroo mother care: a mixed methods evaluation from the OMWaNA trial at five hospitals in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth complications result in > 1 million child deaths annually, mostly in low- and middle-income countries. A World Health Organisation (WHO)-led trial in hospitals with intensive care reported reduced mortality within 28 days among newborns weighing 1000-1799 g who received immediate kangaroo mother care (iKMC) compared to those who received standard care. Evidence is needed regarding the process and costs of implementing iKMC, particularly in non-intensive care settings. METHODS: We describe actions undertaken to implement iKMC, estimate financial and economic costs of essential resources and infrastructure improvements, and assess readiness for newborn care after these improvements at five Ugandan hospitals participating in the OMWaNA trial. We estimated costs from a health service provider perspective and explored cost drivers and cost variation across hospitals. We assessed readiness to deliver small and sick newborn care (WHO level-2) using a tool developed by Newborn Essential Solutions and Technologies and the United Nations Children's Fund. RESULTS: Following the addition of space to accommodate beds for iKMC, floor space in the neonatal units ranged from 58 m2 to 212 m2. Costs of improvements were lowest at the national referral hospital (financial: $31,354; economic: $45,051; 2020 USD) and varied across the four smaller hospitals (financial: $68,330-$95,796; economic: $99,430-$113,881). In a standardised 20-bed neonatal unit offering a level of care comparable to the four smaller hospitals, the total financial cost could be in the range of $70,000 to $80,000 if an existing space could be repurposed or remodelled, or $95,000 if a new unit needed to be constructed. Even after improvements, the facility assessments demonstrated broad variability in laboratory and pharmacy capacity as well as the availability of essential equipment and supplies. CONCLUSIONS: These five Ugandan hospitals required substantial resource inputs to allow safe implementation of iKMC. Before widespread scale-up of iKMC, the affordability and efficiency of this investment must be assessed, considering variation in costs across hospitals and levels of care. These findings should help inform planning and budgeting as well as decisions about if, where, and how to implement iKMC, particularly in settings where space, devices, and specialised staff for newborn care are unavailable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811432 . Registered: 23 June 2016.

Understanding the effects of nutrition-sensitive agriculture interventions with participatory videos and women's group meetings on maternal and child nutrition in rural Odisha, India: A mixed-methods process evaluation.

A trial of three nutrition-sensitive agriculture interventions with participatory videos and women's group meetings in rural Odisha, India, found improvements in maternal and child dietary diversity, limited effects on agricultural production, and no effects on women and children's nutritional status. Our process evaluation explored fidelity, reach, and mechanisms behind interventions' effects. We also examined how context affected implementation, mechanisms, and outcomes. We used data from intervention monitoring systems, review notes, trial surveys, 32 case studies with families (n = 91 family members), and 20 group discussions with women's group members and intervention workers (n = 181 and 32, respectively). We found that interventions were implemented with high fidelity. Groups reached around half of the mothers of children under 2 years. Videos and meetings increased women's knowledge, motivation and confidence to suggest or make changes to their diets and agricultural production. Families responded in diverse ways. Many adopted or improved rainfed homestead garden cultivation for consumption, which could explain gains in maternal and child dietary diversity seen in the impact evaluation. Cultivation for income was less common. This was often due to small landholdings, poor access to irrigation and decision-making dominated by men. Interventions helped change norms about heavy work during pregnancy, but young women with little family support still did considerable work. Women's ability to shape cultivation, income and workload decisions was strongly influenced by support from male relatives. Future nutrition-sensitive agriculture interventions could include additional flexibility to address families' land, water, labour and time constraints, as well as actively engage with spouses and in-laws.

Reducing bias in trials from reactions to measurement: the MERIT study including developmental work and expert workshop.

BACKGROUND: Measurement can affect the people being measured; for example, asking people to complete a questionnaire can result in changes in behaviour (the 'question-behaviour effect'). The usual methods of conduct and analysis of randomised controlled trials implicitly assume that the taking of measurements has no effect on research participants. Changes in measured behaviour and other outcomes due to measurement reactivity may therefore introduce bias in otherwise well-conducted randomised controlled trials, yielding incorrect estimates of intervention effects, including underestimates. OBJECTIVES: The main objectives were (1) to promote awareness of how and where taking measurements can lead to bias and (2) to provide recommendations on how best to avoid or minimise bias due to measurement reactivity in randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve health. METHODS: We conducted (1) a series of systematic and rapid reviews, (2) a Delphi study and (3) an expert workshop. A protocol paper was published [Miles LM, Elbourne D, Farmer A, Gulliford M, Locock L, McCambridge J, et al. Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance. Trials 2018;19:653]. An updated systematic review examined whether or not measuring participants had an effect on participants' health-related behaviours relative to no-measurement controls. Three new rapid systematic reviews were conducted to identify (1) existing guidance on measurement reactivity, (2) existing systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes relating to behaviour and affective outcomes and (3) experimental studies that have investigated the effects of exposure to objective measurements of behaviour on health-related behaviour. The views of 40 experts defined the scope of the recommendations in two waves of data collection during the Delphi procedure. A workshop aimed to produce a set of recommendations that were formed in discussion in groups. RESULTS: Systematic reviews - we identified a total of 43 studies that compared interview or questionnaire measurement with no measurement and these had an overall small effect (standardised mean difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.09; n = 104,096, I2 = 54%). The three rapid systematic reviews identified no existing guidance on measurement reactivity, but we did identify five systematic reviews that quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes (all focused on the question-behaviour effect, with all standardised mean differences in the range of 0.09-0.28) and 16 studies that examined reactive effects of objective measurement of behaviour, with most evidence of reactivity of small effect and short duration. Delphi procedure - substantial agreement was reached on the scope of the present recommendations. Workshop - 14 recommendations and three main aims were produced. The aims were to identify whether or not bias is likely to be a problem for a trial, to decide whether or not to collect further quantitative or qualitative data to inform decisions about if bias is likely to be a problem, and to identify how to design trials to minimise the likelihood of this bias. LIMITATION: The main limitation was the shortage of high-quality evidence regarding the extent of measurement reactivity, with some notable exceptions, and the circumstances that are likely to bring it about. CONCLUSION: We hope that these recommendations will be used to develop new trials that are less likely to be at risk of bias. FUTURE WORK: The greatest need is to increase the number of high-quality primary studies regarding the extent of measurement reactivity. STUDY REGISTRATION: The first systematic review in this study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018102511. FUNDING: Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research Programme.

When people are asked to complete measures such as questionnaires in research studies this can produce changes in the behaviour or emotions of those people. For example, people who are asked to complete questionnaires about drinking alcohol have been found to drink slightly less, on average, than people who are not asked to complete questionnaires. Current established methods of research usually ignore these reactions to measurement. The present research aimed to produce recommendations for how best to deal with reactions to measurement. The scope of these recommendations was limited to 'trials' used to test whether or not a treatment improves health. To do this, we identified relevant research studies that have investigated various different aspects of whether or not measurement affects the people being measured. We then consulted 40 experts about what the current recommendations should consider and what was not within the scope of the current recommendations. We then gathered 23 experts together for 2 days to produce a set of recommendations. We found 43 research studies that have looked at whether or not being asked to complete questionnaires or being interviewed affects the behaviour of those people invited. In general, there were some effects of completing questionnaires, but the effects were not very consistent across research studies. There were few studies that have looked at the effects of using measures of behaviour other than questionnaires (e.g. blood pressure cuffs). We could find no existing recommendations for how best to deal with reactions to measurement in research studies that examine whether or not treatments improve health. We have produced 14 recommendations for researchers to better take account of the issue of measuring affecting the people being measured. We hope that this will help future research produce more accurate answers. We also identified that there is a need for more studies of the effects of measures other than questionnaires.

Protocol for a cluster randomised trial in Madhya Pradesh, India: community health promotion and medical provision and impact on neonates (CHAMPION2); and support to rural India's public education system and impact on numeracy and literacy scores (STRIPES2).

BACKGROUND: Rural areas of India exhibit high neonatal mortality, and low literacy and numeracy. We assess the effect of a complex package of health interventions on neonatal survival and the effect of out-of-school-hours teaching on children's literacy and numeracy in rural Madhya Pradesh. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a cluster-randomised controlled trial with villages (clusters) receiving either a health (CHAMPION2) or education (STRIPES2) intervention. Building on the design of the earlier CHAMPION/STRIPES trial, villages receiving the health intervention are controls for the education intervention and vice versa. The clusters are 196 villages in Satna district, Madhya Pradesh, India: each is at least 5 km from a Community Health Centre, has a population below 2500, and has at least 15 children eligible for the education intervention. The participants in CHAMPION2 are resident married women younger than 50 years of age who had not undergone a family planning operation, provided they are enumerated pre-randomisation or marry a man enumerated pre-randomisation. The participants in STRIPES2 are resident children born 16 June 2010 to 15 June 2013, not in school before the 2018-2019 school year and intending to enrol in first grade in 2018-2019 or 2019-2020. DISCUSSION: In CHAMPION2, the NICE Foundation will deliver a 3.5-year programme comprising Accredited Social Health Activists or village health workers and midwives promoting health knowledge and providing antenatal, postnatal, and neonatal healthcare; community mobilisation; referrals to appropriate government health facilities; and a health education campaign. In STRIPES2, the Pratham Education Foundation will deliver a programme of village-based, before/after school support focusing on literacy and numeracy. As controls, the CHAMPION2 control villages will receive the usual health services (plus the STRIPES2 intervention). STRIPES2 control villages will receive the usual education services (plus the CHAMPION2 intervention). The primary outcome in CHAMPION2 is neonatal mortality. Secondary outcomes include antenatal, delivery, immediate neonatal and postnatal care practices, maternal mortality, stillbirths, early neonatal deaths, perinatal deaths, health knowledge, hospital admissions, maternal blood transfusions, and cost effectiveness. The primary outcome in STRIPES2 is a composite literacy and numeracy test score. Secondary outcomes include separate literacy and numeracy scores, reported school enrolment and attendance, parents' engagement with children's learning, and cost effectiveness. Independent research and implementation teams will conduct the trial. Trial Steering and Data Monitoring Committees, with independent members, will supervise the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registry of India: CTRI/2019/05/019296. Registered on 23 May 2019. http://www.ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pdf_generate.php?trialid=31198&EncHid=&modid=&compid=%27,%2731198det%27.

Operationalising kangaroo Mother care before stabilisation amongst low birth Weight Neonates in Africa (OMWaNA): protocol for a randomised controlled trial to examine mortality impact in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: There are 2.5 million neonatal deaths each year; the majority occur within 48 h of birth, before stabilisation. Evidence from 11 trials shows that kangaroo mother care (KMC) significantly reduces mortality in stabilised neonates; however, data on its effect among neonates before stabilisation are lacking. The OMWaNA trial aims to determine the effect of initiating KMC before stabilisation on mortality within seven days relative to standard care. Secondary objectives include exploring pathways for the intervention's effects and assessing incremental costs and cost-effectiveness between arms. METHODS: We will conduct a four-centre, open-label, individually randomised, superiority trial in Uganda with two parallel groups: an intervention arm allocated to receive KMC and a control arm receiving standard care. We will enrol 2188 neonates (1094 per arm) for whom the indication for KMC is 'uncertain', defined as receiving ≥ 1 therapy (e.g. oxygen). Admitted singleton, twin and triplet neonates (triplet if demise before admission of ≥ 1 baby) weighing ≥ 700-≤ 2000 g and aged ≥ 1-< 48 h are eligible. Treatment allocation is random in a 1:1 ratio between groups, stratified by weight and recruitment site. The primary outcome is mortality within seven days. Secondary outcomes include mortality within 28 days, hypothermia prevalence at 24 h, time from randomisation to stabilisation or death, admission duration, time from randomisation to exclusive breastmilk feeding, readmission frequency, daily weight gain, infant-caregiver attachment and women's wellbeing at 28 days. Primary analyses will be by intention-to-treat. Quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated in a process evaluation. Cost data will be collected and used in economic modelling. DISCUSSION: The OMWaNA trial aims to assess the effectiveness of KMC in reducing mortality among neonates before stabilisation, a vulnerable population for whom its benefits are uncertain. The trial will improve understanding of pathways underlying the intervention's effects and will be among the first to rigorously compare the incremental cost and cost-effectiveness of KMC relative to standard care. The findings are expected to have broad applicability to hospitals in sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia, where three-quarters of global newborn deaths occur, as well as important policy and programme implications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811432. Registered on 23 June 2016.

Protocol for pilot cluster RCT of project respect: a school-based intervention to prevent dating and relationship violence and address health inequalities among young people.

BACKGROUND: Dating and relationship violence (DRV)-intimate partner violence during adolescence-encompasses physical, sexual and emotional abuse. DRV is associated with a range of adverse health outcomes including injuries, sexually transmitted infections, adolescent pregnancy and mental health issues. Experiencing DRV also predicts both victimisation and perpetration of partner violence in adulthood.Prevention targeting early adolescence is important because this is when dating behaviours begin, behavioural norms become established and DRV starts to manifest. Despite high rates of DRV victimisation in England, from 22 to 48% among girls and 12 to 27% among boys ages 14-17 who report intimate relationships, no RCTs of DRV prevention programmes have taken place in the UK. Informed by two school-based interventions that have shown promising results in RCTs in the USA-Safe Dates and Shifting Boundaries-Project Respect aims to optimise and pilot a DRV prevention programme for secondary schools in England. METHODS: Design: optimisation and pilot cluster RCT. Trial will include a process evaluation and assess the feasibility of conducting a phase III RCT with embedded economic evaluation. Cognitive interviewing will inform survey development.Participants: optimisation involves four schools and pilot RCT involves six (four intervention, two control). All are secondary schools in England. Baseline surveys conducted with students in years 8 and 9 (ages 12-14). Follow-up surveys conducted with the same cohort, 16 months post-baseline. Optimisation sessions to inform intervention and research methods will involve consultations with stakeholders, including young people.Intervention: school staff training, including guidance on reviewing school policies and addressing 'hotspots' for DRV and gender-based harassment; information for parents; informing students of a help-seeking app; and a classroom curriculum for students in years 9 and 10, including a student-led campaign.Primary outcome: the primary outcome of the pilot RCT will be whether progression to a phase III RCT is justified. Testing within the pilot will also determine which of two existing scales is optimal for assessing DRV victimisation and perpetration in a phase III RCT. DISCUSSION: This will be the first RCT of an intervention to prevent DRV in the UK. If findings indicate feasibility and acceptability, we will undertake planning for a phase III RCT of effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN 65324176. Registered 8 June 2017.

Study protocol for the optimisation, feasibility testing and pilot cluster randomised trial of Positive Choices: a school-based social marketing intervention to promote sexual health, prevent unintended teenage pregnancies and address health inequalities in England.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy (TPS), England's under-18 conception rate has fallen by 55%, but a continued focus on prevention is needed to maintain and accelerate progress. The teenage birth rate remains higher in the UK than comparable Western European countries. Previous trials indicate that school-based social marketing interventions are a promising approach to addressing teenage pregnancy and improving sexual health. Such interventions are yet to be trialled in the UK. This study aims to optimise and establish the feasibility and acceptability of one such intervention: Positive Choices. METHODS: Design: Optimisation, feasibility testing and pilot cluster randomised trial.Interventions: The Positive Choices intervention comprises a student needs survey, a student/staff led School Health Promotion Council (SHPC), a classroom curriculum for year nine students covering social and emotional skills and sex education, student-led social marketing activities, parent information and a review of school sexual health services.Systematic optimisation of Positive Choices will be carried out with the National Children's Bureau Sex Education Forum (NCB SEF), one state secondary school in England and other youth and policy stakeholders.Feasibility testing will involve the same state secondary school and will assess progression criteria to advance to the pilot cluster RCT.Pilot cluster RCT with integral process evaluation will involve six different state secondary schools (four interventions and two controls) and will assess the feasibility and utility of progressing to a full effectiveness trial.The following outcome measures will be trialled as part of the pilot:Self-reported pregnancy and unintended pregnancy (initiation of pregnancy for boys) and sexually transmitted infections,Age of sexual debut, number of sexual partners, use of contraception at first and last sex and non-volitional sexEducational attainmentThe feasibility of linking administrative data on births and termination to self-report survey data to measure our primary outcome (unintended teenage pregnancy) will also be tested. DISCUSSION: This will be the first UK-based pilot trial of a school-wide social marketing intervention to reduce unintended teenage pregnancy and improve sexual health. If this study indicates feasibility and acceptability of the optimised Positive Choices intervention in English secondary schools, plans will be initiated for a phase III trial and economic evaluation of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry (ISCTN12524938. Registered 03/07/2017).

Randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation of nurse-led group support for young mothers during pregnancy and the first year postpartum versus usual care.

BACKGROUND: Child maltreatment is a significant public health problem. Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) is a new intervention for young, expectant mothers implemented successfully in pilot studies. This study was designed to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gFNP in reducing risk factors for maltreatment with a potentially vulnerable population. METHODS: A multi-site, randomized controlled, parallel-arm trial and prospective economic evaluation was conducted, with allocation via remote randomization (minimization by site, maternal age group) to gFNP or usual care. Participants were expectant mothers aged below 20 years with at least one live birth, or aged 20-24 years with no live births and with low educational qualifications. Data from maternal interviews at baseline and when infants were 2, 6 and 12 months, and video-recording at 12 months, were collected by researchers blind to allocation. Cost information came from weekly logs completed by gFNP family nurses and other service delivery data reported by participants. Primary outcomes measured at 12 months were parenting attitudes (Adult-Adolescent Parenting Index, AAPI-2) and maternal sensitivity (CARE Index). The economic evaluation was conducted from a UK NHS and personal social services perspective with cost-effectiveness expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The main analyses were intention-to-treat with additional complier average causal effects (CACE) analyses. RESULTS: Between August 2013 and September 2014, 492 names of potential participants were received of whom 319 were eligible and 166 agreed to take part, 99 randomly assigned to receive gFNP and 67 to usual care. There were no between-arm differences in AAPI-2 total (7 · 5/10 in both, SE 0.1), difference adjusted for baseline, site and maternal age group 0 · 06 (95% CI - 0 · 15 to 0 · 28, p = 0 · 59) or CARE Index (intervention 4 · 0 (SE 0 · 3); control 4 · 7 (SE 0 · 4); difference adjusted for site and maternal age group - 0 · 68 (95% CI - 1 · 62 to 0 · 16, p = 0 · 25) scores. The probability that gFNP is cost-effective based on the QALY measure did not exceed 3%. CONCLUSIONS: The trial did not support gFNP as a means of reducing the risk of child maltreatment in this population but slow recruitment adversely affected group size and consequently delivery of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN78814904 . Registered on 17 May 2013.

Community health promotion and medical provision for neonatal health-CHAMPION cluster randomised trial in Nagarkurnool district, Telangana (formerly Andhra Pradesh), India.

BACKGROUND: In the mid-2000s, neonatal mortality accounted for almost 40% of deaths of children under 5 years worldwide, and constituted 65% of infant deaths in India. The neonatal mortality rate in Andhra Pradesh was 44 per 1,000 live births, and was higher in the rural areas and tribal regions, such as the Nagarkurnool division of Mahabubnagar district (which became Nagarkurnool district in Telangana in 2014). The aim of the CHAMPION trial was to investigate whether a package of interventions comprising community health promotion and provision of health services (including outreach and facility-based care) could lead to a reduction of the order of 25% in neonatal mortality. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The design was a trial in which villages (clusters) in Nagarkurnool with a population < 2,500 were randomised to the CHAMPION package of health interventions or to the control arm (in which children aged 6-9 years were provided with educational interventions-the STRIPES trial). A woman was eligible for the CHAMPION package if she was married and <50 years old, neither she nor her husband had had a family planning operation, and she resided in a trial village at the time of a baseline survey before randomisation or married into the village after randomisation. The CHAMPION intervention package comprised community health promotion (including health education via village health worker-led participatory discussion groups) and provision of health services (including outreach, with mobile teams providing antenatal check-ups, and facility-based care, with subsidised access to non-public health centres [NPHCs]). Villages were stratified by travel time to the nearest NPHC and tribal status, and randomised (1:1) within strata. The primary outcome was neonatal mortality. Secondary outcomes included maternal mortality, causes of death, health knowledge, health practices including health service usage, satisfaction with care, and costs. The baseline survey (enumeration) was carried out between August and November 2007. After randomisation on 18 February 2008, participants, data collectors, and data analysts were not masked to allocation. The intervention was initiated on 1 August 2008. After an inception period, the assessment start date was 1 December 2008. The intervention ended on 31 May 2011, and data collection was completed on 30 November 2011. Primary analyses followed the intention to treat principle. In all, 14,137 women were enrolled in 232 control villages, and 15,532 in 232 intervention villages. Of these, 4,885 control women had 5,474 eligible pregnancies and gave birth to 4,998 eligible children. The corresponding numbers in intervention villages were 5,664 women, 6,351 pregnancies, and 5,798 children. Of the live-born babies, 343 (6.9%) in the control arm and 303 (5.2%) in the intervention arm died in their first 28 days of life (risk ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.90, p = 0.0018; risk difference -1.59%, 95% CI -2.63% to -0.54%), suggesting that there were 92 fewer deaths (95% CI 31 to 152) as a result of the intervention. There were 9 (0.16%) maternal deaths in the control arm compared to 13 (0.20%) in the intervention arm (risk ratio 1.24, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.90, p = 0.6176; 1 death was reported as a serious adverse event). There was evidence of improved health knowledge and health practices including health service usage in the intervention arm compared to the control arm. Women in the intervention arm were more likely to rate their delivery and postnatal care as good or very good. The total cost of the CHAMPION interventions was US$1,084,955 ($11,769 per life saved, 95% CI $7,115 to $34,653). The main limitations of the study included that it could not be masked post-randomisation and that fetal losses were not divided into stillbirths and miscarriages because gestational age was not reliably reported. CONCLUSIONS: The CHAMPION trial showed that a package of interventions addressing health knowledge and health seeking behaviour, buttressing existing health services, and contracting out important areas of maternal and child healthcare led to a reduction in neonatal mortality of almost the hypothesized 25% in small villages in an Indian state with high mortality rates. The intervention can be strongly justified in much of rural India, and is of potential use in other similar settings. Ongoing changes in maternal and child health programmes make it imperative that a similar intervention that establishes ties between the community and health facilities is tested in different settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN24104646.

Initiating change locally in bullying and aggression through the school environment (INCLUSIVE) trial: update to cluster randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews suggest that multi-component interventions are effective in reducing bullying victimisation and perpetration. We are undertaking a phase III randomised trial of the INCLUSIVE multi-component intervention. This trial aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the INCLUSIVE intervention in reducing aggression and bullying victimisation in English secondary schools. This paper updates the original trial protocol published in 2014 (Trials 15:381, 2014) and presents the changes in the process evaluation protocol and the secondary outcome data collection. METHODS: The methods are summarised as follows. DESIGN: cluster randomised trial. PARTICIPANTS: 40 state secondary schools. Outcomes assessed among the cohort of students at the end of year 7 (n = 6667) at baseline. INTERVENTION: INCLUSIVE is a multi-component school intervention including a social and emotional learning curriculum, changes to school environment (an action group comprising staff and students reviews local data on needs to review rules and policies and determine other local actions) and staff training in restorative practice. The intervention will be delivered by schools supported in the first two years by educational facilitators independent of the research team, with a third intervention year involving no external facilitation but all other elements. Comparator: normal practice. OUTCOMES: Primary: Two primary outcomes at student level assessed at baseline and at 36 months: 1. Aggressive behaviours in school: Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime school misbehaviour subscale (ESYTC) 2. Bullying and victimisation: Gatehouse Bullying Scale (GBS) Secondary outcomes assessed at baseline, 24 and 36 months will include measures relating to the economic evaluation, psychosocial outcomes in students and staff and school-level truancy and exclusion rates. SAMPLE SIZE: 20 schools per arm will provide 90% power to identify an effect size of 0.25 SD with a 5% significance level. Randomisation: eligible consenting schools were randomised stratified for single-sex versus mixed-sex schools, school-level deprivation and measures of school attainment. DISCUSSION: The trial involves independent research and intervention teams and is supervised by a Trial Steering Committee and a Data Monitoring Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN10751359 . Registered on 11 March 2014.

Remedial after-school support classes offered in rural Gambia (The SCORE trial): study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low education levels are endemic in much of the developing world, particularly in rural areas where traditional government-provided public services often have difficulty reaching beneficiaries. Providing trained para-teachers to teach regular after-school remedial education classes has been shown to improve literacy and numeracy in children of primary school age residing in such areas in India. This trial investigates whether such an intervention can also be effective in a West African setting with similarly low learning levels and difficult geographic access. DESIGN: cluster-randomized controlled trial. Clusters: villages or groups of villages with 15-300 households and at least 15 eligible children in the Lower River and North Bank Regions of The Gambia. PARTICIPANTS: children born between 1 September 2007 and 31 August 2009 planning to enter the first grade, for the first time, in the 2015-2016 school year in eligible villages. We anticipate enrolling approximately 150 clusters of villages with approximately 6000 children as participants. INTERVENTION: a program providing remedial after-school lessons, focusing on literacy and numeracy, 5 to 6 days a week for 3 years to eligible children, based on the intervention evaluated in the Support To Rural India's Public Education System (STRIPES) trial (PLoS ONE 8(7):e65775). CONTROL: both the intervention and control groups will receive small bundles of useful materials during annual data collection as recompense for their time. If the education intervention is shown to be cost-effective at raising learning levels, it is expected that the control group villages will receive the intervention for several years after the trial results are available. OUTCOMES: the primary outcome of the trial is a composite mathematics and language test score. Secondary outcomes include school attendance, enrollment, performance on nationally administered exams, parents' spending on education, spillover learning to siblings and family members, and school-related time use of parents and children. Subgroup analyses of the primary outcome will also be carried out based on ethnic group, gender, distance from the main highway, parents' education level, and school type. The trial will run by independent research and implementation teams and supervised by a Trial Steering Committee. DISCUSSION: Along with the overall impact of the intervention, we will conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis. There are no major ethical issues for this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN12500245 . 1 May 2015.

Exploring the role and function of trial steering committees: results of an expert panel meeting.

BACKGROUND: The independent oversight of clinical trials, which is recommended by the Medical Research Council (MRC) Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice, is typically provided by an independent advisory Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) and an independent executive committee, to whom the DMC makes recommendations. The detailed roles and function of this executive committee, known as the Trial Steering Committee (TSC), have not previously been studied or reviewed since those originally proposed by the MRC in 1998. METHODS: An expert panel (n = 7) was convened comprising statisticians, clinicians and trial methodologists with prior TSC experience. Twelve questions about the role and responsibilities of the TSC were discussed by the panel at two full-day meetings. Each meeting was transcribed in full and the discussions were summarised. RESULTS: The expert panel reached agreement on the role of the TSC, to which it was accountable, the membership, the definition of independence, and the experience and training needed. The management of ethical issues, difficult/complex situations and issues the TSC should not ask the DMC to make recommendations on were more difficult to discuss without specific examples, but support existed for further work to help share issues and to provide appropriate training for TSC members. Additional topics discussed, which had not been identified by previous work relating to the DMCs but were pertinent to the role of the TSC, included the following: review of data sharing requests, indemnity, lifespan of the TSC, general TSC administration, and the roles of both the Funder and the Sponsor. CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents recommendations that will contribute to the revision and update of the MRC TSC terms of reference. Uncertainty remains in some areas due to the absence of real-life examples; future guidance on these issues would benefit from a repository of case studies. Notably, the role of a patient and public involvement (PPI) contributor was not discussed, and further work is warranted to explore the role of a PPI contributor in independent trial oversight.

"I never expected that it would happen, coming to ask me such questions":Ethical aspects of asking children about violence in resource poor settings.

BACKGROUND: International epidemiological research into violence against children is increasing in scope and frequency, but little has been written about practical management of the ethical aspects of conducting such research in low and middle-income countries. In this paper, we describe our study procedures and reflect on our experiences conducting a survey of more than 3,700 primary school children in Uganda as part of the Good Schools Study, a cluster randomised controlled trial of a school-based violence prevention intervention. Children were questioned extensively about their experiences of physical, sexual, and emotional violence from a range of different perpetrators. We describe our sensitisation and consent procedures, developed based on our previous research experience and requirements for our study setting. To respond to disclosures of abuse that occurred during our survey, we describe a referral algorithm developed in conjunction with local services. We then describe our experience of actually implementing these procedures in our 2012 survey, based on reflections of the research team. Drawing on 40 qualitative interviews, we describe children's experiences of participating in the survey and of being referred to local child protection services. RESULTS: Although we were able to implement much of our protocol in a straightforward manner, we also encountered major challenges in relation to the response of local services to children's disclosures of violence. The research team had to intervene to ensure that children were provided with appropriate support and that our ethical obligations were met. CONCLUSIONS: In resource poor settings, finding local services that can provide appropriate support for children may be challenging, and researchers need to have concrete plans and back-up plans in place to ensure that obligations can be met. The merits of mandatory reporting of children's disclosures to local services need to be considered on a case by case basis-in some places this has the potential to do harm. Research teams also must agree on what level of ancillary care will be provided, and budget accordingly. Further practical examples of how to address the challenges encountered in this work are needed, in order to build a consensus on best practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01678846 (clinicaltrials.gov), August 24, 2012.

Social Factors Influencing Russian Male Alcohol Use over the Life Course: A Qualitative Study Investigating Age Based Social Norms, Masculinity, and Workplace Context.

The massive fluctuations occurring in Russian alcohol-related mortality since the mid-1980s cannot be seen outside of the context of great social and economic change. There is a dearth of qualitative studies about Russian male drinking and especially needed are those that address social processes and individual changes in drinking. Conducted as part of a longitudinal study on men's alcohol consumption in Izhevsk, this qualitative study uses 25 semi-structured biographical interviews with men aged 33-60 years to explore life course variation in drinking. The dominant pattern was decreasing binge and frequent drinking as men reached middle age which was precipitated by family building, reductions in drinking with work colleagues, and health concerns. A minority of men described chaotic drinking histories with periods of abstinence and heavy drinking. The results highlight the importance of the blue-collar work environment for conditioning male heavy drinking in young adulthood through a variety of social, normative and structural mechanisms. Post-Soviet changes had a structural influence on the propensity for workplace drinking but the important social function of male drinking sessions remained. Bonding with workmates through heavy drinking was seen as an unavoidable and essential part of young men's social life. With age peer pressure to drink decreased and the need to perform the role of responsible breadwinner put different behavioural demands on men. For some resisting social pressure to drink became an important site of self-determination and a mark of masculine maturity. Over the lifetime the place where masculine identity was asserted shifted from the workplace to the home, which commonly resulted in a reduction in drinking. We contribute to existing theories of Russian male drinking by showing that the performance of age-related social roles influences Russian men's drinking patterns, drinking contexts and their attitudes. Further research should be conducted investigating drinking trajectories in Russian men.

Initiating change locally in bullying and aggression through the school environment (INCLUSIVE): a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Youth bullying and other aggressive behaviours are a major public health concern owing to their impact on adolescent physical and mental health and well-being. Whole-school restorative approaches have been identified as a promising method of addressing aggressive behaviour but there have been no randomised trials undertaken to examine their effects. AIM: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of implementing and trialling the INCLUSIVE (initiating change locally in bullying and aggression through the school environment) intervention in English secondary schools. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled pilot trial in eight schools (1 : 1 computer-generated random allocation post baseline by a statistician blind to the identity of clusters) and process evaluation. SETTING: Secondary schools in England (purposively sampled to ensure diversity). PARTICIPANTS: Year 8 students (aged 12-13 years), teachers, other school staff and intervention providers. INTERVENTION: Whole-school restorative approach to address bullying and aggression, involving the following standard processes: school action group formation and external facilitation to review needs assessment data, identify priorities, and plan and monitor school-level actions; staff training in restorative practices; and a new social and emotional skills curriculum. COMPARISON GROUP: Standard practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) The primary outcome of interest was the feasibility and acceptability of delivering and trialling the intervention according to prespecified criteria; (2) process data were analysed to explore participants' experiences of implementing and trialling the intervention and how these varied according to school context; and (3) indicative primary outcomes (aggressive behaviour measures), secondary outcomes, intermediate outcomes and economic evaluation methods were piloted. DATA SOURCES: Students (n = 1144 baseline; n = 1114 follow-up) and teachers (n = 387 baseline; n = 336 follow-up) were surveyed at the start and end of the 2011-12 academic year (baseline September 2011; follow-up June-July 2012). A total of 1017 students surveyed at baseline remained in the study at follow-up (89%). Other quantitative data were collected via intervention provider checklists (n = 4) and action group surveys (n = 44); qualitative data were collected via interviews (n = 34), focus groups (n = 20) and observations of action group meetings (n = 16). RESULTS: (1) All prespecified feasibility and acceptability criteria were met. (2) Qualitative data indicated that all intervention components and the trial design were feasible and acceptable to students and staff, including in more disadvantaged school contexts. Qualitative data also suggested that student participation may be a core component in improving relationships and engagement across the school. The later-than-planned project start (July) and the timing of the baseline surveys (September), which needed to be completed pre allocation, caused delays in launching the intervention, staff training and other intervention outputs. (3) Three pilot primary outcomes were examined (completion rate at follow-up range: 91.7-94.2%) and the Gatehouse Bullying Scale and the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime school misbehaviour subscale were acceptable, discriminating and reliable measures of bullying and aggression in this context. Our pilot economic analyses support the use of the Child Health Utility 9D scale with this population and the feasibility of cost-utility analysis, although this should be supplemented with a cost-consequence analysis. There was no evidence of harm. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible and acceptable to implement and trial the INCLUSIVE intervention in English secondary schools, although a longer lead-in time is required to enable timely intervention outputs to occur. A Phase III cluster randomised controlled trial is required to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness over a 3-year period of implementation for reducing aggressive behaviours, promoting mental health and well-being, and reducing health inequalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88527078. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme (research), the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, the Big Lottery Fund and the Coutts Charitable Trust (intervention). The report will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Initiating change locally in bullying and aggression through the school environment (INCLUSIVE): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews suggest that interventions that address school organisation are effective in reducing victimisation and bullying. We successfully piloted a school environment intervention modified from international studies to incorporate 'restorative justice' approaches. This trial aims to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the INCLUSIVE intervention in reducing aggression and bullying in English secondary schools. DESIGN: cluster randomised trial. PARTICIPANTS: 40 state-supported secondary schools. OUTCOMES assessed among the cohort of students in year 8 (n = approximately 6,000) in intervention year 1. INTERVENTION: INCLUSIVE is a school-led intervention which combines changes to the school environment with the promotion of social and emotional skills and restorative practices through: the formation of a school action group involving students and staff supported by an external facilitator to review local data on needs, determine priorities, and develop and implement an action plan for revising relevant school policies/rules and other actions to improve relationships at school and reduce aggression; staff training in restorative practices; and a new social and emotional skills curriculum. The intervention will be delivered by schools supported in the first two years by educational facilitators independent of the research team, with a third locally facilitated intervention year.Comparator: normal practice. OUTCOMES: primary: 2 primary outcomes at student level assessed at baseline and at 36 months:1. Aggressive behaviours in school: Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime school misbehaviour subscale (ESYTC)2. Bullying and victimisation: Gatehouse Bullying Scale (GBS)Secondary outcomes assessed at baseline, 24 and 36 months will include measures relating to the economic evaluation, psychosocial outcomes in students and staff and school-level truancy and exclusion rates. SAMPLE SIZE: 20 schools per arm will provide 90% power to identify an effect size of 0.25 SD with a 5% significance level.Randomisation: eligible consenting schools will be randomised stratified for single sex versus mixed sex schools, school-level deprivation and measures of school attainment. DISCUSSION: The trial will be run by independent research and intervention teams and supervised by a Trial Steering Committee and a Data Monitoring Committee (DMC). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10751359 (Registered 11 March 2014).

Death, bereavement and randomised controlled trials (BRACELET): a methodological study of policy and practice in neonatal and paediatric intensive care trials.

BACKGROUND: Researchers have seldom included bereaved parents in studies of participants' views of randomised controlled trials (RCTs); hence our understanding of the impact of trials is based on skewed and incomplete samples. Little is known about parental experiences of the death of a child subsequent to their enrolment in a trial or of provision made for this experience by clinicians and trial teams. The Bereavement and RAndomised ControlLEd Trials (BRACELET) study was funded to consider bereavement in the context of paediatric intensive care (PIC) and neonatal intensive care (NIC) trials. DESIGN AND METHODS: The study comprised three interlinked components: a quantitative survey of RCT activity in UK paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), UK RCT recruitment and mortality rates, and provision for bereavement during 2002-6; a qualitative interview study involving 51 bereaved parents and 59 clinicians and trial team members associated with five neonatal trials; and a methodological study to inform future research. RESULTS: Fifty RCTs were identified as having enrolled babies or children from 2002 to 2006. Approximately 50% of UK NICUs and PICUs (54 NICUs, six PICUs) participated in at least one of these trials. Collectively they enrolled over 3000 children. Most enrolled small numbers, the majority of participants being enrolled by a small group of academic medical units. The proportion of deaths following trial enrolment was 17% in NIC trials and 6% in PIC trials. The qualitative study showed that trial-related decisions were made in a range of circumstances, some after extremely preterm births, others after complicated term deliveries, often under time pressures and in escalating crises. Parents' interest in trials appeared to recede initially but could re-emerge over time. They often valued opportunities to engage with a trial and were interested in more contact and information than they actually received. Clinicians often saw NICU bereavement policies as meeting parental needs, and trial participation as being of relatively minor significance in bereavement. This view may result from the positioning of clinicians' encounters with parents only in the initial stages of grief when trials were not a priority. Trial teams used a range of bereavement strategies, from no further contact to a pioneering multipart follow-up package. Communication with bereaved parents was complicated by limited contact opportunities. Trial teams were obliged to work without knowing whether their communications were appreciated, were problematic, or even whether they were received by parents. The methodological component highlighted strategies for recruitment and data collection in this sensitive setting. Recruitment by unsupported postal contact generally failed and a more personal approach via clinicians was more effective, supplemented by publicity material distributed via trusted organisations. CONCLUSIONS: A co-ordinated response to bereavement is as much a part of the running of trials as recruitment, and needs to be considered at trial inception. BRACELET has demonstrated the value and feasibility of research with bereaved parents involved in NIC trials. In order to respond to bereavement in a fair and sensitive way, as well as to better inform the design of RCTs, it is crucial that we listen to bereaved parents and evaluate new methods for so doing. More research is therefore needed into the experiences of bereavement subsequent to trial enrolment, with study of bereavement strategies in NIC trials as they are introduced. In addition, future studies should determine whether parents and triallists in PIC trials (and trials in adults) face the same issues as in NIC trials. Careful studies are necessary to explore how feedback of trial results are received and understood by bereaved and non-bereaved parents, and how individual trial teams manage this situation. An additional research area for exploring experiences of parenting twins and higher-order births in trials arose from BRACELET. Developmental research should continue to explore means of involving a wider range of parents in future research, including via publicity and specialist websites. Finally, methodological research is needed to ensure that we have the tools to explore, with parents and other relatives, as partners in research, a range of trial-related topics, which might be challenging, as the information is complex or the focus is sensitive. FUNDING: Funding for this study was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research.

A clinical and economic evaluation of Control of Hyperglycaemia in Paediatric intensive care (CHiP): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Early research in adults admitted to intensive care suggested that tight control of blood glucose during acute illness can be associated with reductions in mortality, length of hospital stay and complications such as infection and renal failure. Prior to our study, it was unclear whether or not children could also benefit from tight control of blood glucose during critical illness. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine if controlling blood glucose using insulin in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) reduces mortality and morbidity and is cost-effective, whether or not admission follows cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Randomised open two-arm parallel group superiority design with central randomisation with minimisation. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Following random allocation, care givers and outcome assessors were no longer blind to allocation. SETTING: The setting was 13 English PICUs. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who met the following criteria were eligible for inclusion: ≥ 36 weeks corrected gestational age; ≤ 16 years; in the PICU following injury, following major surgery or with critical illness; anticipated treatment > 12 hours; arterial line; mechanical ventilation; and vasoactive drugs. Exclusion criteria were as follows: diabetes mellitus; inborn error of metabolism; treatment withdrawal considered; in the PICU > 5 consecutive days; and already in CHiP (Control of Hyperglycaemia in Paediatric intensive care). INTERVENTION: The intervention was tight glycaemic control (TGC): insulin by intravenous infusion titrated to maintain blood glucose between 4.0 and 7.0 mmol/l. CONVENTIONAL MANAGEMENT (CM): This consisted of insulin by intravenous infusion only if blood glucose exceeded 12.0 mmol/l on two samples at least 30 minutes apart; insulin was stopped when blood glucose fell below 10.0 mmol/l. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free from mechanical ventilation within 30 days of trial entry (VFD-30). The secondary outcomes comprised clinical and economic outcomes at 30 days and 12 months and lifetime cost-effectiveness, which included costs per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS: CHiP recruited from May 2008 to September 2011. In total, 19,924 children were screened and 1369 eligible patients were randomised (TGC, 694; CM, 675), 60% of whom were in the cardiac surgery stratum. The randomised groups were comparable at trial entry. More children in the TGC than in the CM arm received insulin (66% vs. 16%). The mean VFD-30 was 23 [mean difference 0.36; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.42 to 1.14]. The effect did not differ among prespecified subgroups. Hypoglycaemia occurred significantly more often in the TGC than in the CM arm (moderate, 12.5% vs. 3.1%; severe, 7.3% vs. 1.5%). Mean 30-day costs were similar between arms, but mean 12-month costs were lower in the TGC than in CM arm (incremental costs -£3620, 95% CI -£7743 to £502). For the non-cardiac surgery stratum, mean costs were lower in the TGC than in the CM arm (incremental cost -£9865, 95% CI -£18,558 to -£1172), but, in the cardiac surgery stratum, the costs were similar between the arms (incremental cost £133, 95% CI -£3568 to £3833). Lifetime incremental net benefits were positive overall (£3346, 95% CI -£11,203 to £17,894), but close to zero for the cardiac surgery stratum (-£919, 95% CI -£16,661 to £14,823). For the non-cardiac surgery stratum, the incremental net benefits were high (£11,322, 95% CI -£15,791 to £38,615). The probability that TGC is cost-effective is relatively high for the non-cardiac surgery stratum, but, for the cardiac surgery subgroup, the probability that TGC is cost-effective is around 0.5. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to a range of alternative assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: CHiP found no differences in the clinical or cost-effectiveness of TGC compared with CM overall, or for prespecified subgroups. A higher proportion of the TGC arm had hypoglycaemia. This study did not provide any evidence to suggest that PICUs should stop providing CM for children admitted to PICUs following cardiac surgery. For the subgroup not admitted for cardiac surgery, TGC reduced average costs at 12 months and is likely to be cost-effective. Further research is required to refine the TGC protocol to minimise the risk of hypoglycaemic episodes and assess the long-term health benefits of TGC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN61735247. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.