Clustering by health and social care need in multple long-term conditions (MLTC): an exploratory qualitative study to understand the views of professionals and people living with MLTC about future interventions.

BACKGROUND: Around one in four people are living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTC). Integrated care to holistically manage both health and social needs could improve outcomes for people living with MLTC, including lower rates of hospitalisation and mortality. However, given the number of people with MLTC and increasing strain on health and social care, stratified approaches to identifying and addressing social care needs may be more efficient and cost-effective. We have developed data driven clusters that group people with similar health and social care needs, which could identify patients at the highest risk of poor outcomes related to social care need. AIM: To explore views about a future intervention based on these clusters. METHOD: We aim to plan a cluster-based intervention that engages people living with MLTC and health and social care professionals to consider social care needs (SCNs) when consulting in primary care. We have conducted 14 interviews with professionals to explore their priorities and concerns about care delivery by MLTC clusters and 19 remote interviews with people living with MLTC to find out how well they identify with the MLTC clusters we have defined. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: GPs are the 'starting point' for conversations about SCNs but need an efficient system to enable effective conversations. The cluster-based intervention could fill this gap. CONCLUSION: This research identifies key considerations needed for an intervention to engage people with MLTC and health and social care professionals to consider SCNs in primary care.

Talking in primary care (TIP): protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled trial in UK primary care to assess clinical and cost-effectiveness of communication skills e-learning for practitioners on patients' musculoskeletal pain and enablement.

INTRODUCTION: Effective communication can help optimise healthcare interactions and patient outcomes. However, few interventions have been tested clinically, subjected to cost-effectiveness analysis or are sufficiently brief and well-described for implementation in primary care. This paper presents the protocol for determining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a rigorously developed brief eLearning tool, EMPathicO, among patients with and without musculoskeletal pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cluster randomised controlled trial in general practitioner (GP) surgeries in England and Wales serving patients from diverse geographic, socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. GP surgeries are randomised (1:1) to receive EMPathicO e-learning immediately, or at trial end. Eligible practitioners (eg, GPs, physiotherapists and nurse practitioners) are involved in managing primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain. Patient recruitment is managed by practice staff and researchers. Target recruitment is 840 adults with and 840 without musculoskeletal pain consulting face-to-face, by telephone or video. Patients complete web-based questionnaires at preconsultation baseline, 1 week and 1, 3 and 6 months later. There are two patient-reported primary outcomes: pain intensity and patient enablement. Cost-effectiveness is considered from the National Health Service and societal perspectives. Secondary and process measures include practitioner patterns of use of EMPathicO, practitioner-reported self-efficacy and intentions, patient-reported symptom severity, quality of life, satisfaction, perceptions of practitioner empathy and optimism, treatment expectancies, anxiety, depression and continuity of care. Purposive subsamples of patients, practitioners and practice staff take part in up to two qualitative, semistructured interviews. ETHICS APPROVAL AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by the South Central Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee on 1 July 2022 and the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales on 6 July 2022 (REC reference 22/SC/0145; IRAS project ID 312208). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed academic publications, conference presentations and patient and practitioner outlets. If successful, EMPathicO could quickly be made available at a low cost to primary care practices across the country. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18010240.

Identifying the Optimum Strategy for Identifying Adults and Children With Celiac Disease: A Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Celiac disease (CD) is thought to affect around 1% of people in the United Kingdom, but only approximately 30% are diagnosed. The aim of this work was to assess the cost-effectiveness of strategies for identifying adults and children with CD in terms of who to test and which tests to use. METHODS: A decision tree and Markov model were used to describe testing strategies and model long-term consequences of CD. The analysis compared a selection of pre-test probabilities of CD above which patients should be screened, as well as the use of different serological tests, with or without genetic testing. Value of information analysis was used to prioritize parameters for future research. RESULTS: Using serological testing alone in adults, immunoglobulin A (IgA) tissue transglutaminase (tTG) at a 1% pre-test probability (equivalent to population screening) was most cost-effective. If combining serological testing with genetic testing, human leukocyte antigen combined with IgA tTG at a 5% pre-test probability was most cost-effective. In children, the most cost-effective strategy was a 10% pre-test probability with human leukocyte antigen plus IgA tTG. Value of information analysis highlighted the probability of late diagnosis of CD and the accuracy of serological tests as important parameters. The analysis also suggested prioritizing research in adult women over adult men or children. CONCLUSIONS: For adults, these cost-effectiveness results suggest UK National Screening Committee Criteria for population-based screening for CD should be explored. Substantial uncertainty in the results indicate a high value in conducting further research.

Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment in primary care (ATLANTIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline suggests considering low- dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown, and they are infrequently prescribed in this setting. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment [ATLANTIS]) was conducted at 55 general practices in England. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with Rome IV IBS of any subtype, and ongoing symptoms (IBS Severity Scoring System [IBS-SSS] score ≥75 points) despite dietary changes and first-line therapies, a normal full blood count and C-reactive protein, negative coeliac serology, and no evidence of suicidal ideation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to low-dose oral amitriptyline (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 6 months, with dose titration over 3 weeks (up to 30 mg once daily), according to symptoms and tolerability. Participants, their general practitioners, investigators, and the analysis team were all masked to allocation throughout the trial. The primary outcome was the IBS-SSS score at 6 months. Effectiveness analyses were according to intention-to-treat; safety analyses were on all participants who took at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN48075063) and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2019, and April 11, 2022, 463 participants (mean age 48·5 years [SD 16·1], 315 [68%] female to 148 [32%] male) were randomly allocated to receive low-dose amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of low-dose amitriptyline in IBS-SSS score between groups at 6 months (-27·0, 95% CI -46·9 to -7·10; p=0·0079). 46 (20%) participants discontinued low-dose amitriptyline (30 [13%] due to adverse events), and 59 (26%) discontinued placebo (20 [9%] due to adverse events) before 6 months. There were five serious adverse reactions (two in the amitriptyline group and three in the placebo group), and five serious adverse events unrelated to trial medication. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a tricyclic antidepressant in IBS ever conducted. Titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes, and was safe and well tolerated. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with IBS whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies, with appropriate support to guide patient-led dose titration, such as the self-titration document developed for this trial. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant reference 16/162/01).

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.

BACKGROUND: Coeliac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by ingesting gluten. It affects approximately 1% of the UK population, but only one in three people is thought to have a diagnosis. Untreated coeliac disease may lead to malnutrition, anaemia, osteoporosis and lymphoma. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to define at-risk groups and determine the cost-effectiveness of active case-finding strategies in primary care. DESIGN: (1) Systematic review of the accuracy of potential diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease. (2) Routine data analysis to develop prediction models for identification of people who may benefit from testing for coeliac disease. (3) Systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for coeliac disease. (4) Systematic review of the accuracy of genetic tests for coeliac disease (literature search conducted in April 2021). (5) Online survey to identify diagnostic thresholds for testing, starting treatment and referral for biopsy. (6) Economic modelling to identify the cost-effectiveness of different active case-finding strategies, informed by the findings from previous objectives. DATA SOURCES: For the first systematic review, the following databases were searched from 1997 to April 2021: MEDLINE® (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase® (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Cochrane Library, Web of Science™ (Clarivate™, Philadelphia, PA, USA), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ( WHO ICTRP ) and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For the second systematic review, the following databases were searched from January 1990 to August 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews ( KSR ) Evidence, WHO ICTRP and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For prediction model development, Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and a subcohort of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children were used; for estimates for the economic models, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum was used. REVIEW METHODS: For review 1, cohort and case-control studies reporting on a diagnostic indicator in a population with and a population without coeliac disease were eligible. For review 2, diagnostic cohort studies including patients presenting with coeliac disease symptoms who were tested with serological tests for coeliac disease and underwent a duodenal biopsy as reference standard were eligible. In both reviews, risk of bias was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 tool. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were fitted, in which binomial likelihoods for the numbers of true positives and true negatives were assumed. RESULTS: People with dermatitis herpetiformis, a family history of coeliac disease, migraine, anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis or chronic liver disease are 1.5-2 times more likely than the general population to have coeliac disease; individual gastrointestinal symptoms were not useful for identifying coeliac disease. For children, women and men, prediction models included 24, 24 and 21 indicators of coeliac disease, respectively. The models showed good discrimination between patients with and patients without coeliac disease, but performed less well when externally validated. Serological tests were found to have good diagnostic accuracy for coeliac disease. Immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase had the highest sensitivity and endomysial antibody the highest specificity. There was little improvement when tests were used in combination. Survey respondents (n = 472) wanted to be 66% certain of the diagnosis from a blood test before starting a gluten-free diet if symptomatic, and 90% certain if asymptomatic. Cost-effectiveness analyses found that, among adults, and using serological testing alone, immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase was most cost-effective at a 1% pre-test probability (equivalent to population screening). Strategies using immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody plus human leucocyte antigen or human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability had similar cost-effectiveness results, which were also similar to the cost-effectiveness results of immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase at a 1% pre-test probability. The most practical alternative for implementation within the NHS is likely to be a combination of human leucocyte antigen and immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing among those with a pre-test probability above 1.5%. Among children, the most cost-effective strategy was a 10% pre-test probability with human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase, but there was uncertainty around the most cost-effective pre-test probability. There was substantial uncertainty in economic model results, which means that there would be great value in conducting further research. LIMITATIONS: The interpretation of meta-analyses was limited by the substantial heterogeneity between the included studies, and most included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. The main limitations of the prediction models were that we were restricted to diagnostic indicators that were recorded by general practitioners and that, because coeliac disease is underdiagnosed, it is also under-reported in health-care data. The cost-effectiveness model is a simplification of coeliac disease and modelled an average cohort rather than individuals. Evidence was weak on the probability of routine coeliac disease diagnosis, the accuracy of serological and genetic tests and the utility of a gluten-free diet. CONCLUSIONS: Population screening with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase (1% pre-test probability) and of immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody followed by human leucocyte antigen testing or human leucocyte antigen testing followed by immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability appear to have similar cost-effectiveness results. As decisions to implement population screening cannot be made based on our economic analysis alone, and given the practical challenges of identifying patients with higher pre-test probabilities, we recommend that human leucocyte antigen combined with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing should be considered for adults with at least a 1.5% pre-test probability of coeliac disease, equivalent to having at least one predictor. A more targeted strategy of 10% pre-test probability is recommended for children (e.g. children with anaemia). FUTURE WORK: Future work should consider whether or not population-based screening for coeliac disease could meet the UK National Screening Committee criteria and whether or not it necessitates a long-term randomised controlled trial of screening strategies. Large prospective cohort studies in which all participants receive accurate tests for coeliac disease are needed. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019115506 and CRD42020170766. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?: Around 1 in 100 people in the UK has coeliac disease. It develops when the immune system attacks the lining of the gut after eating gluten. It is thought that only one in three people with coeliac disease is currently diagnosed. Without treatment, people with coeliac disease are at an increased risk of anaemia, osteoporosis and cancer. Treatment is a lifelong gluten-free diet. Diagnosing coeliac disease is difficult. Some people have minimal or non-specific symptoms, such as pain, indigestion or bloating, so knowing who to test is tricky. WHAT DID WE DO?: We wanted to establish who should be tested for coeliac disease, what tests should be used and whether or not invasive testing (a gut biopsy) is necessary for everyone. We looked at existing studies and data from general practices, and conducted an online survey, and brought everything together in an economic (cost) analysis. WHAT DID WE FIND?: Using individual symptoms is not helpful to identify people who may have coeliac disease. People with coeliac disease are more likely to have a combination of symptoms. People with anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis, thyroid disorders, immunoglobulin A deficiency, Down syndrome, Turner syndrome or a family history of coeliac disease are more likely to have coeliac disease and should be offered tests. Common blood tests for coeliac disease are very accurate, particularly when used in combination with genetic testing. Blood tests alone can be used for diagnosis for some people. Others will need a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis. Whether or not this is needed depends on their risk of coeliac disease: whether or not they have symptoms and whether or not they have a condition that puts them at higher risk. Shared decision-making is important for individuals considering an invasive test, depending on how certain they want to be about their diagnosis before starting a gluten-free diet.

Development and external validation of a clinical prediction model to aid coeliac disease diagnosis in primary care: An observational study.

Background: Coeliac disease (CD) affects approximately 1% of the population, although only a fraction of patients are diagnosed. Our objective was to develop diagnostic prediction models to help decide who should be offered testing for CD in primary care. Methods: Logistic regression models were developed in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD (between Sep 9, 1987 and Apr 4, 2021, n=107,075) and externally validated in CPRD Aurum (between Jan 1, 1995 and Jan 15, 2021, n=227,915), two UK primary care databases, using (and controlling for) 1:4 nested case-control designs. Candidate predictors included symptoms and chronic conditions identified in current guidelines and using a systematic review of the literature. We used elastic-net regression to further refine the models. Findings: The prediction model included 24, 24, and 21 predictors for children, women, and men, respectively. For children, the strongest predictors were type 1 diabetes, Turner syndrome, IgA deficiency, or first-degree relatives with CD. For women and men, these were anaemia and first-degree relatives. In the development dataset, the models showed good discrimination with a c-statistic of 0·84 (95% CI 0·83-0·84) in children, 0·77 (0·77-0·78) in women, and 0·81 (0·81-0·82) in men. External validation discrimination was lower, potentially because 'first-degree relative' was not recorded in the dataset used for validation. Model calibration was poor, tending to overestimate CD risk in all three groups in both datasets. Interpretation: These prediction models could help identify individuals with an increased risk of CD in relatively low prevalence populations such as primary care. Offering a serological test to these patients could increase case finding for CD. However, this involves offering tests to more people than is currently done. Further work is needed in prospective cohorts to refine and confirm the models and assess clinical and cost effectiveness. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant number NIHR129020).

Cost effectiveness of therapist delivered cognitive behavioural therapy and web-based self-management in irritable bowel syndrome: the ACTIB randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Telephone therapist delivered CBT (TCBT) and web-based CBT (WCBT) have been shown to be significantly more clinically effective than treatment as usual (TAU) at reducing IBS symptom severity and impact at 12 months in adults with refractory IBS. In this paper we assess the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. METHODS: Participants were recruited from 74 general practices and three gastroenterology centres in England. Interventions costs were calculated, and other service use and lost employment measured and costed for one-year post randomisation. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were combined with costs to determine cost-effectiveness of TCBT and WCBT compared to TAU. RESULTS: TCBT cost £956 more than TAU (95% CI, £601-£1435) and generated 0.0429 more QALYs. WCBT cost £224 more than TAU (95% CI, - £11 to £448) and produced 0.029 more QALYs. Compared to TAU, TCBT had an incremental cost per QALY of £22,284 while the figure for WCBT was £7724. After multiple imputation these ratios increased to £27,436 and £17,388 respectively. Including lost employment and informal care, TCBT had costs that were on average £866 lower than TAU (95% CI, - £1133 to £2957), and WCBT had costs that were £1028 lower than TAU (95% CI, - £448 to £2580). CONCLUSIONS: TCBT and WCBT resulted in more QALYs and higher costs than TAU. Complete case analysis suggests both therapies are cost-effective from a healthcare perspective. Imputation for missing data reduces cost-effectiveness but WCTB remained cost-effective. If the reduced societal costs are included both interventions are likely to be more cost-effective. Trial registration ISRCTN44427879 (registered 18.11.13).

Therapist telephone-delivered CBT and web-based CBT compared with treatment as usual in refractory irritable bowel syndrome: the ACTIB three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) affects 10-22% of people in the UK. Abdominal pain, bloating and altered bowel habits affect quality of life and can lead to time off work. Current treatment relies on a positive diagnosis, reassurance, lifestyle advice and drug therapies, but many people suffer ongoing symptoms. Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is recommended in guidelines for patients with ongoing symptoms but its availability is limited. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of therapist telephone-delivered CBT (TCBT) and web-based CBT (WCBT) with minimal therapist support compared with treatment as usual (TAU) in refractory IBS. DESIGN: This was a three-arm randomised controlled trial. SETTING: This trial took place in UK primary and secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with refractory IBS (clinically significant symptoms for 12 months despite first-line therapies) were recruited from 74 general practices and three gastroenterology centres from May 2014 to March 2016. INTERVENTIONS: TCBT - patient CBT self-management manual, six 60-minute telephone sessions over 9 weeks and two 60-minute booster sessions at 4 and 8 months (8 hours' therapist time). WCBT - interactive, tailored web-based CBT, three 30-minute telephone sessions over 9 weeks and two 30-minute boosters at 4 and 8 months (2.5 hours' therapist time). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes - IBS symptom severity score (IBS SSS) and Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) at 12 months. Cost-effectiveness [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and health-care costs]. RESULTS: In total, 558 out of 1452 patients (38.4%) screened for eligibility were recruited - 186 were randomised to TCBT, 185 were randomised to WCBT and 187 were randomised to TAU. The mean baseline Irritable Bowel Syndrome Symptom Severity Score (IBS SSS) was 265.0. An intention-to-treat analysis with multiple imputation was carried out at 12 months; IBS SSS were 61.6 points lower in the TCBT arm [95% confidence interval (CI) 89.5 to 33.8; p < 0.001] and 35.2 points lower in the WCBT arm (95% CI 57.8 to 12.6; p = 0.002) than in the TAU arm (IBS SSS of 205.6). The mean WSAS score at 12 months was 10.8 in the TAU arm, 3.5 points lower in the TCBT arm (95% CI 5.1 to 1.9; p < 0.001) and 3.0 points lower in the WCBT arm (95% CI 4.6 to 1.3; p = 0.001). For the secondary outcomes, the Subject's Global Assessment showed an improvement in symptoms at 12 months (responders) in 84.8% of the TCBT arm compared with 41.7% of the TAU arm [odds ratio (OR) 6.1, 95% CI 2.5 to 15.0; p < 0.001] and 75.0% of the WCBT arm (OR 3.6, 95% CI 2.0 to 6.3; p < 0.001). Patient enablement was 78.3% (responders) for TCBT, 23.5% for TAU (OR 9.3, 95% CI 4.5 to 19.3; p < 0.001) and 54.8% for WCBT (OR 3.5, 95% CI 2.0 to 5.9; p < 0.001). Adverse events were similar between the trial arms. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (QALY) for TCBT versus TAU was £22,284 and for WCBT versus TAU was £7724. Cost-effectiveness reduced after imputation for missing values. Qualitative findings highlighted that, in the CBT arms, there was increased capacity to cope with symptoms, negative emotions and challenges of daily life. Therapist input was important in supporting WCBT. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, rigorously conducted RCT, both CBT arms showed significant improvements in IBS outcomes compared with TAU. WCBT had lower costs per QALY than TCBT. Sustained improvements in IBS symptoms are possible at an acceptable cost. Suggested future research work is longer-term follow-up and research to translate these findings into usual clinical practice. FUTURE WORK: Longer-term follow-up and research to translate these findings into usual clinical practice is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN44427879. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The University of Southampton sponsored this study. Funding was received from the NIHR HTA Board and the NIHR Clinical Research Network and support was received from the NIHR Clinical Research Network.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common bowel disorder causing pain, bloating and diarrhoea or constipation, which can affect quality of life. Treatment relies on a positive diagnosis, reassurance, lifestyle advice and drug therapies. However, many patients suffer ongoing distressing symptoms. Guidelines recommend cognitive­behavioural therapy (CBT) for patients with ongoing IBS symptoms. However, access to therapy is limited because of cost and therapist availability. We previously developed web-based CBT (WCBT), which is more accessible, less expensive and requires less therapist time than traditional therapist telephone-delivered CBT (TCBT). The aim of the current trial was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two approaches. Participants were randomly assigned to TCBT, WCBT or treatment as usual (TAU). The TCBT group received a CBT manual and six 1-hour telephone CBT sessions with trained therapists over 9 weeks and two booster sessions at 4 and 8 months. The WCBT group received access to the interactive CBT website with eight online sessions at home over 9 weeks, with similar content to the therapist CBT, and received three 30-minute therapist telephone-delivered CBT sessions and two boosters at 4 and 8 months. There were 558 adults with ongoing IBS symptoms who took part from 74 general practice surgeries and three hospital clinics in London and the south of England. The main study outcomes were the IBS Symptom Severity Score and the Work and Social Adjustment Scale, which measures people's ability to function and live their lives. The results of these were collected at the start of the study and at 3, 6 and 12 months. Significant improvement in symptoms was found in the two therapy groups compared with TAU at 3, 6 and 12 months. Cost-effectiveness and wider benefits (e.g. ability to cope and mood) also showed positive results, indicating that sustained improvements in IBS symptoms are possible at an acceptable cost.

Assessing Cognitive behavioural Therapy in Irritable Bowel (ACTIB): protocol for a randomised controlled trial of clinical-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of therapist delivered cognitive behavioural therapy and web-based self-management in irritable bowel syndrome in adults.

INTRODUCTION: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) affects 10-22% of the UK population, with England's annual National Health Service (NHS) costs amounting to more than £200 million. Abdominal pain, bloating and altered bowel habit affect quality of life, social functioning and time off work. Current treatment relies on a positive diagnosis, reassurance, lifestyle advice and drug therapies, but many people suffer ongoing symptoms. Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and self-management can be helpful, but availability is limited. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To determine the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of therapist delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (TCBT) and web-based CBT self-management (WBCBT) in IBS, 495 participants with refractory IBS will be randomised to TCBT plus treatment as usual (TAU); WBCBT plus TAU; or TAU alone. The two CBT programmes have similar content. However, TCBT consists of six, 60 min telephone CBT sessions with a therapist over 9 weeks, at home, and two 'booster' 1 hour follow-up phone calls at 4 and 8 months (8 h therapist contact time). WBCBT consists of access to a previously developed and piloted WBCBT management programme (Regul8) and three 30 min therapist telephone sessions over 9 weeks, at home, and two 'booster' 30 min follow-up phone calls at 4 and 8 months (2½â€…h therapist contact time). Clinical effectiveness will be assessed by examining the difference between arms in the IBS Symptom Severity Score (IBS SSS) and Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WASAS) at 12 months from randomisation. Cost-effectiveness will combine measures of resource use with the IBS SSS at 12 months and quality-adjusted life years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has full ethical approval. It will be disseminated via peer reviewed publications and conference presentations. The results will enable clinicians, patients and health service planners to make informed decisions regarding the management of IBS with CBT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN44427879.

Verbal and non-verbal behaviour and patient perception of communication in primary care: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed the importance of a broad range of verbal and non-verbal consultation behaviours. AIM: To explore the relationship of observer ratings of behaviours of videotaped consultations with patients' perceptions. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational study in general practices close to Southampton, Southern England. METHOD: Verbal and non-verbal behaviour was rated by independent observers blind to outcome. Patients competed the Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale (MISS; primary outcome) and questionnaires addressing other communication domains. RESULTS: In total, 275/360 consultations from 25 GPs had useable videotapes. Higher MISS scores were associated with slight forward lean (an 0.02 increase for each degree of lean, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.002 to 0.03), the number of gestures (0.08, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.15), 'back-channelling' (for example, saying 'mmm') (0.11, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.2), and social talk (0.29, 95% CI = 0.4 to 0.54). Starting the consultation with professional coolness ('aloof') was helpful and optimism unhelpful. Finishing with non-verbal 'cut-offs' (for example, looking away), being professionally cool ('aloof'), or patronising, ('infantilising') resulted in poorer ratings. Physical contact was also important, but not traditional verbal communication. CONCLUSION: These exploratory results require confirmation, but suggest that patients may be responding to several non-verbal behaviours and non-specific verbal behaviours, such as social talk and back-channelling, more than traditional verbal behaviours. A changing consultation dynamic may also help, from professional 'coolness' at the beginning of the consultation to becoming warmer and avoiding non-verbal cut-offs at the end.

GPs' management strategies for patients with insomnia: a survey and qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Patients frequently experience sleep problems and present to primary care. However, information is limited regarding the management strategies that GPs employ. AIM: To gain an understanding of current GP management strategies for insomnia. DESIGN AND SETTING: A postal questionnaire survey and qualitative interviews with GPs in the south of England. METHOD: A postal survey of 296 GPs and qualitative interviews were carried out with 23 of the GPs. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 56% (166/296). GPs look for signs of depression and anxiety in patients and if present treat these first. 'Sleep hygiene' advice is provided by 88% (147/166) of GPs but often seems insufficient and they feel under pressure to prescribe. Benzodiazepines and Z drugs are prescribed, often reluctantly, for short periods, because of known problems with dependence and tolerance. Many GPs prescribe low-dose amitriptyline for insomnia although it is not licensed for this indication. For insomnia 95% (157/166) of survey responders 'ever prescribe' amitriptyline, with 31% (52/166) stating they do so commonly. Most GPs perceived amitriptyline to be effective and a longer-term option for those with ongoing sleep problems. GPs report a lack of knowledge and confidence in the provision and use of psychological therapies, such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), in the management of insomnia. CONCLUSION: GPs often find 'sleep hygiene' advice is insufficient for managing insomnia and report frequently prescribing medication, including amitriptyline (off licence), which is often based on perceived patient pressure for a prescription. Patients are rarely offered psychological therapies such as CBT for insomnia, despite evidence suggesting its potential effectiveness.

Management of irritable bowel syndrome in primary care: feasibility randomised controlled trial of mebeverine, methylcellulose, placebo and a patient self-management cognitive behavioural therapy website. (MIBS trial).

BACKGROUND: IBS affects 10-22% of the UK population. Abdominal pain, bloating and altered bowel habit affect quality of life, social functioning and time off work. Current GP treatment relies on a positive diagnosis, reassurance, lifestyle advice and drug therapies, but many suffer ongoing symptoms.A recent Cochrane review highlighted the lack of research evidence for IBS drugs. Neither GPs, nor patients have good evidence to inform prescribing decisions. However, IBS drugs are widely used: In 2005 the NHS costs were nearly £10 million for mebeverine and over £8 million for fibre-based bulking agents. CBT and self-management can be helpful, but poor availability in the NHS restricts their use. We have developed a web-based CBT self-management programme, Regul8, based on an existing evidence based self-management manual and in partnership with patients. This could increase access with minimal increased costs. METHODS/DESIGN: The aim is to undertake a feasibility factorial RCT to assess the effectiveness of the commonly prescribed medications in UK general practice for IBS: mebeverine (anti-spasmodic) and methylcellulose (bulking-agent) and Regul8, the CBT based self-management website.135 patients aged 16 to 60 years with IBS symptoms fulfilling Rome III criteria, recruited via GP practices, will be randomised to 1 of 3 levels of the drug condition: mebeverine, methylcellulose or placebo for 6 weeks and to 1 of 3 levels of the website condition, Regul8 with a nurse telephone session and email support, Regul8 with minimal email support, or no website, thus creating 9 groups. OUTCOMES: Irritable bowel symptom severity scale and IBS-QOL will be measured at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks as the primary outcomes. An intention to treat analysis will be undertaken by ANCOVA for a factorial trial. DISCUSSION: This pilot will provide valuable information for a larger trial. Determining the effectiveness of commonly used drug treatments will help patients and doctors make informed treatment decisions regarding drug management of IBS symptoms, enabling better targeting of treatment. A web-based self-management CBT programme for IBS developed in partnership with patients has the potential to benefit large numbers of patients with low cost to the NHS. Assessment of the amount of email or therapist support required for the website will enable economic analysis to be undertaken.