STIMULATE-ICP: A pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster randomised trial of an integrated care pathway with a nested, Phase III, open label, adaptive platform randomised drug trial in individuals with Long COVID: A structured protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Long COVID (LC), the persistent symptoms ≥12 weeks following acute COVID-19, presents major threats to individual and public health across countries, affecting over 1.5 million people in the UK alone. Evidence-based interventions are urgently required and an integrated care pathway approach in pragmatic trials, which include investigations, treatments and rehabilitation for LC, could provide scalable and generalisable solutions at pace. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster-randomised clinical trial of two components of an integrated care pathway (Coverscan™, a multi-organ MRI, and Living with COVID Recovery™, a digitally enabled rehabilitation platform) with a nested, Phase III, open label, platform randomised drug trial in individuals with LC. Cluster randomisation is at level of primary care networks so that integrated care pathway interventions are delivered as "standard of care" in that area. The drug trial randomisation is at individual level and initial arms are rivaroxaban, colchicine, famotidine/loratadine, compared with no drugs, with potential to add in further drug arms. The trial is being carried out in 6-10 LC clinics in the UK and is evaluating the effectiveness of a pathway of care for adults with LC in reducing fatigue and other physical, psychological and functional outcomes at 3 months. The trial also includes an economic evaluation which will be described separately. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was reviewed by South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/SC/0416). All participating sites obtained local approvals prior to recruitment. Coverscan™ has UK certification (UKCA 752965). All participants will provide written consent to take part in the trial. The first participant was recruited in July 2022 and interim/final results will be disseminated in 2023, in a plan co-developed with public and patient representatives. The results will be presented at national and international conferences, published in peer reviewed medical journals, and shared via media (mainstream and social) and patient support organisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10665760.

STIMULATE-ICP-Delphi (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways Delphi): Study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: As mortality rates from COVID-19 disease fall, the high prevalence of long-term sequelae (Long COVID) is becoming increasingly widespread, challenging healthcare systems globally. Traditional pathways of care for Long Term Conditions (LTCs) have tended to be managed by disease-specific specialties, an approach that has been ineffective in delivering care for patients with multi-morbidity. The multi-system nature of Long COVID and its impact on physical and psychological health demands a more effective model of holistic, integrated care. The evolution of integrated care systems (ICSs) in the UK presents an important opportunity to explore areas of mutual benefit to LTC, multi-morbidity and Long COVID care. There may be benefits in comparing and contrasting ICPs for Long COVID with ICPs for other LTCs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study aims to evaluate health services requirements for ICPs for Long COVID and their applicability to other LTCs including multi-morbidity and the overlap with medically not yet explained symptoms (MNYES). The study will follow a Delphi design and involve an expert panel of stakeholders including people with lived experience, as well as clinicians with expertise in Long COVID and other LTCs. Study processes will include expert panel and moderator panel meetings, surveys, and interviews. The Delphi process is part of the overall STIMULATE-ICP programme, aimed at improving integrated care for people with Long COVID. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this Delphi study has been obtained (Research Governance Board of the University of York) as have approvals for the other STIMULATE-ICP studies. Study outcomes are likely to inform policy for ICPs across LTCs. Results will be disseminated through scientific publication, conference presentation and communications with patients and stakeholders involved in care of other LTCs and Long COVID. REGISTRATION: Researchregistry: https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home/registrationdetails/6246bfeeeaaed6001f08dadc/.

Systematic voiding programme in adults with urinary incontinence following acute stroke: the ICONS-II RCT.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence affects around half of stroke survivors in the acute phase, and it often presents as a new problem after stroke or, if pre-existing, worsens significantly, adding to the disability and helplessness caused by neurological deficits. New management programmes after stroke are needed to address urinary incontinence early and effectively. OBJECTIVE: The Identifying Continence OptioNs after Stroke (ICONS)-II trial aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a systematic voiding programme for urinary incontinence after stroke in hospital. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, individual-patient-randomised (1 : 1), parallel-group trial with an internal pilot. SETTING: Eighteen NHS stroke services with stroke units took part. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adult men and women with acute stroke and urinary incontinence, including those with cognitive impairment. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to the intervention, a systematic voiding programme, or to usual care. The systematic voiding programme comprised assessment, behavioural interventions (bladder training or prompted voiding) and review. The assessment included evaluation of the need for and possible removal of an indwelling urinary catheter. The intervention began within 24 hours of recruitment and continued until discharge from the stroke unit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was severity of urinary incontinence (measured using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire) at 3 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures were taken at 3 and 6 months after randomisation and on discharge from the stroke unit. They included severity of urinary incontinence (at discharge and at 6 months), urinary symptoms, number of urinary tract infections, number of days indwelling urinary catheter was in situ, functional independence, quality of life, falls, mortality rate and costs. The trial statistician remained blinded until clinical effectiveness analysis was complete. RESULTS: The planned sample size was 1024 participants, with 512 allocated to each of the intervention and the usual-care groups. The internal pilot did not meet the target for recruitment and was extended to March 2020, with changes made to address low recruitment. The trial was paused in March 2020 because of COVID-19, and was later stopped, at which point 157 participants had been randomised (intervention, n = 79; usual care, n = 78). There were major issues with attrition, with 45% of the primary outcome data missing: 56% of the intervention group data and 35% of the usual-care group data. In terms of the primary outcome, patients allocated to the intervention group had a lower score for severity of urinary incontinence (higher scores indicate greater severity in urinary incontinence) than those allocated to the usual-care group, with means (standard deviations) of 8.1 (7.4) and 9.1 (7.8), respectively. LIMITATIONS: The trial was unable to recruit sufficient participants and had very high attrition, which resulted in seriously underpowered results. CONCLUSIONS: The internal pilot did not meet its target for recruitment and, despite recruitment subsequently being more promising, it was concluded that the trial was not feasible owing to the combined problems of poor recruitment, poor retention and COVID-19. The intervention group had a slightly lower score for severity of urinary incontinence at 3 months post randomisation, but this result should be interpreted with caution. FUTURE WORK: Further studies to assess the effectiveness of an intervention starting in or continuing into the community are required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14005026. 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. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Urinary incontinence affects around half of stroke survivors. It causes embarrassment and distress, affecting patients' ability to take part in rehabilitation. It also has a major impact on families and may determine whether or not patients are able to return home. Finding the underlying cause and addressing it can prevent, cure or reduce problems. Doing this in a systematic way for everyone with incontinence problems as early as possible after the stroke, while they are still in hospital, may work best. We also wanted to avoid using catheters in the bladder to drain the urine away, as these are often unnecessary and can cause urinary tract infections. This study aimed to test whether or not continence problems and the use of urinary catheters could be reduced if everyone with incontinence was fully assessed and given the right management and support early after hospital admission. We also wanted to find out if the benefits outweighed the costs. We planned to involve 1024 men and women with incontinence from 18 stroke units in the study, with 512 people receiving the intervention and 512 receiving usual care. However, the trial was paused because of COVID-19, at which time only 157 participants had been recruited. When we were thinking about restarting the study and looked at its progress, we found that not enough people had agreed to take part and, of those who had agreed, many had not returned their outcome questionnaires. This indicated that the trial was not feasible and should not restart. We could not make any firm conclusions about whether or not the intervention worked, as not enough people were involved. We found that stays in hospital after stroke are shorter than they were in the past. This suggests that future studies investigating ways of treating incontinence should consider interventions with management and support for incontinence that continue after patients leave the hospital.

The effect on work presenteeism of job retention vocational rehabilitation compared to a written self-help work advice pack for employed people with inflammatory arthritis: protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (the WORKWELL trial).

BACKGROUND: Work problems are common in people with inflammatory arthritis. Up to 50% stop work within 10 years due to their condition and up to 67% report presenteeism (i.e. reduced work productivity), even amongst those with low disease activity. Job retention vocational rehabilitation (JRVR) may help prevent or postpone job loss and reduce presenteeism through work assessment, work-related rehabilitation and enabling job accommodations. This aims to create a better match between the person's abilities and their job demands. The objectives of the Workwell trial are to test the overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of JRVR (WORKWELL) provided by additionally trained National Health Service (NHS) occupational therapists compared to a control group who receive self-help information both in addition to usual care. METHODS: Based on the learning from a feasibility trial (the WORK-IA trial: ISRCTN76777720 ), the WORKWELL trial is a multi-centre, pragmatic, individually-randomised parallel group superiority trial, including economic evaluation, contextual factors analysis and process evaluation. Two hundred forty employed adults with rheumatoid arthritis, undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis or psoriatic arthritis (in secondary care), aged 18 years or older with work instability will be randomised to one of two groups: a self-help written work advice pack plus usual care (control intervention); or WORKWELL JRVR plus a self-help written work advice pack and usual care. WORKWELL will be delivered by occupational therapists provided with additional JRVR training from the research team. The primary outcome is presenteeism as measured using the Work Limitations Questionnaire-25. A comprehensive range of secondary outcomes of work, health, contextual factors and health resource use are included. Outcomes are measured at 6- and 12- months (with 12-months as the primary end-point). A multi-perspective within-trial cost-effectiveness analyses will also be conducted. DISCUSSION: This trial will contribute to the evidence base for provision of JRVR to people with inflammatory arthritis. If JRVR is found to be effective in enabling people to keep working, the findings will support decision-making about provision of JRVR by rheumatology teams, therapy services and healthcare commissioners, and providing evidence of the effectiveness of JRVR and the economic impact of its implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.Gov: NCT03942783 . Registered 08/05/2019 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03942783 ); ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN61762297 . Registered:13/05/2019 ( http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN61762297 ). Retrospectively registered.

Early, specialist vocational rehabilitation to facilitate return to work after traumatic brain injury: the FRESH feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Up to 160,000 people incur traumatic brain injury (TBI) each year in the UK. TBI can have profound effects on many areas of human functioning, including participation in work. There is limited evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vocational rehabilitation (VR) after injury to promote early return to work (RTW) following TBI. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of a definitive, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early, specialist VR plus usual care (UC) compared with UC alone on work retention 12 months post TBI. DESIGN: A multicentre, feasibility, parallel-group RCT with a feasibility economic evaluation and an embedded mixed-methods process evaluation. Randomisation was by remote computer-generated allocation. SETTING: Three NHS major trauma centres (MTCs) in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with TBI admitted for > 48 hours and working or studying prior to injury. INTERVENTIONS: Early specialist TBI VR delivered by occupational therapists (OTs) in the community using a case co-ordination model. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported RTW 12 months post randomisation, mood, functional ability, participation, work self-efficacy, quality of life and work ability. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment and retention rates. Follow-up was by postal questionnaires in two centres and face to face in one centre. Those collecting data were blind to treatment allocation. RESULTS: Out of 102 target participants, 78 were recruited (39 randomised to each arm), representing 39% of those eligible and 5% of those screened. Approximately 2.2 patients were recruited per site per month. Of those, 56% had mild injuries, 18% had moderate injuries and 26% had severe injuries. A total of 32 out of 45 nominated carers were recruited. A total of 52 out of 78 (67%) TBI participants responded at 12 months (UC, n = 23; intervention, n = 29), completing 90% of the work questions; 21 out of 23 (91%) UC respondents and 20 out of 29 (69%) intervention participants returned to work at 12 months. Two participants disengaged from the intervention. Face-to-face follow-up was no more effective than postal follow-up. RTW was most strongly related to social participation and work self-efficacy. It is feasible to assess the cost-effectiveness of VR. Intervention was delivered as intended and valued by participants. Factors likely to affect a definitive trial include deploying experienced OTs, no clear TBI definition or TBI registers, and repatriation of more severe TBI from MTCs, affecting recruitment of those most likely to benefit/least likely to drop out. LIMITATIONS: Target recruitment was not reached, but mechanisms to achieve this in future studies were identified. Retention was lower than expected, particularly in UC, potentially biasing estimates of the 12-month RTW rate. CONCLUSIONS: This study met most feasibility objectives. The intervention was delivered with high fidelity. When objectives were not met, strategies to ensure feasibility of a full trial were identified. Future work should test two-stage recruitment and include resources to recruit from 'spokes'. A broader measure covering work ability, self-efficacy and participation may be a more sensitive outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38581822. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Facilitating return to work through early specialist health-based interventions (FRESH): protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Over one million people sustain traumatic brain injury each year in the UK and more than 10 % of these are moderate or severe injuries, resulting in cognitive and psychological problems that affect the ability to work. Returning to work is a primary rehabilitation goal but fewer than half of traumatic brain injury survivors achieve this. Work is a recognised health service outcome, yet UK service provision varies widely and there is little robust evidence to inform rehabilitation practice. A single-centre cohort comparison suggested better work outcomes may be achieved through early occupational therapy targeted at job retention. This study aims to determine whether this intervention can be delivered in three new trauma centres and to conduct a feasibility, randomised controlled trial to determine whether its effects and cost effectiveness can be measured to inform a definitive trial. METHODS/DESIGN: Mixed methods study, including feasibility randomised controlled trial, embedded qualitative studies and feasibility economic evaluation will recruit 102 people with traumatic brain injury and their nominated carers from three English UK National Health Service (NHS) trauma centres. Participants will be randomised to receive either usual NHS rehabilitation or usual rehabilitation plus early specialist traumatic brain injury vocational rehabilitation delivered by an occupational therapist. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial; secondary objectives include measurement of protocol integrity (inclusion/exclusion criteria, intervention adherence, reasons for non-adherence) recruitment rate, the proportion of eligible patients recruited, reasons for non-recruitment, spectrum of TBI severity, proportion of and reasons for loss to follow-up, completeness of data collection, gains in face-to-face Vs postal data collection and the most appropriate methods of measuring primary outcomes (return to work, retention) to determine the sample size for a larger trial. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first feasibility randomised controlled trial of a vocational rehabilitation health intervention specific to traumatic brain injury. The results will inform the design of a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered ISRCTN Number 38581822.