A tailored psychological intervention for anxiety and depression management in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: TANDEM RCT and process evaluation.

Background: People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have high levels of anxiety and depression, which is associated with increased morbidity and poor uptake of effective treatments, such as pulmonary rehabilitation. Cognitive-behavioural therapy improves mental health of people with long-term conditions and could potentially increase uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation, enabling synergies that could enhance the mental health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Aim: Our aim was to develop and evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a tailored cognitive-behavioural approach intervention, which links into, and optimises the benefits of, routine pulmonary rehabilitation. Design: We carried out a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial using a 1.25 : 1 ratio (intervention : control) with a parallel process evaluation, including assessment of fidelity. Setting: Twelve NHS trusts and five Clinical Commissioning Groups in England were recruited into the study. The intervention was delivered in participant's own home or at a local NHS facility, and by telephone. Participants: Between July 2017 and March 2020 we recruited adults with moderate/very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mild/moderate anxiety and/or depression, meeting eligibility criteria for assessment for pulmonary rehabilitation. Carers of participants were invited to participate. Intervention: The cognitive-behavioural approach intervention (i.e. six to eight 40- to 60-minute sessions plus telephone support throughout pulmonary rehabilitation) was delivered by 31 trained respiratory healthcare professionals to participants prior to commencing pulmonary rehabilitation. Usual care included routine pulmonary rehabilitation referral. Main outcome measures: Co-primary outcomes were Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - anxiety and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression at 6 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes at 6 and 12 months included health-related quality of life, smoking status, uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation and healthcare use. Results: We analysed results from 423 randomised participants (intervention, n = 242; control, n = 181). Forty-three carers participated. Follow-up at 6 and 12 months was 93% and 82%, respectively. Despite good fidelity for intervention delivery, mean between-group differences in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 6 months ruled out clinically important effects (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - anxiety mean difference -0.60, 95% confidence interval -1.40 to 0.21; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression mean difference -0.66, 95% confidence interval -1.39 to 0.07), with similar results at 12 months. There were no between-group differences in any of the secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses did not alter these conclusions. More adverse events were reported for intervention participants than for control participants, but none related to the trial. The intervention did not generate quality-of-life improvements to justify the additional cost (adjusted mean difference £770.24, 95% confidence interval -£27.91 to £1568.39) to the NHS. The intervention was well received and many participants described positive affects on their quality of life. Facilitators highlighted the complexity of participants' lives and considered the intervention to be of potential valuable; however, the intervention would be difficult to integrate within routine clinical services. Our well-powered trial delivered a theoretically designed intervention with good fidelity. The respiratory-experienced facilitators were trained to deliver a low-intensity cognitive-behavioural approach intervention, but high-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy might have been more effective. Our broad inclusion criteria specified objectively assessed anxiety and/or depression, but participants were likely to favour talking therapies. Randomisation was concealed and blinding of outcome assessment was breached in only 15 participants. Conclusions: The tailored cognitive-behavioural approach intervention delivered with fidelity by trained respiratory healthcare professionals to people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Alternative approaches that are integrated with routine long-term condition care are needed to address the unmet, complex clinical and psychosocial needs of this group of patients. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN59537391. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/146/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

People with long-standing lung problems, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, often also have anxiety and depression, which further reduces their quality of life. Two existing treatments could help. Pulmonary rehabilitation (a programme of exercise and education) improves both the physical and mental health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cognitive­behavioural therapy (a talking therapy) may reduce anxiety and depression. The TANDEM [Tailored intervention for Anxiety and Depression Management in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)] intervention linked these two treatments by providing talking therapy based on cognitive­behavioural therapy during the waiting time following referral for pulmonary rehabilitation. The TANDEM treatment was delivered by respiratory healthcare professionals (e.g. nurses or physiotherapists) trained to deliver the talking therapy in six to eight weekly sessions. The sessions were conducted in the participant's home (or another convenient location), with brief telephone support during the pulmonary rehabilitation. Of 423 participants recruited to the study, 242 participants received TANDEM talking therapy and 181 participants received usual care (including a referral to pulmonary rehabilitation). We measured mental health, quality of life, social life, attendance at pulmonary rehabilitation and healthcare use in both groups at 6 and 12 months. Forty-three carers joined the study and we assessed their mental well-being. We interviewed patients, carers and health professionals to find out their views and experience of the TANDEM treatment. We also examined whether or not the TANDEM treatment was good value for money. The TANDEM treatment did not improve the mental or the physical health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In addition, the TANDEM treatment cost the NHS an extra £770 per patient, which was not good value for money. The TANDEM treatment was well received, and many participants told us how it had helped them. Heath-care professionals noted how participants did not just have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but were coping with many physical, mental and social problems. The TANDEM intervention was not effective and, therefore, other strategies will be needed to help people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mental health problems live with their condition.

Study protocol: randomised controlled hybrid type 2 trial evaluating the scale-up of two arts interventions for postnatal depression and Parkinson's disease.

INTRODUCTION: Research on the benefits of 'arts' interventions to improve individuals' physical, social and psychological well-being is growing, but evidence on implementation and scale-up into health and social care systems is lacking. This protocol reports the SHAPER-Implement programme (Scale-up of Health-Arts Programmes Effectiveness-Implementation Research), aimed at studying the impact, implementation and scale-up of: Melodies for Mums (M4M), a singing intervention for postnatal depression; and Dance for Parkinson's (PD-Ballet) a dance intervention for Parkinson's disease. We examine how they could be embedded in clinical pathways to ensure their longer-term sustainability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised two-arm effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 2 trial design will be used across M4M/PD-Ballet. We will assess the implementation in both study arms (intervention vs control), and the cost-effectiveness of implementation. The design and measures, informed by literature and previous research by the study team, were refined through stakeholder engagement. Participants (400 in M4M; 160 in PD-Ballet) will be recruited to the intervention or control group (2:1 ratio). Further implementation data will be collected from stakeholders involved in referring to, delivering or supporting M4M/PD-Ballet (N=25-30 for each intervention).A mixed-methods approach (surveys and semi-structured interviews) will be employed. 'Acceptability' (measured by the 'Acceptability Intervention Measure') is the primary implementation endpoint for M4M/PD-Ballet. Relationships between clinical and implementation outcomes, implementation strategies (eg, training) and outcomes will be explored using generalised linear mixed models. Qualitative data will assess factors affecting the acceptability, feasibility and appropriateness of M4M/PD-Ballet, implementation strategies and longer-term sustainability. Costs associated with implementation and future scale-up will be estimated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: SHAPER-PND (the M4M trial) and SHAPER-PD (the PD trial) are approved by the West London and GTAC (20/PR/0813) and the HRA and Health and Care Research Wales (REC Reference: 20/WA/0261) Research Ethics Committees. Study findings will be disseminated through scientific peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Both trials are registered with NIH US National Library of Medicine, ClinicalTrials.gov. The trial registration numbers, URLs of registry records, and dates of registration are: (1) PD-Ballet: URL: NCT04719468 (https://eur03.safelinks.protection. OUTLOOK: com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.clinicaltrials.gov%2Fct2%2Fshow%2FNCT04719468%3Fterm%3DNCT04719468%26draw%3D2%26rank%3D1&data=04%7C01%7Crachel.davis%40kcl.ac.uk%7C11a7c5142782437919f808d903111449%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0%7C0%7C6375441942616) (date of registration: 22 Jan 2021). (2) Melodies for Mums: NCT04834622 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04834622?term=shaper-pnd&draw=2&rank=1) (date of registration: 8 Apr 2021).

A Health Economic Evaluation of the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist: A Single Center Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate cost-effectiveness of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist. BACKGROUND: The clinical effectiveness of surgical checklists is largely understood. Few studies to-date have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of checklist use. METHODS: An economic evaluation was carried out using data from the only available randomized controlled trial of the checklist. Analyses were based on 3702 procedures. Costs considered included checklist implementation costs and length and cost of hospital stay, costs of warming blanket use, blood transfusions and antibiotics used in the operating room, and the cost of clinical time in the operating room - all calculated for each procedure and its associated admission. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to simulate an empirical distribution of the mean effect of the checklist on total admission costs and the probability of observing a complication-free admission and to quantify sampling uncertainty around mean cost estimates. RESULTS: The overall cost of checklist implementation was calculated to be $900 per 100 admissions. Implementation of the WHO checklist resulted in an additional 5.9 complication-free admissions per 100 admissions and an average of 110 bed-days saved per 100 admissions. Accounting for all costs included in the analysis, for every 100 admissions, use of the WHO checklist was estimated to save $55,899. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the WHO checklist was a cost-effective strategy for improving surgical safety.

Economic Case for Scale-up of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist at the National Level in Sub-Saharan Africa.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the economic case for nationwide scale-up of the World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist using cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analyses. BACKGROUND: The Checklist improves surgical outcomes but the economic case for widespread use remains uncertain. For perioperative quality improvement interventions to compete successfully against other worthwhile health and nonhealth interventions for limited government resources they must demonstrate cost-effectiveness and positive societal benefit. METHODS: Using data from 3 countries, we estimated the benefits as the total years of life lost (YLL) due to postoperative mortality averted over a 3 year period; converted the benefits to dollar equivalent values using estimates of the economic value of an additional year of life expectancy; estimated total implementation costs; and determined incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and benefit-cost ratio (BCR). Costs are reported in international dollars using Word Bank purchasing power parity conversion factors at 2016 price-levels. RESULTS: In Benin, Cameroon, and Madagascar ICERs were: $31, $138, and $118 per additional YLL averted; and BCRs were 62, 29, and 9, respectively. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the associated mortality reduction and increased usage due to Checklist scale-up would need to deviate approximately 10-fold from published data to change our main interpretations. CONCLUSIONS: According to WHO criteria, Checklist scale-up is considered "very cost-effective" and for every $ 1 spent the potential return on investment is $9 to $62. These results compare favorably with other health and nonhealth interventions and support the economic argument for investing in Checklist scale-up as part of a national strategy for improving surgical outcomes.

The Early Youth Engagement in first episode psychosis (EYE-2) study: pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of implementation, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a team-based motivational engagement intervention to improve engagement.

BACKGROUND: Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services improve health outcomes for young people with psychosis in the medium-long term, but 25% of young people disengage in the first 12 months with costs to their mental health, families, society and the NHS. This study will evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and implementation of a team-based motivational Early Youth Engagement (EYE-2) intervention. METHOD: The study design is a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) with economic evaluation, comparing the EYE-2 intervention + standardised EIP service to standardised EIP service alone, with randomisation at the team level. A process evaluation will evaluate the delivery of the intervention qualitatively and quantitatively across contexts. The setting is 20 EIP teams in 5 sites: Manchester, South London, East Anglia, Thames Valley and Hampshire. Participants are young people (14-35 years) with first episode psychosis, and EIP staff. The intervention is the team-based motivational engagement (EYE-2) intervention, delivered alongside standardised EIP services, and supported by additional training, website, booklets and social groups. The comparator is the standardised EIP service. Both interventions are delivered by EIP clinicians. The primary outcome is time to disengagement (time in days from date of allocation to care coordinator to date of last contact following refusal to engage with EIP service, or lack of response to EIP contact for a consecutive 3-month period). Secondary outcomes include mental and physical health, deaths, social and occupational function, recovery, satisfaction and service use at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. A 12-month within-trial economic evaluation will investigate cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective and from an NHS perspective. DISCUSSION: The trial will provide the first test of an engagement intervention in standardised care, with the potential for significant impact on the mental health and wellbeing of young people and their families, and economic benefits for services. The intervention will be highly scalable, supported by the toolkit including manuals, commissioning guide, training and resources, adapted to meet the needs of the diverse EIP population, and based on an in-depth process evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 51629746 prospectively registered 7th May 2019. Date assigned 10th May 2019.

Development and rapid evaluation of services to support the physical health of people using psychiatric inpatient units during the COVID-19 pandemic: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: People diagnosed with a serious mental illness have worse physical health and lower life expectancy than the general population. Integration of mental and physical health services is seen as one service development that could better support this. This protocol describes the evaluation of the provision of a Virtual Physical Health Clinic (VPHC) and Consultant Connect (CC) services to one UK-based mental health Trust. METHODS: Prospective, formative, pragmatic evaluation using both quantitative and qualitative techniques and driven by implementation science theoretical frameworks. The VPHC and CC are described along with the methodology being used to rapidly evaluate their implementation, effectiveness and potential economic impact in order to inform future roll out. We will assess the implementation process through quantitative data on uptake and reach and through self-reported data to be collected from interviews and the use of validated implementation outcome assessment measures. We will assess implementation strategies using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies as a framework. We will assess the health economic impact of both services using established health economic methods including cost comparison scenarios and health service utilisation analyses. DISCUSSION: Supporting the physical health management of people in psychiatric inpatient units is important in improving the physical health of this population. Integration of mental and physical health can help this to happen effectively. This initiative provides one of the first service evaluation protocols of its kind to be reported in the UK at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Costing the impact of interventions during pregnancy in the UK: a systematic review of economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to summarise the current evidence on the costing of resource use within UK maternity care, in order to facilitate the estimation of incremental resource and cost impacts potentially attributable to maternity care interventions. METHODS: A systematic review of economic evaluations was conducted by searching Medline, the Health Management Information Consortium, the National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluations Database, CINAHL and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for economic evaluations within UK maternity care, published between January 2010 and August 2019 in the English language. Unit costs for healthcare activities provided to women within the antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal period were inflated to 2018-2019 prices. Assessment of study quality was performed using the Quality of Health Economic Analyses checklist. RESULTS: Of 5084 titles or full texts screened, 37 papers were included in the final review (27 primary research articles, 7 review articles and 3 economic evaluations from NICE guidelines). Of the 27 primary research articles, 21 were scored as high quality, 3 as medium quality and 3 were low quality. Variation was noted in cost estimates for healthcare activities throughout the maternity care pathway: for midwife-led outpatient appointment, the range was £27.34-£146.25 (mean £81.78), emergency caesarean section, range was £1056.44-£4982.21 (mean £3508.93) and postnatal admission, range was £103.00-£870.10 per day (mean £469.55). CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation exists in costs applied to maternity healthcare activities, resulting in challenges in attributing cost to maternity activities. The level of variation in cost calculations is likely to reflect the uncertainty within the system and must be dealt with by conducting sensitivity analyses. Nationally agreed prices for granular unit costs are needed to standardise cost-effectiveness evaluations of new interventions within maternity care, to be used either for research purposes or decisions regarding national intervention uptake. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019145309.

Tailored, psychological intervention for anxiety or depression in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), TANDEM (Tailored intervention for ANxiety and DEpression Management in COPD): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at increased risk of depression and anxiety, which greatly reduces their quality of life and is associated with worse outcomes; but these psychological co-morbidities are under-recognised and undertreated in COPD patients. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) improves mood for up to 6 months but health practitioners under-refer, and patients commonly fail to attend/complete PR. Research suggests that complex non-pharmacological interventions, including both psychological and exercise components, may reduce anxiety and depression in COPD. We have developed a tailored, cognitive behavioural approach (CBA) intervention for patients with COPD and co-morbid anxiety and/or depression ('TANDEM'), which precedes and optimises the benefits of currently offered PR. We hypothesise that such a psychological intervention, delivered by supervised, trained respiratory healthcare professionals, will improve mood in patients with mild to moderate anxiety and/or depression and encourage uptake and completion of PR. METHODS: We will conduct a multi-centre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial of the TANDEM intervention compared to usual care across the Midlands, London, the South East and Bristol, UK. We will train healthcare professionals familiar with COPD to deliver the manualised, tailored, face-to-face, one-to-one intervention weekly for 6-8 weeks. We will recruit 430 participants from primary, community and secondary care with confirmed COPD and moderate to very severe airflow limitation, who are eligible for assessment for PR, and who screen positive for symptoms of mild/moderate depression and/or anxiety using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS). Participants will be randomised 1.25:1 (intervention: usual care). The co-primary outcomes are the HADS anxiety and depression subscale scores at 6 months; participants will be followed up to 12 months. Secondary outcomes include uptake and completion of PR and healthcare resource use. There will be a parallel process evaluation and a health economic evaluation. DISCUSSION: The TANDEM intervention has the potential to optimise the unrealised synergy between a psychological intervention and PR. The CBA sessions will precede PR and target individuals' cognitions, behaviours and symptoms associated with anxiety and depression to decrease psychological morbidity and increase effective self-management amongst patients with COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN59537391. Registered on 20 March 2017. Protocol version 6.0, 22 April 2018.

Designing high-quality implementation research: development, application, feasibility and preliminary evaluation of the implementation science research development (ImpRes) tool and guide.

BACKGROUND: Designing implementation research can be a complex and daunting task, especially for applied health researchers who have not received specialist training in implementation science. We developed the Implementation Science Research Development (ImpRes) tool and supplementary guide to address this challenge and provide researchers with a systematic approach to designing implementation research. METHODS: A multi-method and multi-stage approach was employed. An international, multidisciplinary expert panel engaged in an iterative brainstorming and consensus-building process to generate core domains of the ImpRes tool, representing core implementation science principles and concepts that researchers should consider when designing implementation research. Simultaneously, an iterative process of reviewing the literature and expert input informed the development and content of the tool. Once consensus had been reached, specialist expert input was sought on involving and engaging patients/service users; and economic evaluation. ImpRes was then applied to 15 implementation and improvement science projects across the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) South London, a research organisation in London, UK. Researchers who applied the ImpRes tool completed an 11-item questionnaire evaluating its structure, content and usefulness. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on ten implementation science domains to be considered when designing implementation research. These include implementation theories, frameworks and models, determinants of implementation, implementation strategies, implementation outcomes and unintended consequences. Researchers who used the ImpRes tool found it useful for identifying project areas where implementation science is lacking (median 5/5, IQR 4-5) and for improving the quality of implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4-5) and agreed that it contained the key components that should be considered when designing implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4-4). Qualitative feedback from researchers who applied the ImpRes tool indicated that a supplementary guide was needed to facilitate use of the tool. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a feasible and acceptable tool, and supplementary guide, to facilitate consideration and incorporation of core principles and concepts of implementation science in applied health implementation research. Future research is needed to establish whether application of the tool and guide has an effect on the quality of implementation research.

Use of health economic evaluation in the implementation and improvement science fields-a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluation can inform whether strategies designed to improve the quality of health care delivery and the uptake of evidence-based practices represent a cost-effective use of limited resources. We report a systematic review and critical appraisal of the application of health economic methods in improvement/implementation research. METHOD: A systematic literature search identified 1668 papers across the Agris, Embase, Global Health, HMIC, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, MEDLINE and EconLit databases between 2004 and 2016. Abstracts were screened in Rayyan database, and key data extracted into Microsoft Excel. Evidence was critically appraised using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) framework. RESULTS: Thirty studies were included-all health economic studies that included implementation or improvement as a part of the evaluation. Studies were conducted mostly in Europe (62%) or North America (23%) and were largely hospital-based (70%). The field was split between improvement (N = 16) and implementation (N = 14) studies. The most common intervention evaluated (43%) was staffing reconfiguration, specifically changing from physician-led to nurse-led care delivery. Most studies (N = 19) were ex-post economic evaluations carried out empirically-of those, 17 were cost effectiveness analyses. We found four cost utility analyses that used economic modelling rather than empirical methods. Two cost-consequence analyses were also found. Specific implementation costs considered included costs associated with staff training in new care delivery pathways, the impacts of new processes on patient and carer costs and the costs of developing new care processes/pathways. Over half (55%) of the included studies were rated 'good' on QHES. Study quality was boosted through inclusion of appropriate comparators and reporting of incremental analysis (where relevant); and diminished through use of post-hoc subgroup analysis, limited reporting of the handling of uncertainty and justification for choice of discount rates. CONCLUSIONS: The quantity of published economic evaluations applied to the field of improvement and implementation research remains modest; however, quality is overall good. Implementation and improvement scientists should work closely with health economists to consider costs associated with improvement interventions and their associated implementation strategies. We offer a set of concrete recommendations to facilitate this endeavour.

A systematic review of the economic evidence for interventions for family carers of stroke patients.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the economic evidence for interventions aimed at family carers of stroke patients. DATA SOURCES: Searches (limited to those published in English since 1990) were performed in key databases along with hand searches of relevant papers. REVIEW METHODS: Papers were restricted to studies including any economic data (broadly defined) for any intervention targeting carers explicitly or explicitly referring to a carer element, beyond involving carers in the care or intervention for patients (i.e. more than just carers being invited to observe an intervention targeted at the patient). Two reviewers independently screened full papers and extracted data using guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (cohort studies), the Delphi list (randomised controlled trials) and guidelines on economic quality from the British Medical Journal. Data were reviewed descriptively as meta analyses were inappropriate due to non-comparability of studies. RESULTS: Ten papers were included in the review. These were heterogeneous in their design, intervention and economic analyses making comparison difficult. Only three of the ten papers included economic evaluations. All three reported that the intervention was less costly and had better or equivalent outcomes than the control comparator although two of these were based on the same intervention using the same dataset. CONCLUSION: There is some limited evidence that interventions for family carers of stroke patients are effective and cost effective. However, due to variation in the types of interventions examined, little can be concluded regarding implications for clinical practice.