An exploration of service use pattern changes and cost analysis following implementation of community perinatal mental health teams in pregnant women with a history of specialist mental healthcare in England: a national population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service in England pledged >£365 million to improve access to mental healthcare services via Community Perinatal Mental Health Teams (CPMHTs) and reduce the rate of perinatal relapse in women with severe mental illness. This study aimed to explore changes in service use patterns following the implementation of CPMHTs in pregnant women with a history of specialist mental healthcare in England, and conduct a cost-analysis on these changes. METHODS: This study used a longitudinal cohort design based on existing routine administrative data. The study population was all women residing in England with an onset of pregnancy on or after 1st April 2016 and who gave birth on or before 31st March 2018 with pre-existing mental illness (N = 70,323). Resource use and costs were compared before and after the implementation of CPMHTs. The economic perspective was limited to secondary mental health services, and the time horizon was the perinatal period (from the start of pregnancy to 1-year post-birth, ~ 21 months). RESULTS: The percentage of women using community mental healthcare services over the perinatal period was higher for areas with CPMHTs (30.96%, n=9,653) compared to areas without CPMHTs (24.72%, n=9,615). The overall percentage of women using acute care services (inpatient and crisis resolution teams) over the perinatal period was lower for areas with CPMHTs (4.94%, n=1,540 vs. 5.58%, n=2,171), comprising reduced crisis resolution team contacts (4.41%, n=1,375 vs. 5.23%, n=2,035) but increased psychiatric admissions (1.43%, n=445 vs. 1.13%, n=441). Total mental healthcare costs over the perinatal period were significantly higher for areas with CPMHTs (fully adjusted incremental cost £111, 95% CI £29 to £192, p-value 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Following implementation of CPMHTs, the percentage of women using acute care decreased while the percentage of women using community care increased. However, the greater use of inpatient admissions alongside greater use of community care resulted in a significantly higher mean cost of secondary mental health service use for women in the CPMHT group compared with no CPMHT. Increased costs must be considered with caution as no data was available on relevant outcomes such as quality of life or satisfaction with services.

Evaluation of intensive community care services for young people with psychiatric emergencies: study protocol for a multi-centre parallel-group, single-blinded randomized controlled trial with an internal pilot phase.

BACKGROUND: Over 3000 young people under the age of 18 are admitted to Tier 4 Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) inpatient units across the UK each year. The average length of hospital stay for young people across all psychiatric units in the UK is 120 days. Research is needed to identify the most effective and efficient ways to care for young people (YP) with psychiatric emergencies. This study aims to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intensive community care service (ICCS) compared to treatment as usual (TAU) for young people with psychiatric emergencies. METHODS: This is a multicentre two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) with an internal pilot phase. Young people aged 12 to < 18 considered for admission at participating NHS organizations across the UK will be randomized 1:1 to either TAU or ICCS. The primary outcome is the time to return to or start education, employment, or training (EET) at 6 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes will include evaluations of mental health and overall well-being and patient satisfaction. Service use and costs and cost-effectiveness will also be explored. Intention-to-treat analysis will be adopted. The trial is expected to be completed within 42 months, with an internal pilot phase in the first 12 months to assess the recruitment feasibility. A process evaluation using visual semi-structured interviews will be conducted with 42 young people and 42 healthcare workers. DISCUSSION: This trial is the first well-powered randomized controlled trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ICCS compared to TAU for young people with psychiatric emergencies in Great Britain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN42999542, Registration on April 29, 2020.

Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Supported Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy Self-help Compared With Supported Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Self-help for Adults Experiencing Depression: The Low-Intensity Guided Help Through Mindfulness (LIGHTMind) Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Depression is prevalent. Treatment guidelines recommend practitioner-supported cognitive behavioral therapy self-help (CBT-SH) for mild to moderate depression in adults; however, dropout rates are high. Alternative approaches are required. Objective: To determine if practitioner-supported mindfulness-based cognitive therapy self-help (MBCT-SH) is superior to practitioner-supported CBT-SH at reducing depressive symptom severity at 16 weeks postrandomization among patients with mild to moderate depression and secondarily to examine if practitioner-supported MBCT-SH is cost-effective compared with practitioner-supported CBT-SH. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was an assessor- and participant-blinded superiority randomized clinical trial with 1:1 automated online allocation stratified by center and depression severity comparing practitioner-supported MBCT-SH with practitioner-supported CBT-SH for adults experiencing mild to moderate depression. Recruitment took place between November 24, 2017, and January 31, 2020. The study took place in 10 publicly funded psychological therapy services in England (Improving Access to Psychological Therapies [IAPT]). A total of 600 clients attending IAPT services were assessed for eligibility, and 410 were enrolled. Participants met diagnostic criteria for mild to moderate depression. Data were analyzed from January to October 2021. Interventions: Participants received a copy of either an MBCT-SH or CBT-SH workbook and were offered 6 support sessions with a trained practitioner. Main Outcomes and Measures: The preregistered primary outcome was Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) score at 16 weeks postrandomization. The primary analysis was intention-to-treat with treatment arms masked. Results: Of 410 randomized participants, 255 (62.2%) were female, and the median (IQR) age was 32 (25-45) years. At 16 weeks postrandomization, practitioner-supported MBCT-SH (n = 204; mean [SD] PHQ-9 score, 7.2 [4.8]) led to significantly greater reductions in depression symptom severity compared with practitioner-supported CBT-SH (n = 206; mean [SD] PHQ-9 score, 8.6 [5.5]), with a between-group difference of -1.5 PHQ-9 points (95% CI, -2.6 to -0.4; P = .009; d = -0.36). The probability of MBCT-SH being cost-effective compared with CBT-SH exceeded 95%. However, although between-group effects on secondary outcomes were in the hypothesized direction, they were mostly nonsignificant. Three serious adverse events were reported, all deemed not study related. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, practitioner-supported MBCT-SH was superior to standard recommended treatment (ie, practitioner-supported CBT-SH) for mild to moderate depression in terms of both clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Findings suggest that MBCT-SH for mild to moderate depression should be routinely offered to adults in primary care services. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN13495752.

Cost-effectiveness of screening tools for identifying depression in early pregnancy: a decision tree model.

BACKGROUND: Although the effectiveness of screening tools for detecting depression in pregnancy has been investigated, there is limited evidence on the cost-effectiveness. This is vital in providing full information to decision makers. This study aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of different screening tools to identify depression in early pregnancy compared to no screening. METHODS: A decision tree was developed to model the identification and treatment pathways of depression from the first antenatal appointment to 3-months postpartum using the Whooley questions, the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and the Whooley questions followed by the EPDS, compared to no screening. The economic evaluation took an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. Model parameters were taken from a combination of sources including a cross-sectional survey investigating the diagnostic accuracy of screening tools, and other published literature. Cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of the incremental cost per quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were produced using a net-benefit approach based on Monte Carlo simulations of cost-outcome data. RESULTS: In a 4-way comparison, the Whooley, EPDS and Whooley followed by the EPDS each had a similar probability of being cost-effective at around 30% for willingness to pay values from £20,000-30,000 per QALY compared to around 20% for the no screen option. CONCLUSIONS: All three screening approaches tested had a higher probability of being cost-effective than the no-screen option. In the absence of a clear cost-effectiveness advantage for any one of the three screening options, the choice between the screening approaches could be made on other grounds, such as clinical burden of the screening options. Limitations include data availability and short time horizon, thus further research is needed. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: N/A.

Treating common mental disorder including psychotic experiences in the primary care improving access to psychological therapies programme (the TYPPEX study): protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial with nested economic and process evaluation of a training package for therapists.

INTRODUCTION: At least one in four people treated by the primary care improving access to psychological therapies (IAPT) programme in England experiences distressing psychotic experiences (PE) in addition to common mental disorder (CMD). These individuals are less likely to achieve recovery. IAPT services do not routinely screen for nor offer specific treatments for CMD including PE. The Tailoring evidence-based psychological therapY for People with common mental disorder including Psychotic EXperiences study will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an enhanced training for cognitive behavioural therapists that aims to address this clinical gap. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multisite, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. The setting will be IAPT services within three mental health trusts. The participants will be (1) 56-80 qualified IAPT cognitive behavioural therapists and (2) 600 service users who are triaged as appropriate for cognitive behavioural therapy in an IAPT service and have PE according to the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences-Positive 15-items Scale. IAPT therapists will be grouped into eight study clusters subsequently randomised to the control-intervention sequence. We will obtain pseudonymous clinical outcome data from IAPT clinical records for eligible service users. We will invite service users to complete health economic measures at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12-month follow-up. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients with common mental disorder psychotic experiences who have recovered by the end of treatment as measured by the official IAPT measure for recovery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received the following approvals: South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee on 28 April 2020 (REC reference 20/SC/0135) and Health Research Authority (HRA) on 23 June 2020. An amendment was approved by the Ethics Committee on 01 October 2020 and HRA on 27 October 2020. Results will be made available to patients and the public, the funders, stakeholders in the IAPT services and other researchers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN93895792.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychiatric mother and baby units: quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric mother and baby units (MBUs) are recommended for severe perinatal mental illness, but effectiveness compared with other forms of acute care remains unknown. AIMS: We hypothesised that women admitted to MBUs would be less likely to be readmitted to acute care in the 12 months following discharge, compared with women admitted to non-MBU acute care (generic psychiatric wards or crisis resolution teams (CRTs)). METHOD: Quasi-experimental cohort study of women accessing acute psychiatric care up to 1 year postpartum in 42 healthcare organisations across England and Wales. Primary outcome was readmission within 12 months post-discharge. Propensity scores were used to account for systematic differences between MBU and non-MBU participants. Secondary outcomes included assessment of cost-effectiveness, experience of services, unmet needs, perceived bonding, observed mother-infant interaction quality and safeguarding outcome. RESULTS: Of 279 women, 108 (39%) received MBU care, 62 (22%) generic ward care and 109 (39%) CRT care only. The MBU group (n = 105) had similar readmission rates to the non-MBU group (n = 158) (aOR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.86-1.04, P = 0.29; an absolute difference of -5%, 95% CI -14 to 4%). Service satisfaction was significantly higher among women accessing MBUs compared with non-MBUs; no significant differences were observed for any other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant differences in rates of readmission, but MBU advantage might have been masked by residual confounders; readmission will also depend on quality of care after discharge and type of illness. Future studies should attempt to identify the effective ingredients of specialist perinatal in-patient and community care to improve outcomes.

Out of pocket expenses in obsessive compulsive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Despite anecdotal evidence that the out of pocket costs of OCD can be substantial in some cases, there is no evidence on how many people they affect, or the magnitude of these costs. AIMS: This paper explores the type and quantity of out of pocket expenses reported by a large sample of adults with OCD. METHODS: Data on out of pocket expenses were collected from participants taking part in the OCTET multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Participants were aged 18+, meeting DSM-IV criteria for OCD, and scoring 16+ on the Yale Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale. Individual-level resource use data including a description and estimated cost of out of pocket expenses were measured using an adapted version of the Adult Service Use Schedule (AD-SUS): a questionnaire used to collect data on resource use. RESULTS: Forty-five percent (208/465) reported out of pocket expenses due to their OCD. The mean cost of out of pocket expenses was £19.19 per week (SD £27.56 SD), range £0.06-£224.00. CONCLUSIONS: Future economic evaluations involving participants with OCD should include out of pocket expenses, but careful consideration of alternative approaches to the collection and costing of this data is needed.

Psychological interventions for people with psychotic experiences: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled and uncontrolled effectiveness and economic studies.

OBJECTIVE: Many people with psychotic experiences do not develop psychotic disorders, yet those who seek help demonstrate high clinical complexity and poor outcomes. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions for people with psychotic experiences. METHOD: We searched 13 databases for studies of psychological interventions for adults with psychotic experiences, but not psychotic disorders. Our outcomes were the proportion of participants remitting from psychotic experiences (primary); changes in positive and negative psychotic symptoms, depression, anxiety, functioning, distress, and quality of life; and economic outcomes (secondary). We analysed results using multilevel random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 27 reports met inclusion criteria. In general, there was no strong evidence for the superiority of any one intervention. Five studies reported on our primary outcome, though only two reports provided randomised controlled trial evidence that psychological intervention (specifically, cognitive behavioural therapy) promoted remission from psychotic experiences. For secondary outcomes, we could only meta-analyse trials of cognitive behavioural therapy. We found that cognitive behavioural therapy was more effective than treatment as usual for reducing distress (pooled standardised mean difference: -0.24; 95% confidence interval = [-0.37, -0.10]), but no more effective than the control treatment for improving any other outcome. Individual reports indicated that cognitive behavioural therapy, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, sleep cognitive behavioural therapy, systemic therapy, cognitive remediation therapy, and supportive treatments improved at least one clinical or functional outcome. Four reports included economic evaluations, which suggested cognitive behavioural therapy may be cost-effective compared with treatment as usual. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analytic findings were primarily null, with the exception that cognitive behavioural therapy may reduce the distress associated with psychotic experiences. Our analyses were limited by scarcity of studies, small samples and variable study quality. Several intervention frameworks showed preliminary evidence of positive outcomes; however, the paucity of consistent evidence for clinical and functional improvement highlights a need for further research into psychological treatments for psychotic experiences. PROSPERO PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016033869.

Low-Intensity Guided Help Through Mindfulness (LIGHTMIND): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing supported mindfulness-based cognitive therapy self-help to supported cognitive behavioural therapy self-help for adults experiencing depression.

BACKGROUND: Depression has serious personal, family and economic consequences. It is estimated that it will cost £12.15 billion to the economy each year in England by 2026. Improving access to psychological therapies (IAPT) is the National Health Service talking therapies service in England for adults experiencing anxiety or depression. Over 1 million people are referred to IAPT every year, over half experiencing depression. Where symptoms of depression are mild to moderate, people are typically offered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) self-help (CBT-SH) supported by a psychological well-being practitioner. The problem is that over half of people who complete treatment for depression in IAPT remain depressed despite receiving National Institute of Health and Care Excellent recommended treatment. Furthermore, less than half of IAPT service users complete treatment. This study seeks to investigate the effectiveness of an alternative to CBT-SH. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) differs from CBT in focus, approach and practice, and may be more effective with a higher number of treatment completions. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a definitive randomised controlled trial comparing supported MBCT self-help (MBCT-SH) with CBT-SH for adults experiencing mild to moderate depression being treated in IAPT services. We will recruit 410 participants experiencing mild to moderate depression from IAPT services and randomise these to receive either an MBCT-based self-help workbook or a CBT-based self-help workbook. Participants will be asked to complete their workbook within 16 weeks, with six support sessions with a psychological well-being practitioner. The primary outcome is depression symptom severity on treatment completion. Secondary outcomes are treatment completion rates and measures of generalized anxiety, well-being, functioning and mindfulness. An exploratory non-inferiority analysis will be conducted in the event the primary hypothesis is not supported. A semi-structured interview with participants will guide understanding of change processes. DISCUSSION: If the findings from this randomised controlled trial demonstrate that MBCT-SH is more effective than CBT-SH for adults experiencing depression, this will provide evidence for policy makers and lead to changes to clinical practice in IAPT services, leading to greater choice of self-help treatment options and better outcomes for service users. If the exploratory non-inferiority analysis is conducted and this indicates non-inferiority of MBCT-SH in comparison to CBT-SH this will also be of interest to policy makers when seeking to increase service user choice of self-help treatment options for depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trial registration number: ISRCTN 13495752. Registered on 31 August 2017 (www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13495752).

Reasons behind the rising rate of involuntary admissions under the Mental Health Act (1983): Service use and cost impact.

There has been a significant rise in the use of the Mental Health Act (1983) in England over the last 10 years. This includes both health-based Place of Safety detentions and involuntary admissions to NHS mental health facilities. Although these trends should clearly inform the implementation of mental health care and legislation, there is currently little understanding of what caused these increased rates. We therefore sought to explore potential underlying reasons for the increase in involuntary admissions and Place of Safety detentions and to ascertain the associated service costs. We extracted publicly available data to ascertain the observed number of involuntary admissions (Section 2 or 3) and health-based Place of Safety detentions in England between 1999/2000 and 2015/2016. A simple regression analysis then enabled us to compare observed admission rates with predicted rates, between 2008/2009 and 2015/2016. This prediction model was based on observed figures before 2008. We then generated a costing model for these rates and compared admission costs to alternative interventions. Finally, we added relevant covariates to the prediction model, to explore potential relationships with observed rates. Since 2008/2009, there has been a marked increase in the number of involuntary admissions (38%) and Place of Safety detentions (617%). The analysis revealed that for involuntary admissions, the period of greatest increase occurred after 2012, two years after austerity measures were implemented. For Place of Safety detentions, substantial rises were seen from 2008/2009 to 2015/2016, coinciding with the economic recession. The rise in Place of Safety detentions may have been worsened by a reduction in mental health bed availability. During the study period, involuntary admissions are estimated to have cost the English NHS £6.8 billion; with a further £120 million spent on Place of Safety detentions. This is approximately £597 million greater than predicted, had involuntary admissions continued to change at pre-2008 rates. We conclude that the rise in involuntary admissions, and to a lesser extent Place of Safety detentions, were associated with three specific impactful events: the economic recession, legislative changes and the impact of austerity measures on health and social care services. In addition to the extensive arguments presented elsewhere, there is also an urgent economic case for addressing this trend.

Cost-Effectiveness of Combination Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Pragmatic, Randomized, Multicenter Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether intensive combinations of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDS) achieve similar clinical benefits more cheaply than high-cost biologics such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) whose illness has failed to respond to methotrexate and another DMARD. METHODS: We used within-trial cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses from health and social care and 2 societal perspectives. Participants were recruited into an open-label, 12-month, pragmatic, randomized, multicenter, 2-arm, noninferiority trial in 24 rheumatology clinics in England and Wales. Costs were linked with the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ; primary outcome) and quality-adjusted life years derived from 2 measures (Short-Form 36 health survey and EuroQol 5-domain 3-level instrument). RESULTS: In total, 205 participants were recruited, 104 in the csDMARD arm and 101 in the TNFi arm. Participants in the csDMARD arm with poor response at 6 months were offered TNFi; 46 participants (44%) switched. Relevant cost and outcome data were available for 93% of participants at 6-month follow-up and for 91-92% of participants at 12-month follow-up. The csDMARD arm had significantly lower total costs from all perspectives (6-month health and social care adjusted mean difference -£3,615 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -4,104, -3,182]; 12-month health and social care adjusted mean difference -£1,930 [95% CI -2,599, -1,301]). The HAQ score showed benefit to the csDMARD arm at 12 months (-0.16 [95% CI -0.32, -0.01]); other outcomes/follow-ups showed no differences. CONCLUSION: Starting treatment with csDMARDs, rather than TNFi, achieves similar outcomes at significantly lower costs. Patients with active RA and who meet the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria for expensive biologics can be treated with combinations of intensive csDMARDs in a cost-effective manner.

Psychological interventions for people with psychotic experiences: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many people who have common mental disorders, such as depression and anxiety, also have some psychotic experiences. These experiences are associated with higher clinical complexity, poor treatment response, and negative clinical outcomes. Psychological interventions have the potential to improve outcomes for people with psychotic experiences. The aims of this systematic review are to (1) synthesise the evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions to reduce psychotic experiences and their associated distress and (2) identify key components of effective interventions. METHODS: Our search strategy will combine terms for (1) psychological interventions, (2) psychotic experiences, and (3) symptoms associated with psychotic experiences. We will search the following online databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, all Cochrane databases, British Nursing Index (BNI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and EconLit. Our primary outcome is the proportion of people who recovered or remitted from psychotic experiences after the intervention. Our secondary outcomes are changes in positive psychotic symptoms, negative psychotic symptoms, depression, anxiety, functioning (including social, occupational, and academic), quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Two independent reviewers will judge each study against pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria and will extract study characteristics, outcome data, and intervention components. Risk of bias and methodological quality will be assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies and the Drummond Checklist. Results will be synthesised using random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. DISCUSSION: The identification of effective psychological interventions and of specific components associated with intervention effectiveness will augment existing evidence that can inform the development of a new, tailored intervention to improve outcomes related to psychotic symptoms, anxiety and depression, distress, functioning, and quality of life. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016033869.

Protocol for a quasi-experimental study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of mother and baby units compared with general psychiatric inpatient wards and crisis resolution team services (The ESMI study) in the provision of care for women in the postpartum period.

INTRODUCTION: Research into what constitutes the best and most effective care for women with an acute severe postpartum mental disorder is lacking. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychiatric mother and baby units (MBUs) has not been investigated systematically and there has been no direct comparison of the outcomes of mothers and infants admitted to these units, compared with those accessing generic acute psychiatric wards or crisis resolution teams (CRTs). Our primary hypothesis is that women with an acute psychiatric disorder, in the first year after giving birth, admitted to MBUs are significantly less likely to be readmitted to acute care (an MBU, CRTs or generic acute ward) in the year following discharge than women admitted to generic acute wards or cared for by CRTs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Quasi-experimental study of women accessing different types of acute psychiatric services in the first year after childbirth. Analysis of the primary outcome will be compared across the three service types, at 1-year postdischarge. Cost-effectiveness will be compared across the three service types, at 1-month and 1-year postdischarge; explored in terms of quality-adjusted life years. Secondary outcomes include unmet needs, service satisfaction, maternal adjustment, quality of mother-infant interaction. Outcomes will be analysed using propensity scoring to account for systematic differences between MBU and non-MBU participants. Analyses will take place separately within strata, defined by the propensity score, and estimates pooled to produce an average treatment effect with weights to account for cohort attrition. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has National Health Service (NHS) Ethics Approval and NHS Trust Research and Development approvals. The study has produced protocols on safeguarding maternal/child welfare. With input from our lived experience group, we have developed a dissemination strategy for academics/policy-makers/public.

Nurse-led psychological intervention for type 2 diabetes: a cluster randomised controlled trial (Diabetes-6 study) in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes (T2D) is common and associated with psychological barriers. AIM: To investigate whether it was possible to train practice nurses in six psychological skills (Diabetes-6 [D6]) based on motivational interviewing (MI) and basic cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), and whether integrating these with diabetes care was associated with improved glycaemic control over 18 months compared with standard care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Two-arm, single-blind, parallel cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care. METHOD: Adult participants (n = 334) with T2D and persistent HbA1c ≥69.4 mmol/mol were randomised to receive 12 sessions of either the D6 intervention or standard care over 12 months. Practice nurses were trained in the six psychological skills and their competencies were measured by standardised rating scales. Primary outcome was a change in HbA1c level at 18 months from randomisation. Secondary outcomes were changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, body mass index, waist circumference, depressive symptoms, harmful alcohol intake, diabetes-specific distress, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Using intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference between D6 intervention and standard care in HbA1c (mean difference -0.79 mmol/mol, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -5.75 to 4.18) or for any of the secondary outcomes. The competency level of D6 nurses was below the beginner proficiency level and similar to the standard-care nurses. CONCLUSION: Training nurses in MI and basic CBT to support self-management did not lead to improvements in glycaemic control or other secondary outcomes in people with T2D at 18 months. It was also unlikely to be cost-effective. Furthermore, the increased contact with standard-care nurses did not improve glycaemic control.

Comparison of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intensive community supported discharge service versus treatment as usual for adolescents with psychiatric emergencies: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensive community treatment to reduce dependency on adolescent psychiatric inpatient care is recommended in guidelines but has not been assessed in a randomised controlled trial in the UK. We designed a supported discharge service (SDS) provided by an intensive community treatment team and compared outcomes with usual care. METHODS: Eligible patients for this randomised controlled trial were younger than 18 years and had been admitted for psychiatric inpatient care in the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. Patients were assigned 1:1 to either the SDS or to usual care by use of a computer-generated pseudorandom code with random permuted blocks of varying sizes. The primary outcome was number of inpatient bed-days, change in Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) scores, and change in Children's Global Assessment Scale (CGAS) scores at 6 months, assessed by intention to treat. Cost-effectiveness was explored with acceptability curves based on CGAS scores and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) calculated from the three-level EuroQol measure of health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), taking a health and social care perspective. This study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN82129964. FINDINGS: Hospital use at 6 months was significantly lower in the SDS group than in the usual care group (unadjusted median 34 IQR 17-63 vs 50 days, 19-125, p=0·04). The ratio of mean total inpatient days for usual care to SDS was 1·67 (95% CI 1·02-2·81, p=0·04), which decreased to 1·65 (0·99-2·77, p=0·057) when adjusted for differences in hospital use before randomisation. Scores for SDQ and CGAS did not differ between groups. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve based on QALYs showed that the probability of SDS being cost-effective compared with usual care was around 60% with a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000-30 000 per QALY, and that based on CGAS showed at least 58% probability of SDS being cost-effective compared with usual care irrespective of willingness to pay. We recorded no adverse events attributable to SDS or usual care. INTERPRETATION: SDS provided by an intensive community treatment team reduced bed usage at 6 months' follow-up but had no effect on functional status and symptoms of mental health disorders compared with usual care. The possibility of preventing admissions, particularly through features such as reduced self-harm and improved reintegration into school, with intensive community treatment should be investigated in future studies. FUNDING: South London and Maudsley NHS Trust.

A Comparison of Different Approaches for Costing Medication Use in an Economic Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Estimating individual-level medication costs in an economic evaluation can involve extensive data collection and handling. Implications of detailed versus general approaches are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare costing approaches in a trial-based economic evaluation. METHODS: We applied four costing approaches to prescribed medication data from the Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors Against Combination Intensive Therapy randomized controlled trial. A detailed micro-costing approach was used as a base case, against which other approaches were compared: costing medications used by at least 1.5% of patients; costing medications on the basis of only chemical name; applying a generic prescription charge rather than a medication-specific cost. We quantitatively examined resulting estimates of prescribed medication and total care costs, and qualitatively examined trial conclusions. RESULTS: Medication costs made up 6% of the total health and social care costs. There was good agreement in prescribed medication costs (concordance correlation coefficient [CCC] 0.815, 0.819, and 0.989) and excellent agreement in total costs (CCC 0.990, 0.995, and 0.995) between approaches 1 and 2. Approaches 3 and 4 had poor agreement with approach 1 on prescribed medication costs (CCC 0.246-0.700 and 0.033-0.333, respectively), but agreement on total care costs remained good (CCC 0.778-0.993 and 0.729-0.986, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Because medication costs comprised only a small proportion of total costs, the less resource-intensive approaches had substantial impacts on medication cost estimates, but had little impact on total care costs and did not significantly impact the trial's cost-effectiveness conclusions. There is room for research efficiencies without detriment to an evaluation in which medication costs are likely to form a small proportion of total costs.

Randomised controlled trial to improve health and reduce substance use in established psychosis (IMPaCT): cost-effectiveness of integrated psychosocial health promotion.

BACKGROUND: There is mounting evidence that people with severe mental illness have unhealthy lifestyles, high rates of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, and greater risk of early mortality. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a health promotion intervention seeking to improve physical health and reduce substance use in people with psychosis. METHODS: Participants with a psychotic disorder, aged 18-65 years old and registered on an enhanced care approach programme or equivalent were recruited from community mental health teams in six mental health trusts in England. Participants were randomisation to either standard community mental health team care (treatment as usual) or treatment as usual with an integrated health promotion intervention (IMPaCT). Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses from health and social care and societal perspectives were conducted alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial. Total health and social care costs and total societal costs at 12 and 15 months were calculated as well as cost-effectiveness (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves) at 15 months based on quality of life (SF-36 mental and physical health components, primary outcome measures) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) using two measures, EQ-5D-3 L and SF-36. Data were analysed using bootstrapped regressions with covariates for relevant baseline variables. RESULTS: At 12-15 months 301 participants had full data needed to be included in the economic evaluation. There were no differences in adjusted health and social care costs (£95, 95% CI -£1410 to £1599) or societal costs (£675, 95% CI -£1039 to £2388) between the intervention and control arms. Similarly, there were no differences between the groups in the SF-36 mental component (-0.80, 95% CI -3.66 to 2.06), SF-36 physical component (-0.68, 95% CI -3.01 to 1.65), QALYs estimated from the SF-36 (-0.00, -0.01 to 0.00) or QALYs estimated from the EQ-5D-3 L (0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for all four outcomes and from both cost perspectives indicate that the probability of the health promotion intervention being cost-effective does not exceed 0.4 for willingness to pay thresholds ranging from £0-£50,000. CONCLUSIONS: Alongside no evidence of additional quality of life/clinical benefit, there is also no evidence of cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN58667926 . Date retrospectively registered: 23/04/2010. Recruitment start date: 01/03/2010.

Cognitive Bias Modification for paranoia (CBM-pa): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Persecutory delusions are the most common type of delusions in psychosis and present in around 10-15% of the general population. Persecutory delusions are thought to be sustained by biased cognitive and emotional processes. Recent advances favour targeted interventions, focussing on specific symptoms or mechanisms. Our aim is to test the clinical feasibility of a novel psychological intervention, which manipulates biased interpretations toward more adaptive processing, in order to reduce paranoia in patients. METHODS: The 'Cognitive Bias Modification for paranoia' (CBM-pa) study is a feasibility, double-blind, randomised controlled trial (RCT) for 60 stabilised outpatients with persistent, distressing paranoid symptoms. Patients will be randomised at a 50:50 ratio, to computerised CBM-pa or a text-reading control intervention, receiving one 40-min session per week, for 6 weeks. CBM-pa involves participants reading stories on a computer screen, completing missing words and answering questions about each story in a way that encourages more helpful beliefs about themselves and others. Treatment as Usual will continue for patients in both groups. Patients will be assessed by a researcher blind to allocation, at baseline, each interim session, post treatment and 1- and 3-month follow-up post treatment. The primary outcome is the feasibility parameters (trial design, recruitment rate and acceptability) of the intervention. The secondary outcomes are clinical symptoms (including severity of paranoia) as assessed by a clinical psychologist, and 'on-line' measurement of interpretation bias and stress/distress. The trial is funded by the NHS National Institute for Health Research. DISCUSSION: This pilot study will test whether CBM-pa has the potential to be a cost-effective, accessible and flexible treatment. If the trial proves feasible and demonstrates preliminary evidence of efficacy, a fully powered RCT will be warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN: 90749868 . Retrospectively registered on 12 May 2016.

Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of low-intensity interventions in the management of obsessive-compulsive disorder: the Obsessive-Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial (OCTET).

BACKGROUND: The Obsessive-Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial emerged from a research recommendation in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) guidelines, which specified the need to evaluate cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) treatment intensity formats. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two low-intensity CBT interventions [supported computerised cognitive-behavioural therapy (cCBT) and guided self-help]: (1) compared with waiting list for high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 3 months; and (2) plus high-intensity CBT compared with waiting list plus high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 12 months. To determine patient and professional acceptability of low-intensity CBT interventions. DESIGN: A three-arm, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services and primary/secondary care mental health services in 15 NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition criteria for OCD, on a waiting list for high-intensity CBT and scoring ≥ 16 on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (indicative of at least moderate severity OCD) and able to read English. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to (1) supported cCBT, (2) guided self-help or (3) a waiting list for high-intensity CBT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was OCD symptoms using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale - Observer Rated. RESULTS: Patients were recruited from 14 NHS trusts between February 2011 and May 2014. Follow-up data collection was complete by May 2015. There were 475 patients randomised: supported cCBT (n = 158); guided self-help (n = 158) and waiting list for high-intensity CBT (n = 159). Two patients were excluded post randomisation (one supported cCBT and one waiting list for high-intensity CBT); therefore, data were analysed for 473 patients. In the short term, prior to accessing high-intensity CBT, guided self-help demonstrated statistically significant benefits over waiting list, but these benefits did not meet the prespecified criterion for clinical significance [adjusted mean difference -1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.27 to -0.55; p = 0.006]. Supported cCBT did not demonstrate any significant benefit (adjusted mean difference -0.71, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.70). In the longer term, access to guided self-help and supported cCBT, prior to high-intensity CBT, did not lead to differences in outcomes compared with access to high-intensity CBT alone. Access to guided self-help and supported cCBT led to significant reductions in the uptake of high-intensity CBT; this did not seem to compromise patient outcomes at 12 months. Taking a decision-making approach, which focuses on which decision has a higher probability of being cost-effective, rather than the statistical significance of the results, there was little evidence that supported cCBT and guided self-help are cost-effective at the 3-month follow-up compared with a waiting list. However, by the 12-month follow-up, data suggested a greater probability of guided self-help being cost-effective than a waiting list from the health- and social-care perspective (60%) and the societal perspective (80%), and of supported cCBT being cost-effective compared with a waiting list from both perspectives (70%). Qualitative interviews found that guided self-help was more acceptable to patients than supported cCBT. Professionals acknowledged the advantages of low intensity interventions at a population level. No adverse events occurred during the trial that were deemed to be suspected or unexpected serious events. LIMITATIONS: A significant issue in the interpretation of the results concerns the high level of access to high-intensity CBT during the waiting list period. CONCLUSIONS: Although low-intensity interventions are not associated with clinically significant improvements in OCD symptoms, economic analysis over 12 months suggests that low-intensity interventions are cost-effective and may have an important role in OCD care pathways. Further research to enhance the clinical effectiveness of these interventions may be warranted, alongside research on how best to incorporate them into care pathways. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73535163. 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. 21, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.