The Social and Emotional Education and Development intervention to address wellbeing in primary school age children: the SEED cluster RCT.

Background: Stronger social and emotional well-being during primary school is positively associated with the health and educational outcomes of young people. However, there is little evidence on which programmes are the most effective for improving social and emotional well-being. Objective: The objective was to rigorously evaluate the Social and Emotional Education and Development (SEED) intervention process for improving pupils' social and emotional well-being. Design: This was a stratified cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. Thirty-eight primary schools were randomly assigned to the SEED intervention or to the control group. Hierarchical regression analysis allowing for clustering at school learning community level was conducted in R (statistical package). Setting: The SEED intervention is a whole-school intervention; it involved all school staff and two cohorts of pupils, one starting at 4 or 5 years of age and the second starting at 8 or 9 years of age, across all 38 schools. Participants: A total of 2639 pupils in Scotland. Intervention: The SEED intervention used an iterative process that involved three components to facilitate selection and implementation of school-based actions: (1) questionnaire completion, (2) benchmarked feedback to all staff and (3) reflective discussions (all staff and an educational psychologist). Main outcome measure: The primary outcome was pupils' Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Total Difficulties Score when pupils were 4 years older than at baseline. Results: The primary outcome, pupils' Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Total Difficulties Score at follow-up 3, showed improvements for intervention arm pupils, compared with those in the control arm [relative risk -1.30 (95% confidence interval -1.87 to -0.73), standardised effect size -0.27 (95% confidence interval -0.39 to -0.15)]. There was no evidence of intervention effects according to deprivation: the results were significant for both affluent and deprived pupils. Subgroup analysis showed that all effect sizes were larger for the older cohort, particularly boys [relative risk -2.36 (95% confidence interval -3.62 to -1.11), standardised effect size -0.42 (95% confidence interval -0.64 to -0.20)]. Although there was no statistically significant difference in incremental cost and quality-adjusted life-years, the probability that the intervention is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year was high, at 88%. Particularly valued mechanisms of the SEED intervention were its provision of time to reflect on and discuss social and emotional well-being and its contribution to a culture of evaluating practice. Limitations: It was a challenge to retain schools over five waves of data collection. Conclusions: This trial demonstrated that the SEED intervention is an acceptable, cost-effective way to modestly improve pupil well-being and improve school climate, particularly for older boys and those with greater levels of psychological difficulties. It was beneficial during the transition from primary to secondary school, but this diminished after 6 years. The SEED intervention can be implemented alongside existing systems for addressing pupil well-being and can be complementary to other interventions. Future work: Assess whether or not the SEED intervention has a beneficial impact on academic attainment, is transferable to other countries and other organisational settings, would be strengthened by adding core training elements to the intervention process and is transferable to secondary schools. Understand the gender differences illustrated by the outcomes of this trial. Conduct further statistical research on how to handle missing data in longitudinal studies of complex social interventions. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN51707384. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 10/3006/13) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

We studied the Social and Emotional Education and Development (SEED) primary school intervention to see if it could improve the social and emotional well-being of pupils in Scotland. The SEED intervention is a process with several elements. We collected information from school pupils, staff and parents, and assessed if the schools involved were happy, safe and caring environments. We sought to highlight any strengths or weaknesses in how each school approaches social and emotional well-being. The SEED intervention also measures the social and emotional well-being of pupils. This includes pupils' strengths and difficulties, confidence, understanding of emotions and quality of relationships. We gave the information back to each school to help them decide what they can do to improve the social and emotional well-being of their pupils. We gave schools a guide to available resources, reviewed according to how well they are known to work elsewhere. The same social and emotional well-being measurements were repeated every 1 or 2 years, to see if any improvements had been made, and to guide any further adaptions of activities. The study ran in 38 schools over 7 years; half of the schools were randomly selected to receive the SEED intervention and half carried on as normal. Two age groups of pupils were recruited; the younger group was aged 4 or 5 years and the older group was aged 8 or 9 years at the start of the study. We found that the SEED intervention did slightly improve social and emotional well-being. Improvements were greater for older pupils, in particular for boys, and lasted beyond their transition from primary to secondary school. We also found that it was cost-effective for schools to run the SEED intervention. Schools valued the structure and shared ownership associated with the process. We concluded that the SEED intervention is an acceptable way to modestly improve pupil well-being and school ethos.

Socioeconomic deprivation and illness trajectory in the Scottish population after COVID-19 hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: The associations between deprivation and illness trajectory after hospitalisation for coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) are uncertain. METHODS: A prospective, multicentre cohort study was conducted on post-COVID-19 patients, enrolled either in-hospital or shortly post-discharge. Two evaluations were carried out: an initial assessment and a follow-up at 28-60 days post-discharge. The study encompassed research blood tests, patient-reported outcome measures, and multisystem imaging (including chest computed tomography (CT) with pulmonary and coronary angiography, cardiovascular and renal magnetic resonance imaging). Primary and secondary outcomes were analysed in relation to socioeconomic status, using the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD). The EQ-5D-5L, Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ), Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) for Anxiety and Depression, and the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) were used to assess health status. RESULTS: Of the 252 enrolled patients (mean age 55.0 ± 12.0 years; 40% female; 23% with diabetes), deprivation status was linked with increased BMI and diabetes prevalence. 186 (74%) returned for the follow-up. Within this group, findings indicated associations between deprivation and lung abnormalities (p = 0.0085), coronary artery disease (p = 0.0128), and renal inflammation (p = 0.0421). Furthermore, patients with higher deprivation exhibited worse scores in health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L, p = 0.0084), illness perception (BIPQ, p = 0.0004), anxiety and depression levels (PHQ-4, p = 0.0038), and diminished physical activity (DASI, p = 0.002). At the 3-month mark, those with greater deprivation showed a higher frequency of referrals to secondary care due to ongoing COVID-19 symptoms (p = 0.0438). However, clinical outcomes were not influenced by deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: In a post-hospital COVID-19 population, socioeconomic deprivation was associated with impaired health status and secondary care episodes. Deprivation influences illness trajectory after COVID-19.

In our study, we aimed to understand how socioeconomic factors impact recovery from COVID-19 following hospitalisation. We followed 252 patients, collecting health data and utilising advanced imaging techniques. We discovered that individuals from deprived areas experienced more severe health complications, reported worse quality of life, and required more specialist care. However, their clinical outcomes were not significantly different. This underscores that socioeconomic deprivation affects health recovery, underlining the need for tailored care for these individuals. Our findings emphasise the importance of considering socioeconomic factors in recovery plans post-COVID-19, potentially improving healthcare for those in deprived areas.

The Best Services Trial (BeST?): a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of New Orleans Intervention Model with services as usual (SAU) for infants and young children entering care.

BACKGROUND: Abused and neglected children are at increased risk of health problems throughout life, but negative effects may be ameliorated by nurturing family care. It is not known whether it is better to place these children permanently with substitute (foster or adoptive) families or to attempt to reform their birth families. Previously, we conducted a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the New Orleans Intervention Model (NIM) for children aged 0-60 months coming into foster care in Glasgow. NIM is delivered by a multidisciplinary health and social care team and offers families, whose child has been taken into foster care, a structured assessment of family relationships followed by a trial of treatment aiming to improve family functioning. A recommendation is then made for the child to return home or for adoption. In the feasibility RCT, families were willing to be randomised to NIM or optimised social work services as usual and equipoise was maintained. Here we present the protocol of a substantive RCT of NIM including a new London site. METHODS: The study is a multi-site, pragmatic, single-blind, parallel group, cluster randomised controlled superiority trial with an allocation ratio of 1:1. We plan to recruit approximately 390 families across the sites, including those recruited in our feasibility RCT. They will be randomly allocated to NIM or optimised services as usual and followed up to 2.5 years post-randomisation. The principal outcome measure will be child mental health, and secondary outcomes will be child quality of life, the time taken for the child to be placed in permanent care (rehabilitation home or adoption) and the quality of the relationship with the primary caregiver. DISCUSSION: The study is novel in that infant mental health professionals rarely have a role in judicial decisions about children's care placements, and RCTs are rare in the judicial context. The trial will allow us to determine whether NIM is clinically and cost-effective in the UK and findings may have important implications for the use of mental health assessment and treatment as part of the decision-making about children in the care system.

The remote diet intervention to reduce Long COVID symptoms trial (ReDIRECT): protocol for a randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a remotely delivered supported weight management programme for people with Long COVID and excess weight, with personalised improvement goals.

Objectves: The Remote Diet Intervention to Reduce Long COVID Symptoms Trial (ReDIRECT) evaluates whether the digitally delivered, evidence-based, cost-effective Counterweight-Plus weight management programme improves symptoms of Long COVID in people with overweight/obesity. Methods: Baseline randomised, non-blinded design with 240 participants allocated in a 1:1 ratio either to continue usual care or to add the remotely delivered Counterweight-Plus weight management programme, which includes a Counterweight dietitian supported delivery of 12 weeks total diet replacement, food reintroduction, and long-term weight loss maintenance. Randomisation is achieved by accessing a web-based randomisation system incorporated into the study web portal developed by a registered Clinical Trials Unit. We are using an innovative approach to outcome personalisation, with each participant selecting their most dominant Long COVID symptom as their primary outcome assessed at six months. Participants in the control arm enter the weight management programme after six months. We are recruiting participants from social media and existing networks (e.g., Long COVID Scotland groups), through newspaper advertisements and from primary care. Main inclusion criteria: people with Long COVID symptoms persisting > three months, aged 18 years or above, body mass index (BMI) above 27kg/m 2 (>25kg/m 2 for South Asians). The trial includes a process evaluation (involving qualitative interviews with participants and analysis of data on dose, fidelity and reach of the intervention) and economic evaluation (within-trial and long-term cost-utility analyses). Anticipated results: The recruitment for this study started in December 2021 and ended in July 2022. Project results are not yet available and will be shared via peer-reviewed publication once the six-months outcomes have been analysed. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12595520.

While most people infected with COVID-19 recover within a short amount of time, some people continue to have symptoms for 12 weeks or longer. This condition is known as Long COVID. Roughly two-thirds of people with Long COVID are overweight, a proportion similar to that found in the general population. Being overweight may worsen symptoms such as fatigue, breathlessness and pains. Weight management programmes in adults with overweight/obesity can reduce such symptoms, however we do not know how effective intentional weight loss is to reduce symptoms for people with Long COVID. The aim of this project is to test a well-established weight management programme, delivered and supported remotely, in people with Long COVID. The trial is conducted with 240 people with Long COVID, identified through their GP, patient groups, social media, or newspaper advertisements. A total of 120 individuals will receive the personalised, professionally supported weight management programme (treatment group), and 120 participants are allocated to usual care (control group). The one-year long weight management programme involves 12 weeks of total diet replacement (TDR) using soups and shakes, followed by food reintroduction and weight maintenance. Food based alternatives are available to those who are unable, or prefer not to, follow the TDR approach. The two groups will be compared for Long COVID symptoms, weight loss, quality of life and value for money after six months. After six months, the weight management programme will also be provided for the control group. Experiences while on the programme will be documented for 12 months for all participants. People with Long COVID have been involved extensively in developing this project. Their priorities are to reduce symptoms like fatigue, breathlessness and pain. They are keen to explore if effective weight management would help their symptoms and overall functioning, especially a programme that can be followed remotely from home. A group of patients and other stakeholders has been set up to provide advice throughout the project.

SaeboGlove therapy for upper limb disability and severe hand impairment after stroke (SUSHI): Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Impaired active digital extension is common after stroke, hindering functional rehabilitation, and predicting poor recovery. The SaeboGlove assists digital extension and may improve outcome after stroke. We recently performed a single group, open, pilot trial of the SaeboGlove early after stroke which demonstrated satisfactory safety, feasibility and acceptability. An adequately powered randomised clinical trial is now needed to assess the clinical effectiveness of the SaeboGlove. METHODS: SUSHI is a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment, and embedded process and economic evaluations. Adults, 7-60 days post-stroke, with upper limb disability and severe hand impairment, including reduced active digital extension, will be recruited from NHS inpatient stroke services in Scotland. Participants will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive 6 weeks of self-directed, repetitive, functional-based practice involving a SaeboGlove plus usual care, or usual care only. The primary outcome is upper limb function measured by the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes will be measured at 6 and 14 weeks. A process evaluation will be performed via interviews with 'intervention' participants, and their carers and clinical therapists. A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed. 110 participants are required to detect a difference between groups of 9 in the ARAT with 90% power at a 5% significance level allowing for 11% attrition. DISCUSSION: SUSHI will determine if SaeboGlove self-directed, repetitive, functional-based practice improves upper limb function after stroke, whether it is acceptable to stroke survivors and whether it is cost-effective.

Rationale and Design of the Genotype-Blinded Trial of Torasemide for the Treatment of Hypertension (BHF UMOD).

BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies have identified single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) near the uromodulin gene (UMOD) affecting uromodulin excretion and blood pressure (BP). Uromodulin is almost exclusively expressed in the thick ascending limb (TAL) of the loop of Henle and its effect on BP appears to be mediated via the TAL sodium transporter, NKCC2. Loop-diuretics block NKCC2 but are not commonly used in hypertension management. Volume overload is one of the primary drivers for uncontrolled hypertension, so targeting loop-diuretics to individuals who are more likely to respond to this drug class, using the UMOD genotype, could be an efficient precision medicine strategy. METHODS: The BHF UMOD Trial is a genotype-blinded, multicenter trial comparing BP response to torasemide between individuals possessing the AA genotype of the SNP rs13333226 and those possessing the G allele. 240 participants (≥18 years) with uncontrolled BP, on ≥1 antihypertensive agent for ≥3 months, will receive treatment with Torasemide, 5 mg daily for 16 weeks. Uncontrolled BP is average home systolic BP (SBP) >135 mmHg and/or diastolic BP >85 mmHg. The primary outcome is the change in 24-hour ambulatory SBP area under the curve between baseline and end of treatment. Sample size was calculated to detect a 4 mmHg difference between groups at 90% power. Approval by West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 5 (16/WS/0160). RESULTS: The study should conclude August 2021. CONCLUSIONS: If our hypothesis is confirmed, a genotype-based treatment strategy for loop diuretics would help reduce the burden of uncontrolled hypertension. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03354897.

Effectiveness of Community-Links Practitioners in Areas of High Socioeconomic Deprivation.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of a primary care-based community-links practitioner (CLP) intervention on patients' quality of life and well-being. METHODS: Quasi-experimental cluster-randomized controlled trial in socioeconomically deprived areas of Glasgow, Scotland. Adult patients (aged 18 years or older) referred to CLPs in 7 intervention practices were compared with a random sample of adult patients from 8 comparison practices at baseline and 9 months. PRIMARY OUTCOME: health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L, a standardized measure of self-reported health-related quality of life that assesses 5 dimensions at 5 levels of severity). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: well-being (Investigating Choice Experiments for the Preferences of Older People Capability Measure for Adults [ICECAP-A]), depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Depression [HADS-D]), anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Anxiety [HADS-A]), and self-reported exercise. Multilevel, multiregression analyses adjusted for baseline differences. Patients were not blinded to the intervention, but outcome analysis was masked. RESULTS: Data were collected on 288 and 214 (74.3%) patients in the intervention practices at baseline and follow-up, respectively, and on 612 and 561 (92%) patients in the comparison practices. Intention-to-treat analysis found no differences between the 2 groups for any outcome. In subgroup analyses, patients who saw the CLP on 3 or more occasions (45% of those referred) had significant improvements in EQ-5D-5L, HADS-D, HADS-A, and exercise levels. There was a high positive correlation between CLP consultation rates and patient uptake of suggested community resources. CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to prove the effectiveness of referral to CLPs based in primary care in deprived areas for improving patient outcomes. Future efforts to boost uptake and engagement could improve overall outcomes, although the apparent improvements in those who regularly saw the CLPs may be due to reverse causality. Further research is needed before wide-scale deployment of this approach.

Maintained physical activity and physiotherapy in the management of distal arm pain: a randomised controlled trial.

Objectives: The epidemiology of distal arm pain and back pain are similar. However, management differs considerably: for back pain, rest is discouraged, whereas patients with distal arm pain are commonly advised to rest and referred to physiotherapy. We hypothesised that remaining active would reduce long-term disability and that fast-track physiotherapy would be superior to physiotherapy after time on a waiting list. Methods: Adults referred to community-based physiotherapy with distal arm pain were randomised to: advice to remain active while awaiting physiotherapy (typically delivered after 6-8 weeks); advice to rest while awaiting physiotherapy, or immediate treatment. Intention-to-treat analysis determined whether the probability of recovery at 26 weeks was greater among the active advice group, compared with those advised to rest and/or among those receiving immediate versus usually timed physiotherapy. Results: 538 of 1663 patients invited between February 2012 and February 2014 were randomised (active=178; rest=182; immediate physiotherapy=178). 81% provided primary outcome data, and complete recovery was reported by 60 (44%), 46 (32%) and 53 (35%). Those advised to rest experienced a lower probability of recovery (OR: 0.54; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90) versus advice to remain active. However, there was no benefit of immediate physiotherapy (0.64; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.07). Conclusions: Among patients awaiting physiotherapy for distal arm pain, advice to remain active results in better 26-week functional outcome, compared with advice to rest. Also, immediate physiotherapy confers no additional benefit in terms of disability, compared with physiotherapy delivered after 6-8 weeks waiting time. These findings question current guidance for the management of distal arm pain.

SAFETEL randomised controlled feasibility trial of a safety planning intervention with follow-up telephone contact to reduce suicidal behaviour: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There are no evidence-based interventions that can be administered in hospital settings following a general hospital admission after a suicide attempt. AIM: To determine whether a safety planning intervention (SPI) with follow-up telephone support (SAFETEL) is feasible and acceptable to patients admitted to UK hospitals following a suicide attempt. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Three-phase development and feasibility study with embedded process evaluation. Phase I comprises tailoring an SPI with telephone follow-up originally designed for veterans in the USA, for use in the UK. Phase II involves piloting the intervention with patients (n=30) who have been hospitalised following a suicide attempt. Phase III is a feasibility randomised controlled trial of 120 patients who have been hospitalised following a suicide attempt with a 6-month follow-up. Phase III participants will be recruited from across four National Health Service hospitals in Scotland and randomised to receive either the SPI with telephone follow-up and treatment as usual (n=80) or treatment as usual only (n=40). The primary outcomes are feasibility outcomes and include the acceptability of the intervention to participants and intervention staff, the feasibility of delivery in this setting, recruitment, retention and intervention adherence as well as the feasibility of collecting the self-harm re-admission to hospital outcome data. Statistical analyses will include description of recruitment rates, intervention adherence/use, response rates and estimates of the primary outcome event rates, and intervention effect size (Phase III). Thematic analyses will be conducted on interview and focus group data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The East of Scotland Research Ethics Service (EoSRES) approved this study in March 2017 (GN17MH101 Ref: 17/ES/0036). The study results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. A participant summary paper will also be disseminated to patients, service providers and policy makers alongside the main publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN62181241.

The effect of a programme to improve men's sedentary time and physical activity: The European Fans in Training (EuroFIT) randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Reducing sitting time as well as increasing physical activity in inactive people is beneficial for their health. This paper investigates the effectiveness of the European Fans in Training (EuroFIT) programme to improve physical activity and sedentary time in male football fans, delivered through the professional football setting. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A total of 1,113 men aged 30-65 with self-reported body mass index (BMI) ≥27 kg/m2 took part in a randomised controlled trial in 15 professional football clubs in England, the Netherlands, Norway, and Portugal. Recruitment was between September 19, 2015, and February 2, 2016. Participants consented to study procedures and provided usable activity monitor baseline data. They were randomised, stratified by club, to either the EuroFIT intervention or a 12-month waiting list comparison group. Follow-up measurement was post-programme and 12 months after baseline. EuroFIT is a 12-week, group-based programme delivered by coaches in football club stadia in 12 weekly 90-minute sessions. Weekly sessions aimed to improve physical activity, sedentary time, and diet and maintain changes long term. A pocket-worn device (SitFIT) allowed self-monitoring of sedentary time and daily steps, and a game-based app (MatchFIT) encouraged between-session social support. Primary outcome (objectively measured sedentary time and physical activity) measurements were obtained for 83% and 85% of intervention and comparison participants. Intention-to-treat analyses showed a baseline-adjusted mean difference in sedentary time at 12 months of -1.6 minutes/day (97.5% confidence interval [CI], -14.3-11.0; p = 0.77) and in step counts of 678 steps/day (97.5% CI, 309-1.048; p < 0.001) in favor of the intervention. There were significant improvements in diet, weight, well-being, self-esteem, vitality, and biomarkers of cardiometabolic health in favor of the intervention group, but not in quality of life. There was a 0.95 probability of EuroFIT being cost-effective compared with the comparison group if society is willing to pay £1.50 per extra step/day, a maximum probability of 0.61 if society is willing to pay £1,800 per minute less sedentary time/day, and 0.13 probability if society is willing to pay £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). It was not possible to blind participants to group allocation. Men attracted to the programme already had quite high levels of physical activity at baseline (8,372 steps/day), which may have limited room for improvement. Although participants came from across the socioeconomic spectrum, a majority were well educated and in paid work. There was an increase in recent injuries and in upper and lower joint pain scores post-programme. In addition, although the five-level EuroQoL questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) is now the preferred measure for cost-effectiveness analyses across Europe, baseline scores were high (0.93), suggesting a ceiling effect for QALYs. CONCLUSION: Participation in EuroFIT led to improvements in physical activity, diet, body weight, and biomarkers of cardiometabolic health, but not in sedentary time at 12 months. Within-trial analysis suggests it is not cost-effective in the short term for QALYs due to a ceiling effect in quality of life. Nevertheless, decision-makers may consider the incremental cost for increase in steps worth the investment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN-81935608.

Cost-utility of maintained physical activity and physiotherapy in the management of distal arm pain: an economic evaluation of data from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Arm pain is common, costly to health services and society. Physiotherapy referral is standard management, and while awaiting treatment, advice is often given to rest, but the evidence base is weak. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of advice to remain active (AA) versus advice to rest (AR); and immediate physiotherapy (IP) versus usual care (waiting list) physiotherapy (UCP). METHODS: Twenty-six-week within-trial economic evaluation (538 participants aged ≥18 years randomized to usual care, i.e. AA (n = 178), AR (n = 182) or IP (n = 178). Regression analysis estimated differences in mean costs and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated. Primary analysis comprised the 193 patients with complete resource use (UK NHS perspective) and EQ-5D data. Sensitivity analysis investigated uncertainty. RESULTS: Baseline-adjusted cost differences were £88 [95% confidence interval (CI): -14, 201) AA versus AR; -£14 (95% CI: -87, 66) IP versus UCP. Baseline-adjusted QALY differences were 0.0095 (95% CI: -0.0140, 0.0344) AA versus AR; 0.0143 (95% CI: -0.0077, 0.0354) IP versus UCP. There was a 71 and 89% probability that AA (versus AR) and IP (versus UCP) were the most cost-effective option using a threshold of £20,000 per additional QALY.  The results were robust in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: The difference in mean costs and mean QALYs between the competing strategies was small and not statistically significant. However, decision-makers may judge that IP was not shown to be any more effective than delayed treatment, and was no more costly than delayed physiotherapy. AA is preferable to one that encourages AR, as it is more effective and more likely to be cost-effective than AR.

Behavioural activation versus guided self-help for depression in adults with learning disabilities: the BeatIt RCT.

BACKGROUND: Depression is the most prevalent mental health problem among people with learning disabilities. OBJECTIVE: The trial investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural activation for depression experienced by people with mild to moderate learning disabilities. The intervention was compared with a guided self-help intervention. DESIGN: A multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial, with follow-up at 4, 8 and 12 months post randomisation. There was a nested qualitative study. SETTING: Participants were recruited from community learning disability teams and services and from Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services in Scotland, England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were aged ≥ 18 years, with clinically significant depression, assessed using the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychiatric Disorders for use with Adults with Learning Disabilities. Participants had to be able to give informed consent and a supporter could accompany them to therapy. INTERVENTIONS: BeatIt was a manualised behavioural activation intervention, adapted for people with learning disabilities and depression. StepUp was an adapted guided self-help intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Glasgow Depression Scale for people with a Learning Disability (GDS-LD). Secondary outcomes included carer ratings of depressive symptoms and aggressiveness, self-reporting of anxiety symptoms, social support, activity and adaptive behaviour, relationships, quality of life (QoL) and life events, and resource and medication use. RESULTS: There were 161 participants randomised (BeatIt, n = 84; StepUp, n = 77). Participant retention was strong, with 141 completing the trial. Most completed therapy (BeatIt: 86%; StepUp: 82%). At baseline, 63% of BeatIt participants and 66% of StepUp participants were prescribed antidepressants. There was no statistically significant difference in GDS-LD scores between the StepUp (12.94 points) and BeatIt (11.91 points) groups at the 12-month primary outcome point. However, both groups improved during the trial. Other psychological and QoL outcomes followed a similar pattern. There were no treatment group differences, but there was improvement in both groups. There was no economic evidence suggesting that BeatIt may be more cost-effective than StepUp. However, treatment costs for both groups were approximately only 4-6.5% of the total support costs. Results of the qualitative research with participants, supporters and therapists were in concert with the quantitative findings. Both treatments were perceived as active interventions and were valued in terms of their structure, content and perceived impact. LIMITATIONS: A significant limitation was the absence of a treatment-as-usual (TAU) comparison. CONCLUSIONS: Primary and secondary outcomes, economic data and qualitative results all clearly demonstrate that there was no evidence for BeatIt being more effective than StepUp. FUTURE WORK: Comparisons against TAU are required to determine whether or not these interventions had any effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09753005. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Long-term weight loss trajectories following participation in a randomised controlled trial of a weight management programme for men delivered through professional football clubs: a longitudinal cohort study and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a major public health concern requiring innovative interventions that support people to lose weight and keep it off long term. However, weight loss maintenance remains a challenge and is under-researched, particularly in men. The Football Fans in Training (FFIT) programme engages men in weight management through their interest in football, and encourages them to incorporate small, incremental physical activity and dietary changes into daily life to support long-term weight loss maintenance. In 2011/12, a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of FFIT demonstrated effectiveness and cost-effectiveness at 12 months. The current study aimed to investigate long-term maintenance of weight loss, behavioural outcomes and lifetime cost-effectiveness following FFIT. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort study comprised 3.5-year follow-up of the 747 FFIT RCT participants. Men aged 35-65 years, BMI ≥ 28 kg/m2 at RCT baseline who consented to long-term follow-up (n = 665) were invited to participate: those in the FFIT Follow Up Intervention group (FFIT-FU-I) undertook FFIT in 2011 during the RCT; the FFIT Follow Up Comparison group (FFIT-FU-C) undertook FFIT in 2012 under routine (non-research) conditions. The primary outcome was objectively-measured weight loss (from baseline) at 3.5 years. Secondary outcomes included changes in self-reported physical activity and diet at 3.5 years. Cost-effectiveness was estimated at 3.5 years and over participants' lifetime. RESULTS: Of 665 men invited, 488 (73%; 65% of the 747 RCT participants) attended 3.5-year measurements. The FFIT-FU-I group sustained a mean weight loss of 2.90 kg (95% CI 1.78, 4.02; p < 0.001) 3.5 years after starting FFIT; 32.2% (75/233) weighed ≥5% less than baseline. The FFIT-FU-C group had lost 2.71 kg (1.65, 3.77; p < 0.001) at the 3.5-year measurements (2.5 years after starting FFIT); 31.8% (81/255) weighed ≥5% less than baseline. There were significant sustained improvements in self-reported physical activity and diet in both groups. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness of FFIT was £10,700-£15,300 per QALY gained at 3.5 years, and £1790-£2200 over participants' lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in FFIT under research and routine conditions leads to long-term weight loss and improvements in physical activity and diet. Investment in FFIT is likely to be cost-effective as part of obesity management strategies in countries where football is popular. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN32677491 , 20 October 2011.

Multimorbidity and Socioeconomic Deprivation in Primary Care Consultations.

PURPOSE: The influence of multimorbidity on the clinical encounter is poorly understood, especially in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation where burdensome multimorbidity is concentrated. The aim of the current study was to examine the effect of multimorbidity on general practice consultations, in areas of high and low deprivation. METHODS: We conducted secondary analyses of 659 video-recorded routine consultations involving 25 general practitioners (GPs) in deprived areas and 22 in affluent areas of Scotland. Patients rated the GP's empathy using the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure immediately after the consultation. Videos were analyzed using the Measure of Patient-Centered Communication. Multilevel, multi-regression analysis identified differences between the groups. RESULTS: In affluent areas, patients with multimorbidity received longer consultations than patients without multimorbidity (mean 12.8 minutes vs 9.3, respectively; P = .015), but this was not so in deprived areas (mean 9.9 minutes vs 10.0 respectively; P = .774). In affluent areas, patients with multimorbidity perceived their GP as more empathic (P = .009) than patients without multimorbidity; this difference was not found in deprived areas (P = .344). Video analysis showed that GPs in affluent areas were more attentive to the disease and illness experience in patients with multimorbidity (P < .031) compared with patients without multimorbidity. This was not the case in deprived areas (P = .727). CONCLUSIONS: In deprived areas, the greater need of patients with multimorbidity is not reflected in the longer consultation length, higher GP patient centeredness, and higher perceived GP empathy found in affluent areas. Action is required to redress this mismatch of need and service provision for patients with multimorbidity if health inequalities are to be narrowed rather than widened by primary care.

Management and prevalence of long-term conditions in primary health care for adults with intellectual disabilities compared with the general population: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, general practitioners/family physicians receive pay for performance on management of long-term conditions, according to best-practice indicators. METHOD: Management of long-term conditions was compared between 721 adults with intellectual disabilities and the general population (n = 764,672). Prevalence of long-term conditions was determined, and associated factors were investigated via logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Adults with intellectual disabilities received significantly poorer management of all long-term conditions on 38/57 (66.7%) indicators. Achievement was high (75.1%-100%) for only 19.6% of adults with intellectual disabilities, compared with 76.8% of the general population. Adults with intellectual disabilities had higher rates of epilepsy, psychosis, hypothyroidism, asthma, diabetes and heart failure. There were no clear associations with neighbourhood deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with intellectual disabilities receive poorer care, despite conditions being more prevalent. The imperative now is to find practical, implementable means of supporting the challenges that general practices face in delivering equitable care.

Demographic and practice factors predicting repeated non-attendance in primary care: a national retrospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Addressing the causes of low engagement in health care is a prerequisite for reducing health inequalities. People who miss multiple appointments are an under-researched group who might have substantial unmet health needs. Individual-level patterns of missed general practice appointments might thus provide a risk marker for vulnerability and poor health outcomes. We sought to ascertain the contributions of patient and practice factors to the likelihood of missing general practice appointments. METHODS: For this national retrospective cohort analysis, we extracted UK National Health Service general practice data that were routinely collected across Scotland between Sept 5, 2013, and Sept 5, 2016. We calculated the per-patient number of missed appointments from individual appointments and investigated the risk of missing a general practice appointment using a negative binomial model offset by number of appointments made. We then analysed the effect of patient-level factors (including age, sex, and socioeconomic status) and practice-level factors (including appointment availability and geographical location) on the risk of missing appointments. FINDINGS: The full dataset included information from 909 073 patients, of whom 550 083 were included in the analysis after processing. We observed that 104 461 (19·0%) patients missed more than two appointments in the 3 year study period. After controlling for the number of appointments made, patterns of non-attendance could be differentiated, with patients who were aged 16-30 years (relative risk ratio [RRR] 1·21, 95% CI 1·19-1·23) or older than 90 years (2·20, 2·09-2·29), and of low socioeconomic status (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation decile 1: RRR 2·27, 2·22-2·31) significantly more likely to miss multiple appointments. Men missed fewer appointments overall than women, but were somewhat more likely to miss appointments in the adjusted model (1·05, 1·04-1·06). Practice factors also substantially affected attendance patterns, with urban practices in affluent areas that typically have appointment waiting times of 2-3 days the most likely to have patients who serially miss appointments. The combination of both patient and practice factors to predict appointments missed gave a higher pseudo R2 value (0·66) than models using either group of factors separately (patients only R2=0·54; practice only R2=0·63). INTERPRETATION: The findings that both patient and practice characteristics contribute to non-attendance of general practice appointments raise important questions for both the management of patients who miss multiple appointments and the effectiveness of existing strategies that aim to increase attendance. Addressing these issues should lead to improvements in provision of services and public health. FUNDING: Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office and Data Sharing and Linkage Service of the Scottish Government.

The Glasgow 'Deep End' Links Worker Study Protocol: a quasi-experimental evaluation of a social prescribing intervention for patients with complex needs in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation.

BACKGROUND: 'Social prescribing' can be used to link patients with complex needs to local (non-medical) community resources. The 'Deep End' Links Worker Programme is being tested in general practices serving deprived populations in Glasgow, Scotland. OBJECTIVES: To assess the implementation and impact of the intervention at patient and practice levels. METHODS: Study design: Quasi-experimental outcome evaluation with embedded theory-driven process evaluation in 15 practices randomized to receive the intervention or not. Complex intervention: Comprising a practice development fund, a practice-based community links practitioner (CLP), and management support. It aims to link patients to local community organizations and enhance practices' social prescribing capacity. Study population: For intervention practices, staff and adult patients involved in referral to a CLP, and a sample of community organization staff. For comparison practices, all staff and a random sample of adult patients. Sample size: 286 intervention and 484 comparator patients. Outcomes: Primary patient outcome is health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L). Secondary patient outcomes include capacity, depression/anxiety, self-esteem, and healthcare utilization. Practice outcome measures include team climate, job satisfaction, morale, and burnout. Outcomes measured at baseline and 9 months. Processes: Barriers and facilitators to implementation of the programme and possible mechanisms through which outcomes are achieved. Analysis plan: For outcome, intention-to-treat analysis with differences between groups tested using mixed-effects regression models. For process, case-study approach with thematic analysis. DISCUSSION: This evaluation will provide new evidence about the implementation and impact of social prescribing by general practices serving patients with complex needs living in areas of high deprivation.

Comparison of behavioural activation with guided self-help for treatment of depression in adults with intellectual disabilities: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Psychological therapies are first-line interventions for depression, but existing provision is not accessible for many adults with intellectual disabilities. We investigated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a behavioural activation intervention (BeatIt) for people with intellectual disabilities and depression. BeatIt was compared with a guided self-help intervention (StepUp). METHODS: We did a multicentre, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial with follow-up at 4 months and 12 months after randomisation. Participants aged 18 years or older, with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities and clinically significant depression were recruited from health and social care services in the UK. The primary outcome was the Glasgow Depression Scale for people with a Learning Disability (GDS-LD) score at 12 months. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ISCRTN, number ISRCTN09753005. FINDINGS: Between Aug 8, 2013, and Sept 1, 2015, 161 participants were randomly assigned (84 to BeatIt; 77 to StepUp); 141 (88%) participants completed the trial. No group differences were found in the effects of BeatIt and StepUp based on GDS-LD scores at 12 months (12·03 [SD 7·99] GDS-LD points for BeatIt vs 12·43 [SD 7·64] GDS-LD points for StepUp; mean difference 0·26 GDS-LD points [95% CI -2·18 to 2·70]; p=0·833). Within-group improvements in GDS-LD scores occurred in both groups at 12 months (BeatIt, mean change -4·2 GDS-LD points [95% CI -6·0 to -2·4], p<0·0001; StepUp, mean change -4·5 GDS-LD points [-6·2 to -2·7], p<0·0001), with large effect sizes (BeatIt, 0·590 [95% CI 0·337-0·844]; StepUp, 0·627 [0·380-0·873]). BeatIt was not cost-effective when compared with StepUp, although the economic analyses indicated substantial uncertainty. Treatment costs were only approximately 3·6-6·8% of participants' total support costs. No treatment-related or trial-related adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: This study is, to our knowledge, the first large randomised controlled trial assessing individual psychological interventions for people with intellectual disabilities and mental health problems. These findings show that there is no evidence that BeatIt is more effective than StepUp; both are active and potentially effective interventions. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Birth weight differences between those offered financial voucher incentives for verified smoking cessation and control participants enrolled in the Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CPIT), employing an intuitive approach and a Complier Average Causal Effects (CACE) analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CPIT), which offered financial incentives for smoking cessation during pregnancy showed a clinically and statistically significant improvement in cessation. However, infant birth weight was not seen to be affected. This study re-examines birth weight using an intuitive and a complier average causal effects (CACE) method to uncover important information missed by intention-to-treat analysis. METHODS: CPIT offered financial incentives up to £400 to pregnant smokers to quit. With incentives, 68 women (23.1%) were confirmed non-smokers at primary outcome, compared to 25 (8.7%) without incentives, a difference of 14.3% (Fisher test, p < 0.0001). For this analysis, randomised groups were split into three theoretical sub-groups: independent quitters - quit without incentives, hardened smokers - could not quit even with incentives and potential quitters - required the addition of financial incentives to quit. Viewed in this way, the overall birth weight gain with incentives is attributable only to potential quitters. We compared an intuitive approach to a CACE analysis. RESULTS: Mean birth weight of potential quitters in the incentives intervention group (who therefore quit) was 3338 g compared with potential quitters in the control group (who did not quit) 3193 g. The difference attributable to incentives, was 3338 - 3193 = 145 g (95% CI -617, +803). The mean difference in birth weight between the intervention and control groups was 21 g, and the difference in the proportion who managed to quit was 14.3%. Since the intervention consisted of the offer of incentives to quit smoking, the intervention was received by all women in the intervention group. However, "compliance" was successfully quitting with incentives, and the CACE analysis yielded an identical result, causal birth weight increase 21 g ÷ 0.143 = 145 g. CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers have great difficulty giving pregnant women money to stop smoking. This study indicates that a small clinically insignificant improvement in average birth weight is likely to hide an important clinically significant increase in infants born to pregnant smokers who want to stop but cannot achieve smoking cessation without the addition of financial voucher incentives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN87508788 . Registered on 1 September 2011.