Cost-utility analysis of Social Stories™ for children with autism spectrum disorder in mainstream primary schools: results from a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: One in 57 children are diagnosed with autism in the UK, and the estimated cost for supporting these children in education is substantial. Social Stories™ is a promising and widely used intervention for supporting children with autism in schools and families. It is believed that Social Stories™ can provide meaningful social information to children that can improve social understanding and may reduce anxiety. However, no economic evaluation of Social Stories has been conducted. AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of Social Stories through Autism Spectrum Social Stories in Schools Trial 2, a multi-site, pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial. METHOD: Children with autism who were aged 4-11 years were recruited and randomised (N = 249). Costs measured from the societal perspective and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) measured by the EQ-5D-Y-3L proxy were collected at baseline and at 6-month follow-up for primary analysis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated, and the uncertainty around incremental cost-effectiveness ratios was captured by non-parametric bootstrapping. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the primary findings. RESULTS: Social Stories is likely to result in a small cost savings (-£191 per child, 95% CI -767.7 to 337.7) and maintain similar QALY improvements compared with usual care. The probability of Social Stories being a preferred option is 75% if society is willing to pay £20 000 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analysis results aligned with the main study outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care, Social Stories did not lead to an increase in costs and maintained similar QALY improvements for primary-aged children with autism.

An economic evaluation of universal and targeted case-finding strategies for identifying antenatal depression: a model-based analysis comparing common case-finding instruments.

Half of women with depression in the perinatal period are not identified in routine care, and missed cases reflect inequalities in other areas of maternity care. Case finding (screening) for depression in pregnant women may be a cost-effective strategy to improve identification, and targeted case finding directs finite resources towards the greatest need. We compared the cost-effectiveness of three case-finding strategies: no case finding, universal (all pregnant women), and targeted (only pregnant women with risk factors for antenatal depression, i.e. history of anxiety/depression, age < 20 years, and adverse life events). A decision tree model was developed to represent case finding (at around 20 weeks gestation) and subsequent treatment for antenatal depression (up to 40 weeks gestation). Costs include case finding and treatment. Health benefits are measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The sensitivity and specificity of case-finding instruments and prevalence and severity of antenatal depression were estimated from a cohort study of pregnant women. Other model parameters were derived from published literature and expert consultation. The most cost-effective case-finding strategy was a two-stage strategy comprising the Whooley questions followed by the PHQ-9. The mean costs were £52 (universal), £61 (no case finding), and £62 (targeted case finding). Both case-finding strategies improve health compared with no case finding. Universal case finding is cost-saving. Costs associated with targeted case finding are similar to no case finding, with greater health gains, although targeted case finding is not cost-effective compared with universal case finding. Universal case finding for antenatal depression is cost-saving compared to no case finding and more cost-effective than targeted case finding.

An economic evaluation of targeted case-finding strategies for identifying postnatal depression: A model-based analysis comparing common case-finding instruments.

BACKGROUND: Half of women with postnatal depression (PND) are not identified in routine care. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of PND case-finding in women with risk factors for PND. METHODS: A decision tree was developed to represent the one-year costs and health outcomes associated with case-finding and treatment for PND. The sensitivity and specificity of case-finding instruments, and prevalence and severity of PND, for women with ≥1 PND risk factor were estimated from a cohort of postnatal women. Risk factors were history of anxiety/depression, age < 20 years, and adverse life events. Other model parameters were derived from published literature and expert consultation. Case-finding for high-risk women only was compared with no case-finding and universal case-finding. RESULTS: More than half of the cohort had one or more PND risk factor (57.8 %; 95 % CI 52.7 %-62.7 %). The most cost-effective case-finding strategy was the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale with a cut-off of ≥10 (EPDS-10). Among high-risk women, there is a high probability that EPDS-10 case-finding for PND is cost-effective compared to no case-finding (78.5 % at a threshold of £20,000/QALY), with an ICER of £8146/QALY gained. Universal case-finding is even more cost-effective at £2945/QALY gained (versus no case-finding). There is a greater health improvement with universal rather than targeted case-finding. LIMITATIONS: The model includes costs and health benefits for mothers in the first year postpartum, the broader (e.g. families, societal) and long-term impacts are also important. CONCLUSIONS: Universal PND case-finding is more cost-effective than targeted case-finding which itself is more cost-effective than not case-finding.

Routinely used interventions to improve attachment in infants and young children: a national survey and two systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Attachment refers to an infant's innate tendency to seek comfort from their caregiver. Research shows that attachment is important in promoting healthy social and emotional development. Many parenting interventions have been developed to improve attachment outcomes for children. However, numerous interventions used in routine practice have a limited evidence base, meaning that we cannot be sure if they are helpful or harmful. OBJECTIVES: This research aimed to conduct a large-scale survey to identify what interventions are being used in UK services to improve child attachment; conduct a systematic review to evaluate the evidence for parenting attachment interventions; and develop recommendations for future research and practice. DESIGN AND METHODS: We worked closely with our Expert Reference Group to plan a large-scale survey focused on relevant UK services. We then conducted two systematic reviews. One searched for all randomised controlled trial evidence for any attachment parenting intervention. The second searched for all research for the top 10 routinely used interventions identified from the survey. RESULTS: The survey collected 625 responses covering 734 UK services. The results identified the 10 most commonly used interventions. The responses showed a limited use of validated measures and a wide variety of definitions of attachment. For the first review, seven studies were included from 2516 identified records. These were combined with results from previous reviews conducted by the team. Meta-analyses showed that, overall, parenting interventions are effective in reducing disorganised attachment (pooled odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.77) and increasing secure attachment (pooled odds ratio 1.85, 95% confidence interval 1.36 to 2.52). The second review searched the literature for the top 10 routinely used interventions identified by the survey; 61 studies were included from 1198 identified records. The results showed that many of the most commonly used interventions in UK services have a weak evidence base and those with the strongest evidence base are not as widely used. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for better links between research and practice to ensure that interventions offered to families are safe and effective. Possible reasons for the disparity include the cost and accessibility of training. There is also a need for improved understanding by professionals regarding the meaning of attachment. LIMITATIONS: Although the survey had good geographical spread, most respondents were based in England. For review 2 we were unable to access a large number of papers; however, we conducted extensive reference checking to account for this. FUTURE WORK: There is a need for robust research to test the efficacy of routinely used attachment interventions. Research could also explore why routinely used interventions are not consistently subject to thorough evaluation; how to embed dissemination, cost-effectiveness, fidelity and sustainability into research; and how to keep clinical practice up to date with research developments. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019137362. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Attachment refers to an infant's natural instinct to seek comfort from their main carers. There are four ways in which infants show attachment ('attachment patterns'). These are known as secure, insecure-avoidant, insecure-resistant and disorganised. Secure attachment usually occurs with consistent and responsive parenting/caregiving and is linked with positive social and emotional child development. Inconsistent, neglectful or abusive parenting/caregiving can lead to problems with attachment, including disorganised attachment, and is linked to poorer outcomes. Parenting support, education and therapies help parents improve infant attachment and their child's outcomes. We surveyed UK services to see what they offered families with attachment problems. A total of 734 UK services responded. This identified 10 therapies or support packages most commonly offered to parents. We checked what research had been done on these. We found very little. We found 61 studies of support packages with quite good evidence, but these were generally not ones offered by UK services. We also looked in detail at research for all types of support/therapies to improve attachment. We looked for the best research (called 'randomised controlled trials'); 26 studies had tested therapies to see if they improved secure attachment and 20 had tested whether or not they improved (i.e. reduced) disorganised attachment. We found that these therapies or support packages are good at increasing secure attachment and improving disorganised attachment. Mostly they did this by helping parents/caregivers improve caregiving and particularly how sensitive and responsive they are to their child and their needs. Currently, practice is not following research, and research is not being done to properly evaluate current practice. We need to improve the evidence and the way it links to practice, including how those organising and paying for services are made aware of up-to-date research to make sure that the best treatments are available. High-quality training for staff is also important.

One session treatment (OST) is equivalent to multi-session cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in children with specific phobias (ASPECT): results from a national non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: 5%-10% children and young people (CYP) experience specific phobias that impact daily functioning. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) is recommended but has limitations. One Session Treatment (OST), a briefer alternative incorporating CBT principles, has demonstrated efficacy. The Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial (ASPECT) investigated the non-inferiority of OST compared to multi-session CBT for treating specific phobias in CYP. METHODS: ASPECT was a pragmatic, multi-center, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial in 26 CAMHS sites, three voluntary agency services, and one university-based CYP well-being service. CYP aged 7-16 years with specific phobia were randomized to receive OST or CBT. Clinical non-inferiority and a nested cost-effectiveness evaluation was assessed 6-months post-randomization using the Behavioural Avoidance Task (BAT). Secondary outcome measures included the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule, Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Revised Children's Anxiety Depression Scale, goal-based outcome measure, and EQ-5DY and CHU-9D, collected blind at baseline and six-months. RESULTS: 268 CYPs were randomized to OST (n = 134) or CBT (n = 134). Mean BAT scores at 6 months were similar across groups in both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations (CBT: 7.1 (ITT, n = 76), 7.4 (PP, n = 57), OST: 7.4 (ITT, n = 73), 7.6 (PP, n = 56), on the standardized scale-adjusted mean difference for CBT compared to OST -0.123, 95% CI -0.449 to 0.202 (ITT), mean difference -0.204, 95% CI -0.579 to 0.171 (PP)). These findings were wholly below the standardized non-inferiority limit of 0.4, suggesting that OST is non-inferior to CBT. No between-group differences were found on secondary outcomes. OST marginally decreased mean service use costs and maintained similar mean Quality Adjusted Life Years compared to CBT. CONCLUSIONS: One Session Treatment has similar clinical effectiveness to CBT for specific phobias in CYP and may be a cost-saving alternative.

One-session treatment compared with multisession CBT in children aged 7-16 years with specific phobias: the ASPECT non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Up to 10% of children and young people have a specific phobia that can significantly affect their mental health, development and daily functioning. Cognitive-behavioural therapy-based interventions remain the dominant treatment, but limitations to their provision warrant investigation into low-intensity alternatives. One-session treatment is one such alternative that shares cognitive-behavioural therapy principles but has a shorter treatment period. OBJECTIVE: This research investigated the non-inferiority of one-session treatment to cognitive-behavioural therapy for treating specific phobias in children and young people. The acceptability and cost-effectiveness of one-session treatment were examined. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, with embedded economic and qualitative evaluations. SETTINGS: There were 26 sites, including 12 NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were aged 7-16 years and had a specific phobia defined in accordance with established international clinical criteria. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to receive one-session treatment or usual-care cognitive-behavioural therapy, and were stratified according to age and phobia severity. Outcome assessors remained blind to treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Behavioural Avoidance Task at 6 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule, Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale, a goal-based outcome measure, Child Health Utility 9D, EuroQol-5 Dimensions Youth version and resource usage. Treatment fidelity was assessed using the Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Scale for Children and Young People and the One-Session Treatment Rating Scale. RESULTS: A total of 274 participants were recruited, with 268 participants randomised to one-session treatment (n = 134) or cognitive-behavioural therapy (n = 134). A total of 197 participants contributed some data, with 149 participants in the intention-to-treat analysis and 113 in the per-protocol analysis. Mean Behavioural Avoidance Task scores at 6 months were similar across treatment groups when both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were applied [cognitive-behavioural therapy: 7.1 (intention to treat), 7.4 (per protocol); one-session treatment: 7.4 (intention to treat), 7.6 (per protocol); on the standardised scale adjusted mean difference for cognitive-behavioural therapy compared with one-session treatment -0.123, 95% confidence interval -0.449 to 0.202 (intention to treat), mean difference -0.204, 95% confidence interval -0.579 to 0.171 (per protocol)]. These findings were wholly below the standardised non-inferiority limit of 0.4, which suggests that one-session treatment is non-inferior to cognitive-behavioural therapy. No between-group differences in secondary outcome measures were found. The health economics evaluation suggested that, compared with cognitive-behavioural therapy, one-session treatment marginally decreased the mean service use costs and maintained similar mean quality-adjusted life-year improvement. Nested qualitative evaluation found one-session treatment to be considered acceptable by those who received it, their parents/guardians and clinicians. No adverse events occurred as a result of phobia treatment. LIMITATIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic meant that 48 children and young people could not complete the primary outcome measure. Service waiting times resulted in some participants not starting therapy before follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: One-session treatment for specific phobia in UK-based child mental health treatment centres is as clinically effective as multisession cognitive-behavioural therapy and highly likely to be cost-saving. Future work could involve improving the implementation of one-session treatment through training and commissioning of improved care pathways. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN19883421. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A phobia is an intense, ongoing fear of an everyday object or situation. The phobia causes distress and the person with the phobia avoids that object or situation. Many children and young people have phobias that affect their daily lives. Cognitive­behavioural therapy helps by changing what people do or think when they have a phobia and is the most common treatment approach. However, cognitive­behavioural therapy is expensive, takes time and is not always easy to get. Different treatments are needed to help children and young people with specific phobias. One such therapy is one-session treatment, which works in similar ways to cognitive­behavioural therapy but takes place over one main 3-hour session. Our study, called ASPECT (Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial), compared these two treatments to examine whether or not one-session treatment is as effective as cognitive­behavioural therapy. Overall, 274 children and young people aged 7­16 years from 26 sites nationally helped with our research, of whom 268 received either cognitive­behavioural therapy or one-session treatment. The results at 6 months found that one-session treatment and cognitive­behavioural therapy worked as well as each other for treating phobias in children and young people. We also found evidence that one-session treatment is cheaper than cognitive­behavioural therapy. We spoke with children and young people, their parents/guardians and the therapists of the single-session treatment, and we found one-session treatment to be acceptable for their needs. Future research could explore how to make one-session treatment more easily available for children and young people with specific phobias because it can save time and money, and works just as well as cognitive­behavioural therapy.

Cost and effectiveness of one session treatment (OST) for children and young people with specific phobias compared to multi-session cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT): results from a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, around 93,000 (0.8%) children and young people (CYP) are experiencing specific phobias that have a substantial impact on daily life. The current gold-standard treatment-multi-session cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) - is effective at reducing specific phobia severity; however, CBT is time consuming, requires specialist CBT therapists, and is often at great cost and limited availability. A briefer variant of CBT called one session treatment (OST) has been found to offer similar clinical effectiveness for specific phobia as multi-session CBT. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of OST compared to multi-session CBT for CYP with specific phobias through the Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial (ASPECT), a two-arm, pragmatic, multi-centre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. METHODS: CYP aged seven to 16 years with specific phobias were recruited nationally via Health and Social Care pathways, remotely randomised to the intervention group (OST) or the control group (CBT-based therapies) and analysed (n = 267). Resource use based on NHS and personal social services perspective and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) measured by EQ-5D-Y were collected at baseline and at six-month follow-up. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, and non-parametric bootstrapping was conducted to capture the uncertainty around the ICER estimates. The results were presented on a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC). A set of sensitivity analyses (including taking a societal perspective) were conducted to assess the robustness of the primary findings. RESULTS: After adjustment and bootstrapping, on average CYP in the OST group incurred less costs (incremental cost was -£302.96 (95% CI -£598.86 to -£28.61)) and maintained similar improvement in QALYs (QALYs gained 0.002 (95% CI - 0.004 to 0.008)). The CEAC shows that the probability of OST being cost-effective was over 95% across all the WTP thresholds. Results of a set of sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Compared to CBT, OST produced a reduction in costs and maintained similar improvement in QALYs. Results from both primary and sensitivity analyses suggested that OST was highly likely to be cost saving. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN19883421 (30/11/2016).

Using routine outcome measures as clinical process tools: Maximising the therapeutic yield in the IAPT programme when working remotely.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to investigate the administration and use of routine outcome monitoring session by session in the context of improving guided-self-help interventions when delivered remotely at Step 2 care in the English Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services. DESIGN: Qualitative research using recordings of telephone-treatment sessions. METHOD: Participants (11 patients and 11 practitioners) were recruited from four nationally funded IAPT services and one-third sector organisation commissioned to deliver Step 2 IAPT services, in England. Data collection took place prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Transcripts of telephone-treatment sessions were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: (1) lack of consistency in the administration of outcome measures (e.g. inconsistent wording); (2) outcome measures administered as a stand-alone inflexible task (e.g. mechanical administration); (3) outcome measures as impersonal numbers (e.g. summarising, categorising and comparing total scores); and (4) missed opportunities to use outcome measures therapeutically (e.g. lack of therapeutic use of item and total scores). CONCLUSIONS: The administration of outcome measures needs to ensure validity and reliability. Therapeutic yield from session-by-session outcome measures could be enhanced by focusing on three main areas: (1) adopting a collaborative conversational approach, (2) maximising the use of total and items scores and (3) integrating outcome measures with in-session treatment decisions. Shifting the perception of outcome measures as impersonal numbers to being process clinical tools ensures a personalised delivery of psychological interventions and has the potential to enhance engagement from practitioners and patients what may reduce drop-out rates and improve clinical outcomes.

Behavioural Activation for Social IsoLation (BASIL+) trial (Behavioural activation to mitigate depression and loneliness among older people with long-term conditions): Protocol for a fully-powered pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Depression is a leading mental health problem worldwide. People with long-term conditions are at increased risk of experiencing depression. The COVID-19 pandemic led to strict social restrictions being imposed across the UK population. Social isolation can have negative consequences on the physical and mental wellbeing of older adults. In the Behavioural Activation in Social IsoLation (BASIL+) trial we will test whether a brief psychological intervention (based on Behavioural Activation), delivered remotely, can mitigate depression and loneliness in older adults with long-term conditions during isolation. METHODS: We will conduct a two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial across several research sites, to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the BASIL+ intervention. Participants will be recruited via participating general practices across England and Wales. Participants must be aged ≥65 with two or more long-term conditions, or a condition that may indicate they are within a 'clinically extremely vulnerable' group in relation to COVID-19, and have scored ≥5 on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9), to be eligible for inclusion. Randomisation will be 1:1, stratified by research site. Intervention participants will receive up to eight intervention sessions delivered remotely by trained BASIL+ Support Workers and supported by a self-help booklet. Control participants will receive usual care, with additional signposting to reputable sources of self-help and information, including advice on keeping mentally and physically well. A qualitative process evaluation will also be undertaken to explore the acceptability of the BASIL+ intervention, as well as barriers and enablers to integrating the intervention into participants' existing health and care support, and the impact of the intervention on participants' mood and general wellbeing in the context of the COVID-19 restrictions. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with intervention participants, participant's caregivers/supportive others and BASIL+ Support Workers. Outcome data will be collected at one, three, and 12 months post-randomisation. Clinical and cost-effectiveness will be evaluated. The primary outcome is depressive symptoms at the three-month follow up, measured by the PHQ9. Secondary outcomes include loneliness, social isolation, anxiety, quality of life, and a bespoke health services use questionnaire. DISCUSSION: This study is the first large-scale trial evaluating a brief Behavioural Activation intervention in this population, and builds upon the results of a successful external pilot trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov identifier ISRCTN63034289, registered on 5th February 2021.

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.

Can We Prevent Depression in At-Risk Older Adults Using Self-Help? The UK SHARD Trial of Behavioral Activation.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of established depression is the dominant approach to care of older adults, but prevention holds much promise. Self-help interventions are a feasible preventive approach, since they are scalable and low cost. There are few trials in this area. Behavioral Activation (BA) is a credible candidate psychological approach, which has been shown to work in therapist led care but not been trialled in a self-help form. AIM: To test the effectiveness of an unguided self-help intervention based on BA for older adults. METHODS: We compared a self-help intervention based on BA for older people (n = 172) to usual care (n = 160) in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Outcomes were depression status and severity (PHQ9) and health related quality of life (SF12). The primary timepoint of the primary outcome was depression at 4 months, with longer term follow up at 12 months to test sustained impact of the primary outcome. RESULTS: At 4 months adjusted PHQ-9 scores for BA self-help were 0.79 lower (95% CI: -1.70 to 0.13; p = 0.09) and the proportion of participants with case-level depression was significantly reduced (BA 31/137 (22.6%) versus usual care 41/141 (29.1%); Odds Ratio 0.48; 95% CI: 0.26-0.92; p = 0.03). There was no PHQ-9 difference at 12 months or for health related quality of life at any point (4 or 12 months). DISCUSSION: Self-help using BA for older people at risk of depression is a feasible and scalable intervention with potential short-term benefits in preventing depression.

Behavioural activation to prevent depression and loneliness among socially isolated older people with long-term conditions: The BASIL COVID-19 pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Older adults, including those with long-term conditions (LTCs), are vulnerable to social isolation. They are likely to have become more socially isolated during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, often due to advice to "shield" to protect them from infection. This places them at particular risk of depression and loneliness. There is a need for brief scalable psychosocial interventions to mitigate the psychological impacts of social isolation. Behavioural activation (BA) is a credible candidate intervention, but a trial is needed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook an external pilot parallel randomised trial (ISRCTN94091479) designed to test recruitment, retention and engagement with, and the acceptability and preliminary effects of the intervention. Participants aged ≥65 years with 2 or more LTCs were recruited in primary care and randomised by computer and with concealed allocation between June and October 2020. BA was offered to intervention participants (n = 47), and control participants received usual primary care (n = 49). Assessment of outcome was made blind to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was depression severity (measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9)). We also measured health-related quality of life (measured by the Short Form (SF)-12v2 mental component scale (MCS) and physical component scale (PCS)), anxiety (measured by the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7)), perceived social and emotional loneliness (measured by the De Jong Gierveld Scale: 11-item loneliness scale). Outcome was measured at 1 and 3 months. The mean age of participants was aged 74 years (standard deviation (SD) 5.5) and they were mostly White (n = 92, 95.8%), and approximately two-thirds of the sample were female (n = 59, 61.5%). Remote recruitment was possible, and 45/47 (95.7%) randomised to the intervention completed 1 or more sessions (median 6 sessions) out of 8. A total of 90 (93.8%) completed the 1-month follow-up, and 86 (89.6%) completed the 3-month follow-up, with similar rates for control (1 month: 45/49 and 3 months 44/49) and intervention (1 month: 45/47and 3 months: 42/47) follow-up. Between-group comparisons were made using a confidence interval (CI) approach, and by adjusting for the covariate of interest at baseline. At 1 month (the primary clinical outcome point), the median number of completed sessions for people receiving the BA intervention was 3, and almost all participants were still receiving the BA intervention. The between-group comparison for the primary clinical outcome at 1 month was an adjusted between-group mean difference of -0.50 PHQ-9 points (95% CI -2.01 to 1.01), but only a small number of participants had completed the intervention at this point. At 3 months, the PHQ-9 adjusted mean difference (AMD) was 0.19 (95% CI -1.36 to 1.75). When we examined loneliness, the adjusted between-group difference in the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale at 1 month was 0.28 (95% CI -0.51 to 1.06) and at 3 months -0.87 (95% CI -1.56 to -0.18), suggesting evidence of benefit of the intervention at this time point. For anxiety, the GAD adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 0.20 (-1.33, 1.73) and at 3 months 0.31 (-1.08, 1.70). For the SF-12 (physical component score), the adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 0.34 (-4.17, 4.85) and at 3 months 0.11 (-4.46, 4.67). For the SF-12 (mental component score), the adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 1.91 (-2.64, 5.15) and at 3 months 1.26 (-2.64, 5.15). Participants who withdrew had minimal depressive symptoms at entry. There were no adverse events. The Behavioural Activation in Social Isolation (BASIL) study had 2 main limitations. First, we found that the intervention was still being delivered at the prespecified primary outcome point, and this fed into the design of the main trial where a primary outcome of 3 months is now collected. Second, this was a pilot trial and was not designed to test between-group differences with high levels of statistical power. Type 2 errors are likely to have occurred, and a larger trial is now underway to test for robust effects and replicate signals of effectiveness in important secondary outcomes such as loneliness. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that BA is a credible intervention to mitigate the psychological impacts of COVID-19 isolation for older adults. We demonstrated that it is feasible to undertake a trial of BA. The intervention can be delivered remotely and at scale, but should be reserved for older adults with evidence of depressive symptoms. The significant reduction in loneliness is unlikely to be a chance finding, and replication will be explored in a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN94091479.

Cost-effectiveness of feedback-informed psychological treatment: Evidence from the IAPT-FIT trial.

BACKGROUND: Feedback-informed treatment (FIT) involves using computerized routine outcome monitoring technology to alert therapists to cases that are not responding well to psychotherapy, prompting them to identify and resolve obstacles to improvement. In this study, we present the first health economic evaluation of FIT, compared to usual care, to enable decision makers to judge whether this approach represents a good investment for health systems. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial included 2233 patients clustered within 77 therapists who were randomly assigned to a FIT group (n = 1176) or a usual care control group (n = 1057). Treatment response was monitored using patient-reported depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7) measures. Therapists in the FIT group had access to a computerized algorithm that alerted them to cases that were "not on track", compared to normative clinical data. Health service costs included the cost of training therapists to use FIT and the cost of therapy sessions in each arm. The incremental cost-effectiveness of FIT was assessed relative to usual care, using multilevel modelling. RESULTS: FIT was associated with an increased probability of reliable symptomatic improvement by 8.09 percentage points (95% CI: 4.16%-12.03%) which was statistically significant. The incremental cost of FIT was £15.17 (95% CI: £6.95 to £37.29) per patient and was not statistically significant. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per additional case of reliable improvement was £187.4 (95% CI: £126.7 to £501.5); this confidence interval shows that the relative cost-effectiveness is between FIT being a dominant strategy (i.e. more effective and also cost-saving) to FIT being more effective at a modest incremental cost to the health system. CONCLUSIONS: The FIT strategy increases the probability of reliable improvement in routine clinical practice and may be associated with a small (but uncertain) incremental cost. FIT is likely to be a cost-effective strategy for mental health services.

Interventions for adults with a history of complex traumatic events: the INCiTE mixed-methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: People with a history of complex traumatic events typically experience trauma and stressor disorders and additional mental comorbidities. It is not known if existing evidence-based treatments are effective and acceptable for this group of people. OBJECTIVE: To identify candidate psychological and non-pharmacological treatments for future research. DESIGN: Mixed-methods systematic review. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years with a history of complex traumatic events. INTERVENTIONS: Psychological interventions versus control or active control; pharmacological interventions versus placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, common mental health problems and attrition. DATA SOURCES: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1937 onwards); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (from inception); EMBASE (1974 to 2017 week 16); International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 onwards); MEDLINE and MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (1946 to present); Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress (PILOTS) (1987 onwards); PsycINFO (1806 to April week 2 2017); and Science Citation Index (1900 onwards). Searches were conducted between April and August 2017. REVIEW METHODS: Eligible studies were singly screened and disagreements were resolved at consensus meetings. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and a bespoke version of a quality appraisal checklist used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. A meta-analysis was conducted across all populations for each intervention category and for population subgroups. Moderators of effectiveness were assessed using metaregression and a component network meta-analysis. A qualitative synthesis was undertaken to summarise the acceptability of interventions with the relevance of findings assessed by the GRADE-CERQual checklist. RESULTS: One hundred and four randomised controlled trials and nine non-randomised controlled trials were included. For the qualitative acceptability review, 4324 records were identified and nine studies were included. The population subgroups were veterans, childhood sexual abuse victims, war affected, refugees and domestic violence victims. Psychological interventions were superior to the control post treatment for reducing post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms (standardised mean difference -0.90, 95% confidence interval -1.14 to -0.66; number of trials = 39) and also for associated symptoms of depression, but not anxiety. Trauma-focused therapies were the most effective interventions across all populations for post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Multicomponent and trauma-focused interventions were effective for negative self-concept. Phase-based approaches were also superior to the control for post-traumatic stress disorder and depression and showed the most benefit for managing emotional dysregulation and interpersonal problems. Only antipsychotic medication was effective for reducing post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms; medications were not effective for mental comorbidities. Eight qualitative studies were included. Interventions were more acceptable if service users could identify benefits and if they were delivered in ways that accommodated their personal and social needs. LIMITATIONS: Assessments about long-term effectiveness of interventions were not possible. Studies that included outcomes related to comorbid psychiatric states, such as borderline personality disorder, and populations from prisons and humanitarian crises were under-represented. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based psychological interventions are effective and acceptable post treatment for reducing post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and depression and anxiety in people with complex trauma. These interventions were less effective in veterans and had less of an impact on symptoms associated with complex post-traumatic stress disorder. FUTURE WORK: Definitive trials of phase-based versus non-phase-based interventions with long-term follow-up for post-traumatic stress disorder and associated mental comorbidities. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017055523. 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. 24, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Traumatic events that happen often and that are difficult to escape from, such as childhood abuse, are sometimes known as complex traumatic events. People who have a history of complex traumatic events can develop post-traumatic stress disorder and can also suffer from other mental health problems. It is not known if people who experience complex traumatic events can benefit from existing psychological treatments or medications, or if these treatments are acceptable. This review aimed to find out which treatments are most effective and acceptable for mental health problems in people with complex trauma histories, and to identify the frontrunners for future research. We searched electronic databases for evidence about treatment effectiveness and acceptability in adults with a history of complex traumatic events. We found 104 randomised controlled trials and nine non-randomised controlled trials that tested the effectiveness of psychological and/or medications, as well as nine studies that used interviews and focus groups to describe the acceptability of psychological treatments. The studies were split across different populations that included veterans, refugees, people who had experienced childhood sexual abuse and domestic violence, and civilians affected by war. We found that psychological treatments that focused on improving symptoms associated with trauma were effective for reducing post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and depression across all populations and fewer people dropped out of these treatments, suggesting that they are acceptable. However, trauma-focused treatments were less effective among veterans than among other groups and less effective for reducing other psychological symptoms commonly experienced by people with complex trauma histories. Phased treatments that first start with helping people to feel safe before focusing on trauma symptoms might be beneficial for both post-traumatic stress disorder and additional psychological symptoms. There was little evidence that medications, other than antipsychotics, were effective for post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. Future work should test if phased treatments are more effective than non-phased treatments over the long term.

Cost-effectiveness of brief structured interventions to discontinue long-term benzodiazepine use: an economic analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial.

Background: In Spain, long-term use of benzodiazepine is prevalent in 7% of the population; however, this longer-term use lacks clinical benefits, costs €90million per year and side-effects further add extra cost through adverse health outcomes. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of primary care services stepped dose reduction of long-term benzodiazepines using either Structured Interview with Follow-up (SIF) or Without Follow-up (SIW), compared to Treatment as Usual (TAU). Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside randomised control utilizing data from three arm cluster randomized trial. Setting: Primary care. Participants: 75 general practitioners were randomised to one of the three arms (TAU, SIW, SIF). Measurements: Cost and Cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) Results: Compared to usual care, providing SIW per participant costs an additional €117.94 and adding patient follow-up, €218.4. As a result of intervention, participants showed a gain of, on average, for SIW 0.0144 QALY (95% CI -0.0137 to 0.0425) and for SIF 0.0340 QALYs (0.0069 to 0.0612). The Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio was €8190.28/QALY (SIW) and €6423.53/QALY (SIF). At the Spanish reimbursement threshold (€45,000 per QALY) the chance interventions are cost effective is 79.8% for SIW and 97.7% for SIF. Conclusions: Brief structured interventions to discontinue long-term benzodiazepine use represent value for money, particularly with scheduled follow-up appointments, and would represent a cost-effective investment by the Spanish healthcare to reduce prevalence of long-term use.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of one-session treatment (OST) versus multisession cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for specific phobias in children: protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Specific phobias (intense, enduring fears of an object or situation that lead to avoidance and severe distress) are highly prevalent among children and young people. Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is a well-established, effective intervention, but it can be time consuming and costly because it is routinely delivered over multiple sessions during several months. Alternative methods of treating severe and debilitating phobias in children are needed, like one-session treatment (OST), to reduce time and cost, and to prevent therapeutic drift and help children recover quickly. Our study explores whether (1) outcomes with OST are 'no worse' than outcomes with multisession CBT, (2) OST is acceptable to children, their parents and the practitioners who use it and (3) OST offers good value for money to the National Health Service (NHS) and to society. METHOD: A pragmatic, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial will compare OST with multisession CBT-based therapy on their clinical and cost-effectiveness. The primary clinical outcome is a standardised behavioural task of approaching the feared stimulus at 6 months postrandomisation. The outcomes for the within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis are quality-adjusted life years based on EQ-5D-Y, and individual-level costs based of the intervention and use of health and social service care. A nested qualitative evaluation will explore children's, parents' and practitioners' perceptions and experiences of OST. A total of 286 children, 7-16 years old, with DSM-IV diagnoses of specific phobia will be recruited via gatekeepers in the NHS, schools and voluntary youth services, and via public adverts. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial received ethical approval from North East and York Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 17/NE/0012). Dissemination plans include publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations in relevant research conferences, local research symposia and seminars for children and their families, and for professionals and service managers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN19883421;Pre-results.

Feedback-informed treatment versus usual psychological treatment for depression and anxiety: a multisite, open-label, cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that the use of outcome feedback technology can enable psychological therapists to identify and resolve obstacles to clinical improvement. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of an outcome feedback quality assurance system applied in stepped care psychological services. METHODS: This multisite, open-label, cluster randomised controlled trial was done at eight National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England, involving therapists who were qualified to deliver evidence-based low-intensity or high-intensity psychological interventions. Adult patients (18 years or older) who accessed individual therapy with participating therapists were eligible for inclusion, except patients who accessed group therapies and those who attended less than two individual therapy sessions. Therapists were randomly assigned (1:1) to an outcome feedback intervention group or a treatment-as-usual control group by use of a computer-generated randomisation algorithm. The allocation of patients to therapists was quasi-random, whereby patients on waiting lists were allocated sequentially on the basis of therapist availability. All patients received low-intensity (less than eight sessions) or high-intensity (up to 20 sessions) psychological therapies for the duration of the 1-year study period. An automated computer algorithm alerted therapists in the outcome feedback group to patients who were not on track, and primed them to review these patients in clinical supervision. The primary outcome was symptom severity on validated depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]) and anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7]) measures after treatment of varying durations, which were compared between groups with multilevel modelling, controlling for cluster (therapist) effects. We used an intention-to-treat approach. This trial was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN12459454. FINDINGS: In total, 79 therapists were recruited to the study between Jan 8, 2016, and July 15, 2016, but two did not participate. Of these participants, 39 (51%) were randomly assigned to the outcome feedback group and 38 (49%) to the control group. Overall, 2233 patients were included in the trial (1176 [53%] were treated by therapists in the outcome feedback group, and 1057 [47%] by therapists in the control group). Patients classified as not on track had less severe symptoms after treatment if they were allocated to the outcome feedback group than those in the control group (PHQ-9 d=0·23, B=-1·03 [95% CI -1·84 to -0·23], p=0·012; GAD-7 d=0·19, B=-0·85 [-1·56 to -0·14], p=0·019). INTERPRETATION: Supplementing psychological therapy with low-cost feedback technology can reduce symptom severity in patients at risk of poor response to treatment. This evidence supports the implementation of outcome feedback in stepped care psychological services. FUNDING: English NHS and Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs with major depression (CASPER plus): a multicentred randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Depression in older adults is common and is associated with poor quality of life, increased morbidity and early mortality, and increased health and social care use. Collaborative care, a low-intensity intervention for depression that is shown to be effective in working-age adults, has not yet been evaluated in older people with depression who are managed in UK primary care. The CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs (CASPER) plus trial fills the evidence gap identified by the most recent guidelines on depression management. OBJECTIVES: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for older adults with major depressive disorder in primary care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentred, two-arm, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study. Participants were automatically randomised by computer, by the York Trials Unit Randomisation Service, on a 1 : 1 basis using simple unstratified randomisation after informed consent and baseline measures were collected. Blinding was not possible. SETTING: Sixty-nine general practices in the north of England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 485 participants aged ≥ 65 years with major depressive disorder. INTERVENTIONS: A low-intensity intervention of collaborative care, including behavioural activation, delivered by a case manager for an average of six sessions over 7-8 weeks, alongside usual general practitioner (GP) care. The control arm received only usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items score at 4 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included depression severity and caseness at 12 and 18 months, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 items, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-2 items, a medication questionnaire, objective data and adverse events. Participants were followed up at 12 and 18 months. RESULTS: In total, 485 participants were randomised (collaborative care, n = 249; usual care, n = 236), with 390 participants (80%: collaborative care, 75%; usual care, 86%) followed up at 4 months, 358 participants (74%: collaborative care, 70%; usual care, 78%) followed up at 12 months and 344 participants (71%: collaborative care, 67%; usual care, 75%) followed up at 18 months. A total of 415 participants were included in primary analysis (collaborative care, n = 198; usual care, n = 217), which revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of collaborative care at the primary end point at 4 months [8.98 vs. 10.90 score points, mean difference 1.92 score points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 2.99 score points; p < 0.001], equivalent to a standard effect size of 0.34. However, treatment differences were not maintained in the longer term (at 12 months: 0.19 score points, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.29 score points; p = 0.741; at 18 months: < 0.01 score points, 95% CI -1.12 to 1.12 score points; p = 0.997). The study recorded details of all serious adverse events (SAEs), which consisted of 'unscheduled hospitalisation', 'other medically important condition' and 'death'. No SAEs were related to the intervention. Collaborative care showed a small but non-significant increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the 18-month period, with a higher cost. Overall, the mean cost per incremental QALY for collaborative care compared with usual care was £26,016; however, for participants attending six or more sessions, collaborative care appears to represent better value for money (£9876/QALY). LIMITATIONS: Study limitations are identified at different stages: design (blinding unfeasible, potential contamination), process (relatively low overall consent rate, differential attrition/retention rates) and analysis (no baseline health-care resource cost or secondary/social care data). CONCLUSION: Collaborative care was effective for older people with case-level depression across a range of outcomes in the short term though the reduction in depression severity was not maintained over the longer term of 12 or 18 months. Participants who received six or more sessions of collaborative care did benefit substantially more than those who received fewer treatment sessions but this difference was not statistically significant. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations for future research include investigating the longer-term effect of the intervention. Depression is a recurrent disorder and it would be useful to assess its impact on relapse and the prevention of future case-level depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45842879. 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. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost and Outcome of BehaviouRal Activation (COBRA): a randomised controlled trial of behavioural activation versus cognitive-behavioural therapy for depression.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common, debilitating and costly disorder. The best-evidenced psychological therapy - cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) - is complex and costly. A simpler therapy, behavioural activation (BA), may be an effective alternative. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BA compared with CBT for depressed adults at 12 and 18 months' follow-up, and to investigate the processes of treatments. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial stratified by depression severity, antidepressant use and recruitment site, with embedded process evaluation; and randomisation by remote computer-generated allocation. SETTING: Three community mental health services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years with major depressive disorder (MDD) recruited from primary care and psychological therapy services. INTERVENTIONS: BA delivered by NHS junior mental health workers (MHWs); CBT by NHS psychological therapists. OUTCOMES: Primary: depression severity (as measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-9; PHQ-9) at 12 months. Secondary: MDD status; number of depression-free days; anxiety (as measured via the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7); health-related quality of life (as measured via the Short Form questionnaire-36 items) at 6, 12 and 18 months; and PHQ-9 at 6 and 18 months, all collected by assessors blinded to treatment allocation. Non-inferiority margin was 1.9 PHQ-9 points. We undertook intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses. We explored cost-effectiveness by collecting direct treatment and other health- and social-care costs and calculating quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, at 18 months. RESULTS: We recruited 440 participants (BA, n = 221; CBT, n = 219); 175 (79%) BA and 189 (86%) CBT participants provided ITT data and 135 (61%) BA and 151 (69%) CBT participants provided PP data. At 12 months we found that BA was non-inferior to CBT {ITT: CBT 8.4 PHQ-9 points [standard deviation (SD) 7.5 PHQ-9 points], BA 8.4 PHQ-9 points (SD 7.0 PHQ-9 points), mean difference 0.1 PHQ-9 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.3 to 1.5 PHQ-9 points, p = 0.89; PP: CBT 7.9 PHQ-9 points (SD 7.3 PHQ-9 points), BA 7.8 PHQ-9 points (SD 6.5 PHQ-9 points), mean difference 0.0 PHQ-9 points, 95% CI -1.5 to 1.6 PHQ-9 points, p = 0.99}. We found no differences in secondary outcomes. We found a significant difference in mean intervention costs (BA, £975; CBT, £1235; p < 0.001), but no differences in non-intervention (hospital, community health, social care and medication costs) or total (non-intervention plus intervention) costs. Costs were lower and QALY outcomes better in the BA group, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -£6865. The probability of BA being cost-effective compared with CBT was almost 80% at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's preferred willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. There were no trial-related adverse events. LIMITATIONS: In this pragmatic trial many depressed participants in both groups were also taking antidepressant medication, although most had been doing so for a considerable time before entering the trial. Around one-third of participants chose not to complete a PP dose of treatment, a finding common in both psychotherapy trials and routine practice. CONCLUSIONS: We found that BA is as effective as CBT, more cost-effective and can be delivered by MHWs with no professional training in psychological therapies. FUTURE WORK: Settings and countries with a paucity of professionally qualified psychological therapists, might choose to investigate the delivery of effective psychological therapy for depression without the need to develop an extensive and costly professional infrastructure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27473954. 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. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Role of Practice Research Networks (PRN) in the Development and Implementation of Evidence: The Northern Improving Access to Psychological Therapies PRN Case Study.

Practice research networks (PRNs) can support the implementation of evidence based practice in routine services and generate practice based evidence. This paper describes the structure, processes and learning from a new PRN in the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme in England, in relation to an implementation framework and using one study as a case example. Challenges related to: ethics and governance processes; communications with multiple stakeholders; competing time pressures and linking outcome data. Enablers included: early tangible outputs and impact; a collaborative approach; engaging with local research leads; clarity of processes; effective dissemination; and committed leadership.