Ethnic inequalities among NHS staff in England: workplace experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine how workplace experiences of National Health Service (NHS) staff varied by ethnicity during the COVID-19 pandemic and how these experiences are associated with mental and physical health at the time of the study. METHODS: An online Inequalities Survey was conducted by the Tackling Inequalities and Discrimination Experiences in Health Services study in collaboration with NHS CHECK. This Inequalities Survey collected measures relating to workplace experiences (such as personal protective equipment (PPE), risk assessments, redeployments and discrimination) as well as mental health (Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7)), and physical health (PHQ-15) from NHS staff working in the 18 trusts participating with the NHS CHECK study between February and October 2021 (N=4622). RESULTS: Regression analysis of this cross-sectional data revealed that staff from black and mixed/other ethnic groups had greater odds of experiencing workplace harassment (adjusted OR (AOR) 2.43 (95% CI 1.56 to 3.78) and 2.38 (95% CI 1.12 to 5.07), respectively) and discrimination (AOR 4.36 (95% CI 2.73 to 6.96) and 3.94 (95% CI 1.67 to 9.33), respectively) compared with white British staff. Staff from black ethnic groups also had greater odds than white British staff of reporting PPE unavailability (AOR 2.16 (95% CI 1.16 to 4.00)). Such workplace experiences were associated with negative physical and mental health outcomes, though this association varied by ethnicity. Conversely, understanding employment rights around redeployment, being informed about and having the ability to inform redeployment decisions were associated with lower odds of poor physical and mental health. CONCLUSIONS: Structural changes to the way staff from ethnically minoritised groups are supported, and how their complaints are addressed by leaders within the NHS are urgently required.

Comparing the number and length of primary care consultations in people with and without intellectual disabilities and health needs: observational cohort study using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, 15-min appointments with the general practitioner (GP) are recommended for people with complex health conditions, including intellectual disabilities and health needs, but we do not know whether this happens. AIMS: We compared number and length of primary care consultations (GP, nurse, other allied health, other) for people with and without intellectual disabilities and health needs. METHODS: Linked primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in England were used to investigate face-to-face and telephone primary care consultations in 2017-2019. Health needs investigated were: epilepsy; incontinence; severe visual/hearing impairments; severe mobility difficulties; cerebral palsy; and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding. Age and gender-standardized consultation rates per year (Poisson), duration of consultations, and the proportion of "long consultations" (≥15 min) were reported. RESULTS: People with intellectual disabilities (n = 7,794) had 1.9 times as many GP consultations per year as those without (n = 176,807; consultation rate ratio = 1.87 [95% confidence interval 1.86-1.89]). Consultation rates with nurses and allied healthcare professionals were also twice as high. Mean GP consultation time was 9-10 min regardless of intellectual disability/health need status. Long GP consultations were less common in people with intellectual disabilities (18.2% [17.8-18.7] vs. 20.9% [20.8-21.0]). Long consultations with practice nurses were more common in people with health needs, particularly severe visual loss. CONCLUSIONS: People with intellectual disabilities and/or health needs tend to have more, rather than longer, GP consultations compared with the rest of the population. We recommend further investigation into the role of practice nurses to support people with intellectual disabilities and health needs.

Health Needs and Their Relationship with Life Expectancy in People with and without Intellectual Disabilities in England.

Health needs are common in people living with intellectual disabilities, but we do not know how they contribute to life expectancy. We used the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked with hospital/mortality data in England (2017-2019) to explore life expectancy among people with or without intellectual disabilities, indicated by the presence or absence, respectively, of: epilepsy; incontinence; severe visual loss; severe visual impairment; severe mobility difficulties; cerebral palsy and PEG feeding. Life expectancy and 95% confidence intervals were compared using flexible parametric methods. At baseline, 46.4% (total n = 7794) of individuals with intellectual disabilities compared with 9.7% (total n = 176,807) in the comparison group had ≥1 health need. Epilepsy was the most common health need (18.7% vs. 1.1%). All health needs except hearing impairment were associated with shorter life expectancy: PEG feeding and mobility difficulties were associated with the greatest loss in life years (65-68% and 41-44%, respectively). Differential life expectancy attenuated but remained (≈12% life years lost) even after restricting the population to those without health needs (additional years expected to live at 10 years: 65.5 [60.3, 71.1] vs. 74.3 [73.8, 74.7]). We conclude that health needs play a significant role but do not explain all of the differential life expectancy experienced by people with intellectual disabilities.

Feasibility, acceptability and costs of nurse-led Alpha-Stim cranial electrostimulation to treat anxiety and depression in university students.

BACKGROUND: Only a relatively low proportion of university students seek help for anxiety and depression disorders, partly because they dislike current drug and psychological treatment options and would prefer home-based care. The aim of this study is to determine the feasibility, acceptability and cost utility of Alpha-Stim cranial electrostimulation (CES) delivered through a nurse led primary care clinic as a daily treatment for anxiety and depression symptoms by the student at home in contrast to usual primary care. METHOD: Feasibility and acceptability of a nurse led clinic offering Alpha-Stim CES in terms of the take up and completion of the six-week course of Alpha-Stim CES. Change in score on the GAD-7 and PHQ-9 as measures of anxiety and depression symptoms at baseline and at 8 weeks following a course of Alpha-Stim CES. Similar evaluation in a non-randomised control group attending a family doctor over the same period. Cost-utility analysis of the nurse led Alpha-Stim CES and family doctor pathways with participants failing to improve following further NICE Guideline clinical care (facilitated self-help and cognitive behaviour therapy). RESULTS: Of 47 students (mean age 22.1, years, 79% female opting for Alpha-Stim CES at the nurse-led clinic 46 (97.9%) completed a 6-week daily course. Forty-seven (47) students comprised a comparison group receiving usual family doctor care. Both Alpha-Stim CES and usual family doctor care were associated with large effect size reductions in GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores from baseline to 8 weeks. There were no adverse effects and only one participant showed a clinically important deterioration in the Alpha-Stim group. In the cost utility analysis, Alpha-Stim CES was a cheaper option than usual family doctor care under all deterministic or probabilistic assumptions. CONCLUSION: Nurse delivered Alpha-Stim CES may be a feasible, acceptable and cheaper way of providing greater choice and home-based care for some university students seeking help from primary care with new presentations of anxiety and depression.

A randomised controlled trial investigating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Alpha-Stim AID cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) in patients seeking treatment for moderate severity depression in primary care (Alpha-Stim-D Trial).

BACKGROUND: Major depression is the second leading cause of years lost to disability worldwide and is a leading contributor to suicide. However, first-line antidepressants are only fully effective for 33%, and only 40% of those offered psychological treatment attend for two sessions or more. Views gained from patients and primary care professionals are that greater treatment uptake might be achieved if people with depression could be offered alternative and more accessible treatment options. Although there is evidence that the Alpha-Stim Anxiety Insomnia and Depression (AID) device is safe and effective for anxiety and depression symptoms in people with anxiety disorders, there is much less evidence of efficacy in major depression without anxiety. This study investigates the effectiveness of the Alpha-Stim AID device, a cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) treatment that people can safely use independently at home. The device provides CES which has been shown to increase alpha oscillatory brain activity, associated with relaxation. METHODS: The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Alpha-Stim AID in treatment-seeking patients (aged 16 years upwards) with moderate to moderately severe depressive symptoms in primary care. The study is a multi-centre parallel-group, double-blind, non-commercial, randomised controlled superiority trial. The primary objective of the study is to examine the clinical efficacy of active daily use of 8 weeks of Alpha-Stim AID versus sham Alpha-Stim AID on depression symptoms at 16 weeks (8 weeks after the end of treatment) in people with moderate severity depression. The primary outcome is the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at 16 weeks. All trial and treatment procedures are carried out remotely using videoconferencing, telephone and postal delivery considering the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. DISCUSSION: This study is investigating whether participants using the Alpha-Stim AID device display a reduction in depressive symptoms that can be maintained over 8 weeks post-treatment. The findings will help to determine whether Alpha-Stim AID should be recommended, including being made available in the NHS for patients with depressive symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRTCN ISRCTN11853110 . Registered on 14 August 2020.

Connectivity-Guided Theta Burst Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Versus Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Moderate to Severe Depression: Magnetic Resonance Imaging Protocol and SARS-CoV-2-Induced Changes for a Randomized Double-blind Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a substantial health and economic burden. In approximately one-third of patients, depression is resistant to first-line treatment; therefore, it is essential to find alternative treatments. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a neuromodulatory treatment involving the application of magnetic pulses to the brain that is approved in the United Kingdom and the United States in treatment-resistant depression. This trial aims to compare the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and mechanism of action of standard treatment repetitive TMS (rTMS) targeted at the F3 electroencephalogram site with a newer treatment-a type of TMS called theta burst stimulation (TBS) targeted based on measures of functional brain connectivity. This protocol outlines brain imaging acquisition and analysis for the Brain Imaging Guided Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Depression (BRIGhTMIND) study trial that is used to create personalized TMS targets and answer the proposed mechanistic hypotheses. OBJECTIVE: The aims of the imaging arm of the BRIGhTMIND study are to identify functional and neurochemical brain signatures indexing the treatment mechanisms of rTMS and connectivity-guided intermittent theta burst TMS and to identify imaging-based markers predicting response to treatment. METHODS: The study is a randomized double-blind controlled trial with 1:1 allocation to either 20 sessions of TBS or standard rTMS. Multimodal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is acquired for each participant at baseline (before TMS treatment) with T1-weighted and task-free functional MRI during rest used to estimate TMS targets. For participants enrolled in the mechanistic substudy, additional diffusion-weighted sequences are acquired at baseline and at posttreatment follow-up 16 weeks after treatment randomization. Core data sets of T1-weighted and task-free functional MRI during rest are acquired for all participants and are used to estimate TMS targets. Additional sequences of arterial spin labeling, magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and diffusion-weighted images are acquired depending on the recruitment site for mechanistic evaluation. Standard rTMS treatment is targeted at the F3 electrode site over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, whereas TBS treatment is guided using the coordinate of peak effective connectivity from the right anterior insula to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Both treatment targets benefit from the level of MRI guidance, but only TBS is provided with precision targeting based on functional brain connectivity. RESULTS: Recruitment began in January 2019 and is ongoing. Data collection is expected to continue until January 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will determine the impact of precision MRI guidance on rTMS treatment and assess the neural mechanisms underlying this treatment in treatment-resistant depressed patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN19674644; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN19674644. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/31925.

NHS Health Check Programme: a qualitative study of prison experience.

BACKGROUND: NHS Health Checks began in England in 2009 and were subsequently introduced into English prisons. Uptake has been patchy and there is limited understanding about factors that may limit or enhance uptake in prison settings. Uptake of this programme is a key policy in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and death in these settings. METHOD: Semi-structured focus groups were conducted with groups of prisoners (attendees and non-attendees to the health check), prison healthcare staff, custodial staff and ex-prisoners (n = 50). Participants were asked about their awareness and experiences of the NHS Health Check Programme in prison. RESULTS: All groups highlighted barriers for not attending a health check appointment, such as poor accessibility to the healthcare department, stigma and fear. The majority of participants expressed a lack of awareness and discussed common misconceptions regarding the health check programme. Methods of increasing the uptake of health checks through group-based approaches and accessibility to healthcare were suggested. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports on prisoner, staff and ex-prisoner perspectives on the implementation of NHS Health Checks within a restrictive prison environment. These findings have potentially substantial implications for successful delivery of care within offender healthcare services.

Mental health and other factors associated with work productivity after injury in the UK: multicentre cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Mental health conditions are a major contributor to productivity loss and are common after injury. This study quantifies postinjury productivity loss and its association with preinjury and postinjury mental health, injury, demographic, health, social and other factors. METHODS: Multicentre, longitudinal study recruiting hospitalised employed individuals aged 16-69 years with unintentional injuries, followed up at 1, 2, 4 and 12 months. Participants completed questionnaires on injury, demographic factors, health (including mental health), social factors, other factors and on-the-job productivity upon return to work (RTW). ORs were estimated for above median productivity loss using random effects logistic regression. RESULTS: 217 adults had made an RTW at 2, 4 or 12 months after injury: 29% at 2 months, 66% at 4 months and 83% at 12 months. Productivity loss reduced over time: 3.3% of working time at 2 months, 1.7% at 4 months, 1% at 12 months. Significantly higher productivity loss was associated with preinjury psychiatric conditions (OR 21.40, 95% CI 3.50 to 130.78) and post-traumatic stress avoidance symptoms at 1 month (OR for 1-unit increase in score 1.15, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.22). Significantly lower productivity loss was associated with male gender (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.74), upper and lower limb injuries (vs other body regions, OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.81) and sports injuries (vs home, OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.78). Preinjury psychiatric conditions and gender remained significant in analysis of multiply imputed data. CONCLUSIONS: Unintentional injury results in substantial productivity loss. Females, those with preinjury psychiatric conditions and those with post-traumatic stress avoidance symptoms experience greater productivity loss and may require additional support to enable successful RTW.

The predictive value of patient, therapist, and in-session ratings of motivational factors early in remote cognitive behavioural therapy for severe health anxiety.

OBJECTIVES: Remote psychotherapy and the prevalence of Severe Health Anxiety (SHA) are both growing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Remotely delivered Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (rCBT) for SHA is evidenced as effective, but many who seek help do not benefit. Motivational processes can influence outcomes, but it is unclear what assessment methods offer the best clinical utility in rCBT for SHA. DESIGN: This study compared the predictive validity of patient, therapist and in-session ratings of motivational factors taken at session two of rCBT for SHA among high healthcare users experiencing multimorbidity. METHODS: Motivational factors were assessed for 56 participants who attended at least two sessions of CBT for SHA delivered via video-conferencing or telephone. Following session two, therapists and patients completed online assessments of patient motivation. Two trained observers also rated motivational factors and therapeutic alliance from in-session interactions using session two recordings and transcripts. Multilevel modelling was used to predict health anxiety and a range of secondary health outcomes from motivation assessments. RESULTS: Where patients were more actively engaged in discussion of positive changes during session two, greater outcome improvements ensued in health anxiety and all secondary outcomes. Conversely, larger proportions of session two spent describing problems predicted poorer outcomes. Therapist and patient assessments of motivation did not predict health anxiety, but therapist assessments of client confidence and motivation predicted all secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Motivation remains an important process in CBT when delivered remotely, and motivational factors may predict outcomes more consistently from in-session interactions, compared to self-reports.

Study protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial of pramipexole in addition to mood stabilisers for patients with treatment resistant bipolar depression (the PAX-BD study).

BACKGROUND: Treatment Resistant Bipolar Depression (TRBD) is a major contributor to the burden of disease associated with Bipolar Disorder (BD). Treatment options for people experiencing bipolar depression are limited to three interventions listed by National Institute for Health and Care: lamotrigine, quetiapine and olanzapine, of which the latter two are often not well tolerated. The majority of depressed people with BD are therefore prescribed antidepressants despite limited efficacy. This demonstrates an unmet need for additional interventions. Pramipexole has been shown to improve mood symptoms in animal models of depression, in people with Parkinson's Disease and two proof of principle trials of pramipexole for people with BD who are currently depressed. METHODS: The PAX-BD study, funded by the United Kingdom (UK) National Institute for Health Research, aims to extend previous findings by assessing the efficacy, safety and health economic impact of pramipexole in addition to mood stabilisers for patients with TRBD. A randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled design is conducted in a naturalistic UK National Health Service setting. An internal pilot study to examine feasibility and acceptability of the study design is included. Participants with TRBD are screened from National Health Service secondary care services in up to 40 mental health trusts in the UK, with the aim of recruiting approximately 414 participants into a pre-randomisation phase to achieve a target of 290 randomised participants. Primary safety and efficacy measures are at 12 weeks following randomisation, with follow up of participants to 52 weeks. The primary outcome is depressive symptoms as measured by Quick Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology - Self Report. Secondary outcomes include changes in anxiety, manic symptoms, tolerability, acceptability, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Outcome measures are collected remotely using self-report tools implemented online, and observer-rated assessments conducted via telephone. ANCOVA will be used to examine the difference in rating scale scores between treatment arms, and dependent on compliance in completion of weekly self-report measures. A mixed effects linear regression model may also be used to account for repeated measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN72151939. Registered on 28 August 2019, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN72151939 Protocol Version: 04-FEB-2021, Version 9.0.

National survey and analysis of barriers to the utilisation of the 2005 mental capacity act by people with bipolar disorder in England and Wales.

Background: The Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) provides a legal framework for advance planning for both health and welfare in England and Wales for people if they lose mental capacity, for example, through mania or severe depression.Aims: To determine the proportion of people with bipolar disorder (BD) who utilise advance planning, their experience of using it and barriers to its implementation.Methods: National survey of people with clinical diagnosis of BD of their knowledge, use and experience of the MCA. Thematically analysed qualitative interviews with maximum variance sample of people with BD.Results: A total of 544 respondents with BD participated in the survey; 18 in the qualitative study. 403 (74.1%) believed making plans about their personal welfare if they lost capacity to be very important. A total of 199 (36.6%) participants knew about the MCA. A total 54 (10%), 62 (11%) and 21 (4%) participants made advanced decisions to refuse treatment, advance statements and lasting power of attorney, respectively. Barriers included not understanding its different forms, unrealistic expectations and advance plans ignored by services.Conclusion: In BD, the demand for advance plans about welfare with loss of capacity was high, but utilisation of the MCA was low with barriers at service user, clinician and organisation levels.

Extending the use of routine outcome monitoring: Predicting long-term outcomes in cognitive behavioral therapy for severe health anxiety.

Objective: Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) is a well-evidenced means of improving psychotherapy's effectiveness. However, it is unclear how meaningful ROM is for problems that span physical and mental health, such as severe health anxiety. Physical and mental health comorbidities are common amongst severe health anxiety sufferers and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a recommended treatment. Method: Seventy-nine participants received CBT for severe health anxiety in a clinical trial. The Outcome Rating Scale (ORS: a ROM assessment of wellbeing) was completed at each session. Multilevel modeling assessed whether last-session ORS predicted health anxiety and other outcomes over 12-month follow-up. Similar models were developed using health anxiety as a comparative outcome-predictor. Outcome-improvements of treatment-responders with sudden gains were compared to those of non-sudden-gainers. Results: Last-session ORS scores predicted all outcomes up to 12 months later, with a comparable predictive effect to health anxiety. Sudden-gainers on the ORS reported significantly greater improvement in depression, functioning, and wellbeing, but no difference in health anxiety or other measures. Conclusion: The ORS may be a feasible, overall estimate of health, functioning, and quality of life in psychotherapy for severe health anxiety. Sudden gains on the ORS may be clinically meaningful with respect to some long-term outcomes.

Qualitative investigation of relatives' and service users' experience of mental healthcare for suicidal behaviour in bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVE: People with bipolar disorder are known to be at high risk of engaging in suicidal behaviours, and those who die by suicide have often been in recent contact with mental health services. The objective of this study was to explore suicidal behaviour in bipolar disorder and how this is monitored and managed by mental health services. AIMS: To identify themes within relatives' and service users' accounts of mental healthcare, related to management and prevention of suicidal behaviour in bipolar disorder. DESIGN: Thematic analysis of 22 semistructured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were aged 18 years or over, fluent in written and spoken English, and either had bipolar disorder with a history of suicidal behaviour, or were relatives of people with bipolar disorder who had died by suicide. SETTING: England, UK. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Themes identified from participants' accounts of mental healthcare for suicidal behaviours in bipolar disorder. RESULTS: Two main themes were identified. 'Access to care' was characterised by a series or cycle of potential barriers to care (eg, gate-keepers, lack of an accurate diagnosis) which had the potential to increase risk of suicidal behaviour if failure to access care continued over time. 'Problems with communication' captured the importance of maintaining open routes of communication between all parties involved in care to ensure successful monitoring and management of suicidal behaviours in bipolar disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health services need to be accessible and respond rapidly to people with suicidal behaviour in bipolar disorder. Open communication and inclusion of relatives in care, where appropriate, could help closer monitoring of changes in symptoms that indicate increased risk.

Clinical effectiveness and cost minimisation model of Alpha-Stim cranial electrotherapy stimulation in treatment seeking patients with moderate to severe generalised anxiety disorder.

BACKGROUND: Cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) is a well-tolerated neuromodulation treatment with demonstrated trial efficacy in anxiety disorders. The aim of the current study was to demonstrate its clinical and cost effectiveness during and after CES in people with generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) who had not responded to low intensity psychological treatment in a routine health service. METHODS: Consecutive sample of eligible patients with GAD waiting for individual cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) selected from two publicly funded services in England. They received 60 min per day Alpha-Stim CES for 6-12 weeks. Primary outcome was remission on the GAD-7 scale at 12 and 24 weeks. Cost effectiveness was examined using a cost minimisation model of direct health costs. RESULTS: Of 161 patients recruited, 72 (44.7%) and 77 (47.8%) achieved remission on the GAD-7 at 12 and 24 weeks respectively with 122 (75.8%) receiving at least 6 weeks CES. Mean (sd) GAD-7 score at baseline significantly improved from 15.77 (3.21) to 8.92 (5.42) and 8.99 (6.18) at 12 and 24 weeks respectively (p < 0.001). 80 (49.7%) participants required further individual CBT. CES provided a saving of £540.88 per patient (95% CI -£327.12, £648.69). LIMITATIONS: Participants were not randomised and there was no control group. Only 48 (29.9%) participants completed every assessment. CONCLUSION: In patients with generalised anxiety disorder not responding to low intensity psychological treatment, 6-12 weeks daily Alpha Stim CES may be effective after treatment and 3 months later, thereby reducing the need for individual CBT and saving health costs.

Clinical and economic outcomes of remotely delivered cognitive behaviour therapy versus treatment as usual for repeat unscheduled care users with severe health anxiety: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: It is challenging to engage repeat users of unscheduled healthcare with severe health anxiety in psychological help and high service costs are incurred. We investigated whether clinical and economic outcomes were improved by offering remote cognitive behaviour therapy (RCBT) using videoconferencing or telephone compared to treatment as usual (TAU). METHODS: A single-blind, parallel group, multicentre randomised controlled trial was undertaken in primary and general hospital care. Participants were aged ≥18 years with ≥2 unscheduled healthcare contacts within 12 months and scored >18 on the Health Anxiety Inventory. Randomisation to RCBT or TAU was stratified by site, with allocation conveyed to a trial administrator, research assessors masked to outcome. Data were collected at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The primary outcome was change in HAI score from baseline to six months on an intention-to-treat basis. Secondary outcomes were generalised anxiety, depression, physical symptoms, function and overall health. Health economics analysis was conducted from a health service and societal perspective. RESULTS: Of the 524 patients who were referred and assessed for trial eligibility, 470 were eligible and 156 (33%) were recruited; 78 were randomised to TAU and 78 to RCBT. Compared to TAU, RCBT significantly reduced health anxiety at six months, maintained to 9 and 12 months (mean change difference HAI -2.81; 95% CI -5.11 to -0.50; P = 0.017). Generalised anxiety, depression and overall health was significantly improved at 12 months, but there was no significant change in physical symptoms or function. RCBT was strictly dominant with a net monetary benefit of £3,164 per participant at a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000. No treatment-related adverse events were reported in either group. CONCLUSIONS: RCBT may reduce health anxiety, general anxiety and depression and improve overall health, with considerable reductions in health and informal care costs in repeat users of unscheduled care with severe health anxiety who have previously been difficult to engage in psychological treatment. RCBT may be an easy-to-implement intervention to improve clinical outcome and save costs in one group of repeat users of unscheduled care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on 19 Nov 2014 with reference number NCT02298036.

An Electronic Clinical Decision Support System for the Assessment and Management of Suicidality in Primary Care: Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Suicide is a global public health concern, but it is preventable. Increased contact with primary care before the suicide or attempted suicide raises opportunities for intervention and prevention. However, suicide assessment and management are areas that many general practitioners (GPs) find particularly challenging. Previous research has indicated significant variability in how GPs understand, operationalize, and assess suicide risk, which subsequently has an impact on clinical decision making. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been widely implemented across different health care settings, including primary care to support practitioners in clinical decision making. A CDSS may reduce inconsistencies in the identification, assessment, and management of suicide risk by GPs by guiding them through the consultation and generating a risk assessment plan that can be shared with a service user or with specialized mental health services. OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to co-develop and test with end users (eg, GPs, primary care attendees, mental health professionals) an electronic clinical decision support system (e-CDSS) to support GPs in the identification, assessment, and management of suicidality in primary care. METHODS: Ours is an ongoing embedded mixed-methods study with four phases: (1) qualitative interviews with GPs to explore their views on the content, format, and use of the e-CDSS, as well as consultation with two service-user advisory groups (people aged ≤25 and people aged ≥25) to inform the content of the e-CDSS including phrasing of items and clarity; (2) participatory co-production workshops with GPs, service users, and clinical experts in suicidality to determine the content and format of the e-CDDS; gain consensus of the relevance of items; establish content validity and identify pathways to implementation, using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; (3) building the e-CDSS so that it guides the GP through a consultation; and (4) usability testing of the e-CDSS with GPs and service users in one primary care practice involving a nonlive and a live stage. RESULTS: The study was funded for four years, to take place between 2015 and 2019, and is currently completing phase 4 data collection. The first results are expected to be submitted for publication in June 2019. The findings will enable us to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and usability of a suicide-specific, electronic, guided decision support system in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: This study will be the first to explore the feasibility, acceptability, and usability of an electronic, guided decision support system for use in primary care consultations for the improved assessment and management of suicidality. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/11135.

The Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Lamotrigine in Borderline Personality Disorder: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The authors examined whether lamotrigine is a clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for people with borderline personality disorder. METHOD: This was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Between July 2013 and November 2016, the authors recruited 276 people age 18 or over who met diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder. Individuals with coexisting bipolar affective disorder or psychosis, those already taking a mood stabilizer, and women at risk of pregnancy were excluded. A web-based randomization service was used to allocate participants randomly in a 1:1 ratio to receive either an inert placebo or up to 400 mg/day of lamotrigine. The primary outcome measure was score on the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 52 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included depressive symptoms, deliberate self-harm, social functioning, health-related quality of life, resource use and costs, side effects of treatment, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 195 (70.6%) participants were followed up at 52 weeks, at which point 49 (36%) of those in the lamotrigine group and 58 (42%) of those in the placebo group were taking study medication. The mean ZAN-BPD score was 11.3 (SD=6.6) among those in the lamotrigine group and 11.5 (SD=7.7) among those in the placebo group (adjusted difference in means=0.1, 95% CI=-1.8, 2.0). There was no evidence of any differences in secondary outcomes. Costs of direct care were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that treating people with borderline personality disorder with lamotrigine is not a clinically effective or cost-effective use of resources.

The impact of a computerised test of attention and activity (QbTest) on diagnostic decision-making in children and young people with suspected attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: single-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) relies on subjective methods which can lead to diagnostic uncertainty and delay. This trial evaluated the impact of providing a computerised test of attention and activity (QbTest) report on the speed and accuracy of diagnostic decision-making in children with suspected ADHD. METHODS: Randomised, parallel, single-blind controlled trial in mental health and community paediatric clinics in England. Participants were 6-17 years-old and referred for ADHD diagnostic assessment; all underwent assessment-as-usual, plus QbTest. Participants and their clinician were randomised to either receive the QbTest report immediately (QbOpen group) or the report was withheld (QbBlind group). The primary outcome was number of consultations until a diagnostic decision confirming/excluding ADHD within 6-months from baseline. Health economic cost-effectiveness and cost utility analysis was conducted. Assessing QbTest Utility in ADHD: A Randomised Controlled Trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02209116). RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-two participants were randomised to QbOpen group (123 analysed) and 135 to QbBlind group (127 analysed). Clinicians with access to the QbTest report (QbOpen) were more likely to reach a diagnostic decision about ADHD (hazard ratio 1.44, 95% CI 1.04-2.01). At 6-months, 76% of those with a QbTest report had received a diagnostic decision, compared with 50% without. QbTest reduced appointment length by 15% (time ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.93), increased clinicians' confidence in their diagnostic decisions (odds ratio 1.77, 95% CI 1.09-2.89) and doubled the likelihood of excluding ADHD. There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy. Health economic analysis showed a position of strict dominance; however, cost savings were small suggesting that the impact of providing the QbTest report within this trial can best be viewed as 'cost neutral'. CONCLUSIONS: QbTest may increase the efficiency of ADHD assessment pathway allowing greater patient throughput with clinicians reaching diagnostic decisions faster without compromising diagnostic accuracy.

Lamotrigine for people with borderline personality disorder: a RCT.

BACKGROUND: No drug treatments are currently licensed for the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Despite this, people with this condition are frequently prescribed psychotropic medications and often with considerable polypharmacy. Preliminary studies have indicated that mood stabilisers may be of benefit to people with BPD. OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine for people with BPD. DESIGN: A two-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled individually randomised trial of lamotrigine versus placebo. Participants were randomised via an independent and remote web-based service using permuted blocks and stratified by study centre, the severity of personality disorder and the extent of hypomanic symptoms. SETTING: Secondary care NHS mental health services in six centres in England. PARTICIPANTS: Potential participants had to be aged ≥ 18 years, meet diagnostic criteria for BPD and provide written informed consent. We excluded people with coexisting psychosis or bipolar affective disorder, those already taking a mood stabiliser, those who spoke insufficient English to complete the baseline assessment and women who were pregnant or contemplating becoming pregnant. INTERVENTIONS: Up to 200 mg of lamotrigine per day or an inert placebo. Women taking combined oral contraceptives were prescribed up to 400 mg of trial medication per day. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were assessed at 12, 24 and 52 weeks after randomisation. The primary outcome was the total score on the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 52 weeks. The secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, deliberate self-harm, social functioning, health-related quality of life, resource use and costs, side effects of treatment and adverse events. Higher scores on all measures indicate poorer outcomes. RESULTS: Between July 2013 and October 2015 we randomised 276 participants, of whom 195 (70.6%) were followed up 52 weeks later. At 52 weeks, 49 (36%) of those participants prescribed lamotrigine and 58 (42%) of those prescribed placebo were taking it. At 52 weeks, the mean total ZAN-BPD score was 11.3 [standard deviation (SD) 6.6] among those participants randomised to lamotrigine and 11.5 (SD 7.7) among those participants randomised to placebo (adjusted mean difference 0.1, 95% CI -1.8 to 2.0; p = 0.91). No statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes were seen at any time. Adjusted costs of direct care for those prescribed lamotrigine were similar to those prescribed placebo. LIMITATIONS: Levels of adherence in this pragmatic trial were low, but greater adherence was not associated with better mental health. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of lamotrigine to the usual care of people with BPD was not found to be clinically effective or provide a cost-effective use of resources. FUTURE WORK: Future research into the treatment of BPD should focus on improving the evidence base for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments to help policy-makers make better decisions about investing in specialist treatment services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN90916365. FUNDING: Funding for this trial was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The Imperial Biomedical Research Centre Facility, which is funded by NIHR, also provided support that has contributed to the research results reported within this paper. Part of Richard Morriss' salary during the project was paid by NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East Midlands.

The effects of using the PReDicT Test to guide the antidepressant treatment of depressed patients: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressant medication is commonly used to treat depression. However, many patients do not respond to the first medication prescribed and improvements in symptoms are generally only detectable by clinicians 4-6 weeks after the medication has been initiated. As a result, there is often a long delay between the decision to initiate an antidepressant medication and the identification of an effective treatment regimen. Previous work has demonstrated that antidepressant medications alter subtle measures of affective cognition in depressed patients, such as the appraisal of facial expression. Furthermore, these cognitive effects of antidepressants are apparent early in the course of treatment and can also predict later clinical response. This trial will assess whether an electronic test of affective cognition and symptoms (the Predicting Response to Depression Treatment Test; PReDicT Test) can be used to guide antidepressant treatment in depressed patients and, therefore, hasten treatment response compared to a control group of patients treated as usual. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a randomised, two-arm, multi-centre, open-label, clinical investigation of a medical device, the PReDicT Test. It will be conducted in five European countries (UK, France, Spain, Germany and the Netherlands) in depressed patients who are commencing antidepressant medication. Patients will be randomised to treatment guided by the PReDicT Test (PReDicT arm) or to Treatment as Usual (TaU arm). Patients in the TaU arm will be treated as per current standard guidelines in their particular country. Patients in the PReDicT arm will complete the PReDicT Test after 1 (and if necessary, 2) weeks of treatment. If the test indicates non-response to the treatment, physicians will be advised to immediately alter the patient's antidepressant therapy by dose escalation or switching to another compound. The primary outcome of the study is the proportion of patients showing a clinical response (defined as 50% or greater decrease in baseline scores of depression measured using the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms - Self-Rated questionnaire) at week 8. Health economic and acceptability data will also be collected and analysed. DISCUSSION: This trial will test the clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of using the novel PReDicT Test to guide antidepressant treatment selection in depressed patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02790970 . Registered on 30 March 2016.