Watch Me Play!: protocol for a feasibility study of a remotely delivered intervention to promote mental health resilience for children (ages 0-8) across UK early years and children's services.

BACKGROUND: Half of mental health problems are established by the age of 14 years and 75% by 24 years. Early intervention and prevention of mental ill health are therefore vitally important. However, increased demand over recent years has meant that access to child mental health services is often restricted to those in severest need. Watch Me Play! (WMP) is an early intervention designed to support caregiver attunement and attention to the child to promote social-emotional well-being and thereby mental health resilience. Originally developed in the context of a local authority mental health service for children in care, it is now also delivered online as a low intensity, scalable, preventative intervention. Although WMP shows promise and is already used in some services, we do not yet know whether it is effective. METHODS: A non-randomised single group feasibility study with embedded process evaluation. We propose to recruit up to 40 parents/carers of children aged 0-8 years who have been referred to early years and children's services in the UK. WMP involves a parent watching the child play and talking to their child about their play (or for babies, observing and following signals) for up to 20 min per session. Some sessions are facilitated by a trained practitioner who provides prompts where necessary, gives feedback, and discusses the child's play with the caregiver. Services will offer five facilitated sessions, and parents will be asked to do at least 10 additional sessions on their own with their child in a 5-week period. Feasibility outcomes examined are as follows: (i) recruitment, (ii) retention, (iii) adherence, (iv) fidelity of delivery, (v) barriers and facilitators of participation, (vi) intervention acceptability, (vii) description of usual care, and (viii) data collection procedures. Intervention mechanisms will be examined through qualitative interview data. Economic evaluation will be conducted estimating cost of the intervention and cost of service use for child and parents/carers quality-adjusted life years. DISCUSSION: This study will address feasibility questions associated with progression to a future randomised trial of WMP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13644899 . Registered on 14th April 2023.

Pragmatic randomised controlled trial of guided self-help versus individual cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus for post-traumatic stress disorder (RAPID).

Background: Guided self-help has been shown to be effective for other mental conditions and, if effective for post-traumatic stress disorder, would offer a time-efficient and accessible treatment option, with the potential to reduce waiting times and costs. Objective: To determine if trauma-focused guided self-help is non-inferior to individual, face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event. Design: Multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with economic evaluation to determine cost-effectiveness and nested process evaluation to assess fidelity and adherence, dose and factors that influence outcome (including context, acceptability, facilitators and barriers, measured qualitatively). Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary analysis was intention to treat using multilevel analysis of covariance. Setting: Primary and secondary mental health settings across the United Kingdom's National Health Service. Participants: One hundred and ninety-six adults with a primary diagnosis of mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder were randomised with 82% retention at 16 weeks and 71% at 52 weeks. Nineteen participants and ten therapists were interviewed for the process evaluation. Interventions: Up to 12 face-to-face, manualised, individual cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus sessions, each lasting 60-90 minutes, or to guided self-help using Spring, an eight-step online guided self-help programme based on cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus, with up to five face-to-face meetings of up to 3 hours in total and four brief telephone calls or e-mail contacts between sessions. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes: included severity of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms at 52 weeks, and functioning, symptoms of depression, symptoms of anxiety, alcohol use and perceived social support at both 16 and 52 weeks post-randomisation. Those assessing outcomes were blinded to group assignment. Results: Non-inferiority was demonstrated at the primary end point of 16 weeks on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition [mean difference 1.01 (one-sided 95% CI -∞ to 3.90, non-inferiority p = 0.012)]. Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, score improvements of over 60% in both groups were maintained at 52 weeks but the non-inferiority results were inconclusive in favour of cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus at this timepoint [mean difference 3.20 (one-sided 95% confidence interval -∞ to 6.00, non-inferiority p = 0.15)]. Guided self-help using Spring was not shown to be more cost-effective than face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus although there was no significant difference in accruing quality-adjusted life-years, incremental quality-adjusted life-years -0.04 (95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.01) and guided self-help using Spring was significantly cheaper to deliver [£277 (95% confidence interval £253 to £301) vs. £729 (95% CI £671 to £788)]. Guided self-help using Spring appeared to be acceptable and well tolerated by participants. No important adverse events or side effects were identified. Limitations: The results are not generalisable to people with post-traumatic stress disorder to more than one traumatic event. Conclusions: Guided self-help using Spring for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event appears to be non-inferior to individual face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus and the results suggest it should be considered a first-line treatment for people with this condition. Future work: Work is now needed to determine how best to effectively disseminate and implement guided self-help using Spring at scale. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN13697710. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/192/97) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 26. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Post-traumatic stress disorder is a common, disabling condition that can occur following major traumatic events. Typical symptoms include distressing reliving, avoidance of reminders and feeling a current sense of threat. First-choice treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder are individual, face-to-face talking treatments, of 12­16 hours duration, including cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus. If equally effective treatments could be developed that take less time and can be largely undertaken in a flexible manner at home, this would improve accessibility, reduce waiting times and hence the burden of disease. RAPID was a randomised controlled trial using a web-based programme called Spring. The aim was to determine if trauma-focused guided self-help provided a faster and cheaper treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder than first-choice face-to-face therapy, while being equally effective. Guided self-help using Spring is delivered through eight steps. A therapist provides a 1-hour introductory meeting followed by four further, fortnightly sessions of 30 minutes each and four brief (around 5 minutes) telephone calls or e-mail contacts between sessions. At each session, the therapist reviews progress and guides the client through the programme, offering continued support, monitoring, motivation and problem-solving. One hundred and ninety-six people with post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event took part in the study. Guided self-help using Spring was found to be equally effective to first-choice face-to-face therapy at reducing post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms at 16 weeks. Very noticeable improvements were maintained at 52 weeks post-randomisation in both groups, when most results were inconclusive but in favour of face-to-face therapy. Guided self-help using Spring was significantly cheaper to deliver and appeared to be well-tolerated. It is noteworthy that not everyone benefitted from guided self-help using Spring, highlighting the importance of considering it on a person-by-person basis, and personalising interventions. But, the RAPID trial has demonstrated that guided self-help using Spring provides a low-intensity treatment option for people with post-traumatic stress disorder that is ready to be implemented in the National Health Service.

Acceptability, adherence and economic analyses of a new clinical pathway for the identification of non-responders to glaucoma eye drops: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Assess whether a new clinical pathway for glaucoma was acceptable to patients and healthcare professionals and whether it provided useful clinical information on non-responsiveness and non-adherence to the treatment of elevated intraocular pressure with latanoprost eye drops. METHODS: A single arm non-randomised prospective observational study incorporating new glaucoma/ocular hypertension patients. To assess issues of acceptability, qualitative observation and interviews were conducted with patients and healthcare professionals. To determine clinical responsiveness, intraocular pressures were measured before and 4 hours after a clinician-instilled eye drop over two distinct appointments. Adherence data were collected using a Medicine Event Monitoring System. Economic analyses compared the costs between novel and standard care pathways. RESULTS: Of 72 patients approached, 53 entered the study (74.3%) and 50 completed all procedures (94.3%). Intraocular pressure was reduced more than 15% in 83 out of 92 study eyes by final visit (90.2%). The non-response rate was 5.1% once the effect of low adherence was minimised. For the 1376 drop instillation days under observation, eye drops were instilled as prescribed on 1004 days (73.0%), over-instilled on 137 days (9.9%) and not instilled on 235 days (17.1%). The Cardiff Model of Glaucoma Care involved negligible cost, although acceptance for healthcare professionals showed variation. CONCLUSIONS: The Cardiff Model of Glaucoma Care offers novel clinical and adherence insights at marginal costs while acceptable to patients. Healthcare professionals felt that 4 hour and 4 week follow-up appointments could cause administrative problems. A streamlined version of the pathway has therefore been developed to facilitate clinical adoption. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTNID:ISRCTN75888393.

Adding emollient bath additives to standard eczema management for children with eczema: the BATHE RCT.

BACKGROUND: Childhood eczema is very common. Treatment often includes emollient bath additives, despite there being little evidence of their effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of emollient bath additives in the management of childhood eczema. DESIGN: Pragmatic, randomised, open-label, multicentre superiority trial with two parallel groups. SETTING: Ninety-six general practices in Wales, the west of England and southern England. Invitation by personal letter or opportunistically. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged between 12 months and 12 years fulfilling the UK Diagnostic Criteria for Atopic Eczema. Children with inactive or very mild eczema (a score of ≤ 5 on the Nottingham Eczema Severity Scale) were excluded, as were children who bathed less than once per week or whose parents/carers were not prepared to accept randomisation. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention group were prescribed bath additives by their usual clinical team and were asked to use them regularly for 12 months. The control group were asked to use no bath additives for 12 months. Both groups continued standard eczema management, including regular leave-on emollients and topical corticosteroids (TCSs) when required. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was eczema control measured by Patient Oriented Eczema Measure [POEM, 0 (clear) to 28 (severe)] weekly for 16 weeks. The secondary outcomes were eczema severity over 1 year (4-weekly POEM), number of eczema exacerbations, disease-specific quality of life (QoL) (Dermatitis Family Impact Questionnaire), generic QoL (Child Health Utility-9 Dimensions) and type and quantity of topical steroid/calcineurin inhibitors prescribed. Children were randomised (1 : 1) using online software to either bath additives plus standard eczema care or standard eczema care alone, stratified by recruiting centre, and there was open-label blinding. RESULTS: From December 2014 to May 2016, 482 children were randomised: 51% were female, 84% were white and the mean age was 5 years (n = 264 in the intervention group, n = 218 in the control group). Reported adherence to randomised treatment allocation was > 92% in both groups, with 76.7% of participants completing at least 12 (80%) of the first 16 weekly questionnaires for the primary outcome. Baseline POEM score was 9.5 [standard deviation (SD) 5.7] in the bath additives group and 10.1 (SD 5.8) in the no bath additives group. Average POEM score over the first 16 weeks was 7.5 (SD 6.0) in the bath additives group and 8.4 (SD 6.0) in the no bath additives group, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. After controlling for baseline severity and confounders (ethnicity, TCS use, soap substitute use) and allowing for clustering of participants within centres and responses within participants over time, POEM scores in the no bath additive group were 0.41 points higher than in the bath additive group (95% confidence interval -0.27 to 1.10), which is well below the published minimal clinically important difference of 3 points. There was no difference between groups in secondary outcomes or in adverse effects such as redness, stinging or slipping. LIMITATIONS: Simple randomisation resulted in an imbalance in baseline group size, although baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. CONCLUSION: This trial found no evidence of clinical benefit of including emollient bath additives in the standard management of childhood eczema. FUTURE WORK: Further research is required on optimal regimens of leave-on emollients and the use of emollients as soap substitutes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84102309. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Emollient bath additives for the treatment of childhood eczema (BATHE): multicentre pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of including emollient bath additives in the management of eczema in children. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomised open label superiority trial with two parallel groups. SETTING: 96 general practices in Wales and western and southern England. PARTICIPANTS: 483 children aged 1 to 11 years, fulfilling UK diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis. Children with very mild eczema and children who bathed less than once weekly were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the intervention group were prescribed emollient bath additives by their usual clinical team to be used regularly for 12 months. The control group were asked to use no bath additives for 12 months. Both groups continued with standard eczema management, including leave-on emollients, and caregivers were given standardised advice on how to wash participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was eczema control measured by the patient oriented eczema measure (POEM, scores 0-7 mild, 8-16 moderate, 17-28 severe) weekly for 16 weeks. Secondary outcomes were eczema severity over one year (monthly POEM score from baseline to 52 weeks), number of eczema exacerbations resulting in primary healthcare consultation, disease specific quality of life (dermatitis family impact), generic quality of life (child health utility-9D), utilisation of resources, and type and quantity of topical corticosteroid or topical calcineurin inhibitors prescribed. RESULTS: 483 children were randomised and one child was withdrawn, leaving 482 children in the trial: 51% were girls (244/482), 84% were of white ethnicity (447/470), and the mean age was 5 years. 96% (461/482) of participants completed at least one post-baseline POEM, so were included in the analysis, and 77% (370/482) completed questionnaires for more than 80% of the time points for the primary outcome (12/16 weekly questionnaires to 16 weeks). The mean baseline POEM score was 9.5 (SD 5.7) in the bath additives group and 10.1 (SD 5.8) in the no bath additives group. The mean POEM score over the 16 week period was 7.5 (SD. 6.0) in the bath additives group and 8.4 (SD 6.0) in the no bath additives group. No statistically significant difference was found in weekly POEM scores between groups over 16 weeks. After controlling for baseline severity and confounders (ethnicity, topical corticosteroid use, soap substitute use) and allowing for clustering of participants within centres and responses within participants over time, POEM scores in the no bath additives group were 0.41 points higher than in the bath additives group (95% confidence interval -0.27 to 1.10), below the published minimal clinically important difference for POEM of 3 points. The groups did not differ in secondary outcomes, economic outcomes, or adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: This trial found no evidence of clinical benefit from including emollient bath additives in the standard management of eczema in children. Further research is needed into optimal regimens for leave-on emollient and soap substitutes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84102309.

Depression in Visual Impairment Trial (DEPVIT): A Randomized Clinical Trial of Depression Treatments in People With Low Vision.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare two interventions for depression, problem solving treatment (PST) and referral to the patient's physician, with a waiting-list control group in people with sight loss and depressive symptoms. METHODS: This was an assessor-masked, exploratory, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, with concurrent economic analysis. Of 1008 consecutive attendees at 14 low-vision rehabilitation centers in Britain, 43% (n = 430) screened positive for depressive symptoms on the Geriatric Depression Scale and 85 of these attendees participated in the trial. Eligible participants were randomized in the ratio 1:1:1 to PST, referral to their physician, or a waiting-list control arm. PST is a manualized talking intervention delivered by a trained therapist who teaches people over six to eight sessions to implement a seven-step method for solving their problems. Referral to the physician involved sending a referral letter to the person's physician, encouraging him or her to consider treatment according to the stepped care protocol recommended by the U.K.'s National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. The primary outcome was change in depressive symptoms (6 months after baseline) as determined by the Beck Depression Inventory. RESULTS: At 6 months, Beck Depression Inventory scores reduced by 1.05 (SD 8.85), 2.11 (SD 7.60), and 2.68 (SD 7.93) in the waiting-list control, referral, and PST arms, respectively. The cost per patient of the PST intervention was £1176 in Wales and £1296 in London. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive symptoms improved most in the PST group and least in the control group. However, the change was small and the uncertainty of the measurements relatively large.

The Depression in Visual Impairment Trial (DEPVIT): trial design and protocol.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of depression in people with a visual disability is high but screening for depression and referral for treatment is not yet an integral part of visual rehabilitation service provision. One reason for this may be that there is no good evidence about the effectiveness of treatments in this patient group. This study is the first to evaluate the effect of depression treatments on people with a visual impairment and co morbid depression. METHODS /DESIGN: The study is an exploratory, multicentre, individually randomised waiting list controlled trial. Participants will be randomised to receive Problem Solving Therapy (PST), a 'referral to the GP' requesting treatment according to the NICE's 'stepped care' recommendations or the waiting list arm of the trial. The primary outcome measure is change (from randomisation) in depressive symptoms as measured by the Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI-II) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include change in depressive symptoms at 3 months, change in visual function as measured with the near vision subscale of the VFQ-48 and 7 item NEI-VFQ at 3 and 6 months, change in generic health related quality of life (EQ5D), the costs associated with PST, estimates of incremental cost effectiveness, and recruitment rate estimation. DISCUSSION: Depression is prevalent in people with disabling visual impairment. This exploratory study will establish depression screening and referral for treatment in visual rehabilitation clinics in the UK. It will be the first to explore the efficacy of PST and the effectiveness of NICE's 'stepped care' approach to the treatment of depression in people with a visual impairment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN46824140.