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.

Improving oral health in people with severe mental illness (SMI): A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Those with severe mental illness (SMI) are at greater risk of having poor oral health, which can have an impact on daily activities such as eating, socialising and working. There is currently a lack of evidence to suggest which oral health interventions are effective for improving oral health outcomes for people with SMI. AIMS: This systematic review aims to examine the effectiveness of oral health interventions in improving oral health outcomes for those with SMI. METHODS: The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (ID CRD42020187663). Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, HMIC, CINAHL, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies, along with conference proceedings and grey literature sources. Titles and abstracts were dual screened by two reviewers. Two reviewers also independently performed full text screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessments. Due to heterogeneity between studies, a narrative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: In total, 1462 abstracts from the database search and three abstracts from grey literature sources were identified. Following screening, 12 studies were included in the review. Five broad categories of intervention were identified: dental education, motivational interviewing, dental checklist, dietary change and incentives. Despite statistically significant changes in plaque indices and oral health behaviours as a result of interventions using dental education, motivational interviewing and incentives, it is unclear if these changes are clinically significant. CONCLUSION: Although some positive results in this review demonstrate that dental education shows promise as an intervention for those with SMI, the quality of evidence was graded as very low to moderate quality. Further research is in this area is required to provide more conclusive evidence.

Investigating smoking and nicotine dependence among people with severe mental illness during the COVID-19 pandemic: analysis of linked data from a UK Closing the Gap cohort.

Smoking rates are higher for people who use mental health services, which contributes substantially to health inequalities. Smoking can lead to worse COVID-19 outcomes, yet it remains unclear whether smoking has changed for people who use mental health services. We examined smoking patterns in a large clinical cohort of people with severe mental illness, before and during the pandemic. We found high levels of nicotine dependence and heavier patterns of smoking. Although some people had reported quitting, it is likely that smoking inequalities have become further entrenched. Mental health services should seek to mitigate this modifiable risk and source of poor health.

Remote data collection during COVID-19 restrictions: an example from a refugee and asylum-seeker participant group in the UK.

This article describes how one trial site of the Refugee Emergency: Defining and Implementing Novel Evidence-based psychosocial interventions (RE-DEFINE) study, designed to evaluate a Self Help+ intervention with Arabic-speaking refugees and asylum seekers currently living in the UK and experiencing stress, was adapted to accommodate social distancing rules and working from home during the COVID-19 restrictions. Digital divide, risk and safety management, acceptability of remote data collection and practical considerations are described. The adaptions to methods have practical implications for researchers looking for more flexible approaches in response to continuing restrictions resulting from COVID-19, and the authors believe that others could adopt such an approach. The need for a further acceptability study focusing on human and economic costs and benefits of telephone and video as an alternative to face-to-face data collection is indicated. TRIALS REGISTRATION: Refugee Emergency - Defining and Implementing Novel Evidence-based psychosocial interventions RE-DEFINE. (Trials registration numbers NCT03571347 , NCT03587896 ) https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030259 (2019).

The digital divide: amplifying health inequalities for people with severe mental illness in the time of COVID-19.

During COVID-19, health provision and information resources have been increasingly provided via digital means (e.g. websites, apps) and this will become a standard practice beyond the pandemic. People with severe mental illness face profound health inequalities (e.g. a >20-year mortality gap). Digital exclusion puts this population at risk of heightened or compounded inequalities. This has been referred to as the 'digital divide'. For any new digital means introduced in clinical practice to augment healthcare service provision, issues of accessibility, acceptability and usability should be addressed by researchers and developers early in the design phase, and prior to full implementation, to prevent digital exclusion.

A Year Into the Pandemic: The Diversity of Experience Amongst People With Severe Mental Ill Health.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified pre-existing health inequalities and people with severe mental ill health (SMI) are one of the groups at greatest risk. In this study, we explored the effects of the pandemic and pandemic restrictions on people with SMI during the first year of the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal study in a sample of people with SMI. The inception survey was carried out between July and December 2020. Participants were then re-surveyed between January and March 2021. People were contacted by telephone and invited to take part in the study over the phone, online or by postal questionnaire. Across both waves we asked participants about their physical and mental health, health risk behaviors, well-being, loneliness, and employment status. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-seven people with SMI completed the inception survey and 249 people completed the follow up. Whilst some people reported no change in their physical (77, 31%) or mental health (60, 24%) over the course of the pandemic 53 (21%) reported a continuing decline in physical health and 52 (21%) reported a continuing decline in mental health. Participants who maintained a daily routine or reported no decline in physical health were found to be associated with no deterioration in mental health (Daily routine OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.11-4.64; no reported physical health decline OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.17-0.70). Participants were less likely to be occupationally active in the first phase of the pandemic compared to before the pandemic and in the second phase of the pandemic. However, there was no one single experience of people with SMI and similar to studies in the general populations a range of different scenarios was experienced. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a series of factors that might amplify pre-existing health inequalities. Health systems should be mindful of this, and should redouble efforts to set in place changes to practice and policy, which can mitigate these inequalities. Examples might include; raising awareness of the importance of ensuring that people with SMI receive an annual physical health check and supporting people to maintain a daily routine.

Cost-effectiveness of a specialist smoking cessation package compared with standard smoking cessation services for people with severe mental illness in England: a trial-based economic evaluation from the SCIMITAR+ study.

AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a specialist smoking cessation package for people with severe mental illness DESIGN: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken from the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective over a 12-month time horizon. Total costs, including smoking cessation, health-care and social services costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), derived from the five-level EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D-5 L), collected from a randomized controlled trial, were used as outcome measures. The bootstrap technique was employed to assess the uncertainty. SETTING: Sixteen primary care and 21 secondary care mental health sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adult smokers with bipolar affective disorder, schizoaffective disorder or schizophrenia and related illnesses (n = 526). INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: A bespoke smoking cessation (BSC) package for people with severe mental illness offered up to 12 individual sessions with a mental health smoking cessation practitioner versus usual care (UC). Of the participants who were randomized, 261 were in UC group and 265 were in BSC group. MEASUREMENTS: BSC intervention cost was estimated from the treatment log. Costs of UC, health-care and social services and EQ-5D-5 L were collected at baseline, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Incremental costs and incremental QLAYs were estimated using regression adjusting for respective baseline values and other baseline covariates. FINDINGS: The mean total cost in the BSC group was £270 [95% confidence interval (CI) = -£1690 to £1424] lower than in the UC group, while the mean QALYs were 0.013 (95% CI = -0.008 to 0.045) higher, leading to BSC dominating UC (76% probability of cost-effective at £20 000/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: A bespoke smoking cessation package for people with severe mental illness is likely to be cost-effective over 12 months compared with usual care provided by the UK's National Health Service and personal social services.

A bespoke smoking cessation service compared with treatment as usual for people with severe mental ill health: the SCIMITAR+ RCT.

BACKGROUND: There is a high prevalence of smoking among people with severe mental ill health (SMI). Helping people with SMI to quit smoking could improve their health and longevity, and reduce health inequalities. However, those with SMI are less likely to access and engage with routine smoking cessation services than the general population. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a bespoke smoking cessation (BSC) intervention with usual stop smoking services for people with SMI. DESIGN: A pragmatic, two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care and secondary care mental health services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Smokers aged ≥ 18 years with SMI who would like to cut down on or quit smoking. INTERVENTIONS: A BSC intervention delivered by mental health specialists trained to deliver evidence-supported smoking cessation interventions compared with usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported, CO-verified smoking cessation at 12 months. Smoking-related secondary outcomes were self-reported smoking cessation, the number of cigarettes smoked per day, the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence and the Motivation to Quit questionnaire. Other secondary outcomes were Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7 items and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey, to assess mental health and body mass index measured at 6 and 12 months post randomisation. RESULTS: The trial randomised 526 people (265 to the intervention group, 261 to the usual-care group) aged 19 to 72 years (mean 46 years). About 60% of participants were male. Participants smoked between 3 and 100 cigarettes per day (mean 25 cigarettes per day) at baseline. The intervention group had a higher rate of exhaled CO-verified smoking cessation at 6 and 12 months than the usual-care group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 12 months: 1.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9 to 2.8; adjusted OR 6 months: 2.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.7]. This was not statistically significant at 12 months (p = 0.12) but was statistically significant at 6 months (p = 0.01). In total, 111 serious adverse events were reported (69 in the BSC group and 42 in the usual-care group); the majority were unplanned hospitalisations due to a deterioration in mental health (n = 98). The intervention is likely (57%) to be less costly but more effective than usual care; however, this result was not necessarily associated with participants' smoking status. LIMITATIONS: Follow-up was not blind to treatment allocation. However, the primary outcome included a biochemically verified end point, less susceptible to observer biases. Some participants experienced difficulties in accessing nicotine replacement therapy because of changes in service provision. Efforts were made to help participants access nicotine replacement therapy, but this may have affected participants' quit attempt. CONCLUSIONS: People with SMI who received the intervention were more likely to have stopped smoking at 6 months. Although more people who received the intervention had stopped smoking at 12 months, this was not statistically significant. FUTURE WORK: Further research is needed to establish how quitting can be sustained among people with SMI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72955454. 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. 23, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Smoking is an important health issue, especially among people who have experienced mental ill health such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. This is because people with severe mental ill health (SMI) are more likely to smoke than the general population. Despite this, they are less likely to get help to stop smoking, and it may be that people with mental ill health problems need greater support to help them stop smoking. To address this problem, we developed and tested a 'bespoke smoking cessation' (BSC) service tailored to people with SMI. People aged ≥ 18 years who said that they would like to stop smoking were randomly allocated to either a BSC service or the usual stop smoking services. Those in the BSC service were allocated a mental health professional who had been trained to deliver smoking cessation interventions. The mental health professional worked with the participant and their care team to advise on stop smoking medication and provide information, support and motivation. Usual-care participants were signposted to local smoking services, but their subsequent care was not directly provided or supervised by trial smoking cessation advisors. Between October 2015 and December 2016, 526 people with SMI were recruited into the study: 265 of these people were randomly assigned to the BSC service and 261 were randomly assigned to usual care. At 6 and 12 months after randomisation, participants completed questionnaires that asked about their smoking status and health. Participants had their smoking status tested by measuring the amount of carbon monoxide in their breath. After 6 months, more people who received the BSC intervention had stopped smoking than those who had received usual care. At 12 months, the results were less clear in terms of the difference in the number of people who had stopped smoking. The BSC service cost less than or similar to usual care, when considering the overall health-care services. The improvement in health of people who received the BSC service remains uncertain. In addition, we do not know whether or not this was related to people stopping smoking.

Smoking cessation for people with severe mental illness (SCIMITAR+): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia are three times more likely to smoke than the wider population, contributing to widening health inequalities. Smoking remains the largest modifiable risk factor for this health inequality, but people with severe mental illness have not historically engaged with smoking cessation services. We aimed to test the effectiveness of a combined behavioural and pharmacological smoking cessation intervention targeted specifically at people with severe mental illness. METHODS: In the smoking cessation intervention for severe mental illness (SCIMITAR+) trial, a pragmatic, randomised controlled study, we recruited heavy smokers with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia from 16 primary care and 21 community-based mental health sites in the UK. Participants were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, and smoked at least five cigarettes per day. Exclusion criteria included substantial comorbid drug or alcohol problems and people who lacked capacity to consent at the time of recruitment. Using computer-generated random numbers, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a bespoke smoking cessation intervention or to usual care. Participants, mental health specialists, and primary care physicians were unmasked to assignment. The bespoke smoking cessation intervention consisted of behavioural support from a mental health smoking cessation practitioner and pharmacological aids for smoking cessation, with adaptations for people with severe mental illness-such as, extended pre-quit sessions, cut down to quit, and home visits. Access to pharmacotherapy was via primary care after discussion with the smoking cessation specialist. Under usual care participants were offered access to local smoking cessation services not specifically designed for people with severe mental illnesses. The primary endpoint was smoking cessation at 12 months ascertained via carbon monoxide measurements below 10 parts per million and self-reported cessation for the past 7 days. Secondary endpoints were biologically verified smoking cessation at 6 months; number of cigarettes smoked per day, Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) and Motivation to Quit (MTQ) questionnaire; general and mental health functioning determined via the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) questionnaire, and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12); and body-mass index (BMI). This trial was registerd with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN72955454, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 7, 2015, and Dec 16, 2016, 526 eligible patients were randomly assigned to the bespoke smoking cessation intervention (n=265) or usual care (n=261). 309 (59%) participants were male, median age was 47·2 years (IQR 36·3-54·5), with high nicotine dependence (mean 24 cigarettes per day [SD 13·2]), and the most common severe mental disorders were schizophrenia or other psychotic illness (n=343 [65%]), bipolar disorder (n=115 [22%]), and schizoaffective disorder (n=66 [13%]). 234 (88%) of intervention participants engaged with the treatment programme and attended 6·4 (SD 3·5) quit smoking sessions, with an average duration of 39 min (SD 17; median 35 min, range 5-120). Verified quit data at 12 months were available for 219 (84%) of 261 usual care and 223 (84%) of 265 intervention participants. The proportion of participants who had quit at 12 months was higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group, but non-significantly (34 [15%] of 223 [13% of those assigned to group] vs 22 [10%] of 219 [8% of those assigned to group], risk difference 5·2%, 95% CI -1·0 to 11·4; odds ratio [OR] 1·6, 95% CI 0·9 to 2·9; p=0·10). The proportion of participants who quit at 6 months was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group (32 [14%] of 226 vs 14 [6%] of 217; risk difference 7·7%, 95% CI 2·1 to 13·3; OR 2·4, 95% CI 1·2 to 4·6; p=0·010). The incidence rate ratio for number of cigarettes smoked per day at 6 months was 0·90 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·01; p=0·079), and at 12 months was 1·00 (0·89 to 1·13; p=0·95). At both 6 months and 12 months, the intervention group was non-significantly favoured in the FTND (adjusted mean difference 6 months -0·18, 95% CI -0·53 to 0·17, p=0·32; and 12 months -0·01, -0·39 to 0·38, p=0·97) and MTQ questionnaire (adjusted mean difference 0·58, -0·01 to 1·17, p=0·056; and 12 months 0·64, 0·04 to 1·24, p=0·038). The PHQ-9 showed no difference between the groups (adjusted mean difference at 6 months 0·20, 95% CI -0·85 to 1·24 vs 12 months -0·12, -1·18 to 0·94). For the SF-12 survey, we saw evidence of improvement in physical health in the intervention group at 6 months (adjusted mean difference 1·75, 95% CI 0·21 to 3·28), but this difference was not evident at 12 months (0·59, -1·07 to 2·26); and we saw no difference in mental health between the groups at 6 or 12 months (adjusted mean difference at 6 months -0·73, 95% CI -2·82 to 1·36, and 12 months -0·41, -2·35 to 1·53). The GAD-7 questionnaire showed no difference between the groups (adjusted mean difference at 6 months -0·32 95% CI -1·26 to 0·62 vs 12 months -0·10, -1·05 to 0·86). No difference in BMI was seen between the groups (adjusted mean difference 6 months 0·16, 95% CI -0·54 to 0·85; 12 months 0·25, -0·62 to 1·13). INTERPRETATION: This bespoke intervention is a candidate model of smoking cessation for clinicians and policy makers to address high prevalence of smoking. The incidence of quitting at 6 months shows that smoking cessation can be achieved, but the waning of this effect by 12 months means more effort is needed for sustained quitting. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

The effectiveness of a contingent financial incentive to improve trial follow up; a randomised study within a trial (SWAT).

Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of a contingent financial incentive (£10 note in addition to a routinely provided £10 voucher) versus no contingent financial incentive, on improving the retention rate in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Methods A two arm 'Study within a Trial' (SWAT) embedded within a host RCT (SCIMITAR+). Participants were randomised to the SWAT using a 2:1 (intervention:control) allocation ratio. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of participants completing a CO breath measurement at the first SCIMITAR+ follow up time point (6 months). Secondary outcomes were withdrawing from follow-up after contact and time from assessment due date to completion.  Analyses were conducted using logistic or Cox Proportional Hazards regression as appropriate. Results A total of 434 participants were randomised into this SWAT. Completion of the CO breath measurement at 6 months was 88.5% (n=247) in the intervention arm of the SWAT and 85.4% (n=123) in the control arm (Difference 3.1%, OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71-2.33, p=0.41). There was also no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants withdrawing from follow-up after contact (intervention n=7 (2.5%), control n=5 (3.5%); OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.23-2.44, p=0.64), nor in terms of proximity of 6-month visit completion to due date (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86-1.33, p=0.55). Conclusion It is unclear if contingent financial incentives increased rates of face-to-face follow-up completion within the SCIMITAR+ trial population. However, the sample size of this SWAT was constrained by the size of the host trial and power was limited. This SWAT adds to the body of evidence for initiatives to increase response rates in trials.

Smoking cessation in severe mental ill health: what works? an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental ill health are more likely to smoke than those in the general population. It is therefore important that effective smoking cessation strategies are used to help people with severe mental ill health to stop smoking. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and cost -effectiveness of smoking cessation and reduction strategies in adults with severe mental ill health in both inpatient and outpatient settings. METHODS: This is an update of a previous systematic review. Electronic databases were searched during September 2016 for randomised controlled trials comparing smoking cessation interventions to each other, usual care, or placebo. Data was extracted on biochemically-verified, self-reported smoking cessation (primary outcome), as well as on smoking reduction, body weight, psychiatric symptom, and adverse events (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: We included 26 trials of pharmacological and/or behavioural interventions. Eight trials comparing bupropion to placebo were pooled showing that bupropion improved quit rates significantly in the medium and long term but not the short term (short term RR = 6.42 95% CI 0.82-50.07; medium term RR = 2.93 95% CI 1.61-5.34; long term RR = 3.04 95% CI 1.10-8.42). Five trials comparing varenicline to placebo showed that that the addition of varenicline improved quit rates significantly in the medium term (RR = 4.13 95% CI 1.36-12.53). The results from five trials of specialised smoking cessation programmes were pooled and showed no evidence of benefit in the medium (RR = 1.32 95% CI 0.85-2.06) or long term (RR = 1.33 95% CI 0.85-2.08). There was insufficient data to allowing pooling for all time points for varenicline and trials of specialist smoking cessation programmes. Trials suggest few adverse events although safety data were not always reported. Only one pilot study reported cost effectiveness data. CONCLUSIONS: Bupropion and varenicline, which have been shown to be effective in the general population, also work for people with severe mental ill health and their use in patients with stable psychiatric conditions. Despite good evidence for the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for people with severe mental ill health, the percentage of people with severe mental ill health who smoke remains higher than that for the general population.

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

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

Smoking Cessation Intervention for Severe Mental Ill Health Trial (SCIMITAR+): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is highly prevalent among people who have experience of severe mental ill health, contributing to their poor physical health. Despite the 'culture' of smoking in mental health services, people with severe mental ill health often express a desire to quit smoking; however, the services currently available to aid quitting are those which are widely available to the general population and may not be suitable or effective for people with severe mental ill health. The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a bespoke smoking-cessation intervention specifically targeted at people with severe mental ill health. METHODS/DESIGN: SCIMITAR+ is a multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial. We aim to recruit 400 participants aged 18 years and above with a documented diagnosis of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who smoke. Potentially eligible participants identified in primary or secondary care will be screened, and baseline data collected. Eligible, consenting participants will be randomly allocated to one of two groups. In the intervention arm, the participant will be assigned a mental health professional trained to deliver smoking-cessation interventions who will work with the participant and participant's GP or mental health specialist to provide an individually tailored smoking-cessation service. The comparator arm will be usual care - following current NICE guidelines for smoking cessation, in line with general guidance that is offered to all smokers, with no specific adaptation or enhancement in relation to severe mental ill health. The primary outcome will be self-reported smoking cessation at 12 months verified by expired carbon monoxide (CO) measurement. Secondary outcome measures include Body Mass Index at 12 months, the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence, Motivation to Quit questionnaire, SF-12, PHQ-9, GAD-7, EQ-5D-5 L, and health service utilisation at 6 and 12 months. The economic evaluation at 12 months will be conducted in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. DISCUSSION: SCIMITAR+ trial is the largest trial to our knowledge to investigate the effectiveness of a bespoke smoking-cessation service for people with severe mental ill health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number, ISRCTN72955454 . Registered on 16 January 2015.

Bespoke smoking cessation for people with severe mental ill health (SCIMITAR): a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental ill health are three times more likely to smoke but typically do not access conventional smoking cessation services, contributing to widening health inequalities and reduced life expectancy. We aimed to pilot an intervention targeted at smokers with severe mental ill health and to test methods of recruitment, randomisation, and follow up before implementing a full trial. METHODS: The Smoking Cessation Intervention for Severe Mental Ill Health Trial (SCIMITAR) is a pilot randomised controlled trial of a smoking cessation strategy designed specifically for people with severe mental ill health, to be delivered by mental health nurses and consisting of behavioural support and drugs, compared with a conventional smoking cessation service (ie, usual care). Adults (aged 18 years or older) with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, who were current smokers, were recruited from NHS primary care and mental health settings in the UK (York, Scarborough, Hull, and Manchester). Eligible participants were randomly allocated to either usual care (control group) or usual care plus the bespoke smoking cessation strategy (intervention group). Randomisation was done via a central telephone system, with computer-generated random numbers. We could not mask participants, family doctors, and researchers to the treatment allocation. Our primary outcome was smoking status at 12 months, verified by carbon monoxide measurements or self-report. Only participants who provided an exhaled CO measurement or self-reported their smoking status at 12 months were included in the primary analysis. The trial is registered at ISRCTN.com, number ISRCTN79497236. FINDINGS: Of 97 people recruited to the pilot study, 51 were randomly allocated to the control group and 46 were assigned to the intervention group. Participants engaged well with the bespoke smoking cessation strategy, but no individuals assigned to usual care accessed NHS smoking cessation services. At 12 months, 35 (69%) controls and 33 (72%) people assigned to the intervention group provided a CO measurement or self-reported their smoking status. Smoking cessation was highest among individuals who received the bespoke intervention (12/33 [36%] vs 8/35 [23%]; adjusted odds ratio 2·9, 95% CI 0·8-10·5). INTERPRETATION: We have shown the feasibility of recruiting and randomising people with severe mental ill health in a trial of this nature. The level of engagement with a bespoke smoking cessation strategy was higher than with a conventional approach. The effectiveness and safety of a smoking cessation programme designed particularly for people with severe mental ill health should be tested in a fully powered randomised controlled trial. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

The use of unequal randomisation in clinical trials--An update.

OBJECTIVE: To update a 2005 review of the reasons researchers have given for the use of unequal randomisation in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). MAIN MEASURES: Intervention being tested; type of study; number of participants; randomisation ratio; sample size calculation and reason given for using unequal randomisation. METHODS: Review of trials using unequal randomisation. DATABASES AND SOURCES: Cochrane library, Medline and CINAHL. RESULTS: A total of 86 trials were identified. Of these 82 trials (95%) recruited patients in favour of the experimental group. Various reasons for the use of unequal randomisation were given including: gaining treatment experience; identification of adverse events; ethical; logistic and enhancing recruitment. No trial reported explicitly used it for cost-effectiveness. Most of the papers (i.e. 47, 55%) did not state why they had used unequal randomisation and only 38 trials (44%) appeared to have taken the unequal randomisation into account in their sample size calculation. CONCLUSION: Most studies did not mention the rationale for unequal allocation, and a significant proportion did not appear to account for it in the sample size calculations. Unlike the previous review economic considerations were not stated as a rationale for its use. A number of trials used it to enhance recruitment, although this has not been tested.

Smoking Cessation Intervention for severe Mental Ill Health Trial (SCIMITAR): a pilot randomised control trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a bespoke smoking cessation service.

BACKGROUND: There is a high prevalence of smoking among people who experience severe mental ill health (SMI). Helping people with disorders such as bipolar illness and schizophrenia to quit smoking would help improve their health, increase longevity and also reduce health inequalities. Around half of people with SMI who smoke express an interest in cutting down or quitting smoking. There is limited evidence that smoking cessation can be achieved for people with SMI. Those with SMI rarely access routine NHS smoking cessation services. This suggests the need to develop and evaluate a behavioural support and medication package tailored to the needs of people with SMI. OBJECTIVE: The objective in this project was to conduct a pilot trial to establish acceptability of the intervention and to ensure the feasibility of recruitment, randomisation and follow-up. We also sought preliminary estimates of effect size in order to design a fully powered trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The pilot should inform a fully powered trial to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a bespoke smoking cessation (BSC) intervention with usual general practitioner (GP) care for people with SMI. DESIGN: A pilot pragmatic two-arm individually randomised controlled trial (RCT). Simple randomisation was used following a computer-generated random number sequence. Participants and practitioners were not blinded to allocation. SETTING: Primary care and secondary care mental health services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Smokers aged > 18 years with a severe mental illness who would like to cut down or quit smoking. INTERVENTIONS: A BSC intervention delivered by mental health specialists trained to deliver evidence-supported smoking cessation interventions compared with usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was carbon monoxide-verified smoking cessation at 12 months. Smoking-related secondary outcomes were reduction of number of cigarettes smoked, Fagerstrom test of nicotine dependence and motivation to quit (MTQ). Other secondary outcomes were Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items and Short Form Questionnaire-12 items to assess whether there were improvements or deterioration in mental health and quality of life. We also measured body mass index to assess whether or not smoking cessation was associated with weight gain. These were measured at 1, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. RESULTS: The trial recruited 97 people aged 19-73 years who smoked between 5 and 60 cigarettes per day (mean 25 cigarettes). Participants were recruited from four mental health trusts and 45 GP surgeries. Forty-six people were randomised to the BSC intervention and 51 people were randomised to usual GP care. The odds of quitting at 12 months was higher in the BSC intervention (36% vs. 23%) but did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio 2.9; 95% confidence interval 0.8% to 10.5%). At 3 and 6 months there was no evidence of difference in self-reported smoking cessation. There was a non-significant reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked and nicotine dependence. MTQ and number of quit attempts all increased in the BSC group compared with usual care. There was no difference in terms of quality of life at any time point, but there was evidence of an increase in depression scores at 12 months for the BSC group. There were no serious adverse events thought likely to be related to the trial interventions. The pilot economic analysis demonstrated that it was feasible to carry out a full economic analysis. CONCLUSIONS: It was possible to recruit people with SMI from primary and secondary care to a trial of a smoking cessation intervention based around behavioural support and medication. The overall direction of effect was a positive trend in relation to biochemically verified smoking cessation and it was feasible to obtain follow-up in a substantial proportion of participants. A definitive trial of a bespoke cessation intervention has been prioritised by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and the SCIMITAR pilot trial forms a template for a fully powered RCT to examine clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN79497236. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment, Vol. 19, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Obsessive Compulsive Treatment Efficacy Trial (OCTET) comparing the clinical and cost effectiveness of self-managed therapies: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: UK National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) specify recommendations for the treatment and management of OCD using a stepped care approach. Steps three to six of this model recommend treatment options for people with OCD that range from low-intensity guided self-help (GSH) to more intensive psychological and pharmacological interventions. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), including exposure and response prevention, is the recommended psychological treatment. However, whilst there is some preliminary evidence that self-managed therapy packages for OCD can be effective, a more robust evidence base of their clinical and cost effectiveness and acceptability is required. METHODS/DESIGN: Our proposed study will test two different self-help treatments for OCD: 1) computerised CBT (cCBT) using OCFighter, an internet-delivered OCD treatment package; and 2) GSH using a book. Both treatments will be accompanied by email or telephone support from a mental health professional. We will evaluate the effectiveness, cost and patient and health professional acceptability of the treatments. DISCUSSION: This study will provide more robust evidence of efficacy, cost effectiveness and acceptability of self-help treatments for OCD. If cCBT and/or GSH prove effective, it will provide additional, more accessible treatment options for people with OCD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN73535163. Date of registration: 5 April 2011.