Assessing Real-World Data From Electronic Health Records for Health Technology Assessment: The SUITABILITY Checklist: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force.

This ISPOR Good Practices report provides a framework for assessing the suitability of electronic health records data for use in health technology assessments (HTAs). Although electronic health record (EHR) data can fill evidence gaps and improve decisions, several important limitations can affect its validity and relevance. The ISPOR framework includes 2 components: data delineation and data fitness for purpose. Data delineation provides a complete understanding of the data and an assessment of its trustworthiness by describing (1) data characteristics; (2) data provenance; and (3) data governance. Fitness for purpose comprises (1) data reliability items, ie, how accurate and complete the estimates are for answering the question at hand and (2) data relevance items, which assess how well the data are suited to answer the particular question from a decision-making perspective. The report includes a checklist specific to EHR data reporting: the ISPOR SUITABILITY Checklist. It also provides recommendations for HTA agencies and policy makers to improve the use of EHR-derived data over time. The report concludes with a discussion of limitations and future directions in the field, including the potential impact from the substantial and rapid advances in the diffusion and capabilities of large language models and generative artificial intelligence. The report's immediate audiences are HTA evidence developers and users. We anticipate that it will also be useful to other stakeholders, particularly regulators and manufacturers, in the future.

Neuropsychological assessment, intervention, and best practices for women with non-Central nervous system cancer: A scoping review of current standards.

Objective: Existing literature has sought to characterize the broad cognitive impact of non-central nervous system cancer and its treatment, including chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, and hormonal regulation. However, despite the frequency of women that are diagnosed with breast and gynecological cancer, there is limited research on the specific cognitive experiences of women undergoing cancer treatment. Presently, the current literature lacks concise guidance for neuropsychologists to support the cognitive health of women facing cancer, despite the acknowledged impact of cancer interventions and chronic illness on cognitive outcomes. Method: Applying scoping review criteria outlined by Peters et al. (2015) and adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive examination of literature spanning multiple databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, PsychINFO) with a focus on the cognitive impact of cancer treatment on women. Conclusions: Women are subject to unique treatment-related outcomes due to the impact of hormonal alterations, differences in metabolization of certain chemotherapies, and psychosocial risk factors. Despite the known impact of cancer intervention, chronic illness, and cancer-related sequelae on cognitive outcomes, the current literature does not parsimoniously outline best practices for neuropsychologists to promote the health of women experiencing cancer. The current paper (1) provides an overview of the cognitive implications of cancer treatment with an intentional focus on cancers that are more prevalent in women versus men, (2) addresses the characteristics of this impact for women undergoing cancer intervention(s), and (3) provides possible intervention and treatment strategies for mental health providers and neuropsychologists.

Methods to Include Environmental Impacts in Health Economic Evaluations and Health Technology Assessments: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: The environmental impacts of healthcare are important factors that should be considered during health technology assessments. This study aims to summarize the evidence that exists about methods to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments. METHODS: We identified records for screening using an existing scoping review and a systematic search of academic databases and gray literature up to September 2023. We screened the identified records for eligibility and extracted data using a narrative synthesis approach. The review was conducted following the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. RESULTS: We identified 2898 records and assessed the full text of 114, of which 54 were included in this review. Ten methods were identified to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments. Methods included converting environmental impacts to dollars or disability-adjusted life years and including them in a cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-benefit analysis, calculating an incremental carbon footprint effectiveness ratio or incremental carbon footprint cost ratio, incorporating impacts as one criteria of a multi-criteria decision analysis, and freely considering impacts during health technology assessment deliberation processes. CONCLUSIONS: Methods to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments exist but have not been tested for widespread use by health technology assessment agencies. Further research and implementation work is needed to determine which method can best aid decision makers to choose low environmental impact healthcare interventions.

Cost-effectiveness of Accepting Kidneys From Deceased Donors With Common Cancers-A Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: The disparity between the demand for and supply of kidney transplants has resulted in prolonged waiting times for patients with kidney failure. A potential approach to address this shortage is to consider kidneys from donors with a history of common cancers, such as breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers. METHODS: We used a patient-level Markov model to evaluate the outcomes of accepting kidneys from deceased donors with a perceived history of breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer characterized by minimal to intermediate transmission risk. Data from the Australian transplant registry were used in this analysis. The study compared the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from the perspective of the Australian healthcare system between the proposed practice of accepting these donors and the conservative practice of declining them. The model simulated outcomes for 1500 individuals waitlisted for a deceased donor kidney transplant for a 25-y horizon. RESULTS: Under the proposed practice, when an additional 15 donors with minimal to intermediate cancer transmission risk were accepted, QALY gains ranged from 7.32 to 20.12. This translates to an approximate increase of 7 to 20 additional years of perfect health. The shift in practice also led to substantial cost savings, ranging between $1.06 and $2.3 million. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed practice of accepting kidneys from deceased donors with a history of common cancers with minimal to intermediate transmission risk offers a promising solution to bridge the gap between demand and supply. This approach likely results in QALY gains for recipients and significant cost savings for the health system.

Transforming nursing assessment in acute hospitals: A cluster randomised controlled trial of an evidence-based nursing core assessment (the ENCORE trial).

BACKGROUND: Patient safety is threatened when early signs of clinical deterioration are missed or not acted upon. This research began as a clinical-academic partnership established around a shared concern of nursing physical assessment practices on general wards and delayed recognition of clinical deterioration. The outcome was the development of a complex intervention facilitated at the ward level for proactive nursing surveillance. METHODS: The evidence-based nursing core assessment (ENCORE) trial was a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. We hypothesised that ward intervention would reduce the incidence of patient rescue events (medical emergency team activations) and serious adverse events. We randomised 29 general wards in a 1:2 allocation, across 5 Australian hospitals to intervention (n = 10) and usual care wards (n = 19). Skilled facilitation over 12 months enabled practitioner-led, ward-level practice change for proactive nursing surveillance. The primary outcome was the rate of medical emergency team activations and secondary outcomes were unplanned intensive care unit admissions, on-ward resuscitations, and unexpected deaths. Outcomes were prospectively collected for 6 months following the initial 6 months of implementation. Analysis was at the patient level using generalised linear mixed models to account for clustering by ward. RESULTS: We analysed 29,385 patient admissions to intervention (n = 11,792) and control (n = 17,593) wards. Adjusted models for overall effects suggested the intervention increased the rate of medical emergency team activations (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.314; 95 % confidence interval 0.975, 1.773), although the confidence interval was compatible with a marginal decrease to a substantial increase in rate. Confidence intervals for secondary outcomes included a range of plausible effects from benefit to harm. However, considerable heterogeneity was observed in intervention effects by patient comorbidity. Among patients with few comorbid conditions in the intervention arm there was a lower medical emergency team activation rate and decreased odds of unexpected death. Among patients with multimorbidity in the intervention arm there were higher rates of medical emergency team activation and intensive care unit admissions. CONCLUSION: Trial outcomes have refined our assumptions about the impact of the ENCORE intervention. The intervention appears to have protective effects for patients with low complexity where frontline teams can respond locally. It also appears to have redistributed medical emergency team activations and unplanned intensive care unit admissions, mobilising higher rates of rescue for patients with multimorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12618001903279 (Date of registration: 22/11/2018; First participant recruited: 01/02/2019).

Effectiveness of Medical Music Therapy Practice: Integrative Research Using the Electronic Health Record: Rationale, Design, and Population Characteristics.

Background: Several clinical trials support the efficacy of music therapy (MT) for improving outcomes in hospitalized patients, but few studies have evaluated the real-world delivery and integration of MT across multiple medical centers. This article describes the rationale, design, and population characteristics of a retrospective study examining the delivery and integration of MT within a large health system. Methods: A retrospective electronic health record (EHR) review was conducted of hospitalized patients seen by and/or referred to MT between January 2017 and July 2020. MT was provided across ten medical centers, including an academic medical center, a freestanding cancer center, and eight community hospitals. Discrete demographic, clinical, and MT treatment and referral characteristics were extracted from the EHR, cleaned, and organized using regular expressions functions, and they were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: The MT team (average 11.6 clinical fulltime equivalent staff/year) provided 14,261 sessions to 7378 patients across 9091 hospitalizations. Patients were predominantly female (63.7%), White (54.3%) or Black/African American (44.0%), 63.7 ± 18.5 years of age at admission, and insured under Medicare (51.1%), Medicaid (18.1%), or private insurance (14.2%). Patients' hospitalizations (median length of stay: 5 days) were primarily for cardiovascular (11.8%), respiratory (9.9%), or musculoskeletal (8.9%) conditions. Overall, 39.4% of patients' hospital admissions included a mental health diagnosis, and 15.4% were referred to palliative care. Patients were referred by physicians (34.7%), nurses (29.4%), or advanced practice providers (24.7%) for coping (32.0%), anxiety reduction (20.4%), or pain management (10.1%). Therapists provided sessions to patients discharged from medical/surgical (74.5%), oncology (18.4%), or intensive care (5.8%) units. Conclusions: This retrospective study indicates that MT can be integrated across a large health system for addressing the needs of socioeconomically diverse patients. However, future research is needed to assess MT's impact on health care utilization (i.e., length of stay and rates of readmission) and immediate patient-reported outcomes.

Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There has been an increase in the study and use of stated-preference methods to inform medicine development decisions. The objective of this study was to identify prioritized topics and questions relating to health preferences based on the perspective of members of the preference research community. METHODS: Preference research stakeholders from industry, academia, consultancy, health technology assessment/regulatory, and patient organizations were recruited using professional networks and preference-targeted e-mail listservs and surveyed about their perspectives on 19 topics and questions for future studies that would increase acceptance of preference methods and their results by decision makers. The online survey consisted of an initial importance prioritization task, a best-worst scaling case 1 instrument, and open-ended questions. Rating counts were used for analysis. The best-worst scaling used a balanced incomplete block design. RESULTS: One hundred and one participants responded to the survey invitation with 66 completing the best-worst scaling. The most important research topics related to the synthesis of preferences across studies, transferability across populations or related diseases, and method topics including comparison of methods and non-discrete choice experiment methods. Prioritization differences were found between respondents whose primary affiliation was academia versus other stakeholders. Academic researchers prioritized methodological/less studied topics; other stakeholders prioritized applied research topics relating to consistency of practice. CONCLUSIONS: As the field of health preference research grows, there is a need to revisit and communicate previous work on preference selection and study design to ensure that new stakeholders are aware of this work and to update these works where necessary. These findings might encourage discussion and alignment among different stakeholders who might hold different research priorities. Research on the application of previous preference research to new contexts will also help increase the acceptance of health preference information by decision makers.

Barriers and facilitators to engaging in smoking cessation support among lung screening participants.

INTRODUCTION: Embedded smoking cessation support within lung cancer screening is recommended in the UK; however, little is known about why individuals decline smoking cessation support in this setting. This study identified psychosocial factors that influence smoking cessation and quit motivation among those who declined support for quitting smoking alongside lung cancer screening. METHODS: Qualitative interviews conducted between August 2019 - April 2021 with thirty adults with a smoking history, recruited from the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial. Participants had declined smoking cessation support. Verbatim interview transcripts were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Fifty percent of participants were male and the majority were from the most deprived groups. Participants reported low motivation and a variety of barriers to stopping smoking. Participants described modifiable behavioural factors that influenced their quit motivation including self-efficacy, perceived effectiveness of stop-smoking services including smoking cessation aids, risk-minimising beliefs, lack of social support, absence of positive influences on smoking and beliefs about smoking/smoking cessation. Broader contextual factors included social isolation and stigma, COVID-19 and comorbid mental and physical health conditions that deterred smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: To encourage engagement in smoking cessation support during lung cancer screening, interventions should seek to encourage positive beliefs about the effectiveness of smoking cessation aids and increase confidence in quitting as part of supportive, person-centred care. Interventions should also acknowledge the wider social determinants of health among the lung screening-eligible population. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides an in-depth understanding of the beliefs surrounding smoking and smoking cessation and further potential psychosocial factors that influence those attending lung cancer screening. Many of the barriers to smoking cessation found in the present study are similar to those outside of a lung screening setting however this work offers an understanding of potential facilitators that should be considered in future lung screening programmes.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of a melanoma prevention program using genomic risk information compared with standard prevention advice in Australia.

PURPOSE: Evidence indicates that a melanoma prevention program using personalized genomic risk provision and genetic counseling can affect prevention behaviors, including reducing sunburns in adults with no melanoma history. This analysis evaluated its longer-term cost-effectiveness from an Australian health system perspective. METHODS: The primary outcome was incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of genomic risk provision (intervention) compared with standard prevention advice. A decision-analytic Markov model was developed using randomized trial data to simulate lifetime cost-effectiveness. All costs were presented in 2018/19 Australian dollars (AUD). The intervention effect on reduced sunburns was stratified by sex and traditional risk, which was calculated through a validated prediction model. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken for robustness checks. RESULTS: The per participant cost of intervention was AUD$189. Genomic risk provision targeting high-traditional risk individuals produced an ICER of AUD$35,254 (per quality-adjusted life year gained); sensitivity analyses indicated the intervention would be cost-effective in more than 50% of scenarios. When the intervention was extended to low-traditional risk groups, the ICER was AUD$43,746 with a 45% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Genomic risk provision targeted to high-traditional melanoma risk individuals is likely a cost-effective strategy for reducing sunburns and will likely prevent future melanomas and keratinocyte carcinomas.

Ankle fractures: High implant cost is not associated with better patient reported outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Ankle fractures comprise 9% of all fractures and are among the most common fractures requiring operative management. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with plates and screws is the gold standard for the treatment of unstable, displaced ankle fractures. While performing ORIF, orthopaedic surgeons may choose from several fixation methods including locking versus nonlocking plating and whether to use screws or suture buttons for syndesmotic injuries. Nearly all orthopaedic surgeons treat ankle fractures but most are unfamiliar with implant costs. No study to date has correlated the cost of ankle fracture fixation with health status as perceived by patients through patient reported outcomes (PROs). The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a relationship between increasing implant cost and PROs after a rotational ankle fracture. METHODS: All ankle fractures treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) at a level I academic trauma center from January 2018 to December 2022 were identified. Inclusion criteria included all rotational ankle fractures with a minimum 6-month follow-up and completed 6-month PRO. Patients were excluded for age <18, polytrauma and open fracture. Variables assessed included demographics, fracture classifications, Foot and Ankle Ability Measure-Activities of Daily Living (FAAM-ADL) score, implant type, and implant cost. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in cost between fracture types (p < 0.0001) with trimalleolar fractures being the most expensive. The mean FAAM-ADL score was lowest for trimalleolar fractures at 78.9, 95% CI [75.5, 82.3]. A diagnosis of osteoporosis/osteopenia was associated with a decrease in cost of $233.3, 95% CI [-411.8, -54.8]. There was no relationship between syndesmotic fixation and implant cost, $102.6, 95% CI [-74.9, 280.0]. There was no correlation between implant cost and FAAM-ADL score at 6 months (p = 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of higher cost ankle fixation does not correlate with better FAAM-ADL scores. Orthopaedic surgeons may choose less expensive implants to improve the value of ankle fixation without impacting patient reported outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of Kidney Transplantation From Donors at Increased Risk of Blood-borne Virus Infection Transmission.

BACKGROUND: Demand for donor kidneys outstrips supply. Using kidneys from selected donors with an increased risk of blood-borne virus (BBV) transmission (hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus [HCV], human immunodeficiency virus) may expand the donor pool, but cost-effectiveness of this strategy is uncertain. METHODS: A Markov model was developed using real-world evidence to compare healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of accepting kidneys from deceased donors with potential increased risk of BBV transmission, because of increased risk behaviors and/or history of HCV, versus declining these kidneys. Model simulations were run over a 20-y time horizon. Parameter uncertainty was assessed through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Accepting kidneys from donors at increased risk of BBVs (2% from donors with increased-risk behaviors and 5% from donors with active or past HCV infection) incurred total costs of 311 303 Australian dollars with a gain of 8.53 QALYs. Foregoing kidneys from these donors incurred total costs of $330 517 and a gain of 8.44 QALYs. A cost-saving of $19 214 and additional 0.09 QALYs (~33 d in full health) per person would be generated compared with declining these donors. Increasing the availability of kidneys with increased risk by 15% led to further cost-savings of $57 425 and additional 0.23 QALY gains (~84 d in full health). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using 10 000 iterations showed accepting kidneys from donors at increased risk led to lower costs and higher QALY gains. CONCLUSIONS: Shifting clinical practice to accept increased BBV risk donors would likely produce lower costs and higher QALYs for health systems.

Cost-effectiveness of Interventions to Increase Utilization of Kidneys From Deceased Donors With Primary Brain Malignancy in an Australian Setting.

Kidneys from potential deceased donors with brain cancer are often foregone due to concerns of cancer transmission risk to recipients. There may be uncertainty around donors' medical history and their absolute transmission risk or risk-averse decision-making among clinicians. However, brain cancer transmissions are rare, and prolonging waiting time for recipients is harmful. Methods: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of increasing utilization of potential deceased donors with brain cancer using a Markov model simulation of 1500 patients waitlisted for a kidney transplant, based on linked transplant registry data and with a payer perspective (Australian government). We estimated costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for three interventions: decision support for clinicians in assessing donor risk, improved cancer classification accuracy with real-time data-linkage to hospital records and cancer registries, and increased risk tolerance to allow intermediate-risk donors (up to 6.4% potential transmission risk). Results: Compared with current practice, decision support provided 0.3% more donors with an average transmission risk of 2%. Real-time data-linkage provided 0.6% more donors (1.1% average transmission risk) and increasing risk tolerance (accepting intermediate-risk 6.4%) provided 2.1% more donors (4.9% average transmission risk). Interventions were dominant (improved QALYs and saved costs) in 78%, 80%, and 87% of simulations, respectively. The largest benefit was from increasing risk tolerance (mean +18.6 QALYs and AU$2.2 million [US$1.6 million] cost-savings). Conclusions: Despite the additional risk of cancer transmission, accepting intermediate-risk donors with brain cancer is likely to increase the number of donor kidneys available for transplant, improve patient outcomes, and reduce overall healthcare expenditure.

Motivational support intervention to reduce smoking and increase physical activity in smokers not ready to quit: the TARS RCT.

Background: Physical activity can support smoking cessation for smokers wanting to quit, but there have been no studies on supporting smokers wanting only to reduce. More broadly, the effect of motivational support for such smokers is unclear. Objectives: The objectives were to determine if motivational support to increase physical activity and reduce smoking for smokers not wanting to immediately quit helps reduce smoking and increase abstinence and physical activity, and to determine if this intervention is cost-effective. Design: This was a multicentred, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1) controlled superiority trial with accompanying trial-based and model-based economic evaluations, and a process evaluation. Setting and participants: Participants from health and other community settings in four English cities received either the intervention (n = 457) or usual support (n = 458). Intervention: The intervention consisted of up to eight face-to-face or telephone behavioural support sessions to reduce smoking and increase physical activity. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures were carbon monoxide-verified 6- and 12-month floating prolonged abstinence (primary outcome), self-reported number of cigarettes smoked per day, number of quit attempts and carbon monoxide-verified abstinence at 3 and 9 months. Furthermore, self-reported (3 and 9 months) and accelerometer-recorded (3 months) physical activity data were gathered. Process items, intervention costs and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. Results: The average age of the sample was 49.8 years, and participants were predominantly from areas with socioeconomic deprivation and were moderately heavy smokers. The intervention was delivered with good fidelity. Few participants achieved carbon monoxide-verified 6-month prolonged abstinence [nine (2.0%) in the intervention group and four (0.9%) in the control group; adjusted odds ratio 2.30 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 7.56)] or 12-month prolonged abstinence [six (1.3%) in the intervention group and one (0.2%) in the control group; adjusted odds ratio 6.33 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 53.10)]. At 3 months, the intervention participants smoked fewer cigarettes than the control participants (21.1 vs. 26.8 per day). Intervention participants were more likely to reduce cigarettes by ≥ 50% by 3 months [18.9% vs. 10.5%; adjusted odds ratio 1.98 (95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.90] and 9 months [14.4% vs. 10.0%; adjusted odds ratio 1.52 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 2.29)], and reported more moderate-to-vigorous physical activity at 3 months [adjusted weekly mean difference of 81.61 minutes (95% confidence interval 28.75 to 134.47 minutes)], but not at 9 months. Increased physical activity did not mediate intervention effects on smoking. The intervention positively influenced most smoking and physical activity beliefs, with some intervention effects mediating changes in smoking and physical activity outcomes. The average intervention cost was estimated to be £239.18 per person, with an overall additional cost of £173.50 (95% confidence interval -£353.82 to £513.77) when considering intervention and health-care costs. The 1.1% absolute between-group difference in carbon monoxide-verified 6-month prolonged abstinence provided a small gain in lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (0.006), and a minimal saving in lifetime health-care costs (net saving £236). Conclusions: There was no evidence that behavioural support for smoking reduction and increased physical activity led to meaningful increases in prolonged abstinence among smokers with no immediate plans to quit smoking. The intervention is not cost-effective. Limitations: Prolonged abstinence rates were much lower than expected, meaning that the trial was underpowered to provide confidence that the intervention doubled prolonged abstinence. Future work: Further research should explore the effects of the present intervention to support smokers who want to reduce prior to quitting, and/or extend the support available for prolonged reduction and abstinence. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN47776579. 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. 27, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

NHS pharmacological and behavioural support helps smokers wanting to quit, and physical activity may also help. It is unclear if behavioural support for those not ready to quit may lead to more quit attempts and abstinence from smoking. A total of 915 smokers who wanted to reduce their smoking, but who had not yet quit, were recruited and randomised to receive an intervention or brief support as usual (brief advice to quit), in Plymouth, London, Oxford and Nottingham. The intervention involved up to eight sessions (by telephone or in person) of motivational support to reduce smoking and increase physical activity (and more sessions to support a quit attempt). Participants self-reported smoking and physical activity information at the start of the trial and after 3 and 9 months. Self-reported quitters confirmed their abstinence with a biochemical test of expired air or saliva. Our main interest was in whether or not the groups differed in the proportion who remained abstinent for at least 6 months. Overall, only 1­2% remained abstinent for 6 months. Although it appeared that a greater proportion did so after receiving the intervention, because few participants were abstinent, the results are not conclusive. However, the intervention had beneficial effects on less rigorous outcomes, including a reduction in the self-reported number of cigarettes smoked, and a greater proportion of intervention than control participants with self-reported and biochemically verified abstinence at 3 months. The intervention also helped participants to reduce, by at least half, the number of cigarettes they smoked at 3 and 9 months, and to report more physical activity, but only at 3 months. Despite reasonable intervention engagement and some short-term changes in smoking and physical activity, the trial does not provide evidence that this intervention would help smokers to quit for at least 6 months nor would it be cost-effective, with an average cost of £239 per smoker.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural support for prolonged abstinence for smokers wishing to reduce but not quit: Randomised controlled trial of physical activity assisted reduction of smoking (TARS).

AIMS: For smokers unmotivated to quit, we assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural support to reduce smoking and increase physical activity on prolonged abstinence and related outcomes. DESIGN: A multi-centred pragmatic two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care and the community across four United Kingdom sites. PARTICIPANTS: Nine hundred and fifteen adult smokers (55% female, 85% White), recruited via primary and secondary care and the community, who wished to reduce their smoking but not quit. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to support as usual (SAU) (n = 458) versus multi-component community-based behavioural support (n = 457), involving up to eight weekly person-centred face-to-face or phone sessions with additional 6-week support for those wishing to quit. MEASUREMENTS: Ideally, cessation follows smoking reduction so the primary pre-defined outcome was biochemically verified 6-month prolonged abstinence (from 3-9 months, with a secondary endpoint also considering abstinence between 9 and 15 months). Secondary outcomes included biochemically verified 12-month prolonged abstinence and point prevalent biochemically verified and self-reported abstinence, quit attempts, number of cigarettes smoked, pharmacological aids used, SF12, EQ-5D and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) at 3 and 9 months. Intervention costs were assessed for a cost-effectiveness analysis. FINDINGS: Assuming missing data at follow-up implied continued smoking, nine (2.0%) intervention participants and four (0.9%) SAU participants achieved the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70-7.56, P = 0.169). At 3 and 9 months, the proportions self-reporting reducing cigarettes smoked from baseline by ≥50%, for intervention versus SAU, were 18.9% versus 10.5% (P = 0.009) and 14.4% versus 10% (P = 0.044), respectively. Mean difference in weekly MVPA at 3 months was 81.6 minutes in favour of the intervention group (95% CI = 28.75, 134.47: P = 0.003), but there was no significant difference at 9 months (23.70, 95% CI = -33.07, 80.47: P = 0.143). Changes in MVPA did not mediate changes in smoking outcomes. The intervention cost was £239.18 per person, with no evidence of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: For United Kingdom smokers wanting to reduce but not quit smoking, behavioural support to reduce smoking and increase physical activity improved some short-term smoking cessation and reduction outcomes and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, but had no long-term effects on smoking cessation or physical activity.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the use of melanoma surveillance photography to the Improve early detection of MelanomA in ultra-hiGh and high-risk patiEnts (the IMAGE trial).

INTRODUCTION: Melanoma surveillance photography (MSP) is a comprehensive surveillance method that comprises two- or three-dimensional total body photography with tagged digital dermoscopy, performed at prescribed intervals. It has the potential to reduce unnecessary biopsies and enhance early detection of melanoma, but it is not yet standard care for all high-risk patients in Australia. This protocol describes a randomised controlled trial (RCT) designed to evaluate the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of using MSP for the surveillance of individuals at ultra-high or high risk of melanoma from a health system perspective. METHODS AND DESIGN: This is a registry-based, unblinded, multi-site, parallel-arm RCT that will be conducted over 3 years. We aim to recruit 580 participants from three Australian states: Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, via state cancer registries or direct referral from clinicians. Eligible participants within 24 months of a primary cutaneous melanoma diagnosis will be randomised 1:1 to receive either MSP in addition to their routine clinical surveillance (intervention group) or routine clinical surveillance without MSP (control group). Most participants will continue surveillance with their usual care provider, and the frequency of follow-up visits in both groups will depend on the stage of their primary melanoma and risk factors. The primary outcome measure of the study is the number of unnecessary biopsies (i.e. false positives, being cases where a lesion is biopsied due to suspected melanoma on clinical examination, either with or without MSP, but the resulting histopathology finding is negative for melanoma). Secondary outcomes include the evaluation of health economic outcomes, quality of life and patient acceptability. Two sub-studies will explore the benefit of MSP in high-risk patients prior to a melanoma diagnosis and the diagnostic performance of MSP in the teledermatology setting compared to the en face clinical setting. DISCUSSION: This trial will determine the clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness and affordability of MSP to facilitate policy decision-making at the national and local levels, across primary and specialist care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04385732 . Registered on May 13, 2020.

Harnessing neuroplasticity to improve motor performance in infants with cerebral palsy: a study protocol for the GAME randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common physical disability of childhood worldwide. Historically the diagnosis was made between 12 and 24 months, meaning data about effective early interventions to improve motor outcomes are scant. In high-income countries, two in three children will walk. This evaluator-blinded randomised controlled trial will investigate the efficacy of an early and sustained Goals-Activity-Motor Enrichment approach to improve motor and cognitive skills in infants with suspected or confirmed CP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Participants will be recruited from neonatal intensive care units and the community in Australia across four states. To be eligible for inclusion infants will be aged 3-6.5 months corrected for prematurity and have a diagnosis of CP or 'high risk of CP' according to the International Clinical Practice Guideline criteria. Eligible participants whose caregivers consent will be randomly allocated to receive usual care or weekly sessions at home from a GAME-trained study physiotherapist or occupational therapist, paired with a daily home programme, until age 2. The study requires 150 participants per group to detect a 0.5 SD difference in motor skills at 2 years of age, measured by the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2. Secondary outcomes include gross motor function, cognition, functional independence, social-emotional development and quality of life. A within-trial economic evaluation is also planned. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Sydney Children's Hospital Network Human Ethics Committee in April 2017 (ref number HREC/17/SCHN/37). Outcomes will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publications, presentations at international conferences and consumer websites. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617000006347.

Suitability of Preference Methods Across the Medical Product Lifecycle: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to understand the importance of criteria describing methods (eg, duration, costs, validity, and outcomes) according to decision makers for each decision point in the medical product lifecycle (MPLC) and to determine the suitability of a discrete choice experiment, swing weighting, probabilistic threshold technique, and best-worst scale cases 1 and 2 at each decision point in the MPLC. METHODS: Applying multicriteria decision analysis, an online survey was sent to MPLC decision makers (ie, industry, regulatory, and health technology assessment representatives). They ranked and weighted 19 methods criteria from an existing performance matrix about their respective decisions across the MPLC. All criteria were given a relative weight based on the ranking and rating in the survey after which an overall suitability score was calculated for each preference elicitation method per decision point. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to reflect uncertainty in the performance matrix. RESULTS: Fifty-nine industry, 29 regulatory, and 5 health technology assessment representatives completed the surveys. Overall, "estimating trade-offs between treatment characteristics" and "estimating weights for treatment characteristics" were highly important criteria throughout all MPLC decision points, whereas other criteria were most important only for specific MPLC stages. Swing weighting and probabilistic threshold technique received significantly higher suitability scores across decision points than other methods. Sensitivity analyses showed substantial impact of uncertainty in the performance matrix. CONCLUSION: Although discrete choice experiment is the most applied preference elicitation method, other methods should also be considered to address the needs of decision makers. Development of evidence-based guidance documents for designing, conducting, and analyzing such methods could enhance their use.

Exploring the Integration of Environmental Impacts in the Cost Analysis of the Pilot MEL-SELF Trial of Patient-Led Melanoma Surveillance.

AIMS: Human health is intrinsically linked with planetary health. But planetary resources are currently being degraded and this poses an existential threat to human health and the sustainability of our healthcare systems. The aims of this study were to (1) describe an approach to integrate environmental impacts in a cost analysis; and (2) demonstrate this approach by estimating select environmental impacts alongside traditional health system and other costs using the example of the pilot MEL-SELF randomised controlled trial of patient-led melanoma surveillance. METHODS: Economic costs were calculated alongside a randomised trial using standard cost analysis methodology from a societal perspective. Environmental impacts were calculated using a type of carbon footprinting methodology called process-based life cycle analysis. This method considers three scopes of carbon emissions: Scope 1, which occur directly from the intervention; Scope 2, which occur indirectly from the intervention's energy use; and Scope 3, which occur indirectly because of the value chain of the intervention. In this study we only included emissions from patient transport to attend their melanoma clinic over the study period of 6 months. RESULTS: The environmental impact per participant across allocated groups for patient transport to their melanoma clinic was estimated to be 10 kg carbon dioxide equivalent. Economic costs across the allocated groups indicated substantial health system costs, out-of-pocket costs, and productivity losses associated with melanoma surveillance. The largest cost contributor was health system costs, and the most expensive category of health system cost was hospital admission. CONCLUSION: Calculating environmental impacts is worthwhile and feasible within a cost analysis framework. Further work is needed to address outstanding conceptual and practical issues so that a comprehensive assessment of environmental impacts can be considered alongside economic costs in health technology assessments.