Evaluation of a COVID-19 fundamental nursing care guideline versus usual care: The COVID-NURSE cluster randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID-19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses' moral distress, patient health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: Parallel two-arm, cluster-level randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID-19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient-reported co-primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention-to-treat analyses. RESULTS: We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570-572 (98.1%-98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between-group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between-group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co-primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the 'other' ethnicity subgroup. CONCLUSION: We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required. IMPACT: Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care. REPORTING METHOD: CONSORT and CONSERVE. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID-19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings.

Self-care, symptom experience, needs, and past health-care utilization in individuals with heart failure: results of a cross-sectional study.

AIMS: Self-care in heart failure (HF) is generally sub-optimal and impacts morbidity and mortality. To describe self-care prevalence and explore its relationships with symptom experience, patient needs, and health-care utilization in a Swiss hospital providing regional secondary care. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cross-sectional study, convenience sample of individuals with HF from four campuses of one regional Swiss hospital. Self-care was assessed via the Self-Care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) and the European Heart Failure Self-care Behaviour Scale (EHFScBS), symptom experience via the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory-HF (MDASI-HF) and needs via the Heart Failure Needs Assessment Questionnaire (HFNAQ). Healthcare utilization reflected the preceding year's hospitalization incidence. A cut-off level of ≥70% indicated adequate self-care. We analysed SCHFI, EHFScBS, MDASI-HF and HFNAQ scores' relationships with hospitalizations using Spearman's rho correlation; no prior hypotheses were stated. Sample of 310 individuals with HF (37.4% female; mean age 76.8; 55% NYHA III). Adequate self-care maintenance, management, and confidence were reported by 24%, 10%, and 61%. respectively. The sample's mean number of experienced symptoms was 12.8 (SD 4.0) and 14.0 (SD 5.8) for needs. Over the previous year, 269 hospitalizations had occurred (median: 0, IQR 1). Hospitalizations positively correlated with self-care; symptom experience with needs. Neither symptom experience nor needs correlated with hospitalizations. CONCLUSION: The findings indicated low self-care levels and suggest a need for increased support to maintain physiological stability, manage symptoms and prevent hospitalizations. This study is the first of its kind in Switzerland and among few studies worldwide to report on self-care, symptom experience, needs, and health-care utilization. Interventional studies are warranted considering baseline self-care capabilities, symptoms, and needs of individuals with HF.

Speaking Up for Fundamental Care: the ILC Aalborg Statement.

OBJECTIVE: The International Learning Collaborative (ILC) is an organisation dedicated to understanding why fundamental care, the care required by all patients regardless of clinical condition, fails to be provided in healthcare systems globally. At its 11th annual meeting in 2019, nursing leaders from 11 countries, together with patient representatives, confirmed that patients' fundamental care needs are still being ignored and nurses are still afraid to 'speak up' when these care failures occur. While the ILC's efforts over the past decade have led to increased recognition of the importance of fundamental care, it is not enough. To generate practical, sustainable solutions, we need to substantially rethink fundamental care and its contribution to patient outcomes and experiences, staff well-being, safety and quality, and the economic viability of healthcare systems. KEY ARGUMENTS: We present five propositions for radically transforming fundamental care delivery:Value: fundamental care must be foundational to all caring activities, systems and institutionsTalk: fundamental care must be explicitly articulated in all caring activities, systems and institutions.Do: fundamental care must be explicitly actioned and evaluated in all caring activities, systems and institutions.Own: fundamental care must be owned by each individual who delivers care, works in a system that is responsible for care or works in an institution whose mission is to deliver care. RESEARCH: fundamental care must undergo systematic and high-quality investigations to generate the evidence needed to inform care practices and shape health systems and education curricula. CONCLUSION: For radical transformation within health systems globally, we must move beyond nursing and ensure all members of the healthcare team-educators, students, consumers, clinicians, leaders, researchers, policy-makers and politicians-value, talk, do, own and research fundamental care. It is only through coordinated, collaborative effort that we will, and must, achieve real change.

Intervention development and treatment success in UK health technology assessment funded trials of physical rehabilitation: a mixed methods analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Physical rehabilitation is a complex process, and trials of rehabilitation interventions are increasing in number but often report null results. This study aimed to establish treatment success rates in physical rehabilitation trials funded by the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme and examine any relationship between treatment success and the quality of intervention development work undertaken. DESIGN: This is a mixed methods study. SETTING: This study was conducted in the UK. METHODS: The NIHR HTA portfolio was searched for all completed definitive randomised controlled trials of physical rehabilitation interventions from inception to July 2016. Treatment success was categorised according to criteria developed by Djulbegovic and colleagues. Detailed textual data regarding any intervention development work were extracted from trial reports and supporting publications and informed the development of quality ratings. Mixed methods integrative analysis was undertaken to explore the relationship between quantitative and qualitative data using joint displays. RESULTS: Fifteen trials were included in the review. Five reported a definitive finding, four of which were in favour of the 'new' intervention. Eight trials reported a true negative (no difference) outcome. Integrative analysis indicated those with lower quality intervention development work were less likely to report treatment success. CONCLUSIONS: Despite much effort and funding, most physical rehabilitation trials report equivocal findings. Greater focus on high quality intervention development may reduce the likelihood of a null result in the definitive trial, alongside high quality trial methods and conduct.

Impact of telephone delivered case-management on the effectiveness of collaborative care for depression and anti-depressant use: A systematic review and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: The health service delivery framework collaborative care is an effective intervention for depression. However, uncertainties remain about how to optimise its delivery at scale. Structured case management is a core component of collaborative care; its delivery via the telephone may improve access. AIMS: To examine using meta-regression if telephone delivered case management diminishes the clinical effectiveness of collaborative care on depressive symptoms and anti-depressant use relative to face-to-face delivery methods. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials were eligible if they included collaborative care interventions for adults with depression identified using self-report measures or diagnostic interviews and reported depression outcomes. Sociodemographics, intervention characteristics, depressive symptoms, and anti-depressant use were extracted. Random effects univariable and multivariable meta-regression analyses were used to examine the moderating effect of telephone delivered case-management on outcomes. RESULTS: Ninety-four trials were identified comprising of 103 comparisons across 24, 132 participants with depression outcomes and 67 comparisons from 15,367 participants with anti-depressant use outcomes. Telephone delivered case management did not diminish the effects of collaborative care on depressive symptoms (ß = -0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.10; p = 0.86). Telephone delivered case management decreased anti-depressant medication use (relative risk 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92; p = 0.005); this effect remained when assessed simultaneously alongside other study-level moderators of collaborative care. CONCLUSION: Using remote platforms such as the telephone to deliver case management may be a feasible way to implement collaborative care with no loss of effectiveness on depressive symptoms. However, adherence to anti-depressant medication may decrease when telephone case management is used.

Enhanced psychological care in cardiac rehabilitation services for patients with new-onset depression: the CADENCE feasibility study and pilot RCT.

BACKGROUND: Around 19% of people screened by UK cardiac rehabilitation programmes report having moderate or severe symptoms of depression. These individuals are at an increased risk of cardiac mortality and morbidity, reduced quality of life and increased use of health resources compared with their non-depressed counterparts. Maximising psychological health is a goal of cardiac rehabilitation, but psychological care is patchy. OBJECTIVE(S): To examine the feasibility and acceptability of embedding enhanced psychological care (EPC) within cardiac rehabilitation, we tested the feasibility of developing/implementing EPC and documented the key uncertainties associated with undertaking a definitive evaluation. DESIGN: A two-stage multimethods study; a feasibility study and a qualitative evaluation, followed by an external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a nested qualitative study. SETTING: UK comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation teams. PARTICIPANTS: Adults eligible for cardiac rehabilitation following an acute coronary syndrome with new-onset depressive symptoms on initial nurse assessment. Patients who had received treatment for depression in the preceding 6 months were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: The EPC intervention comprised nurse-led mental health-care co-ordination and behavioural activation within cardiac rehabilitation. The comparator was usual cardiac rehabilitation care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures at baseline, and at the 5- (feasibility and pilot) and 8-month follow-ups (pilot only). Process measures related to cardiac team and patient recruitment, and participant retention. Outcomes included depressive symptoms, cardiac mortality and morbidity, anxiety, health-related quality of life and service resource use. Interviews explored participant and nurses' views and experiences. RESULTS: Between September 2014 and May 2015, five nurses from four teams recruited participants into the feasibility study. Of the 203 patients screened, 30 were eligible and nine took part (the target was 20 participants). At interview, participants and nurses gave valuable insights into the EPC intervention design and delivery. Although acceptable, the EPC delivery was challenging for nurses (e.g. the ability to allocate sufficient time within existing workloads) and the intervention was modified accordingly. Between December 2014 and February 2015, 8 out of 20 teams approached agreed to participate in the pilot RCT [five were randomised to the EPC arm and three were randomised to the usual-care (UC) arm]. Of the 614 patients screened, 55 were eligible and 29 took part (the target was 43 participants). At baseline, the trial arms were well matched for sex and ethnicity, although the EPC arm participants were younger, from more deprived areas and had higher depression scores than the UC participants. A total of 27 out of 29 participants were followed up at 5 months. Interviews with 18 participants (12 in the EPC arm and six in the UC arm) and seven nurses who delivered EPC identified that both groups acknowledged the importance of receiving psychological support embedded within routine cardiac rehabilitation. For those experiencing/delivering EPC, the intervention was broadly acceptable, albeit challenging to deliver within existing care. LIMITATIONS: Both the feasibility and the pilot studies encountered significant challenges in recruiting patients, which limited the power of the pilot study analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac rehabilitation nurses can be trained to deliver EPC. Although valued by both patients and nurses, organisational and workload constraints were significant barriers to implementation in participating teams, suggesting that future research may require a modified approach to intervention delivery within current service arrangements. We obtained important data informing definitive research regarding participant recruitment and retention, and optimal methods of data collection. FUTURE RESEARCH: Consideration should be given to the delivery of EPC by dedicated mental health practitioners, working closely with cardiac rehabilitation services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN34701576. 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. 22, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Assessing the effectiveness of Enhanced Psychological Care for patients with depressive symptoms attending cardiac rehabilitation compared with treatment as usual (CADENCE): a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Around 17% of people attending UK cardiac rehabilitation programmes have depression. Optimising psychological wellbeing is a rehabilitation goal, but provision of psychological care is limited. We developed and piloted an Enhanced Psychological Care (EPC) intervention embedded within cardiac rehabilitation, aiming to test key areas of uncertainty to inform the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation. METHODS: An external pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) randomised eight cardiac rehabilitation teams (clusters) to either usual care of cardiac rehabilitation provision (UC), or EPC in addition to UC. EPC comprised mental health care coordination and patient-led behavioural activation with nurse support. Adults eligible for cardiac rehabilitation following an acute coronary syndrome and identified with new-onset depressive symptoms during an initial nurse assessment were eligible. Measures were performed at baseline and 5- and 8-month follow-ups and compared between EPC and UC. Team and participant recruitment and retention rates, and participant outcomes (clinical events, depression, anxiety, health-related quality of life, patient experiences, and resource use) were assessed. RESULTS: Eight out of twenty teams were recruited and randomised. Of 614 patients screened, 55 were eligible and 29 took part (5%, 95% CI 3 to 7% of those screened), with 15 patient participants cluster randomised to EPC and 14 to UC. Nurse records revealed that 8/15 participants received the maximum number of EPC sessions offered; and 4/15 received no sessions. Seven out of fifteen EPC participants were referred to another NHS psychological service compared to none in UC. We followed up 27/29 participants at 5 months and 17/21 at 8 months. The mean difference (EPC minus UC) in depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory) at follow-up (adjusting for baseline score) was 1.7 (95% CI - 3.8 to 7.3; N = 26) at 5 months and 4.4 (95% CI - 1.4 to 10.2; N = 17) at 8 months. DISCUSSION: While valued by patients and nurses, organisational and workload constraints are significant barriers to EPC implementation. There remains a need to develop and test new models of psychological care within cardiac rehabilitation. Our study offers important data to inform the design of future trials of similar interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN34701576 . Registered on 29 May 2014. Funding details: UK NIHR HTA Programme (project 12/189/09).

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

BACKGROUND: Depression in older adults is common and is associated with poor quality of life, increased morbidity and early mortality, and increased health and social care use. Collaborative care, a low-intensity intervention for depression that is shown to be effective in working-age adults, has not yet been evaluated in older people with depression who are managed in UK primary care. The CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs (CASPER) plus trial fills the evidence gap identified by the most recent guidelines on depression management. OBJECTIVES: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for older adults with major depressive disorder in primary care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentred, two-arm, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study. Participants were automatically randomised by computer, by the York Trials Unit Randomisation Service, on a 1 : 1 basis using simple unstratified randomisation after informed consent and baseline measures were collected. Blinding was not possible. SETTING: Sixty-nine general practices in the north of England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 485 participants aged ≥ 65 years with major depressive disorder. INTERVENTIONS: A low-intensity intervention of collaborative care, including behavioural activation, delivered by a case manager for an average of six sessions over 7-8 weeks, alongside usual general practitioner (GP) care. The control arm received only usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items score at 4 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included depression severity and caseness at 12 and 18 months, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 items, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-2 items, a medication questionnaire, objective data and adverse events. Participants were followed up at 12 and 18 months. RESULTS: In total, 485 participants were randomised (collaborative care, n = 249; usual care, n = 236), with 390 participants (80%: collaborative care, 75%; usual care, 86%) followed up at 4 months, 358 participants (74%: collaborative care, 70%; usual care, 78%) followed up at 12 months and 344 participants (71%: collaborative care, 67%; usual care, 75%) followed up at 18 months. A total of 415 participants were included in primary analysis (collaborative care, n = 198; usual care, n = 217), which revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of collaborative care at the primary end point at 4 months [8.98 vs. 10.90 score points, mean difference 1.92 score points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 2.99 score points; p < 0.001], equivalent to a standard effect size of 0.34. However, treatment differences were not maintained in the longer term (at 12 months: 0.19 score points, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.29 score points; p = 0.741; at 18 months: < 0.01 score points, 95% CI -1.12 to 1.12 score points; p = 0.997). The study recorded details of all serious adverse events (SAEs), which consisted of 'unscheduled hospitalisation', 'other medically important condition' and 'death'. No SAEs were related to the intervention. Collaborative care showed a small but non-significant increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the 18-month period, with a higher cost. Overall, the mean cost per incremental QALY for collaborative care compared with usual care was £26,016; however, for participants attending six or more sessions, collaborative care appears to represent better value for money (£9876/QALY). LIMITATIONS: Study limitations are identified at different stages: design (blinding unfeasible, potential contamination), process (relatively low overall consent rate, differential attrition/retention rates) and analysis (no baseline health-care resource cost or secondary/social care data). CONCLUSION: Collaborative care was effective for older people with case-level depression across a range of outcomes in the short term though the reduction in depression severity was not maintained over the longer term of 12 or 18 months. Participants who received six or more sessions of collaborative care did benefit substantially more than those who received fewer treatment sessions but this difference was not statistically significant. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations for future research include investigating the longer-term effect of the intervention. Depression is a recurrent disorder and it would be useful to assess its impact on relapse and the prevention of future case-level depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45842879. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common, debilitating and costly disorder. The best-evidenced psychological therapy - cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) - is complex and costly. A simpler therapy, behavioural activation (BA), may be an effective alternative. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BA compared with CBT for depressed adults at 12 and 18 months' follow-up, and to investigate the processes of treatments. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial stratified by depression severity, antidepressant use and recruitment site, with embedded process evaluation; and randomisation by remote computer-generated allocation. SETTING: Three community mental health services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years with major depressive disorder (MDD) recruited from primary care and psychological therapy services. INTERVENTIONS: BA delivered by NHS junior mental health workers (MHWs); CBT by NHS psychological therapists. OUTCOMES: Primary: depression severity (as measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-9; PHQ-9) at 12 months. Secondary: MDD status; number of depression-free days; anxiety (as measured via the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7); health-related quality of life (as measured via the Short Form questionnaire-36 items) at 6, 12 and 18 months; and PHQ-9 at 6 and 18 months, all collected by assessors blinded to treatment allocation. Non-inferiority margin was 1.9 PHQ-9 points. We undertook intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses. We explored cost-effectiveness by collecting direct treatment and other health- and social-care costs and calculating quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, at 18 months. RESULTS: We recruited 440 participants (BA, n = 221; CBT, n = 219); 175 (79%) BA and 189 (86%) CBT participants provided ITT data and 135 (61%) BA and 151 (69%) CBT participants provided PP data. At 12 months we found that BA was non-inferior to CBT {ITT: CBT 8.4 PHQ-9 points [standard deviation (SD) 7.5 PHQ-9 points], BA 8.4 PHQ-9 points (SD 7.0 PHQ-9 points), mean difference 0.1 PHQ-9 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.3 to 1.5 PHQ-9 points, p = 0.89; PP: CBT 7.9 PHQ-9 points (SD 7.3 PHQ-9 points), BA 7.8 PHQ-9 points (SD 6.5 PHQ-9 points), mean difference 0.0 PHQ-9 points, 95% CI -1.5 to 1.6 PHQ-9 points, p = 0.99}. We found no differences in secondary outcomes. We found a significant difference in mean intervention costs (BA, £975; CBT, £1235; p < 0.001), but no differences in non-intervention (hospital, community health, social care and medication costs) or total (non-intervention plus intervention) costs. Costs were lower and QALY outcomes better in the BA group, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -£6865. The probability of BA being cost-effective compared with CBT was almost 80% at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's preferred willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. There were no trial-related adverse events. LIMITATIONS: In this pragmatic trial many depressed participants in both groups were also taking antidepressant medication, although most had been doing so for a considerable time before entering the trial. Around one-third of participants chose not to complete a PP dose of treatment, a finding common in both psychotherapy trials and routine practice. CONCLUSIONS: We found that BA is as effective as CBT, more cost-effective and can be delivered by MHWs with no professional training in psychological therapies. FUTURE WORK: Settings and countries with a paucity of professionally qualified psychological therapists, might choose to investigate the delivery of effective psychological therapy for depression without the need to develop an extensive and costly professional infrastructure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27473954. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost and outcome of behavioural activation versus cognitive behavioural therapy for depression (COBRA): a qualitative process evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To explore participant views on acceptability, mechanisms of change and impact of behavioural activation (BA) delivered by junior mental health workers (MHWs) versus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) delivered by professional psychotherapists. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative interviews analysed using a framework approach. PARTICIPANTS: 36 participants with major depressive disorder purposively sampled from a randomised controlled trial of BA versus CBT (the COBRA trial). SETTING: Primary care psychological therapies services in Devon, Durham and Leeds, UK. RESULTS: Elements of therapy considered to be beneficial included its length and regularity, the opportunity to learn and not dwelling on the past. Homework was an important, although challenging aspect of treatment. Therapists were perceived as experts who played an important role in treatment. For some participants the most important element of therapy was having someone to talk to, but for others the specific factors associated with BA and CBT were crucial, with behavioural change considered important for participants in both treatments, and cognitive change unsurprisingly discussed more by those receiving CBT. Both therapies were considered to have a positive impact on symptoms of depression and other areas of life including feelings about themselves, self-care, work and relationships. Barriers to therapy included work, family life and emotional challenges. A subset (n=2) of BA participants commented that therapy felt too simple, and MHWs could be perceived as inexperienced. Many participants saw therapy as a learning experience, providing them with tools to take away, with work on relapse prevention essential. CONCLUSIONS: Despite barriers for some participants, BA and CBT were perceived to have many benefits, to have brought about cognitive and behavioural change and to produce improvements in many domains of participants' lives. To optimise the delivery of BA, inexperienced junior MHWs should be supported through good quality training and ongoing supervision. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN27473954, 09/12/2011.

Cost and Outcome of Behavioural Activation versus Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Depression (COBRA): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common, debilitating, and costly disorder. Many patients request psychological therapy, but the best-evidenced therapy-cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-is complex and costly. A simpler therapy-behavioural activation (BA)-might be as effective and cheaper than is CBT. We aimed to establish the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of BA compared with CBT for adults with depression. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults aged 18 years or older meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV criteria for major depressive disorder from primary care and psychological therapy services in Devon, Durham, and Leeds (UK). We excluded people who were receiving psychological therapy, were alcohol or drug dependent, were acutely suicidal or had attempted suicide in the previous 2 months, or were cognitively impaired, or who had bipolar disorder or psychosis or psychotic symptoms. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) remotely using computer-generated allocation (minimisation used; stratified by depression severity [Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) score of <19 vs ≥19], antidepressant use, and recruitment site) to BA from junior mental health workers or CBT from psychological therapists. Randomisation done at the Peninsula Clinical Trials Unit was concealed from investigators. Treatment was given open label, but outcome assessors were masked. The primary outcome was depression symptoms according to the PHQ-9 at 12 months. We analysed all those who were randomly allocated and had complete data (modified intention to treat [mITT]) and also all those who were randomly allocated, had complete data, and received at least eight treatment sessions (per protocol [PP]). We analysed safety in the mITT population. The non-inferiority margin was 1·9 PHQ-9 points. This trial is registered with the ISCRTN registry, number ISRCTN27473954. FINDINGS: Between Sept 26, 2012, and April 3, 2014, we randomly allocated 221 (50%) participants to BA and 219 (50%) to CBT. 175 (79%) participants were assessable for the primary outcome in the mITT population in the BA group compared with 189 (86%) in the CBT group, whereas 135 (61%) were assessable in the PP population in the BA group compared with 151 (69%) in the CBT group. BA was non-inferior to CBT (mITT: CBT 8·4 PHQ-9 points [SD 7·5], BA 8·4 PHQ-9 points [7·0], mean difference 0·1 PHQ-9 points [95% CI -1·3 to 1·5], p=0·89; PP: CBT 7·9 PHQ-9 points [7·3]; BA 7·8 [6·5], mean difference 0·0 PHQ-9 points [-1·5 to 1·6], p=0·99). Two (1%) non-trial-related deaths (one [1%] multidrug toxicity in the BA group and one [1%] cancer in the CBT group) and 15 depression-related, but not treatment-related, serious adverse events (three in the BA group and 12 in the CBT group) occurred in three [2%] participants in the BA group (two [1%] patients who overdosed and one [1%] who self-harmed) and eight (4%) participants in the CBT group (seven [4%] who overdosed and one [1%] who self-harmed). INTERPRETATION: We found that BA, a simpler psychological treatment than CBT, can be delivered by junior mental health workers with less intensive and costly training, with no lesser effect than CBT. Effective psychological therapy for depression can be delivered without the need for costly and highly trained professionals. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Telephone triage systems in UK general practice: analysis of consultation duration during the index day in a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Telephone triage is an increasingly common means of handling requests for same-day appointments in general practice. AIM: To determine whether telephone triage (GP-led or nurse-led) reduces clinician-patient contact time on the day of the request (the index day), compared with usual care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A total of 42 practices in England recruited to the ESTEEM trial. METHOD: Duration of initial contact (following the appointment request) was measured for all ESTEEM trial patients consenting to case notes review, and that of a sample of subsequent face-to-face consultations, to produce composite estimates of overall clinician time during the index day. RESULTS: Data were available from 16,711 initial clinician-patient contacts, plus 1290 GP, and 176 nurse face-to-face consultations. The mean (standard deviation) duration of initial contacts in each arm was: GP triage 4.0 (2.8) minutes; nurse triage 6.6 (3.8) minutes; and usual care 9.5 (5.0) minutes. Estimated overall contact duration (including subsequent contacts on the same day) was 10.3 minutes for GP triage, 14.8 minutes for nurse triage, and 9.6 minutes for usual care. In nurse triage, more than half the duration of clinician contact (7.7 minutes) was with a GP. This was less than the 9.0 minutes of GP time used in GP triage. CONCLUSION: Telephone triage is not associated with a reduction in overall clinician contact time during the index day. Nurse-led triage is associated with a reduction in GP contact time but with an overall increase in clinician contact time. Individual practices may wish to interpret the findings in the context of the available skill mix of clinicians.

Assessing the effectiveness of enhanced psychological care for patients with depressive symptoms attending cardiac rehabilitation compared with treatment as usual (CADENCE): study protocol for a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Around 17% of people eligible for UK cardiac rehabilitation programmes following an acute coronary syndrome report moderate or severe depressive symptoms. While maximising psychological health is a core goal of cardiac rehabilitation, psychological care can be fragmented and patchy. This study tests the feasibility and acceptability of embedding enhanced psychological care, composed of two management strategies of proven effectiveness in other settings (nurse-led mental health care coordination and behavioural activation), within the cardiac rehabilitation care pathway. METHODS/DESIGN: This study tests the uncertainties associated with a large-scale evaluation by conducting an external pilot trial with a nested qualitative study. We aim to recruit and randomise eight comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation teams (clusters) to intervention (embedding enhanced psychological care into routine cardiac rehabilitation programmes) or control (routine cardiac rehabilitation programmes alone) arms. Up to 64 patients (eight per team) identified with depressive symptoms upon initial assessment by the cardiac rehabilitation team will be recruited, and study measures will be administered at baseline (before starting rehabilitation) and at 5 months and 8 months post baseline. Outcomes include depressive symptoms, cardiac mortality and morbidity, anxiety, health-related quality of life and service resource use. Trial data on cardiac team and patient recruitment, and the retention and flow of patients through treatment will be used to assess intervention feasibility and acceptability. Qualitative interviews will be undertaken to explore trial participants' and cardiac rehabilitation nurses' views and experiences of the trial methods and intervention, and to identify reasons why patients declined to take part in the trial. Outcome data will inform a sample size calculation for a definitive trial. DISCUSSION: The pilot trial and qualitative study will inform the design of a fully powered cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the provision of enhanced psychological care within cardiac rehabilitation programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN34701576 (Registered 29 May 2014).

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in UK primary care (CADET): a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care is effective for depression management in the USA. There is little UK evidence on its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care compared with usual care in the management of patients with moderate to severe depression. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: UK primary care practices (n = 51) in three UK primary care districts. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 581 adults aged ≥ 18 years in general practice with a current International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition depressive episode, excluding acutely suicidal people, those with psychosis, bipolar disorder or low mood associated with bereavement, those whose primary presentation was substance abuse and those receiving psychological treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Collaborative care: 14 weeks of 6-12 telephone contacts by care managers; mental health specialist supervision, including depression education, medication management, behavioural activation, relapse prevention and primary care liaison. Usual care was general practitioner standard practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blinded researchers collected depression [Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)], anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7) and quality of life (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions three-level version), Short Form questionnaire-36 items) outcomes at 4, 12 and 36 months, satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8) outcomes at 4 months and treatment and service use costs at 12 months. RESULTS: In total, 276 and 305 participants were randomised to collaborative care and usual care respectively. Collaborative care participants had a mean depression score that was 1.33 PHQ-9 points lower [n = 230; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 2.31; p = 0.009] than that of participants in usual care at 4 months and 1.36 PHQ-9 points lower (n = 275; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.64; p = 0.04) at 12 months after adjustment for baseline depression (effect size 0.28, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.52; odds ratio for recovery 1.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.75; number needed to treat 6.5). Quality of mental health but not physical health was significantly better for collaborative care at 4 months but not at 12 months. There was no difference for anxiety. Participants receiving collaborative care were significantly more satisfied with treatment. Differences between groups had disappeared at 36 months. Collaborative care had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant with similar health and social care service use between collaborative care and usual care. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 12 months at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI -£202.98 to £886.04) and had an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248, which is below current UK willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses including informal care costs indicated that collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective. The amount of participant behavioural activation was the only effect mediator. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care improves depression up to 12 months after initiation of the intervention, is preferred by patients over usual care, offers health gains at a relatively low cost, is cost-effective compared with usual care and is mediated by patient activation. Supervision was by expert clinicians and of short duration and more intensive therapy may have improved outcomes. In addition, one participant requiring inpatient treatment incurred very significant costs and substantially inflated our cost per QALY estimate. Future work should test enhanced intervention content not collaborative care per se. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32829227. FUNDING: This project was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) (G0701013) and managed by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) on behalf of the MRC-NIHR partnership.

A randomised controlled trial of computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for the treatment of depression in primary care: the Randomised Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Acceptability of Computerised Therapy (REEACT) trial.

BACKGROUND: Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) has been developed as an efficient form of therapy delivery with the potential to enhance access to psychological care. Independent research is needed which examines both the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cCBT over the short and longer term. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cCBT as an adjunct to usual general practitioner (GP) care against usual GP care alone, for a free-to-use cCBT program (MoodGYM; National Institute for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) and a commercial pay-to-use cCBT program (Beating the Blues(®); Ultrasis, London, UK) for adults with depression, and to determine the acceptability of cCBT and the experiences of users. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, three-armed, parallel, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with concurrent economic and qualitative evaluations. Simple randomisation was used. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation. SETTING: Primary care in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with depression who scored ≥ 10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). INTERVENTIONS: Participants who were randomised to either of the two intervention groups received cCBT (Beating the Blues or MoodGYM) in addition to usual GP care. Participants who were randomised to the control group were offered usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was depression at 4 months (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes were depression at 12 and 24 months; measures of mental health and health-related quality of life at 4, 12 and 24 months; treatment preference; and the acceptability of cCBT and experiences of users. RESULTS: Clinical effectiveness: 210 patients were randomised to Beating the Blues, 242 patients were randomised to MoodGYM and 239 patients were randomised to usual GP care (total 691). There was no difference in the primary outcome (depression measured at 4 months) either between Beating the Blues and usual GP care [odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.88] or between MoodGYM and usual GP care (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.56). There was no overall difference across all time points for either intervention compared with usual GP care in a mixed model (Beating the Blues versus usual GP care, p = 0.96; and MoodGYM versus usual GP care, p = 0.11). However, a small but statistically significant difference between MoodGYM and usual GP care at 12 months was found (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93). Free-to-use cCBT (MoodGYM) was not inferior to pay-to-use cCBT (Beating the Blues) (OR 0.91, 90% CI 0.62 to 1.34; p = 0.69). There were no consistent benefits of either intervention when secondary outcomes were examined. There were no serious adverse events thought likely to be related to the trial intervention. Despite the provision of regular technical telephone support, there was low uptake of the cCBT programs. Cost-effectiveness: cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that neither Beating the Blues nor MoodGYM appeared cost-effective compared with usual GP care alone. Qualitative evaluation: participants were often demotivated to access the computer programs, by reason of depression. Some expressed the view that a greater level of therapeutic input would be needed to promote engagement. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits that have previously been observed in developer-led trials were not found in this large pragmatic RCT. The benefits of cCBT when added to routine primary care were minimal, and uptake of this mode of therapy was relatively low. There remains a clinical and economic need for effective low-intensity psychological treatments for depression with improved patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN91947481. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as treatment for depression in primary care (REEACT trial): large scale pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: How effective is supported computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as an adjunct to usual primary care for adults with depression? METHODS: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, three arm, parallel randomised controlled trial with simple randomisation. Treatment allocation was not blinded. Participants were adults with symptoms of depression (score ≥ 10 on nine item patient health questionnaire, PHQ-9) who were randomised to receive a commercially produced cCBT programme ("Beating the Blues") or a free to use cCBT programme (MoodGYM) in addition to usual GP care. Participants were supported and encouraged to complete the programme via weekly telephone calls. Control participants were offered usual GP care, with no constraints on the range of treatments that could be accessed. The primary outcome was severity of depression assessed with the PHQ-9 at four months. Secondary outcomes included health related quality of life (measured by SF-36) and psychological wellbeing (measured by CORE-OM) at four, 12, and 24 months and depression at 12 and 24 months. STUDY ANSWER AND LIMITATIONS: Participants offered commercial or free to use cCBT experienced no additional improvement in depression compared with usual GP care at four months (odds ratio 1.19 (95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.88) for Beating the Blues v usual GP care; 0.98 (0.62 to 1.56) for MoodGYM v usual GP care). There was no evidence of an overall difference between either programme compared with usual GP care (0.99 (0.57 to 1.70) and 0.68 (0.42 to 1.10), respectively) at any time point. Commercially provided cCBT conferred no additional benefit over free to use cCBT or usual GP care at any follow-up point. Uptake and use of cCBT was low, despite regular telephone support. Nearly a quarter of participants (24%) had dropped out by four months. The study did not have enough power to detect small differences so these cannot be ruled out. Findings cannot be generalised to cCBT offered with a much higher level of guidance and support. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Supported cCBT does not substantially improve depression outcomes compared with usual GP care alone. In this study, neither a commercially available nor free to use computerised CBT intervention was superior to usual GP care. FUNDING, COMPETING INTERESTS, DATA SHARING: Commissioned and funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (project No 06/43/05). The authors have no competing interests. Requests for patient level data will be considered by the REEACT trial management groupTrial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91947481.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telephone triage for managing same-day consultation requests in general practice: a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing general practitioner-led and nurse-led management systems with usual care (the ESTEEM trial).

BACKGROUND: Telephone triage is proposed as a method of managing increasing demand for primary care. Previous studies have involved small samples in limited settings, and focused on nurse roles. Evidence is limited regarding the impact on primary care workload, costs, and patient safety and experience when triage is used to manage patients requesting same-day consultations in general practice. OBJECTIVES: In comparison with usual care (UC), to assess the impact of GP-led telephone triage (GPT) and nurse-led computer-supported telephone triage (NT) on primary care workload and cost, patient experience of care, and patient safety and health status for patients requesting same-day consultations in general practice. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, incorporating economic evaluation and qualitative process evaluation. SETTING: General practices (n = 42) in four regions of England, UK (Devon, Bristol/Somerset, Warwickshire/Coventry, Norfolk/Suffolk). PARTICIPANTS: Patients requesting same-day consultations. INTERVENTIONS: Practices were randomised to GPT, NT or UC. Data collection was not blinded; however, analysis was conducted by a statistician blinded to practice allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary - primary care contacts [general practice, out-of-hours primary care, accident and emergency (A&E) and walk-in centre attendances] in the 28 days following the index consultation request. Secondary - resource use and costs, patient safety (deaths and emergency hospital admissions within 7 days of index request, and A&E attendance within 28 days), health status and experience of care. RESULTS: Of 20,990 eligible randomised patients (UC n = 7283; GPT n = 6695; NT n = 7012), primary outcome data were analysed for 16,211 patients (UC n = 5572; GPT n = 5171; NT n = 5468). Compared with UC, GPT and NT increased primary outcome contacts (over 28-day follow-up) by 33% [rate ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30 to 1.36] and 48% (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.44 to 1.52), respectively. Compared with GPT, NT was associated with a marginal increase in primary outcome contacts by 4% (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.08). Triage was associated with a redistribution of primary care contacts. Although GPT, compared with UC, increased the rate of overall GP contacts (face to face and telephone) over the 28 days by 38% (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.50), GP face-to-face contacts were reduced by 39% (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69). NT reduced the rate of overall GP contacts by 16% (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91) and GP face-to-face contacts by 20% (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90), whereas nurse contacts increased. The increased rate of primary care contacts in triage arms is largely attributable to increased telephone contacts. Estimated overall patient-clinician contact time on the index day increased in triage (GPT = 10.3 minutes; NT = 14.8 minutes; UC = 9.6 minutes), although patterns of clinician use varied between arms. Taking account of both the pattern and duration of primary outcome contacts, overall costs over the 28-day follow-up were similar in all three arms (approximately £75 per patient). Triage appeared safe, and no differences in patient health status were observed. NT was somewhat less acceptable to patients than GPT or UC. The process evaluation identified the complexity associated with introducing triage but found no consistency across practices about what works and what does not work when implementing it. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing GPT or NT was associated with a redistribution of primary care workload for patients requesting same-day consultations, and at similar cost to UC. Although triage seemed to be safe, investigation of the circumstances of a larger number of deaths or admissions after triage might be warranted, and monitoring of these events is necessary as triage is implemented. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20687662. 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. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Telephone triage for management of same-day consultation requests in general practice (the ESTEEM trial): a cluster-randomised controlled trial and cost-consequence analysis.

BACKGROUND: Telephone triage is increasingly used to manage workload in primary care; however, supporting evidence for this approach is scarce. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost consequences of general practitioner-(GP)-led and nurse-led telephone triage compared with usual care for patients seeking same-day consultations in primary care. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation between March 1, 2011, and March 31, 2013, at 42 practices in four centres in the UK. Practices were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation sequence minimised for geographical location, practice deprivation, and practice list size, to either GP-led triage, nurse-led computer-supported triage, or usual care. We included patients who telephoned the practice seeking a same-day face-to-face consultation with a GP. Allocations were concealed from practices until after they had agreed to participate and a stochastic element was included within the minimisation algorithm to maintain concealment. Patients, clinicians, and researchers were not masked to allocation, but practice assignment was concealed from the trial statistician. The primary outcome was primary care workload (patient contacts, including those attending accident and emergency departments) in the 28 days after the first same-day request. Analyses were by intention to treat and per protocol. This trial was registered with the ISRCTN register, number ISRCTN20687662. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 42 practices to GP triage (n=13), nurse triage (n=15), or usual care (n=14), and 20,990 patients (n=6695 vs 7012 vs 7283) were randomly assigned, of whom 16,211 (77%) patients provided primary outcome data (n=5171 vs 5468 vs 5572). GP triage was associated with a 33% increase in the mean number of contacts per person over 28 days compared with usual care (2·65 [SD 1·74] vs 1·91 [1·43]; rate ratio [RR] 1·33, 95% CI 1·30-1·36), and nurse triage with a 48% increase (2·81 [SD 1·68]; RR 1·48, 95% CI 1·44-1·52). Eight patients died within 7 days of the index request: five in the GP-triage group, two in the nurse-triage group, and one in the usual-care group; however, these deaths were not associated with the trial group or procedures. Although triage interventions were associated with increased contacts, estimated costs over 28 days were similar between all three groups (roughly £75 per patient). INTERPRETATION: Introduction of telephone triage delivered by a GP or nurse was associated with an increase in the number of primary care contacts in the 28 days after a patient's request for a same-day GP consultation, with similar costs to those of usual care. Telephone triage might be useful in aiding the delivery of primary care. The whole-system implications should be assessed when introduction of such a system is considered. FUNDING: Health Technology Assessment Programme UK National Institute for Health Research.

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in UK primary care: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial (CADET).

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care is an effective treatment for the management of depression but evidence on its cost-effectiveness in the UK is lacking. AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting. METHODS: An economic evaluation alongside a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial comparing collaborative care with usual primary care for adults with depression (n = 581). Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 12-month follow-up, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services (i.e. Third Party Payer). Sensitivity analyses are reported, and uncertainty is presented using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and the cost-effectiveness plane. RESULTS: The collaborative care intervention had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant. Health and social care service use, excluding collaborative care, indicated a similar profile of resource use between collaborative care and usual care participants. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI: -0.02, 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months, at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI: -202.98, 886.04), and resulted in an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248. Where costs associated with informal care are considered in sensitivity analyses collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective, thereby dominating treatment as usual. CONCLUSION: Collaborative care offers health gains at a relatively low cost, and is cost-effective compared with usual care against a decision-maker willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results here support the commissioning of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting.