Clinical effectiveness of an online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme for adults with post-covid-19 condition (REGAIN study): multicentre randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a structured online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme can improve health related quality of life compared with usual care in adults with post-covid-19 condition (long covid). DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial. SETTING: England and Wales, with home based interventions delivered remotely online from a single trial hub. PARTICIPANTS: 585 adults (26-86 years) discharged from NHS hospitals at least three months previously after covid-19 and with ongoing physical and/or mental health sequelae (post-covid-19 condition), randomised (1:1.03) to receive the Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN (REGAIN) intervention (n=298) or usual care (n=287). INTERVENTIONS: Best practice usual care was a single online session of advice and support with a trained practitioner. The REGAIN intervention was delivered online over eight weeks and consisted of weekly home based, live, supervised, group exercise and psychological support sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was health related quality of life using the patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) preference (PROPr) score at three months. Secondary outcomes, measured at three, six, and 12 months, included PROMIS subscores (depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain interference, physical function, social roles/activities, and cognitive function), severity of post-traumatic stress disorder, general health, and adverse events. RESULTS: Between January 2021 and July 2022, 39 697 people were invited to take part in the study and 725 were contacted and eligible. 585 participants were randomised. Mean age was 56 (standard deviation (SD) 12) years, 52% were female participants, mean health related quality of life PROMIS-PROPr score was 0.20 (SD 0.17), and mean time from hospital discharge was 323 (SD 144) days. Compared with usual care, the REGAIN intervention led to improvements in health related quality of life (adjusted mean difference in PROPr score 0.03 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.05), P=0.02) at three months, driven predominantly by greater improvements in the PROMIS subscores for depression (1.39 (0.06 to 2.71), P=0.04), fatigue (2.50 (1.19 to 3.81), P<0.001), and pain interference (1.80 (0.50 to 3.11), P=0.01). Effects were sustained at 12 months (0.03 (0.01 to 0.06), P=0.02). Of 21 serious adverse events, only one was possibly related to the REGAIN intervention. In the intervention group, 141 (47%) participants fully adhered to the programme, 117 (39%) partially adhered, and 40 (13%) did not receive the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with post-covid-19 condition, an online, home based, supervised, group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme was clinically effective at improving health related quality of life at three and 12 months compared with usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN11466448.

Improving mental healthcare access and experience for people from minority ethnic groups: an England-wide multisite experience-based codesign (EBCD) study.

BACKGROUND: Long-standing ethnic inequalities in access and mental healthcare were worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: Stakeholders coproduced local and national implementation plans to improve mental healthcare for people from minority ethnic groups. METHODS: Experience-based codesign conducted in four areas covered by National Health Service (NHS) mental health trusts: Coventry and Warwickshire, Greater Manchester, East London and Sheffield. Data were analysed using an interpretivist-constructivist approach, seeking validation from participants on their priority actions and implementation plans. Service users (n=29), carers (n=9) and health professionals (n=33) took part in interviews; focus groups (service users, n=15; carers, n=8; health professionals, n=24); and codesign workshops (service users, n=15; carers, n=5; health professionals, n=21) from July 2021 to July 2022. FINDINGS: Each study site identified 2-3 local priority actions. Three were consistent across areas: (1) reaching out to communities and collaborating with third sector organisations; (2) diversifying the mental healthcare offer to provide culturally appropriate therapeutic approaches and (3) enabling open discussions about ethnicity, culture and racism. National priority actions included: (1) co-ordination of a national hub to bring about system level change and (2) recognition of the centrality of service users and communities in the design and provision of services. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholder-led implementation plans highlight that substantial change is needed to increase equity in mental healthcare in England. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Working with people with lived experience in leadership roles, and collaborations between NHS and community organisations will be essential. Future research avenues include comparison of the benefits of culturally specific versus generic therapeutic interventions.

Supportive Self-Management Program for People With Chronic Headaches and Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial and Economic Evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic headache disorders are a major cause of pain and disability. Education and supportive self-management approaches could reduce the burden of headache disability. We tested the effectiveness of a group educational and supportive self-management program for people living with chronic headaches. METHODS: This was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Participants were aged 18 years or older with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache, with or without medication overuse headache. We primarily recruited from general practices. Participants were assigned to either a 2-day group education and self-management program, a one-to-one nurse interview, and telephone support or to usual care plus relaxation material. The primary outcome was headache related-quality of life using the Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 at 12 months. The primary analysis used intention-to-treat principles for participants with migraine and both baseline and 12-month HIT-6 data. RESULTS: Between April 2017 and March 2019, we randomized 736 participants. Because only 9 participants just had tension-type headache, our main analyses were on the 727 participants with migraine. Of them, 376 were allocated to the self-management intervention and 351 to usual care. Data from 586 (81%) participants were analyzed for primary outcome. There was no between-group difference in HIT-6 (adjusted mean difference = -0.3, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.67) or headache days (0.9, 95% CI -0.29 to 2.05) at 12 months. The Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study intervention generated incremental adjusted costs of £268 (95% CI, £176-£377) (USD383 [95% CI USD252-USD539]) and incremental adjusted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.031 (95% CI -0.005 to 0.063). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £8,617 (USD12,322) per QALY gained. DISCUSSION: These findings conclusively show a lack of benefit for quality of life or monthly headache days from a brief group education and supportive self-management program for people living with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache with episodic migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Registered on the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number registry, ISRCTN79708100 16th December 2015 doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN79708100. The first enrollment was April 24, 2017. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that a brief group education and self-management program does not increase the probability of improvement in headache-related quality of life in people with chronic migraine.

Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN' (REGAIN): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to determine which of two interventions: 1) an eight week, online, home-based, supervised, group rehabilitation programme (REGAIN); or 2) a single online session of advice (best-practice usual care); is the most clinically and cost-effective treatment for people with ongoing COVID-19 sequelae more than three months after hospital discharge. TRIAL DESIGN: Multi-centre, 2-arm (1:1 ratio) parallel group, randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation and health economic evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with ongoing COVID-19 sequelae more than three months after hospital discharge Inclusion criteria: 1) Adults ≥18 years; 2) ≥ 3 months after any hospital discharge related to COVID-19 infection, regardless of need for critical care or ventilatory support; 3) substantial (as defined by the participant) COVID-19 related physical and/or mental health problems; 4) access to, and able/supported to use email and internet audio/video; 4) able to provide informed consent; 5) able to understand spoken and written English, Bengali, Gujarati, Urdu, Punjabi or Mandarin, themselves or supported by family/friends. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: 1) exercise contraindicated; 2) severe mental health problems preventing engagement; 3) previous randomisation in the present study; 4) already engaged in, or planning to engage in an alternative NHS rehabilitation programme in the next 12 weeks; 5) a member of the same household previously randomised in the present study. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention 1: The Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN (REGAIN) programme: an eight week, online, home-based, supervised, group rehabilitation programme. Intervention 2: A thirty-minute, on-line, one-to-one consultation with a REGAIN practitioner (best-practice usual care). MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is health-related quality of life (HRQoL) - PROMIS® 29+2 Profile v2.1 (PROPr) - measured at three months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include dyspnoea, cognitive function, health utility, physical activity participation, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom severity, depressive and anxiety symptoms, work status, health and social care resource use, death - measured at three, six and 12 months post-randomisation. RANDOMISATION: Participants will be randomised to best practice usual care or the REGAIN programme on a 1:1.03 basis using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, performed by minimisation and stratified by age, level of hospital care, and case level mental health symptomatology. Once consent and baseline questionnaires have been completed by the participant online at home, randomisation will be performed automatically by a bespoke web-based system. BLINDING (MASKING): To ensure allocation concealment from both participant and REGAIN practitioner at baseline, randomisation will be performed only after the baseline questionnaires have been completed online at home by the participant. After randomisation has been performed, participants and REGAIN practitioners cannot be blind to group allocation. Follow-up outcome assessments will be completed by participants online at home. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 535 participants will be randomised: 263 to the best-practice usual care arm, and 272 participants to the REGAIN programme arm. TRIAL STATUS: Current protocol: Version 3.0 (27th October 2020) Recruitment will begin in December 2020 and is anticipated to complete by September 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN:11466448 , 23rd November 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol Version 3.0 (27th October 2020) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interests of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines.

Does a screening trial for spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic pain of neuropathic origin have clinical utility and cost-effectiveness (TRIAL-STIM)? A randomised controlled trial.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. Although a temporary SCS screening trial is widely used to determine whether a patient should receive permanent SCS implant, its evidence base is limited. We aimed to establish the clinical utility, diagnostic accuracy, and cost-effectiveness of an SCS screening trial. A multicentre single-blind, parallel two-group randomised controlled superiority trial was undertaken at 3 centres in the United Kingdom. Patients were randomised 1:1 to either SCS screening trial strategy (TG) or no trial screening strategy (NTG). Treatment was open label, but outcome assessors were masked. The primary outcome measure was numerical rating scale (NRS) pain at 6-month follow-up. Between June 2017 and September 2018, 105 participants were enrolled and randomised (TG = 54, NTG = 51). Mean numerical rating scale pain decreased from 7.47 at baseline (before SCS implantation) to 4.28 at 6 months in TG and from 7.54 to 4.49 in NTG (mean group difference: 0.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.2 to 0.9, P = 0.89). We found no difference between TG and NTG in the proportion of pain responders or other secondary outcomes. Spinal cord stimulation screening trial had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 78-100) and specificity of 8% (95% CI: 1-25). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of TG vs NTG was £78,895 per additional quality-adjusted life-year gained. In conclusion, although the SCS screening trial may have some diagnostic utility, there was no evidence that an SCS screening TG provides superior patient outcomes or is cost-effective compared to a no trial screening approach.

Supervised pulmonary hypertension exercise rehabilitation (SPHERe): study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Supervised cardio-pulmonary rehabilitation may be safe and beneficial for people with pulmonary hypertension (PH) in groups 1 (pulmonary arterial hypertension) and 4 (chronic thromboembolic disease), particularly as a hospital in-patient. It has not been tested in the most common PH groups; 2 (left heart disease), 3 (lung disease), or 5 (other disorders). Further it has not been evaluated in the UK National Health Service (NHS) out-patient setting, or with long-term follow-up. The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a supervised exercise rehabilitation intervention with psychosocial support compared to best practice usual care for people with PH in the community/outpatient setting. METHODS: This multi-centre, pragmatic, two-arm RCT with embedded process evaluation aims to recruit 352 clinically stable adults with PH (groups 1-5) and WHO functional class II-IV. Participants will be randomised to either the Supervised Pulmonary Hypertension Exercise Rehabilitation (SPHERe) intervention or control. The SPHERe intervention consists of 1) individual assessment and familiarisation sessions; 2) 8-week, twice-weekly, supervised out-patient exercise training; 3) psychosocial/motivational support and education; 4) guided home exercise plan. The control intervention consists of best practice usual care with a single one-to-one practitioner appointment, and general advice on physical activity. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 4 months (post-intervention) and 12 months by researchers blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome is the incremental shuttle walk test at 4 months. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life (HRQoL), time to clinical worsening and health and social care use. A purposive sample of participants (n = 20 intervention and n = 20 control) and practitioners (n = 20) will be interviewed to explore experiences of the trial, outcomes and interventions. DISCUSSION: The SPHERe study is the first multi-centre clinical RCT to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of a supervised exercise rehabilitation intervention compared to usual care, delivered in the UK NHS, for people in all PH groups. Results will inform clinicians and commissioners as to whether or not supervised exercise rehabilitation is effective and should be routinely provided for people with PH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN no. 10608766, prospectively registered on 18th March 2019.

Protocol for an economic analysis of the randomised controlled trial of Improving the Well-being of people with Opioid Treated CHronic pain: I-WOTCH Study.

INTRODUCTION: Over the last two decades, the use of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain in England has steadily increased despite lack of evidence of both long-term effectiveness in pain relief and significant, well-documented physical and mental adverse events. Guidelines recommend tapering when harms outweigh benefits, but the addictive nature of opioids hinders simple dose-reduction strategies. Improving the Well-being of people with Opioid Treated CHronic pain (I-WOTCH) trial tests a multicomponent self-management intervention aimed to help patients with chronic non-malignant pain taper opioid doses. This paper outlines the methods to be used for the economic analysis of the I-WOTCH intervention compared with the best usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Economic evaluation alongside the I-WOTCH study, prospectively designed to identify, measure and value key healthcare resource use and outcomes arising from the treatment strategies being compared. A within-trial cost-consequences analysis and a model-based long-term cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted from the National Health Service and Personal Social Service perspective in England. The former will quantify key parameters to populate a Markov model designed to estimate the long-term cost and quality-adjusted life years of the I-WOTCH intervention against best usual care. Regression equations will be used to estimate parameters such as transition probabilities, utilities, and costs associated with the model's states and events. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis will be used to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty onto the predicted costs and health outcomes, and the resulting value for money assessment of the I-WOTCH intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Full ethics approval was granted by Yorkshire & The Humber-South Yorkshire Research Ethics Committee on 13 September 2016 (16/YH/0325). Current protocol: V.1.7, date 31 July 2019. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, scientific conferences, newsletters and websites. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (49 470 934); Pre-result.

Communicating biopsy results from breast screening assessment: current practice in English breast screening centres and staff perspectives of telephoning results.

OBJECTIVE: To record how breast screening centres in England deliver all biopsy results (cancer/non-cancer) from the breast assessment visit. DESIGN: Online survey of 63 of 79 breast screening centres in England from all regions (East Midlands, East of England, London, North East Yorkshire & Humber, North West, South East, South West, West Midlands). The survey contained quantitative measures of frequency for telephoning biopsy results (routinely, occasionally or never) and optional qualitative free-text responses. Surveys were completed by a staff member from each centre. RESULTS: There were no regional trends in the use of telephone results services, (X² (14, n=63)=11.55, p=0.64), Centres who telephoned results routinely did not deliver results sooner than centres who deliver results in-person (X² (16, n=63)=12.76, p=0.69).When delivering cancer results, 76.2% of centres never telephone results and 23.8% of centres occasionally telephone results. No centres reported delivering cancer results routinely by telephone. Qualitative content analysis suggests that cancer results are only telephoned at the patient request and under exceptional circumstances.When delivering non-cancer results, 12.7% of centres never telephoned results, 38.1% occasionally telephoned results and 49.2% routinely telephoned results. Qualitative content analysis revealed different processes for delivering telephone results, including patient choice and scheduling an in-person results appointment for all women attending breast assessment, then ringing non-cancer results unexpectedly ahead of this prebooked appointment. CONCLUSIONS: In the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme, breast assessment results that are cancer are routinely delivered in-person. However, non-cancer breast assessment results are often routinely delivered by telephone, despite breast screening policy recommendations. More research is needed to understand the impact of telephoning results on women attending breast assessment, particularly women who receive a non-cancer result. Future research should also consider how women themselves might prefer to receive their results.

Correction to: Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin have Clinical Utility and Cost-Effectiveness? (TRIAL-STIM Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Following publication of the original article [1], we have been notified that the final specification of randomisation implemented in the study is slightly different to that stated in the protocol and needs to be corrected as follows.

Testing a support programme for opioid reduction for people with chronic non-malignant pain: the I-WOTCH randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic non-malignant pain has a major impact on the well-being, mood and productivity of those affected. Opioids are increasingly prescribed to manage this type of pain, but with a risk of other disabling symptoms, when their effectiveness has been questioned. This trial is designed to implement and evaluate a patient-centred intervention targeting withdrawal of strong opioids in people with chronic pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a group-based multicomponent intervention combined with individualised clinical facilitator led support for the management of chronic non-malignant pain against the control intervention (self-help booklet and relaxation compact disc). An embedded process evaluation will examine fidelity of delivery and investigate experiences of the intervention. The two primary outcomes are activities of daily living (measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference Short Form (8A)) and opioid use. The secondary outcomes are pain severity, quality of life, sleep quality, self-efficacy, adverse events and National Health Service (NHS) healthcare resource use. Participants are followed up at 4, 8 and 12 months, with a primary endpoint of 12 months. Between-group differences will indicate effectiveness; we are looking for a difference of 3.5 points on our pain interference outcome (scale 40 to 77). We will undertake an NHS perspective cost-effectiveness analysis using quality adjusted life years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Full approval was given by Yorkshire & The Humber - South Yorkshire Research Ethics Committee on 13 September, 2016 (16/YH/0325). Appropriate local approvals were sought for each area in which recruitment was undertaken. The current protocol version is 1.6 date 19 December 2018. Publication of results in peer- reviewed journals will inform the scientific and clinical community. We will disseminate results to patient participants and study facilitators in a study newsletter as well as a lay summary of results on the study website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN49470934; Pre-results.

Development of an education and self-management intervention for chronic headache - CHESS trial (Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study).

BACKGROUND: Self-management interventions are well recognised and widely used in chronic conditions. Their application to chronic headaches has been limited and generally of low quality. We describe here our process for developing an evidence based, and theory driven, education and self-management intervention for those living with chronic headache. METHODS: Our intervention was designed using several core information sources; the results of three systematic reviews, qualitative material from those living with chronic headaches, our knowledge from existing self-management interventions; and finally collaborative input from a multidisciplinary team of clinicians, academics, patients, and charity partners. We manualised the intervention and associated training as a package for use in a feasibility study. We made adaptations for its use in a randomised controlled trial. RESULTS: We piloted the intervention in four groups with a total of 18 participants. Qualitative feedback from 12 participants and five facilitators allowed the intervention to be refined for the main randomised controlled trial. Some of the key changes included shortening of the overall intervention, changes to the originally planned facilitators and spreading the facilitator training over three days rather than two. We are now testing the final revised intervention in a randomised controlled trial of its clinical and cost effectiveness. The group component of the intervention is delivered over two days with the first day focused on living, understanding and dealing with chronic headaches and the second day exploring how to adapt and take control of one's life with chronic headaches. CONCLUSION: Our pilot work indicates that our intervention is feasible to deliver, and with the relevant changes would be acceptable for use with this population. Our randomised control trial is ongoing. We anticipate publishing final results in 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN79708100. Registered 16th December 2015, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN79708100.

Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin have Clinical Utility and Cost-Effectiveness? (TRIAL-STIM Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The TRIAL-STIM Study aims to assess the diagnostic performance, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a screening trial prior to full implantation of a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device. METHODS/DESIGN: The TRIAL-STIM Study is a superiority, parallel-group, three-centre, randomised controlled trial in patients with chronic neuropathic pain with a nested qualitative study and economic evaluation. The study will take place in three UK centres: South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (The James Cook University Hospital); Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. A total of 100 adults undergoing SCS implantation for the treatment of neuropathy will be included. Subjects will be recruited from the outpatient clinics of the three participating sites and randomised to undergo a screening trial prior to SCS implant or an implantation-only strategy in a 1:1 ratio. Allocation will be stratified by centre and minimised on patient age (≥ 65 or < 65 years), gender, presence of failed back surgery syndrome (or not) and use of high frequency (HF10™) (or not). The primary outcome measure is the numerical rating scale (NRS) at 6 months compared between the screening trial and implantation strategy and the implantation-only strategy. Secondary outcome measures will include diagnostic accuracy, the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% and 30% pain relief at 6 months as measured on the NRS, health-related quality-of-life (EQ-5D), function (Oswestry Disability Index), patient satisfaction (Patients' Global Impression of Change) and complication rates. A nested qualitative study will be carried out in parallel for a total of 30 of the patients recruited in each centre (10 at each centre) to explore their views of the screening trial, implantation and overall use of the SCS device. The economic evaluation will take the form of a cost-utility analysis. DISCUSSION: The TRIAL-STIM Study is a randomised controlled trial with a nested qualitative study and economic evaluation aiming to determine the clinical utility of screening trials of SCS as well as their cost-effectiveness. The nested qualitative study will seek to explore the patient's view of the screening trials, implantation and overall use of SCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN60778781 . Registered on 15 August 2017.

Facet joint injections for people with persistent non-specific low back pain (Facet Injection Study): a feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2009 guidelines for persistent low back pain (LBP) do not recommend the injection of therapeutic substances into the back as a treatment for LBP because of the absence of evidence for their effectiveness. This feasibility study aimed to provide a stable platform that could be used to evaluate a randomised controlled trial (RCT) on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intra-articular facet joint injections (FJIs) when added to normal care. OBJECTIVES: To explore the feasibility of running a RCT to test the hypothesis that, for people with suspected facet joint back pain, adding the option of intra-articular FJIs (local anaesthetic and corticosteroids) to best usual non-invasive care is clinically effective and cost-effective. DESIGN: The trial was a mixed design. The RCT pilot protocol development involved literature reviews and a consensus conference followed by a randomised pilot study with an embedded mixed-methods process evaluation. SETTING: Five NHS acute trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were patients aged ≥ 18 years with moderately troublesome LBP present (> 6 months), who had failed previous conservative treatment and who had suspected facet joint pain. The study aimed to recruit 150 participants (approximately 30 per site). Participants were randomised sequentially by a remote service to FJIs combined with 'best usual care' (BUC) or BUC alone. INTERVENTIONS: All participants were to receive six sessions of a bespoke BUC rehabilitation package. Those randomised into the intervention arm were, in addition, given FJIs with local anaesthetic and steroids (at up to six injection sites). Randomisation occurred at the end of the first BUC session. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Process and clinical outcomes. Clinical outcomes included a measurement of level of pain on a scale from 0 to 10, which was collected daily and then weekly via text messaging (or through a written diary). Questionnaire follow-up was at 3 months. RESULTS: Fifty-two stakeholders attended the consensus meeting. Agreement informed several statistical questions and three design considerations: diagnosis, the process of FJI and the BUC package and informing the design for the randomised pilot study. Recruitment started on 26 June 2015 and was terminated by the funder (as a result of poor recruitment) on 11 December 2015. In total, 26 participants were randomised. Process data illuminate some of the reasons for recruitment problems but also show that trial processes after enrolment ran smoothly. No between-group analysis was carried out. All pain-related outcomes show the expected improvement between baseline and follow-up. The mean total cost of the overall treatment package (injection £419.22 and BUC £264.00) was estimated at £683.22 per participant. This is similar to a NHS tariff cost for a course of FJIs of £686.84. LIMITATIONS: Poor recruitment was a limiting factor. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study achieved consensus on the main challenges in a trial of FJIs for people with persistent non-specific low back pain. FUTURE WORK: Further work is needed to test recruitment from alternative clinical situations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2014-000682-50 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93184143. 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. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.