Preliminary clinical and cost effectiveness of augmented depression therapy versus cognitive behavioural therapy for the treatment of anhedonic depression (ADepT): a single-centre, open-label, parallel-group, pilot, randomised, controlled trial.

Background: Anhedonia (reduced interest/pleasure) symptoms and wellbeing deficits are core to depression and predict a poor prognosis. Current depression psychotherapies fail to target these features adequately, contributing to sub-optimal outcomes. Augmented Depression Therapy (ADepT) has been developed to target anhedonia and wellbeing. We aimed to establish clinical and economic proof of concept for ADepT and to examine feasibility of a future definitive trial comparing ADepT to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). Methods: In this single-centre, open-label, parallel-group, pilot randomised controlled trial, adults meeting diagnostic criteria for a current major depressive episode, scoring ≥10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and exhibiting anhedonic features (PHQ-9 item 1 ≥ 2) were recruited primarily from high intensity Improving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT) service waiting lists in Devon, UK. Participants were randomised to receive 20 sessions of CBT or ADepT, using a mimimisation algorithm to balance depression severity and antidepressant use between groups. Treatment was delivered in an out-patient university-based specialist mood disorder clinic. Researcher-blinded assessments were completed at intake and six, 12, and 18 months. Co-primary outcomes were depression (PHQ-9) and wellbeing (Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale) at 6 months. Primary clinical proof-of-concept analyses were intention to treat. Feasibility (including safety) and health economic analyses used complete case data. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN85278228. Findings: Between 3/29/2017 and 7/31/2018, 82 individuals were recruited (102% of target sample) and 41 individuals were allocated to each arm. A minimum adequate treatment dose was completed by 36/41 (88%) of CBT and 35/41 (85%) of ADepT participants. There were two serious adverse events in each arm (primarily suicide attempts; none of which were judged to be trial- or treatment-related), with no other evidence of harms. Intake and six-month primary outcome data was available for 37/41 (90%) CBT participants and 32/41 (78%) ADepT participants. Between-group effects favoured ADepT over CBT for depression (meanΔ = -1.35, 95% CI = -3.70, 1.00, d = 0.23) and wellbeing (meanΔ = 2.64, 95% CI = -1.71, 6.99, d = 0.27). At 18 months, the advantage of ADepT over CBT was preserved and ADepT had a >80% probability of cost-effectiveness. Interpretation: These findings provide proof of concept for ADepT and warrant continuation to definitive trial. Funding: NIHR Career Development Fellowship.

Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Economic Evaluations of Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Pathways Incorporating Prebiopsy Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Context: Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate has been shown to increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. However, evidence is still evolving about how best to integrate prebiopsy MRI into the diagnostic pathway and for which patients, and whether MRI-based pathways are cost effective. Objective: This systematic review aimed to assess the evidence for the cost effectiveness of prebiopsy MRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic pathways. Evidence acquisition: INTERTASC search strategies were adapted and combined with terms for prostate cancer and MRI, and used to search a wide range of databases and registries covering medicine, allied health, clinical trials, and health economics. No limits were set on country, setting, or publication year. Included studies were full economic evaluations of prostate cancer diagnostic pathways with at least one strategy including prebiopsy MRI. Model-based studies were assessed using the Philips framework, and trial-based studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Evidence synthesis: A total of 6593 records were screened after removing duplicates, and eight full-text papers, reporting on seven studies (two model based) were included in this review. Included studies were judged to have a low-to-moderate risk of bias. All studies reported cost-effectiveness analyses based in high-income countries but had significant heterogeneity in diagnostic strategies, patient populations, treatment strategies, and model characteristics. Prebiopsy MRI-based pathways were cost effective compared with pathways relying on ultrasound-guided biopsy in all eight studies. Conclusions: Incorporation of prebiopsy MRI into prostate cancer diagnostic pathways is likely to be more cost effective in than that into pathways relying on prostate-specific antigen and ultrasound-guided biopsy. The optimal prostate cancer diagnostic pathway design and method of integrating prebiopsy MRI are not yet known. Variations between health care systems and diagnostic approaches necessitate further evaluation for a particular country or setting to know how best to apply prebiopsy MRI. Patient summary: In this report, we looked at studies that measured the health care costs and benefits and harms to patients of using prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to decide whether men need a prostate biopsy for possible prostate cancer. We found that using prostate MRI before biopsy is likely to be less costly for health care services and probably has better outcomes for patients being investigated for prostate cancer. It is still unclear what the best way to use prostate MRI is.

Protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Electronic RIsk-assessment for CAncer for patients in general practice (ERICA).

INTRODUCTION: The UK has worse cancer outcomes than most comparable countries, with a large contribution attributed to diagnostic delay. Electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) have been developed to identify primary care patients with a ≥2% risk of cancer using features recorded in the electronic record. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in English primary care. Individual general practices will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to intervention (provision of eRATs for six common cancer sites) or to usual care. The primary outcome is cancer stage at diagnosis, dichotomised to stage 1 or 2 (early) or stage 3 or 4 (advanced) for these six cancers, assessed from National Cancer Registry data. Secondary outcomes include stage at diagnosis for a further six cancers without eRATs, use of urgent referral cancer pathways, total practice cancer diagnoses, routes to cancer diagnosis and 30-day and 1-year cancer survival. Economic and process evaluations will be performed along with service delivery modelling. The primary analysis explores the proportion of patients with early-stage cancer at diagnosis. The sample size calculation used an OR of 0.8 for a cancer being diagnosed at an advanced stage in the intervention arm compared with the control arm, equating to an absolute reduction of 4.8% as an incidence-weighted figure across the six cancers. This requires 530 practices overall, with the intervention active from April 2022 for 2 years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has approval from London City and East Research Ethics Committee, reference number 19/LO/0615; protocol version 5.0, 9 May 2022. It is sponsored by the University of Exeter. Dissemination will be by journal publication, conferences, use of appropriate social media and direct sharing with cancer policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN22560297.

Revising the Suspected-Cancer Guidelines: Impacts on Patients' Primary Care Contacts and Costs.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the impact of revising suspected-cancer referral guidelines on primary care contacts and costs. METHODS: Participants had incident cancer (colorectal, n = 2000; ovary, n = 763; and pancreas, n = 597) codes in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink or England cancer registry. Difference-in-differences analyses explored guideline impacts on contact days and nonzero costs between the first cancer feature and diagnosis. Participants were controls ("old National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]") or "new NICE" if their index feature was introduced during guideline revision. Model assumptions were inspected visually and by falsification tests. Sensitivity analyses reclassified participants who subsequently presented with features in the original guidelines as "old NICE." For colorectal cancer, sensitivity analysis (n = 3481) adjusted for multimorbidity burden. RESULTS: Median contact days and costs were, respectively, 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-7) and £117.69 (IQR £53.23-£206.65) for colorectal, 5 (IQR 3-9) and £156.92 (IQR £78.46-£272.29) for ovary, and 7 (IQR 4-13) and £230.64 (IQR £120.78-£408.34) for pancreas. Revising ovary guidelines may have decreased contact days (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.55-1.00; P = .05) with unchanged costs, but parallel trends assumptions were violated. Costs decreased by 13% (equivalent to -£28.05, -£50.43 to -£5.67) after colorectal guidance revision but only in sensitivity analyses adjusting for multimorbidity. Contact days and costs remained unchanged after pancreas guidance revision. CONCLUSIONS: The main analyses of symptomatic patients suggested that prediagnosis primary care costs remained unchanged after guidance revision for pancreatic cancer. For colorectal cancer, contact days and costs decreased in analyses adjusting for multimorbidity. Revising ovarian cancer guidelines may have decreased primary care contact days but not costs, suggesting increased resource-use intensity; nevertheless, there is evidence of confounding.

The economic impact of cancer diagnosis to individuals and their families: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The effect of a cancer diagnosis is wide-ranging with the potential to affect income, employment and risk of poverty. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the economic impact of a cancer diagnosis for patients and their families/caregivers. METHODS: The search covered peer-reviewed journals using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and PsycINFO databases. Quality appraisal was undertaken using CASP tools. Monetary values were converted to US Dollars/2019 using a purchasing power parities (PPP) conversion factor. The review included articles up to and including January 2020, written in English language, for patients with cancer aged ≥ 18 years and focused on the costs up to 5 years following a cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: The search was run in January 2020 and updated in November 2021. Of the 7973 articles identified, 18 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were undertaken in the USA, Ireland, Canada, Australia, France, UK, Malaysia, Pakistan, China and Sri Lanka. The majority were cohort studies. Twelve reported out-of-pocket costs (range US$16-US$2523/month per patient/caregiver) consisting of medical expenses (e.g. surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy) and non-medical expenses (e.g. travel, food and childcare). Fourteen studies reported patient/caregiver loss of income and lost productivity (range 14-57.8%). CONCLUSIONS: A high percentage of cancer patients and their families/caregivers experience out-of-pocket expenditure, loss of income and lost productivity. Future research is needed to observe the effects of continuing changes to healthcare policies and social protections on the economic burden among cancer patients and their families/caregivers.

The QALY at 50: One story many voices.

Research on quality adjusted life year (QALY) has been underway for just over 50 years, which seems like a suitable milestone to review its history. The purpose of this study is to provide a historical overview of why the QALY was developed, the key theoretical work undertaken by Torrance, Bush and Fanshel and how two seminal papers shaped its subsequent development. Moving the QALY forward - there are several historical and reflective exercises. The historical interplay between politics, policy and the challenges facing the National Health Service (NHS) in formulating the QALY concept in the UK has been explored in some depth already, whilst the conceptualization and development of the methodological framework is relatively underexplored. We address this gap by viewing the QALY through the lens of the methodological debates, reflecting upon two key papers underpinning the QALY methodology and how these methods have been developed over time. In part the changes in technology e.g. Google Scholar, and the availability of tools to search for early uses of the QALY allow us to better understand the historical context in which the theoretical development of the QALY has taken place. Here we celebrate two seminal papers that shaped early QALY development. The first section provides a history of these papers, summaries their contributions and explores the uptake of these papers over time. The second section reviews the methodological debates that have surrounded the QALY over the last 50 years and looks at how the QALY has moved to address these challenges. The third section presents the voices of diverse commentators representing the field of health economics who have contributed to the subsequent development of the QALY in both theoretical and empirical capacities and captures their thoughts about future research and policy use of QALYS.

Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from discrete choice experiments can be used to enrich understanding of preferences, inform the (re)design of screening programmes and/or improve communication within public campaigns about the benefits and harms of screening. However, reviews of screening discrete choice experiments highlight significant discrepancies between stated choices and real choices, particularly regarding willingness to undergo cancer screening. The identification and selection of attributes and associated levels is a fundamental component of designing a discrete choice experiment. Misspecification or misinterpretation of attributes may lead to non-compensatory behaviours, attribute non-attendance and responses that lack external validity. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to synthesise evidence on attribute development, alongside an in-depth review of included attributes and methodological challenges, to provide a resource for researchers undertaking future studies in cancer screening. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify discrete choice experiments estimating preferences towards cancer screening, dated between 1990 and December 2020. Data were synthesised narratively. In-depth analysis of attributes led to classification into four categories: test specific, service delivery, outcomes and monetary. Attribute significance and relative importance were also analysed. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research conjoint analysis checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies were included at full text. They covered a range of cancer sites: over half (26/49) examined colorectal screening. Most studies elicited general public preferences (34/49). In total, 280 attributes were included, 90% (252/280) of which were significant. Overall, test sensitivity and mortality reduction were most frequently found to be the most important to respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in reporting the identification, selection and construction of attributes used within cancer screening discrete choice experiments are needed. This review also highlights the importance of considering the complexity of choice tasks when considering risk information or compound attributes. Patient and public involvement and stakeholder engagement are recommended to optimise understanding of unavoidably complex choice tasks throughout the design process. To ensure quality and maximise comparability across studies, further research is needed to develop a risk-of-bias measure for discrete choice experiments.

Incorporating Equity Concerns in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review analytical methods that enable the incorporation of equity concerns within economic evaluation. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and EconLit was undertaken from database inception to February 2021. The search was designed to identify methodological approaches currently employed to evaluate health-related equity impacts in economic evaluation studies of healthcare interventions. Studies were eligible if they described or elaborated on a formal quantitative method used to integrate equity concerns within economic evaluation studies. Cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-minimisation, and cost-consequence analyses, as well as health technology appraisals, budget impact analyses, and any relevant literature reviews were included. For each of the identified methods, we provided summaries of the scope of equity considerations covered, the methods employed and their key attributes, data requirements, outcomes, and strengths and weaknesses. A traffic light assessment of the practical suitability of each method was undertaken, alongside a worked example applying the different methods to evaluate the same decision problem. Finally, the review summarises the typical trade-offs arising in cost-effectiveness analyses and discusses the extent to which the evaluation methods are able to capture these. RESULTS: In total, 68 studies were included in the review. Methods could broadly be grouped into equity-based weighting (EBW) methods, extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA), distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA), multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and mathematical programming (MP). EBW and MP methods enable equity consideration through adjustment to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, whereas equity considerations are represented through financial risk protection (FRP) outcomes in ECEA, social welfare functions (SWFs) in DCEA, and scoring/ranking systems in MCDA. The review identified potential concerns for EBW methods and MCDA with respect to data availability and for EBW methods and MP with respect to explicitly measuring changes in inequality. The only potential concern for ECEA related to the use of FRP metrics, which may not be relevant for all healthcare systems. In contrast, DCEA presented no significant concerns but relies on the use of SWFs, which may be unfamiliar to some audiences and requires societal preference elicitation. Consideration of typical cost-effectiveness and equity-related trade-offs highlighted the flexibility of most methods with respect to their ability to capture such trade-offs. Notable exceptions were trade-offs between quality of life and length of life, for which we found DCEA and ECEA unsuitable, and the assessment of lost opportunity costs, for which we found only DCEA and MP to be suitable. The worked example demonstrated that each method is designed with fundamentally different analytical objectives in mind. CONCLUSIONS: The review emphasises that some approaches are better suited to particular decision problems than others, that methods are subject to different practical requirements, and that significantly different conclusions can be observed depending on the choice of method and the assumptions made. Further, to fully operationalise these frameworks, there remains a need to develop consensus over the motivation for equity assessment, which should necessarily be informed with stakeholder involvement. Future research of this topic should be a priority, particularly within the context of equity evaluation in healthcare policy decisions.

Cost and time resourcing for ophthalmic simulation in the UK: a Royal College of Ophthalmologists' National Survey of regional Simulation Leads in 2021.

INTRODUCTION: Ophthalmic simulation is cost-effective in complication prevention. However, there is no consistent resource allocation to provide the necessary time and finance to sustain such activities. We wished to identify the current support for the regional Simulation Leads in the UK. METHODS: An online SurveyMonkey questionnaire was sent to all 26 UK ophthalmic regional Simulation Leads in February 2021 regarding current simulation activity and the degree of time and resource support available. RESULTS: There were 22 responses within 1 month (84.6% response rate). 72.7% run regular simulation induction events for new trainees. 60% run mandatory laser simulation events. 38.1% run immersive simulation (vitreous loss fire drill). 47.6% run yearly sub-specialty events. 45.5% were required to make additional work arrangements to run simulation events. 77.3% had no job plan time allocation for simulation. 59.1% dedicated >1 hr/week to simulation. 68.2% EYESI simulators were purchased via charity/endowments. 72.7% had access to dedicated dry lab simulation (40.9% wet lab). 40.9% used deanery funds to purchase initial model eyes (supplemented by charity (36.4%) and endowments (31.8%)). 65% used unspent study leave budgets for ongoing model eyes, yet 15% reported trainees purchasing their own. CONCLUSION: Nearly all ophthalmic simulation in the UK is undertaken via goodwill and personal commitment to excellence by the regional Simulation Leads. There is minimal allowance of time or finance for these vital activities, which is sporadic at best, and unsustainable. We call for the necessary investment and dedicated time allocation to permit ophthalmic simulation to be supported and maintained.

Accounting for Heterogeneity in Resource Allocation Decisions: Methods and Practice in UK Cancer Technology Appraisals.

OBJECTIVES: The availability of novel, more efficacious and expensive cancer therapies is increasing, resulting in significant treatment effect heterogeneity and complicated treatment and disease pathways. The aim of this study is to review the extent to which UK cancer technology appraisals (TAs) consider the impact of patient and treatment effect heterogeneity. METHODS: A systematic search of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence TAs of colorectal, lung and ovarian cancer was undertaken for the period up to April 2020. For each TA, the pivotal clinical studies and economic evaluations were reviewed for considerations of patient and treatment effect heterogeneity. The study critically reviews the use of subgroup analysis and real-world translation in economic evaluations, alongside specific attributes of the economic modeling framework. RESULTS: The search identified 49 TAs including 49 economic models. In total, 804 subgroup analyses were reported across 69 clinical studies. The most common stratification factors were age, gender, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, with 15% (119 of 804) of analyses demonstrating significantly different clinical outcomes to the main population; economic subgroup analyses were undertaken in only 17 TAs. All economic models were cohort-level with the majority described as partitioned survival models (39) or Markov/semi-Markov models. The impact of real-world heterogeneity on disease progression estimates was only explored in 2 models. CONCLUSION: The ability of current modeling approaches to capture patient and treatment effect heterogeneity is constrained by their limited flexibility and simplistic nature. This study highlights a need for the use of more sophisticated modeling methods that enable greater consideration of real-world heterogeneity.

Singing for people with aphasia (SPA): results of a pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial of a group singing intervention investigating acceptability and feasibility.

OBJECTIVES: Pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) for the singing groups for people with aphasia (SPA) intervention to assess: (1) the acceptability and feasibility of participant recruitment, randomisation and allocation concealment; (2) retention rates; (3) variance of continuous outcome measures; (4) outcome measure completion and participant burden; (5) fidelity of intervention delivery; (6) SPA intervention costs; (7) acceptability and feasibility of trial and intervention to participants and others involved. DESIGN: A two-group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled external pilot trial with parallel mixed methods process evaluation and economic evaluation. SETTING: Three community-based cohorts in the South-West of England. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants with post-stroke aphasia were randomised 1:1 to SPA or control. INTERVENTION: The manualised SPA intervention was delivered over 10 weekly singing group sessions, led by a music facilitator and assisted by an individual with post-stroke aphasia. The intervention was developed using the Information-Motivation-Behavioural skills model of behaviour change and targeted psychosocial outcomes. Control and intervention participants all received an aphasia information resource pack. OUTCOME MEASURES: Collected at baseline, 3 and 6 months post-randomisation, candidate primary outcomes were measured (well-being, quality of life and social participation) as well as additional clinical outcomes. Feasibility, acceptability and process outcomes included recruitment and retention rates, and measurement burden; and trial experiences were explored in qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Of 87 individuals screened, 42 participants were recruited and 41 randomised (SPA=20, control=21); 36 participants (SPA=17, control=19) completed 3-month follow-up, 34 (SPA=18, control=16) completed 6-month follow-up. Recruitment and retention (83%) were acceptable for a definitive RCT, and participants did not find the study requirements burdensome. High fidelity of the intervention delivery was shown by high attendance rates and facilitator adherence to the manual, and participants found SPA acceptable. Sample size estimates for a definitive RCT and primary/secondary outcomes were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The SPA pilot RCT fulfilled its objectives, and demonstrated that a definitive RCT of the intervention would be both feasible and acceptable. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03076736.

Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners diagnose cancer. It is unclear whether or not tools expedite diagnosis or affect patient quality of life and/or survival. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the evidence on the validation, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and availability and use of cancer diagnostic tools in primary care. METHODS: Two systematic reviews were conducted to examine the clinical effectiveness (review 1) and the development, validation and accuracy (review 2) of diagnostic prediction models for aiding general practitioners in cancer diagnosis. Bibliographic searches were conducted on MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) in May 2017, with updated searches conducted in November 2018. A decision-analytic model explored the tools' clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in colorectal cancer. The model compared patient outcomes and costs between strategies that included the use of the tools and those that did not, using the NHS perspective. We surveyed 4600 general practitioners in randomly selected UK practices to determine the proportions of general practices and general practitioners with access to, and using, cancer decision support tools. Association between access to these tools and practice-level cancer diagnostic indicators was explored. RESULTS: Systematic review 1 - five studies, of different design and quality, reporting on three diagnostic tools, were included. We found no evidence that using the tools was associated with better outcomes. Systematic review 2 - 43 studies were included, reporting on prediction models, in various stages of development, for 14 cancer sites (including multiple cancers). Most studies relate to QCancer® (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and risk assessment tools. DECISION MODEL: In the absence of studies reporting their clinical outcomes, QCancer and risk assessment tools were evaluated against faecal immunochemical testing. A linked data approach was used, which translates diagnostic accuracy into time to diagnosis and treatment, and stage at diagnosis. Given the current lack of evidence, the model showed that the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools in colorectal cancer relies on demonstrating patient survival benefits. Sensitivity of faecal immunochemical testing and specificity of QCancer and risk assessment tools in a low-risk population were the key uncertain parameters. SURVEY: Practitioner- and practice-level response rates were 10.3% (476/4600) and 23.3% (227/975), respectively. Cancer decision support tools were available in 83 out of 227 practices (36.6%, 95% confidence interval 30.3% to 43.1%), and were likely to be used in 38 out of 227 practices (16.7%, 95% confidence interval 12.1% to 22.2%). The mean 2-week-wait referral rate did not differ between practices that do and practices that do not have access to QCancer or risk assessment tools (mean difference of 1.8 referrals per 100,000 referrals, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 10.3 referrals per 100,000 referrals). LIMITATIONS: There is little good-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools. Many diagnostic prediction models are limited by a lack of external validation. There are limited data on current UK practice and clinical outcomes of diagnostic strategies, and there is no evidence on the quality-of-life outcomes of diagnostic results. The survey was limited by low response rates. CONCLUSION: The evidence base on the tools is limited. Research on how general practitioners interact with the tools may help to identify barriers to implementation and uptake, and the potential for clinical effectiveness. FUTURE WORK: Continued model validation is recommended, especially for risk assessment tools. Assessment of the tools' impact on time to diagnosis and treatment, stage at diagnosis, and health outcomes is also recommended, as is further work to understand how tools are used in general practitioner consultations. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068373 and CRD42017068375. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

In the UK, people with cancer tend to die sooner than people with cancer in other European countries. This may be because their cancers are caught at a later stage, perhaps after they have spread. Spotting cancer earlier in people, and testing them sooner, may extend people's lives. Researchers have developed 'diagnostic tools', which give the probability of having cancer, based on a patient's symptoms, blood test results and other information. The tools help family doctors decide who needs further testing for possible cancer, including cancers of the digestive, urinary and reproductive systems, and in the blood. We do not know how many family doctors have these tools, or how well the tools work. We systematically reviewed published studies about how these tools were developed, how good and accurate they are, and what effects their use has on patients. We found that many tools have been developed, but there is little evidence that they improve the quality or length of life. We sent surveys to family doctors all over the UK asking if they had the tools at their practice and if they used them. Based on the replies we received, we estimate that the tools are in about one in three practices. They are likely to be used in about half of the practices where they are available. For practices in England only, we looked for, but did not find, any association between using the tools and the number of urgent appointments made for cancer testing. We used a computer model to show what might happen if family doctors used the tools for patients who have symptoms of bowel cancer. In our model, if general practitioners used the tools, patients would need fewer appointments before they were referred to a specialist. This should reduce the time to diagnosis and treatment, compared with not using the tools. However, there is very little evidence as to whether or not this is indeed the case. Therefore, at the moment, we cannot say whether or not the use of such tools by general practitioners is better for patients and the NHS. More research is needed on what effect these tools have on patients, especially as to whether or not quality and length of life are improved.

The heterogeneous causal effects of neonatal care: a model of endogenous demand for multiple treatment options based on geographical access to care.

Neonatal units in the UK are organised into three levels, from highest Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), to Local Neonatal Unit (LNU) to lowest Special Care Unit (SCU). We model the endogenous treatment selection of neonatal care unit of birth to estimate the average and marginal treatment effects of different neonatal designations on infant mortality, length of stay and hospital costs. We use prognostic factors, survival and hospital care use data on all preterm births in England for 2014-2015, supplemented by national reimbursement tariffs and instrumental variables of travel time from a geographic information system. The data were consistent with a model of demand for preterm birth care driven by physical access. In-hospital mortality of infants born before 32 weeks was 8.5% overall, and 1.2 (95% CI: -0.7, 3.2) percentage points lower for live births in hospitals with NICU or SCU compared to those with an LNU according to instrumental variable estimates. We find imprecise differences in average total hospital costs by unit designation, with positive unobserved selection of those with higher unexplained absolute and incremental costs into NICU. Our results suggest a limited scope for improvement in infant mortality by increasing in-utero transfers based on unit designation alone.

Impact of the Manchester Glaucoma Enhanced Referral Scheme on NHS costs.

OBJECTIVES: Glaucoma filtering schemes such as the Manchester Glaucoma Enhanced Referral Scheme (GERS) aim to reduce the number of false positive cases referred to Hospital Eye Services. Such schemes can also have wider system benefits, as they may reduce waiting times for other patients. However, previous studies of the cost consequences and wider system benefits of glaucoma filtering schemes are inconclusive. We investigate the cost consequences of the Manchester GERS. DESIGN: Observational study. METHODS: A cost analysis from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) was conducted using audit data from the Manchester GERS. RESULTS: 2405 patients passed through the Manchester GERS from April 2013 to November 2016. 53.3% were not referred on to Manchester Royal Eye Hospital (MREH). Assuming an average of 2.3 outpatient visits to MREH were avoided for each filtered patient, the scheme saved the NHS approximately £2.76 per patient passing through the scheme. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that glaucoma filtering schemes have the potential to reduce false positive referrals and costs to the NHS.

Evaluating Augmented Depression Therapy (ADepT): study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: While existing psychological treatments for depression are effective for many, a significant proportion of depressed individuals do not respond to current approaches and few remain well over the long-term. Anhedonia (a loss of interest or pleasure) is a core symptom of depression which predicts a poor prognosis but has been neglected by existing treatments. Augmented Depression Therapy (ADepT) has been co-designed with service users to better target anhedonia alongside other features of depression. This mixed methods pilot trial aims to establish proof of concept for ADepT and to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a future definitive trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ADepT, compared to an evidence-based mainstream therapy (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy; CBT) in the acute treatment of depression, the prevention of subsequent depressive relapse, and the enhancement of wellbeing. METHODS: We aim to recruit 80 depressed participants and randomise them 1:1 to receive ADepT (15 weekly acute and 5 booster sessions in following year) or CBT (20 weekly acute sessions). Clinical and health economic assessments will take place at intake and at 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-up. Reductions in PHQ-9 depression severity and increases in WEMWBS wellbeing at 6-month assessment (when acute treatment should be completed) are the co-primary outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative process evaluation will assess mechanism of action, implementation issues, and contextual moderating factors. To evaluate proof of concept, intake-post effect sizes and the proportion of individuals showing reliable and clinically significant change on outcome measures in each arm at each follow-up will be reported. To evaluate feasibility and acceptability, we will examine recruitment, retention, treatment completion, and data completeness rates and feedback from patients and therapists about their experience of study participation and therapy. Additionally, we will establish the cost of delivery of ADepT. DISCUSSION: We will proceed to definitive trial if any concerns about the safety, acceptability, feasibility, and proof of concept of ADepT and trial procedures can be rectified, and we recruit, retain, and collect follow-up data on at least 60% of the target sample. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISCRTN85278228, registered 27/03/2017.

Singing for people with aphasia (SPA): a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of a group singing intervention to improve well-being.

INTRODUCTION: The singing for people with aphasia (SPA) intervention aims to improve quality of life and well-being for people with poststroke aphasia. A definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) is required to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of SPA. The purpose of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of such a definitive trial and inform its design. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled external pilot trial with parallel mixed methods process evaluation and economic evaluation. Forty-eight participants discharged from clinical speech and language therapy will be individually randomised 1:1 to SPA (10 group sessions plus a resource booklet) or control (resource booklet only). Outcome assessment at baseline, 3 and 6 months postrandomisation include: ICEpop CAPability measure for adults, Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life, EQ-5D-5L, modified Reintegration into Normal Living Index, Communication Outcome After Stroke, Very Short Version of the Minnesota Aphasia Test, Service Receipt Inventory and Care Related Quality of Life. Feasibility, acceptability and process outcomes include recruitment and retention rates, with measurement burden and trial experiences being explored in qualitative interviews (15 participants, 2 music facilitators and 2 music champions). Analyses include: descriptive statistics, with 95% CIs where appropriate; qualitative themes; intervention fidelity from videos and session checklists; rehearsal of health economic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: NHS National Research Ethics Service and the Health Research Authority confirmed approval in April 2017; recruitment commenced in June 2017. Outputs will include: pilot data to inform whether to proceed to a definitive RCT and support a funding application; finalised intervention manual for multicentre replication of SPA; presentations at conferences, public involvement events; internationally recognised peer reviewed journal publications, open access sources and media releases. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03076736.

Cost-effectiveness of a domestic violence and abuse training and support programme in primary care in the real world: updated modelling based on an MRC phase IV observational pragmatic implementation study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the implementation of the Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) programme using up-to-date real-world information on costs and effectiveness from routine clinical practice. A Markov model was constructed to estimate mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of IRIS versus usual care per woman registered at a general practice from a societal and health service perspective with a 10-year time horizon. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cost-utility analysis in UK general practices, including data from six sites which have been running IRIS for at least 2 years across England. PARTICIPANTS: Based on the Markov model, which uses health states to represent possible outcomes of the intervention, we stipulated a hypothetical cohort of 10 000 women aged 16 years or older. INTERVENTIONS: The IRIS trial was a randomised controlled trial that tested the effectiveness of a primary care training and support intervention to improve the response to women experiencing domestic violence and abuse, and found it to be cost-effective. As a result, the IRIS programme has been implemented across the UK, generating data on costs and effectiveness outside a trial context. RESULTS: The IRIS programme saved £14 per woman aged 16 years or older registered in general practice (95% uncertainty interval -£151 to £37) and produced QALY gains of 0.001 per woman (95% uncertainty interval -0.005 to 0.006). The incremental net monetary benefit was positive both from a societal and National Health Service perspective (£42 and £22, respectively) and the IRIS programme was cost-effective in 61% of simulations using real-life data when the cost-effectiveness threshold was £20 000 per QALY gained as advised by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. CONCLUSION: The IRIS programme is likely to be cost-effective and cost-saving from a societal perspective in the UK and cost-effective from a health service perspective, although there is considerable uncertainty surrounding these results, reflected in the large uncertainty intervals.

Community-based rehabilitation training after stroke: results of a pilot randomised controlled trial (ReTrain) investigating acceptability and feasibility.

OBJECTIVES: To assess acceptability and feasibility of trial processes and the Rehabilitation Training (ReTrain) intervention including an assessment of intervention fidelity. DESIGN: A two-group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial with parallel mixed methods process and economic evaluations. SETTING: Community settings across two sites in Devon. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were: 18 years old or over, with a diagnosis of stroke and with self-reported mobility issues, no contraindications to physical activity, discharged from National Health Service or any other formal rehabilitation programme at least 1 month before, willing to be randomised to either control or ReTrain and attend the training venue, possessing cognitive capacity and communication ability sufficient to participate. Participants were individually randomised (1:1) via a computer-generated randomisation sequence minimised for time since stroke and level of functional disability. Only outcome assessors independent of the research team were blinded to group allocation. INTERVENTIONS: ReTrain comprised (1) an introductory one-to-one session; (2) ten, twice-weekly group classes with up to two trainers and eight clients; (3) a closing one-to-one session, followed by three drop-in sessions over the subsequent 3 months. Participants received a bespoke home-based training programme. All participants received treatment as usual. The control group received an exercise after stroke advice booklet. OUTCOME MEASURES: Candidate primary outcomes included functional mobility and physical activity. RESULTS: Forty-five participants were randomised (ReTrain=23; Control=22); data were available from 40 participants at 6 months of follow-up (ReTrain=21; Control=19) and 41 at 9 months of follow-up (ReTrain=21; Control=20). We demonstrated ability to recruit and retain participants. Participants were not burdened by the requirements of the study. We were able to calculate sample estimates for candidate primary outcomes and test procedures for process and health economic evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: All objectives were fulfilled and indicated that a definitive trial of ReTrain is feasible and acceptable. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02429180; Results.

Exploring Differences between TTO and DCE in the Valuation of Health States.

There is recent interest in using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to derive health state utility values, and results can differ from time tradeoff (TTO). Clearly, DCE is "choice based," whereas TTO is generally considered a "matching" task. We explore whether procedural adaptations to the TTO, which make the method more closely resemble a DCE, make TTO and choice converge. In particular, we test whether making the matching procedure in TTO less "transparent" to the respondent reduces disparities between TTO and DCE. We designed an interactive survey that was hosted on the Internet, and 2022 interviews were achieved in the United Kingdom in a representative sample of the population. We found a marked divergence between TTO and DCE, but this was not related to the "transparency" of the TTO procedure. We conclude that a difference in the error structure between TTO and choice and that factors other than differences in utility are affecting choices is driving the divergence. The latter has fundamental implications for the way choice data are analyzed and interpreted.

Community-based Rehabilitation Training after stroke: protocol of a pilot randomised controlled trial (ReTrain).

INTRODUCTION: The Rehabilitation Training (ReTrain) intervention aims to improve functional mobility, adherence to poststroke exercise guidelines and quality of life for people after stroke. A definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) is required to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ReTrain, which is based on Action for Rehabilitation from Neurological Injury (ARNI). The purpose of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of such a definitive trial and inform its design. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A 2-group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled external pilot trial with parallel mixed-methods process evaluation and economic evaluation. 48 participants discharged from clinical rehabilitation despite residual physical disability will be individually randomised 1:1 to ReTrain (25 sessions) or control (exercise advice booklet). Outcome assessment at baseline, 6 and 9 months include Rivermead Mobility Index; Timed Up and Go Test; modified Patient-Specific Functional Scale; 7-day accelerometry; Stroke Self-efficacy Questionnaire, exercise diary, Fatigue Assessment Scale, exercise beliefs and self-efficacy questionnaires, SF-12, EQ-5D-5L, Stroke Quality of Life, Carer Burden Index and Service Receipt Inventory. Feasibility, acceptability and process outcomes include recruitment and retention rates; with measurement burden and trial experiences being explored in qualitative interviews (20 participants, 3 intervention providers). Analyses include descriptive statistics, with 95% CI where appropriate; qualitative themes; intervention fidelity from videos and session checklists; rehearsal of health economic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: National Health Service (NHS) National Research Ethics Service approval granted in April 2015; recruitment started in June. Preliminary studies suggested low risk of serious adverse events; however (minor) falls, transitory muscle soreness and high levels of postexercise fatigue are expected. Outputs include pilot data to inform whether to proceed to a definitive RCT and support a funding application; finalised Trainer and Intervention Delivery manuals for multicentre replication of ReTrain; presentations at conferences, public involvement events; internationally recognised peer-reviewed journal publications, open access sources and media releases. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02429180; Pre-results.