Solvent-Free and Cost-Efficient Fabrication of a High-Performance Nanocomposite Sensor for Recording of Electrophysiological Signals.

Carbon nanotube (CNT)-based nanocomposites have found applications in making sensors for various types of physiological sensing. However, the sensors' fabrication process is usually complex, multistep, and requires longtime mixing and hazardous solvents that can be harmful to the environment. Here, we report a flexible dry silver (Ag)/CNT/polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) nanocomposite-based sensor made by a solvent-free, low-temperature, time-effective, and simple approach for electrophysiological recording. By mechanical compression and thermal treatment of Ag/CNT, a connected conductive network of the fillers was formed, after which the PDMS was added as a polymer matrix. The CNTs make a continuous network for electrons transport, endowing the nanocomposite with high electrical conductivity, mechanical strength, and durability. This process is solvent-free and does not require a high temperature or complex mixing procedure. The sensor shows high flexibility and good conductivity. High-quality electroencephalography (EEG) and electrooculography (EOG) were performed using fabricated dry sensors. Our results show that the Ag/CNT/PDMS sensor has comparable skin-sensor interface impedance with commercial Ag/AgCl-coated dry electrodes, better performance for noninvasive electrophysiological signal recording, and a higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) even after 8 months of storage. The SNR of electrophysiological signal recording was measured to be 26.83 dB for our developed sensors versus 25.23 dB for commercial Ag/AgCl-coated dry electrodes. Our process of compress-heating the functional fillers provides a universal approach to fabricate various types of nanocomposites with different nanofillers and desired electrical and mechanical properties.

Integrated therapist and online CBT for depression in primary care (INTERACT): study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for depression. Self-directed online CBT interventions have made CBT more accessible at a lower cost. However, adherence is often poor and, in the absence of therapist support, effects are modest and short-term. Delivering CBT online using instant messaging is clinically and cost-effective; however, most existing platforms are limited to instant messaging sessions, without the support of between-session "homework" activities. The INTERACT intervention integrates online CBT materials and 'high-intensity' therapist-led CBT, delivered remotely in real-time. The INTERACT trial will evaluate this novel integration in terms of clinical and cost-effectiveness, and acceptability to therapists and clients. METHODS: Pragmatic, two parallel-group multi-centre individually randomised controlled trial, with 434 patients recruited from primary care practices in Bristol, London and York. Participants with depression will be identified via General Practitioner record searches and direct referrals. INCLUSION CRITERIA: aged ≥ 18 years; score ≥ 14 on Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II); meeting International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) criteria for depression. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: alcohol or substance dependency in the past year; bipolar disorder; schizophrenia; psychosis; dementia; currently under psychiatric care for depression (including those referred but not yet seen); cannot complete questionnaires unaided or requires an interpreter; currently receiving CBT/other psychotherapy; received high-intensity CBT in the past four years; participating in another intervention trial; unwilling/unable to receive CBT via computer/laptop/smartphone. Eligible participants will be randomised to integrated CBT or usual care. Integrated CBT utilises the standard Beckian intervention for depression and comprises nine live therapist-led sessions, with (up to) a further three if clinically appropriate. The first session is 60-90 min via videocall, with subsequent 50-min sessions delivered online, using instant messaging. Participants allocated integrated CBT can access integrated online CBT resources (worksheets/information sheets/videos) within and between sessions. Outcome assessments at 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month post-randomisation. The primary outcome is the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score at 6 months (as a continuous variable). A nested qualitative study and health economic evaluation will be conducted. DISCUSSION: If clinically and cost-effective, this model of integrated CBT could be introduced into existing psychological services, increasing access to, and equity of, CBT provision. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN13112900. Registered on 11/11/2020. Currently recruiting participants. Trial registration data are presented in Table 1.

Digital smartphone intervention to recognise and manage early warning signs in schizophrenia to prevent relapse: the EMPOWER feasibility cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: Relapse is a major determinant of outcome for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Early warning signs frequently precede relapse. A recent Cochrane Review found low-quality evidence to suggest a positive effect of early warning signs interventions on hospitalisation and relapse. OBJECTIVE: How feasible is a study to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a digital intervention to recognise and promptly manage early warning signs of relapse in schizophrenia with the aim of preventing relapse? DESIGN: A multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group cluster randomised controlled trial involving eight community mental health services, with 12-month follow-up. SETTINGS: Glasgow, UK, and Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Service users were aged > 16 years and had a schizophrenia spectrum disorder with evidence of a relapse within the previous 2 years. Carers were eligible for inclusion if they were nominated by an eligible service user. INTERVENTIONS: The Early signs Monitoring to Prevent relapse in psychosis and prOmote Wellbeing, Engagement, and Recovery (EMPOWER) intervention was designed to enable participants to monitor changes in their well-being daily using a mobile phone, blended with peer support. Clinical triage of changes in well-being that were suggestive of early signs of relapse was enabled through an algorithm that triggered a check-in prompt that informed a relapse prevention pathway, if warranted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes were feasibility of the trial and feasibility, acceptability and usability of the intervention, as well as safety and performance. Candidate co-primary outcomes were relapse and fear of relapse. RESULTS: We recruited 86 service users, of whom 73 were randomised (42 to EMPOWER and 31 to treatment as usual). Primary outcome data were collected for 84% of participants at 12 months. Feasibility data for people using the smartphone application (app) suggested that the app was easy to use and had a positive impact on motivations and intentions in relation to mental health. Actual app usage was high, with 91% of users who completed the baseline period meeting our a priori criterion of acceptable engagement (> 33%). The median time to discontinuation of > 33% app usage was 32 weeks (95% confidence interval 14 weeks to ∞). There were 8 out of 33 (24%) relapses in the EMPOWER arm and 13 out of 28 (46%) in the treatment-as-usual arm. Fewer participants in the EMPOWER arm had a relapse (relative risk 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.98), and time to first relapse (hazard ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.74) was longer in the EMPOWER arm than in the treatment-as-usual group. At 12 months, EMPOWER participants were less fearful of having a relapse than those in the treatment-as-usual arm (mean difference -4.29, 95% confidence interval -7.29 to -1.28). EMPOWER was more costly and more effective, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3041. This incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would be considered cost-effective when using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. LIMITATIONS: This was a feasibility study and the outcomes detected cannot be taken as evidence of efficacy or effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: A trial of digital technology to monitor early warning signs that blended with peer support and clinical triage to detect and prevent relapse is feasible. FUTURE WORK: A main trial with a sample size of 500 (assuming 90% power and 20% dropout) would detect a clinically meaningful reduction in relapse (relative risk 0.7) and improvement in other variables (effect sizes 0.3-0.4). TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN99559262. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding in Australia was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1095879).

WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM?: Relapse is a considerable problem for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Relapse can be predicted by early warning signs that are unique to the person. They include withdrawal, fear and paranoia. WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?: Is it possible to investigate the effectiveness of an intervention to recognise and promptly manage early warning signs of relapse in schizophrenia with the aim of preventing relapse? WHAT DID WE DO?: We spoke with 88 mental health staff, 40 carers and 21 service users before we designed a system that used a mobile phone to help people monitor early warning signs. We included peer support to help people using the system reflect on their experiences. We hoped the overall system, called EMPOWER, would help people to be more in charge of their mental health. After consenting 86 people to the study, we were able to randomly assign 73 people either to use the EMPOWER system (42 people) or to receive their normal treatment alone (31 people). We used research measures over 1 year to help us better understand people's experiences. We also involved carers (for example family or friends) and mental health service providers in the research. WHAT DID WE FIND?: We found that it was possible to recruit people to the study and to gather research data. We also found that people used the EMPOWER system and found it acceptable. We found that those who used EMPOWER had a lower rate of relapse over 12 months than people who did not. They were also less likely to be fearful of relapse. We found that EMPOWER was likely to be cost-effective. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: This means that a study to investigate the effectiveness of a system to recognise and respond to early warning signs of relapse in schizophrenia is possible.

The EMPOWER blended digital intervention for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial in Scotland and Australia.

BACKGROUND: Early warning signs monitoring by service users with schizophrenia has shown promise in preventing relapse but the quality of evidence is low. We aimed to establish the feasibility of undertaking a definitive randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of a blended digital intervention for relapse prevention in schizophrenia. METHODS: This multicentre, feasibility, cluster randomised controlled trial aimed to compare Early signs Monitoring to Prevent relapse in psychosis and prOmote Well-being, Engagement, and Recovery (EMPOWER) with treatment as usual in community mental health services (CMHS) in Glasgow and Melbourne. CMHS were the unit of randomisation, selected on the basis of those that probably had five or more care coordinators willing to participate. Participants were eligible if they were older than 16 years, had a schizophrenia or related diagnosis confirmed via case records, were able to provide informed consent, had contact with CMHS, and had had a relapse within the previous 2 years. Participants were randomised within stratified clusters to EMPOWER or to continue their usual approach to care. EMPOWER blended a smartphone for active monitoring of early warning signs with peer support to promote self-management and clinical triage to promote access to relapse prevention. Main outcomes were feasibility, acceptability, usability, and safety, which was assessed through face-to-face interviews. App usage was assessed via the smartphone and self-report. Primary end point was 12 months. Participants, research assistants and other team members involved in delivering the intervention were not masked to treatment conditions. Assessment of relapse was done by an independent adjudication panel masked to randomisation group. The study is registered at ISRCTN (99559262). FINDINGS: We identified and randomised eight CMHS (six in Glasgow and two in Melbourne) comprising 47 care coordinators. We recruited 86 service users between Jan 19 and Aug 8, 2018; 73 were randomised (42 [58%] to EMPOWER and 31 [42%] to treatment as usual). There were 37 (51%) men and 36 (49%) women. At 12 months, main outcomes were collected for 32 (76%) of service users in the EMPOWER group and 30 (97%) of service users in the treatment as usual group. Of those randomised to EMPOWER, 30 (71%) met our a priori criterion of more than 33% adherence to daily monitoring that assumed feasibility. Median time to discontinuation of these participants was 31·5 weeks (SD 14·5). There were 29 adverse events in the EMPOWER group and 25 adverse events in the treatment as usual group. There were 13 app-related adverse events, affecting 11 people, one of which was serious. Fear of relapse was lower in the EMPOWER group than in the treatment as usual group at 12 months (mean difference -7·53 (95% CI -14·45 to 0·60; Cohen's d -0·53). INTERPRETATION: A trial of digital technology to monitor early warning signs blended with peer support and clinical triage to detect and prevent relapse appears to be feasible, safe, and acceptable. A further main trial is merited. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Comparison of behavioural activation with guided self-help for treatment of depression in adults with intellectual disabilities: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Psychological therapies are first-line interventions for depression, but existing provision is not accessible for many adults with intellectual disabilities. We investigated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a behavioural activation intervention (BeatIt) for people with intellectual disabilities and depression. BeatIt was compared with a guided self-help intervention (StepUp). METHODS: We did a multicentre, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial with follow-up at 4 months and 12 months after randomisation. Participants aged 18 years or older, with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities and clinically significant depression were recruited from health and social care services in the UK. The primary outcome was the Glasgow Depression Scale for people with a Learning Disability (GDS-LD) score at 12 months. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ISCRTN, number ISRCTN09753005. FINDINGS: Between Aug 8, 2013, and Sept 1, 2015, 161 participants were randomly assigned (84 to BeatIt; 77 to StepUp); 141 (88%) participants completed the trial. No group differences were found in the effects of BeatIt and StepUp based on GDS-LD scores at 12 months (12·03 [SD 7·99] GDS-LD points for BeatIt vs 12·43 [SD 7·64] GDS-LD points for StepUp; mean difference 0·26 GDS-LD points [95% CI -2·18 to 2·70]; p=0·833). Within-group improvements in GDS-LD scores occurred in both groups at 12 months (BeatIt, mean change -4·2 GDS-LD points [95% CI -6·0 to -2·4], p<0·0001; StepUp, mean change -4·5 GDS-LD points [-6·2 to -2·7], p<0·0001), with large effect sizes (BeatIt, 0·590 [95% CI 0·337-0·844]; StepUp, 0·627 [0·380-0·873]). BeatIt was not cost-effective when compared with StepUp, although the economic analyses indicated substantial uncertainty. Treatment costs were only approximately 3·6-6·8% of participants' total support costs. No treatment-related or trial-related adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: This study is, to our knowledge, the first large randomised controlled trial assessing individual psychological interventions for people with intellectual disabilities and mental health problems. These findings show that there is no evidence that BeatIt is more effective than StepUp; both are active and potentially effective interventions. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Addressing Behavioral Health Disparities for Somali Immigrants Through Group Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Led by Community Health Workers.

To test the feasibility and acceptability of implementing an evidence-based, peer-delivered mental health intervention for Somali women in Minnesota, and to assess the impact of the intervention on the mental health of those who received the training. In a feasibility study, 11 Somali female community health workers were trained to deliver an 8-session cognitive behavioral therapy intervention. Each of the trainers recruited 5 participants through community outreach, resulting in 55 participants in the intervention. Self-assessed measures of mood were collected from study participants throughout the intervention, and focus groups were conducted. The 55 Somali women who participated recorded significant improvements in mood, with self-reported decreases in anxiety and increases in happiness. Focus group data showed the intervention was well received, particularly because it was delivered by a fellow community member. Participants reported gaining skills in problem solving, stress reduction, and anger management. Participants also felt that the intervention helped to address some of the stigma around mental health in their community. Delivery of cognitive behavioral therapy by a community health workers offered an acceptable way to build positive mental health in the Somali community.

Social Stories™ to alleviate challenging behaviour and social difficulties exhibited by children with autism spectrum disorder in mainstream schools: design of a manualised training toolkit and feasibility study for a cluster randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative and cost-effectiveness components.

BACKGROUND: A Social Story™ (Carol Gray) is a child-friendly intervention that is used to give children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) social information in situations where they have social difficulties. Limited evidence mainly using single-case designs suggests that they can reduce anxiety and challenging behaviour. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to conduct a systematic review, use this to develop a manualised intervention and run a feasibility trial to inform a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) on their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in schools. DESIGN: This is a three-stage study following the Medical Research Council framework for complex interventions. Specifically, it involved a theoretical phase, a qualitative stage and a feasibility trial stage. SETTING: Qualitative interviews and focus groups took place in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service and primary care settings. The feasibility study took place in 37 local mainstream schools. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty children (aged 5-15 years) in mainstream school settings with a diagnosis of ASD were entered into the trial. For each child, an associated teacher and parent was also recruited. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention was a goal-setting session followed by a manualised toolkit (including a training session) for creating Social Stories™ for use with school-aged children. The comparator treatment was a goal-setting session followed by an attention control. Both arms received treatment as usual. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes tested as part of the feasibility study included child- and proxy-completed questionnaires for mental health, quality of life and goal-based outcome measures. Adults additionally completed behaviour diaries and the parental stress index. RESULTS: The review found that the research into social stories is predominantly based in the USA, carried out in under-12-year-olds and using single-case designs. Most studies either did not follow established Social Story criteria or did not report if they did. The assessment of effectiveness presents a largely positive picture but is limited by methodological issues. There were no adequate RCTs and insufficient information to assess a number of important sources of potential bias in most studies. A manualised intervention was produced using an iterative process between user focus groups and a writing team, and assessed in the feasibility study. All 50 participant groups were recruited within the study time frame. Two outcome measures, the Social Responsiveness Scale-2 and the custom-made goal-based measure, showed high levels of completion rates and appeared to be capturing social and behaviour skills targeted by the use of Social Stories. Detailed recommendations for a full trial are provided. LIMITATIONS: Blinding of participants was not feasible. Treatment fidelity was not assessed because of low levels of story return rates. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that a fully powered RCT is feasible with an extended geographical footprint. A large amount of data and information has helped to inform the design of this RCT, which will be the subject of a future research grant application. Future work could focus on developing an appropriate blinded outcome measure for this population. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001440. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN96286707. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for treatment-resistant depression in primary care: follow-up of the CoBalT randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for people whose depression has not responded to antidepressants. However, the long-term outcome is unknown. In a long-term follow-up of the CoBalT trial, we examined the clinical and cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy as an adjunct to usual care that included medication over 3-5 years in primary care patients with treatment-resistant depression. METHODS: CoBalT was a randomised controlled trial done across 73 general practices in three UK centres. CoBalT recruited patients aged 18-75 years who had adhered to antidepressants for at least 6 weeks and had substantial depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory [BDI-II] score ≥14 and met ICD-10 depression criteria). Participants were randomly assigned using a computer generated code, to receive either usual care or CBT in addition to usual care. Patients eligible for the long-term follow-up were those who had not withdrawn by the 12 month follow-up and had given their consent to being re-contacted. Those willing to participate were asked to return the postal questionnaire to the research team. One postal reminder was sent and non-responders were contacted by telephone to complete a brief questionnaire. Data were also collected from general practitioner notes. Follow-up took place at a variable interval after randomisation (3-5 years). The primary outcome was self-report of depressive symptoms assessed by BDI-II score (range 0-63), analysed by intention to treat. Cost-utility analysis compared health and social care costs with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). This study is registered with isrctn.com, number ISRCTN38231611. FINDINGS: Between Nov 4, 2008, and Sept 30, 2010, 469 eligible participants were randomised into the CoBalT study. Of these, 248 individuals completed a long-term follow-up questionnaire and provided data for the primary outcome (136 in the intervention group vs 112 in the usual care group). At follow-up (median 45·5 months [IQR 42·5-51·1]), the intervention group had a mean BDI-II score of 19·2 (SD 13·8) compared with a mean BDI-II score of 23·4 (SD 13·2) for the usual care group (repeated measures analysis over the 46 months: difference in means -4·7 [95% CI -6·4 to -3·0, p<0·001]). Follow-up was, on average, 40 months after therapy ended. The average annual cost of trial CBT per participant was £343 (SD 129). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £5374 per QALY gain. This represented a 92% probability of being cost effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence QALY threshold of £20 000. INTERPRETATION: CBT as an adjunct to usual care that includes antidepressants is clinically effective and cost effective over the long-term for individuals whose depression has not responded to pharmacotherapy. In view of this robust evidence of long-term effectiveness and the fact that the intervention represented good value-for-money, clinicians should discuss referral for CBT with all those for whom antidepressants are not effective. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

BEAT-IT: Comparing a behavioural activation treatment for depression in adults with intellectual disabilities with an attention control: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression appears to be more enduring amongst people with intellectual disabilities, suggesting that it is a more chronic problem or more poorly managed in this population. This is not helped by a lack of evidence about the effectiveness of psychological therapies for people who have intellectual disabilities and depression. Behavioural activation, which aims to counteract depression by increasing individuals' level of meaningful activity and their exposure to positive reinforcers, has proven to be as effective as cognitive behavioural therapy in the general population. Given that this therapy makes fewer communicative demands and focuses on activity, it was thought that behavioural activation would be both accessible and apt for people with intellectual disabilities, who are often socially marginalised. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a multi-centre single-blind randomised controlled trial of behavioural activation versus a self-help attention control intervention for depression in adults with mild/moderate intellectual disabilities. The study has an internal pilot in one centre, to establish that recruitment can be built up and sustained at the required level, before being rolled out across the other sites. One hundred sixty-six participants will be randomly assigned to the behavioural activation or self-help interventions, which will be delivered to individuals with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities, accompanied by someone who provides them with regular support. Both interventions are manualised and will be delivered over a period of approximately 4 months. The primary outcome measure will be the Glasgow Depression Scale, a self-report measure which is completed at baseline and 4 and 12 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include measures of participants' activity levels, proxy reports of depressive symptoms, and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: The study will provide evidence about the effectiveness of behavioural activation for depression, adapted for people who have mild/moderate intellectual disabilities, and will inform the delivery of psychological therapies to people with intellectual disabilities in practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Date trial registered: Nov. 13, 2012; trial registration number: ISRCTN 09753005.

Oxygen saturation targets in infants with bronchiolitis (BIDS): a double-blind, randomised, equivalence trial.

BACKGROUND: The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends a permissive hypoxaemic target for an oxygen saturation of 90% for children with bronchiolitis, which is consistent with the WHO recommendations for targets in children with lower respiratory tract infections. No evidence exists to support this threshold. We aimed to assess whether the 90% or higher target for management of oxygen supplementation was equivalent to a normoxic 94% or higher target for infants admitted to hospital with viral bronchiolitis. METHODS: We did a parallel-group, randomised, controlled, equivalence trial of infants aged 6 weeks to 12 months of age with physician-diagnosed bronchiolitis newly admitted into eight paediatric hospital units in the UK (the Bronchiolitis of Infancy Discharge Study [BIDS]). A central computer randomly allocated (1:1) infants, in varying length blocks of four and six and without stratification, to be clipped to standard oximeters (patients treated with oxygen if pulse oxygen saturation [SpO2] <94%) or modified oximeters (displayed a measured value of 90% as 94%, therefore oxygen not given until SpO2 <90%). All parents, clinical staff, and outcome assessors were masked to allocation. The primary outcome was time to resolution of cough (prespecified equivalence limits of plus or minus 2 days) in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN28405428. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, and March 30, 2012, and Oct 1, and March 29, 2013, we randomly assigned 308 infants to standard oximeters and 307 infants to modified oximeters. Cough resolved by 15·0 days (median) in both groups (95% CI for difference -1 to 2) and so oxygen thresholds were equivalent. We recorded 35 serious adverse events in 32 infants in the standard care group and 25 serious adverse events in 24 infants in the modified care group. In the standard care group, eight infants transferred to a high-dependency unit, 23 were readmitted, and one had a prolonged hospital stay. In the modified care group, 12 infants were transferred to a high-dependency unit and 12 were readmitted to hospital. Recorded adverse events did not differ significantly. INTERPRETATION: Management of infants with bronchiolitis to an oxygen saturation target of 90% or higher is as safe and clinically effective as one of 94% or higher. Future research should assess the benefits and risks of different oxygen saturation targets in acute respiratory infection in older children, particularly in developing nations where resources are scarce. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment programme.

Autism Spectrum Social Stories In Schools Trial (ASSSIST): study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial analysing clinical and cost-effectiveness of Social Stories in mainstream schools.

INTRODUCTION: Current evidence suggests that Social Stories can be effective in tackling problem behaviours exhibited by children with autism spectrum disorder. Exploring the meaning of behaviour from a child's perspective allows stories to provide social information that is tailored to their needs. Case reports in children with autism have suggested that these stories can lead to a number of benefits including improvements in social interactions and choice making in educational settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The feasibility of clinical and cost-effectiveness of a Social Stories toolkit will be assessed using a randomised control framework. Participants (n=50) will be randomised to either the Social Stories intervention or a comparator group where they will be read standard stories for an equivalent amount of time. Statistics will be calculated for recruitment rates, follow-up rates and attrition. Economic analysis will determine appropriate measures of generic health and resource use categories for cost-effectiveness analysis. Qualitative analysis will ascertain information on perceptions about the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: National Health Service Ethics Approval (NHS; ref 11/YH/0340) for the trial protocol has been obtained along with NHS Research and Development permission from Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. All adverse events will be closely monitored, documented and reported to the study Data Monitoring Ethics Committee. At least one article in a peer reviewed journal will be published and research findings presented at relevant conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN96286707.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for treatment-resistant depression in primary care: the CoBalT randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Only one-third of patients with depression respond fully to treatment with antidepressant medication. However, there is little robust evidence to guide the management of those whose symptoms are 'treatment resistant'. OBJECTIVE: The CoBalT trial examined the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) as an adjunct to usual care (including pharmacotherapy) for primary care patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) compared with usual care alone. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre individually randomised controlled trial with follow-up at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. A subset took part in a qualitative study investigating views and experiences of CBT, reasons for completing/not completing therapy, and usual care for TRD. SETTING: General practices in Bristol, Exeter and Glasgow, and surrounding areas. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 18-75 years who had TRD [on antidepressants for ≥ 6 weeks, had adhered to medication, Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd version (BDI-II) score of ≥ 14 and fulfilled the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth edition criteria for depression]. Individuals were excluded who (1) had bipolar disorder/psychosis or major alcohol/substance abuse problems; (2) were unable to complete the questionnaires; or (3) were pregnant, as were those currently receiving CBT/other psychotherapy/secondary care for depression, or who had received CBT in the past 3 years. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised, using a computer-generated code, to usual care or CBT (12-18 sessions) in addition to usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was 'response', defined as ≥ 50% reduction in depressive symptoms (BDI-II score) at 6 months compared with baseline. Secondary outcomes included BDI-II score as a continuous variable, remission of symptoms (BDI-II score of < 10), quality of life, anxiety and antidepressant use at 6 and 12 months. Data on health and social care use, personal costs, and time off work were collected at 6 and 12 months. Costs from these three perspectives were reported using a cost-consequence analysis. A cost-utility analysis compared health and social care costs with quality adjusted life-years. RESULTS: A total of 469 patients were randomised (intervention: n = 234; usual care: n = 235), with 422 participants (90%) and 396 (84%) followed up at 6 and 12 months. Ninety-five participants (46.1%) in the intervention group met criteria for 'response' at 6 months compared with 46 (21.6%) in the usual-care group {odds ratio [OR] 3.26 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.10 to 5.06], p < 0.001}. In repeated measures analyses using data from 6 and 12 months, the OR for 'response' was 2.89 (95% CI 2.03 to 4.10, p < 0.001) and for a secondary 'remission' outcome (BDI-II score of < 10) 2.74 (95% CI 1.82 to 4.13, p < 0.001). The mean cost of CBT per participant was £ 910, the incremental health and social care cost £ 850, the incremental QALY gain 0.057 and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £ 14,911. Forty participants were interviewed. Patients described CBT as challenging but helping them to manage their depression; listed social, emotional and practical reasons for not completing treatment; and described usual care as mainly taking medication. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who have not responded to antidepressants, augmenting usual care with CBT is effective in reducing depressive symptoms, and these effects, including outcomes reflecting remission, are maintained over 12 months. The intervention was cost-effective based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. Patients may experience CBT as difficult but effective. Further research should evaluate long-term effectiveness, as this would have major implications for the recommended treatment of depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38231611.

Cost-effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for treatment-resistant depression in primary care: economic evaluation of the CoBalT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is expensive to treat, but providing ineffective treatment is more expensive. Such is the case for many patients who do not respond to antidepressant medication. AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) plus usual care for primary care patients with treatment-resistant depression compared with usual care alone. METHOD: Economic evaluation at 12 months alongside a randomised controlled trial. Cost-effectiveness assessed using a cost-consequences framework comparing cost to the health and social care provider, patients and society, with a range of outcomes. Cost-utility analysis comparing health and social care costs with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: The mean cost of CBT per participant was £910. The difference in QALY gain between the groups was 0.057, equivalent to 21 days a year of good health. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £14 911 (representing a 74% probability of the intervention being cost-effective at the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20 000 per QALY). Loss of earnings and productivity costs were substantial but there was no evidence of a difference between intervention and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of CBT to usual care is cost-effective in patients who have not responded to antidepressants. Primary care physicians should therefore be encouraged to refer such individuals for CBT.

Cognitive behavioural therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for primary care based patients with treatment resistant depression: results of the CoBalT randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Only a third of patients with depression respond fully to antidepressant medication but little evidence exists regarding the best next-step treatment for those whose symptoms are treatment resistant. The CoBalT trial aimed to examine the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) as an adjunct to usual care (including pharmacotherapy) for primary care patients with treatment resistant depression compared with usual care alone. METHODS: This two parallel-group multicentre randomised controlled trial recruited 469 patients aged 18-75 years with treatment resistant depression (on antidepressants for ≥6 weeks, Beck depression inventory [BDI] score ≥14 and international classification of diseases [ICD]-10 criteria for depression) from 73 UK general practices. Participants were randomised, with a computer generated code (stratified by centre and minimised according to baseline BDI score, whether the general practice had a counsellor, previous treatment with antidepressants, and duration of present episode of depression) to one of two groups: usual care or CBT in addition to usual care, and were followed up for 12 months. Because of the nature of the intervention it was not possible to mask participants, general practitioners, CBT therapists, or researchers to the treatment allocation. Analyses were by intention to treat. The primary outcome was response, defined as at least 50% reduction in depressive symptoms (BDI score) at 6 months compared with baseline. This trial is registered, ISRCTN38231611. FINDINGS: Between Nov 4, 2008, and Sept 30, 2010, we assigned 235 patients to usual care, and 234 to CBT plus usual care. 422 participants (90%) were followed up at 6 months and 396 (84%) at 12 months, finishing on Oct 31, 2011. 95 participants (46%) in the intervention group met criteria for response at 6 months compared with 46 (22%) in the usual care group (odds ratio 3·26, 95% CI 2·10-5·06, p<0·001). INTERPRETATION: Before this study, no evidence from large-scale randomised controlled trials was available for the effectiveness of augmentation of antidepressant medication with CBT as a next-step for patients whose depression has not responded to pharmacotherapy. Our study has provided robust evidence that CBT as an adjunct to usual care that includes antidepressants is an effective treatment, reducing depressive symptoms in this population. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Cognitive behavioural therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for treatment resistant depression in primary care: the CoBalT randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are often the first-line treatment for depression but only one third of patients respond fully to pharmacotherapy. This paper describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) designed to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for patients with treatment resistant depression in primary care. METHODS/DESIGN: CoBalT is a two parallel group multi-centre pragmatic RCT. Eligible participants were those who: (i) were aged 18-75years; (ii) were currently taking antidepressant medication (for at least 6weeks at an adequate dose); (iii) scored ≥14 on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II); (iv) had adhered to their medication; and (v) met ICD-10 criteria for depression (assessed using the Clinical Interview Schedule - revised version). Those who gave written informed consent were randomised to one of two treatment groups: usual care or usual care plus CBT. The primary outcome is depressive symptoms assessed using the BDI-II at 6months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes measured at 6 and 12months include quality of life, antidepressant use and health care utilisation. Outcomes will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. DISCUSSION: The CoBalT trial will provide evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of CBT as an adjunct to antidepressant medication in the treatment of depression that has not responded to pharmacotherapy. Given the move to widen access to 'talking therapies', the results of this study will be timely.

Training health visitors in cognitive behavioural and person-centred approaches for depression in postnatal women as part of a cluster randomised trial and economic evaluation in primary care: the PoNDER trial.

AIM: This paper aims to describe the training preparation for health visitors who took part in the intervention arm of a cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of training for health visitors - the POstNatal Depression Economic evaluation and Randomised (the PoNDER) trial. A secondary aim is to make available, by electronic links, the training manuals developed for and used for the cognitive behavioural approach (CBA) and the person-centred approach (PCA) training for the health visitors. The paper is of relevance to health visitors, general practitioners, nurse practitioners, midwives, clinical psychologists, mental health nurses, community psychiatric nurses, counsellors, and service commissioners. BACKGROUND: The trial clinical outcomes have been published, indicating the pragmatic effectiveness of the package of training for health visitors to identify depressive symptoms and provide a psychologically informed intervention. The training was associated with a reduction in depressive symptoms at six months postnatally among intervention group women and some evidence of a benefit for the intervention group for some of the secondary outcomes at 18 months follow-up. METHODS: The two experimental interventions examined in the PoNDER trial built upon promising work on the potential for psychological interventions to help women recover from postnatal depression as an alternative to pharmaceutical interventions and to address the limitations of previous research in the area. FINDINGS: The package of health visitor training comprised the development of clinical skills in assessing postnatal women and identifying depressive symptoms, and the delivery of a CBA or a PCA for eligible women. This was the largest trial a health visitor intervention and of postnatal depression ever conducted. We are aware of no other rigorously performed trial that has published details of an extensively tested training programme for the benefit of health-care professionals and clients.

A primary care cardiovascular risk reduction clinic in Canada was more effective and no more expensive than usual on-demand primary care--a randomised controlled trial.

The objective of this randomised controlled trial was to compare the effects and expense of three approaches to care (1) proactive cardiovascular risk reduction (CaRR) clinic; (2) nurse telephone calls; or (3) usual care for people with cardiovascular risk factors in a Primary Care, Health Service Organisation (HSO) in Ontario, Canada. Subjects included consenting patients with an identified cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor identified from the HSO computerised patient information system in 2004. Patients were excluded if they were mentally incompetent, <18 years of age, in a nursing home, or not English speaking. Of 1570 eligible subjects, 523 (33.3%) verbally declined, 145 (9.2%) could not be contacted, and 249 (15.9%) were not needed. The final sample size was 653 (41.6%), 634 completed the follow-up (97%). The Cardiovascular Risk Score, Health and Social Service Utilisation, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating, Billings and Moos Indices of Coping, Personal Resource and Self-Efficacy Questionnaires were measured at baseline and 1-year follow-up by clinical examination and telephone interview. Cardiovascular risk scores were reduced in all treatment groups after 1 year. The proportions of subjects showing reduction in risk score greater than or equal to 10% was greatest in the CaRR group (69.2%) compared with Nurse Phone intervention (57.8%) and Usual Care (59.0%) (M-Hchi(2) = 4.33, df = 1, P = 0.037, CaRR-Usual Care). Self-efficacy scores showed the greatest improvements in the CaRR clinic. This effect was achieved with no significant difference in total person per annum costs for direct and indirect health and social service utilisation between all three groups. A CaRR clinic is more effective in reducing CVD risk after 1 year compared with nurse phone intervention and usual care with no additional expense found.