Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment in primary care (ATLANTIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline suggests considering low- dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown, and they are infrequently prescribed in this setting. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment [ATLANTIS]) was conducted at 55 general practices in England. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with Rome IV IBS of any subtype, and ongoing symptoms (IBS Severity Scoring System [IBS-SSS] score ≥75 points) despite dietary changes and first-line therapies, a normal full blood count and C-reactive protein, negative coeliac serology, and no evidence of suicidal ideation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to low-dose oral amitriptyline (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 6 months, with dose titration over 3 weeks (up to 30 mg once daily), according to symptoms and tolerability. Participants, their general practitioners, investigators, and the analysis team were all masked to allocation throughout the trial. The primary outcome was the IBS-SSS score at 6 months. Effectiveness analyses were according to intention-to-treat; safety analyses were on all participants who took at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN48075063) and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2019, and April 11, 2022, 463 participants (mean age 48·5 years [SD 16·1], 315 [68%] female to 148 [32%] male) were randomly allocated to receive low-dose amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of low-dose amitriptyline in IBS-SSS score between groups at 6 months (-27·0, 95% CI -46·9 to -7·10; p=0·0079). 46 (20%) participants discontinued low-dose amitriptyline (30 [13%] due to adverse events), and 59 (26%) discontinued placebo (20 [9%] due to adverse events) before 6 months. There were five serious adverse reactions (two in the amitriptyline group and three in the placebo group), and five serious adverse events unrelated to trial medication. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a tricyclic antidepressant in IBS ever conducted. Titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes, and was safe and well tolerated. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with IBS whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies, with appropriate support to guide patient-led dose titration, such as the self-titration document developed for this trial. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant reference 16/162/01).

Core outcomes for pressure ulcer prevention trials: results of an international consensus study: Classification: Outcomes and qualitative research.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial heterogeneity between trial outcomes in pressure ulcer prevention research. The development of core outcome sets is one strategy to improve comparability between trial results and thus increase the quality of evidence. OBJECTIVES: To identify core outcomes for pressure ulcer prevention trials. METHODS: A workshop was held with service users to discuss their views and understanding of the outcomes identified by a scoping review and to identify any missing outcomes. In a next step, a Delphi survey comprising three rounds was conducted to evaluate a compiled list of outcomes by their importance. Afterwards the preselection from the Delphi survey was discussed in a virtual consensus meeting with the aim of agreeing on a final set of core outcomes. Individuals who had completed all three rounds of the Delphi survey were eligible to participate in this meeting. Participants included practitioners, service users, researchers and industry representatives. The OUTPUTs project is registered in the COMET database and is part of the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative. RESULTS: The workshop did not reveal any missing outcomes, but highlighted the need for further efforts to make lay people understand what an outcome is in a study setting. The Delphi survey took place between December 2020 and June 2021. After the three rounds, 18 out of 37 presented outcomes were rated to be critically important. In the following consensus meeting, six outcomes were prioritized to be included in the core outcome set for pressure ulcer prevention trials: (i) pressure ulcer occurrence; (ii) pressure ulcer precursor signs and symptoms; (iii) mobility; (iv) acceptability and comfort of intervention; (v) adherence/compliance; and (vi) adverse events/safety. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a comprehensive list of outcomes in pressure ulcer prevention research, there was clear agreement on the six identified core outcomes in three international Delphi rounds and in the consensus meeting. Although outcome measurement instruments need to be identified next, the six identified core outcomes should already be considered in future trials, as service users, practitioners, researchers and industry representatives have agreed that they are critically important. What is already known about this topic? There are numerous trials on pressure ulcer prevention, but evidence on the effectiveness of preventive measures is limited due to heterogeneity between trial outcomes. The development of a core outcome set is one strategy to improve comparability between trial results. What does this study add? A service user workshop, a three-round Delphi survey and an online consensus meeting with practitioners, service users, researchers and industry representatives were conducted to identify core outcomes for pressure ulcer prevention trials. Six core outcomes were defined: (i) pressure ulcer occurrence, (ii) pressure ulcer precursor signs and symptoms, (iii) mobility, (iv) acceptability and comfort of intervention, (v) adherence/compliance and (vi) adverse events/safety. What are the clinical implications of this work? Better evidence of interventions for pressure ulcer prevention will help health professionals and service users to decide which interventions are most appropriate and effective. Better evidence may contribute to better pressure ulcer prevention.

Clinical evaluation of a new pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument, the Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary or Secondary Evaluation Tool (PURPOSE T).

AIM: To test the psychometric properties and clinical usability of a new Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instrument including inter-rater and test-retest reliability, convergent validity and data completeness. BACKGROUND: Methodological and practical limitations associated with traditional Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments, prompted a programme to work to develop a new instrument, as part of the National Institute for Health Research funded, Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (RP-PG-0407-10056). DESIGN: Observational field test. METHOD: For this clinical evaluation 230 patients were purposefully sampled across four broad levels of pressure ulcer risk with representation from four secondary care and four community NHS Trusts in England. Blinded and simultaneous paired (ward/community nurse and expert nurse) PURPOSE-T assessments were undertaken. Follow-up retest was undertaken by the expert nurse. Field notes of PURPOSE-T use were collected. Data were collected October 2012-January 2013. RESULTS: The clinical evaluation demonstrated "very good" (kappa) inter-rater and test-retest agreement for PURPOSE-T assessment decision overall. The percentage agreement for "problem/no problem" was over 75% for the main risk factors. Convergent validity demonstrated moderate to high associations with other measures of similar constructs. CONCLUSION: The PURPOSE-T evaluation facilitated the initial validation and clinical usability of the instrument and demonstrated that PURPOSE-T is suitable of use in clinical practice. Further study is needed to evaluate the impact of using the instrument on care processes and outcomes.

Supporting public involvement in interview and other panels: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Members of the public are increasingly being invited to become members of a variety of different panels and boards. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically search the literature to identify studies relating to support or training provided to members of the public who are asked to be members of an interview panel. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search for published and unpublished studies was carried out from June to September 2015. The search methods included electronic database searching, reference list screening, citation searching and scrutinizing online sources. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We included studies of any design including published and unpublished documents which outlined preparation or guidance relating to public participants who were members of interview panels or representatives on other types of panels or committees. DATA SYNTHESIS: Results were synthesised via narrative methods. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-six documents were included in the review. Scrutiny of this literature highlighted ten areas which require consideration when including members of the public on interview panels: financial resources; clarity of role; role in the interview process; role in evaluation; training; orientation/induction; information needs; terminology; support; and other public representative needs such as timing, accessibility and support with information technology. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The results of the review emphasize a range of elements that need to be fully considered when planning the involvement of public participants on interview panels. It highlights potential issues relating to the degree of involvement of public representatives in evaluating/grading decisions and the need for preparation and on-going support.

Priorities for methodological research on patient and public involvement in clinical trials: A modified Delphi process.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing international interest, there is a lack of evidence about the most efficient, effective and acceptable ways to implement patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To identify the priorities of UK PPI stakeholders for methodological research to help resolve uncertainties about PPI in clinical trials. DESIGN: A modified Delphi process including a two round online survey and a stakeholder consensus meeting. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 237 people registered of whom 219 (92%) completed the first round. One hundred and eighty-seven of 219 (85%) completed the second; 25 stakeholders attended the consensus meeting. RESULTS: Round 1 of the survey comprised 36 topics; 42 topics were considered in round 2 and at the consensus meeting. Approximately 96% of meeting participants rated the top three topics as equally important. These were as follows: developing strong and productive working relationships between researchers and PPI contributors; exploring PPI practices in selecting trial outcomes of importance to patients; and a systematic review of PPI activity to improve the accessibility and usefulness of trial information (eg participant information sheets) for participants. CONCLUSIONS: The prioritized methodological research topics indicate important areas of uncertainty about PPI in trials. Addressing these uncertainties will be critical to enhancing PPI. Our findings should be used in the planning and funding of PPI in clinical trials to help focus research efforts and minimize waste.

Developing a pressure ulcer risk factor minimum data set and risk assessment framework.

AIM: To agree a draft pressure ulcer risk factor Minimum Data Set to underpin the development of a new evidenced-based Risk Assessment Framework. BACKGROUND: A recent systematic review identified the need for a pressure ulcer risk factor Minimum Data Set and development and validation of an evidenced-based pressure ulcer Risk Assessment Framework. This was undertaken through the Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (RP-PG-0407-10056), funded by the National Institute for Health Research and incorporates five phases. This article reports phase two, a consensus study. DESIGN: Consensus study. METHOD: A modified nominal group technique based on the Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness method. This incorporated an expert group, review of the evidence and the views of a Patient and Public Involvement service user group. Data were collected December 2010-December 2011. FINDINGS: The risk factors and assessment items of the Minimum Data Set (including immobility, pressure ulcer and skin status, perfusion, diabetes, skin moisture, sensory perception and nutrition) were agreed. In addition, a draft Risk Assessment Framework incorporating all Minimum Data Set items was developed, comprising a two stage assessment process (screening and detailed full assessment) and decision pathways. CONCLUSION: The draft Risk Assessment Framework will undergo further design and pre-testing with clinical nurses to assess and improve its usability. It will then be evaluated in clinical practice to assess its validity and reliability. The Minimum Data Set could be used in future for large scale risk factor studies informing refinement of the Risk Assessment Framework.

Amitriptyline at low-dose and titrated for irritable bowel syndrome as second-line treatment (The ATLANTIS trial): protocol for a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional bowel disorder that has a considerable impact on patient quality of life and substantial societal and health care resource costs. Current treatments are often ineffective. Tricyclic antidepressants have shown promise in secondary care populations but their effectiveness in a primary care setting remains unclear. METHODS: ATLANTIS is a randomised, multi-centre, parallel-group, two-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of low-dose amitriptyline as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care. Participants will be invited by letter, or recruited opportunistically, from general practices in three regions of England (West Yorkshire, Wessex, and West of England) and screened for eligibility. A total of 518 adult patients with IBS, who are symptomatic despite first-line therapies, will be randomised 1:1 to amitriptyline or identical placebo for 6 months. Treatment will commence at a dose of 10 mg (or one placebo tablet) daily at night, with dose titration up to a maximum of 30 mg at night, depending on side effects and response to treatment. Participant-reported assessments will be conducted at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months post-randomisation. The primary objective is to determine the effectiveness of amitriptyline, compared with placebo, in improving participant-reported global symptoms of IBS at 6 months (using the IBS Severity Scoring System). Secondary outcomes include relief of IBS symptoms, effect on IBS-associated somatic symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-12), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), ability to work and participate in other activities (Work and Social Adjustment Scale), acceptability and tolerability of treatment, self-reported health care use, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), and cost-effectiveness. A nested, qualitative study will explore patient and general practitioner experiences of treatments and trial participation, including acceptability, adherence, unanticipated effects, and implications for wider use of amitriptyline for IBS in primary care. DISCUSSION: Determining the clinical and cost-effectiveness of low-dose amitriptyline as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care will provide robust evidence to inform management decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN48075063 . Registered on 7th June 2019.

Outcomes for Pressure Ulcer Trials (OUTPUTs): protocol for the development of a core domain set for trials evaluating the clinical efficacy or effectiveness of pressure ulcer prevention interventions.

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets (COS) are being developed in many clinical areas to increase the quality and comparability of clinical trial results as well as to ensure their relevance for patients. A COS represents an agreed standardized set of outcomes that describes the minimum that should be consistently reported in all clinical trials of a defined area. It comprises a core domain set (defining what core outcomes should be measured) and a core measurement set (defining measurement/assessment instruments for each core domain). For pressure ulcer prevention trials a COS is lacking. The great heterogeneity of reported outcomes in this field indicates the need for a COS. METHODS/DESIGN: The first part of this project aims to develop a core domain set by following established methods, which incorporates four steps: (1) definition of the scope, (2) conducting a scoping review, (3) organizing facilitated workshops with service users, (4) performing Delphi surveys and establishing consensus in a face-to-face meeting with different stakeholders. DISCUSSION: After achieving consensus on the core domain set, further work will be undertaken to determine a corresponding core measurement set. This will lead to better pressure ulcer prevention research in the future. There are a number of methodological challenges in the field of COS development. To meet these challenges and to ensure a high-quality COS, the OUTPUTS project affiliates to current standards and works in close collaboration with international experts and with existing international service user groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The OUTPUTs project is registered in the COMET database: ( http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/283 ). Registered on 2015.

Pressure Relieving Support Surfaces for Pressure Ulcer Prevention (PRESSURE 2): Clinical and Health Economic Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (PUs) are complications of serious acute/chronic illness. Specialist mattresses used for prevention lack high quality effectiveness evidence. We aimed to compare clinical and cost effectiveness of 2 mattress types. METHODS: Multicentre, Phase III, open, prospective, parallel group, randomised controlled trial in 42 UK secondary/community in-patient facilities.2029 high risk (acutely ill, bedfast/chairfast and/or Category 1 PU/pain at PU site) adult in-patients were randomised (1:1, allocation concealment, minimisation with random element) factors including: centre, PU status, facility and consent type. Interventions were alternating pressure mattresses (APMs) or high specification foam (HSF) for maximum treatment phase 60 days. Primary outcome was time to development of new PU Category ≥ 2 from randomisation to 30 day post-treatment follow-up in intention-to treat population. Trial registration: ISRCTN 01151335. FINDINGS: Between August 2013 and November 2016, we randomised 2029 patients (1016 APMs: 1013 HSF) who developed 160(7.9%) PUs. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between groups for time to new PU Category ≥ 2 Fine and Gray Model Hazard Ratio HR = 0.76, 95%CI0.56-1.04); exact P = 0.0890; absolute difference 2%). There was a statistically significant difference in the treatment phase time to event sensitivity analysis, Fine and Gray model HR = 0.66, 95%CI, 0.46-0.93; exact P = 0.0176); 2.6% absolute difference). Economic analyses indicate that APM are cost-effective.There were no safety concerns. INTERPRETATION: In high risk (acutely ill, bedfast/chairfast/Category 1 PU/ pain on a PU site) in-patients, we found insufficient evidence of a difference in time to PU development at 30-day final follow-up, which may be related to a low event rate affecting trial power. APMs conferred a small treatment phase benefit. Patient preference, low PU incidence and small group differences suggests the need for improved targeting of APMs with decision making informed by patient preference/comfort/rehabilitation needs and the presence of potentially modifiable risk factors such as being completely immobile, nutritional deficits, lacking capacity and/or altered skin/Category1 PU.

Comparing alternating pressure mattresses and high-specification foam mattresses to prevent pressure ulcers in high-risk patients: the PRESSURE 2 RCT.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (PUs) are a burden to patients, carers and health-care providers. Specialist mattresses minimise the intensity and duration of pressure on vulnerable skin sites in at-risk patients. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Time to developing a new PU of category ≥ 2 in patients using an alternating pressure mattress (APM) compared with a high-specification foam mattress (HSFM). DESIGN: A multicentre, Phase III, open, prospective, planned as an adaptive double-triangular group sequential, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with an a priori sample size of 2954 participants. Randomisation used minimisation (incorporating a random element). SETTING: The trial was set in 42 secondary and community inpatient facilities in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adult inpatients with evidence of acute illness and at a high risk of PU development. INTERVENTIONS AND FOLLOW-UP: APM or HSFM - the treatment phase lasted a maximum of 60 days; the final 30 days were post-treatment follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to event. RESULTS: From August 2013 to November 2016, 2029 participants were randomised to receive either APM (n = 1016) or HSFM (n = 1013). Primary end point - 30-day final follow-up: of the 2029 participants in the intention-to-treat population, 160 (7.9%) developed a new PU of category ≥ 2. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between groups for time to new PU of category ≥ 2 [Fine and Gray model HR 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.04; exact p-value of 0.0890 and 2% absolute difference]. Treatment phase sensitivity analysis: 132 (6.5%) participants developed a new PU of category ≥ 2 between randomisation and end of treatment phase. There was a statistically significant difference in the treatment phase time-to-event sensitivity analysis (Fine and Gray model HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.93; p = 0.0176 and 2.6% absolute difference). Secondary end points - 30-day final follow-up: new PUs of category ≥ 1 developed in 350 (17.2%) participants, with no evidence of a difference between mattress groups in time to PU development, (Fine and Gray model HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; p-value = 0.0733 and absolute difference 3.1%). New PUs of category ≥ 3 developed in 32 (1.6%) participants with insufficient evidence of a difference between mattress groups in time to PU development (Fine and Gray model HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.62; p = 0.5530 and absolute difference 0.4%). Of the 145 pre-existing PUs of category 2, 89 (61.4%) healed - there was insufficient evidence of a difference in time to healing (Fine and Gray model HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.68; p = 0.6122 and absolute difference 2.9%). Health economics - the within-trial and long-term analysis showed APM to be cost-effective compared with HSFM; however, the difference in costs models are small and the quality-adjusted life-year gains are very small. There were no safety concerns. Blinded photography substudy - the reliability of central blinded review compared with clinical assessment for PUs of category ≥ 2 was 'very good' (kappa statistic 0.82, prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa 0.82). Quality-of-life substudy - the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life - Prevention (PU-QoL-P) instrument meets the established criteria for reliability, construct validity and responsiveness. LIMITATIONS: A lower than anticipated event rate. CONCLUSIONS: In acutely ill inpatients who are bedfast/chairfast and/or have a category 1 PU and/or localised skin pain, APMs confer a small treatment phase benefit that is diminished over time. Overall, the APM patient compliance, very low PU incidence rate observed and small differences between mattresses indicate the need for improved indicators for targeting of APMs and individualised decision-making. Decisions should take into account skin status, patient preferences (movement ability and rehabilitation needs) and the presence of factors that may be potentially modifiable through APM allocation, including being completely immobile, having nutritional deficits, lacking capacity and/or having altered skin/category 1 PU. FUTURE WORK: Explore the relationship between mental capacity, levels of independent movement, repositioning and PU development. Explore 'what works for whom and in what circumstances'. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01151335. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Pressure ulcers (PUs) are patches of damaged skin, mainly caused by sitting/lying in one position. PUs are graded based on how serious they are, ranging from red patches (category 1) through small skin breaks/blisters (category 2) to serious wounds (category 4). Special mattresses are used to help prevent PUs. This study compared alternating pressure mattresses (APMs) with high-specification foam mattresses (HSFMs), to see which is better at preventing PUs. The study included adults admitted to hospital for acute illness who were at a high risk of developing PUs. Patients were randomly allocated to HSFM or APM. Nurses checked patients' skin and recorded changes. A total of 132 patients developed at least one new PU of category ≥ 2 before the end of treatment (60 days maximum). Of these, 53 patients were allocated to the APM arm and 79 to the HSFM arm, a difference of 2.6%. This is a small but significant difference. Nurses looked at patients' skin again 30 days after the patient had stopped using a trial mattress. At this point, 160 patients had at least one new PU (of category ≥ 2). Of these, 70 patients were allocated to the APM arm and 90 to the HSFM arm, a very small difference of 2.0%. Some patients asked to change mattresses; this happened more in the APM group. This study focused on high-risk patients; however, only a small number of people developed PUs, suggesting that prevention is possible with either mattress. Results also suggest that certain groups of patients may benefit more from APMs, for example people who cannot give consent or who have skin redness. When planning prevention and choosing mattresses, professionals and patients need to consider a number of factors, such as comfort, existing PUs and people's ability to self-care. Further research is recommended to understand what sort of prevention works, for whom and in what circumstances.

Exploring the role of pain as an early predictor of category 2 pressure ulcers: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore pressure area related pain as a predictor of category ≥2 pressure ulcer (PU) development. DESIGN: Multicentre prospective cohort study. SETTING: UK hospital and community settings. PARTICIPANTS INCLUSION: Consenting acutely ill patients aged ≥18 years, defined as high risk (Braden bedfast/chairfast AND completely immobile/very limited mobility; pressure area related pain or; category 1 PU). EXCLUSION: Patients too unwell, unable to report pain, 2 or more category ≥2 PUs. FOLLOW-UP: Twice weekly for 30 days. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Development and time to development of one or more category ≥2 PUs. RESULTS: Of 3819 screened, 1266 were eligible, 634 patients were recruited, 32 lost to follow-up, providing a 602 analysis population. 152 (25.2%) developed one or more category ≥2 PUs. 464 (77.1%) patients reported pressure area related pain on a healthy, altered or category 1 skin site of whom 130 (28.0%) developed a category ≥2 PU compared with 22 (15.9%) of those without pain. Full stepwise variable selection was used throughout the analyses. (1) Multivariable logistic regression model to assess 9 a priori factors: presence of category 1 PU (OR=3.25, 95% CI (2.17 to 4.86), p<0.0001), alterations to intact skin (OR=1.98, 95% CI (1.30 to 3.00), p=0.0014), pressure area related pain (OR=1.56, 95% CI (0.93 to 2.63), p=0.0931). (2) Multivariable logistic regression model to account for overdispersion: presence of category 1 PU (OR=3.20, 95% CI (2.11 to 4.85), p<0.0001), alterations to intact skin (OR=1.90, 95% CI (1.24 to 2.91), p=0.0032), pressure area related pain (OR=1.85, 95% CI (1.07 to 3.20), p=0.0271), pre-existing category 2 PU (OR=2.09, 95% CI (1.35 to 3.23), p=0.0009), presence of chronic wound (OR=1.66, 95% CI (1.06 to 2.62), p=0.0277), Braden activity (p=0.0476). (3) Accelerated failure time model: presence of category 1 PU (AF=2.32, 95% CI (1.73 to 3.12), p<0.0001), pressure area related pain (AF=2.28, 95% CI (1.59 to 3.27), p<0.0001). (4) 2-level random-intercept logistic regression model: skin status which comprised 2 levels (versus healthy skin); alterations to intact skin (OR=4.65, 95% CI (3.01 to 7.18), p<0.0001), presence of category 1 PU (OR=17.30, 95% CI (11.09 to 27.00), p<0.0001) and pressure area related pain (OR=2.25, 95% CI (1.53 to 3.29), p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to assess pain as a predictor of category ≥2 PU development. In all 4 models, pain emerged as a risk factor associated with an increased probability of category ≥2 PU development.

Pressure RElieving Support SUrfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2) photographic validation sub-study: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: PRESSURE 2 is a randomised evaluation of the clinical and cost effectiveness of two types of pressure relieving mattress for the prevention of pressure ulcers. The primary endpoint is the time to development of a Category ≥2 pressure ulcer. The current 'gold standard' for the identification of a Category ≥2 pressure ulcer is expert clinical assessment. Due to the appearance of the bed, it is not possible to achieve blinding of the endpoint. This therefore poses a risk to the internal validity of the study. A possible approach is to use photographs of skin sites, with central blinded review. However, there are practical and scientific concerns including whether patients would agree to photographs; the burden of data collection; the quality of photographs; the completeness of data; and how the use of photographs compares with the current 'gold standard'. This validation sub-study aims to assess and quantify potential bias in the reporting of the trial endpoint. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients will be specifically asked to consent to photographs being taken of their skin sites. Photographs will be taken at first observation or when patients develop a new Category ≥2 pressure ulcer (to assess over-reporting). A 10% random sample of patients will be identified for additional photographs of two skin sites (one torso and one limb) with and without a pressure ulcer (if present) by an independent assessor (to assess the potential for under-reporting). Staff will be trained to take photographs using a standardised camera and photographic technique. A 'grey scale' will be included in the photo to correct white balance. Photographs will be securely transferred for central review. Photographs will have white balance corrected, and the computer monitor will be calibrated prior to review. Analysis will include assessment of under- and over-reporting, acceptability of photography to patients, secure transfer of data, quality of and confidence in blinded photograph review and sensitivity analysis using photograph assessment of primary outcome. DISCUSSION: This study will use photographs to contribute to the primary outcome of the trial. It will inform our understanding of the acceptability of photography for prevention trials and the possibility of other uses of photographic data in clinical work and research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN01151335 . Registered on 14 May 2013.

Evaluating public involvement in research design and grant development: Using a qualitative document analysis method to analyse an award scheme for researchers.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Design Service (RDS) for Yorkshire and Humber has been running a public involvement funding scheme since 2008. This scheme awards researchers a small amount of money to help them get involvement from patients and/or the public. Involvement activities take place at the time when researchers are planning studies, and when they are completing application forms to request funding for a proposed research project. After the public involvement activities researchers are asked to write a report for the RDS describing what they did with the public involvement funding. This study analysed those reports using an approach which included members of a public involvement panel in the data analysis process. The aim of the work was to see what the views and experiences of researchers who received funding were, and what might be learned for the future of the scheme. Twenty five reports were analysed. Four main themes were identified, these described: the added value of public involvement; aspects to consider when planning and designing public involvement; different roles of public contributors; and aspects of valuing public member contributions. The group approach to analysis was successful in enabling involvement of a variety of individuals in the process. The findings of the study provide evidence of the value of public involvement during the development of applications for research funding. The results also indicate that researchers recognise the variety in potential roles for the public in research, and acknowledge how involvement adds value to studies. ABSTRACT: Background A regional Research Design Service, funded by the National Institute for Health Research, introduced a small grant in 2008, to support public involvement (often known as patient and public involvement [PPI]) activities during the development of applications for research funding. Successful applicants are requested to submit a report detailing how the grant money was used, including a description of the aims and outcomes of the public involvement activities. The purpose of this study was to analyse the content of these reports. We aimed to find out what researcher views and experiences of public involvement activities were, and what lessons might be learned. Methods We used an innovative method of data analysis, drawing on group participatory approaches, qualitative content analysis, and Framework Analysis to sort and label the content of the reports. We developed a framework of categories and sub-categories (or themes and sub-themes) from this process. Results Twenty five documents were analysed. Four main themes were identified in the data: the added value of public involvement; planning and designing involvement; the role of public members; and valuing public member contributions. Within these themes, sub-themes related to the timing of involvement (prior to the research study/intended during the research study), and also specific benefits of public involvement such as: validating ideas; ensuring appropriate outcomes; ensuring the acceptability of data collection methods/tools and advice regarding research processes. Other sub-themes related to: finding and approaching public members; timing of events; training/support; the format of sessions; setting up public involvement panels: use of public contributors in analysis and interpretation of data; and using public members to assist with dissemination and translation into practice. Conclusions The analysis of reports submitted by researchers following involvement events provides evidence of the value of public involvement during the development of applications for research funding, and details a method for involving members of the public in data analysis which could be of value to other researchers The findings of the analysis indicate recognition amongst researchers of the variety in potential roles for public members in research, and also an acknowledgement of how involvement adds value to studies.

Pressure RElieving Support SUrfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers represent a major burden to patients, carers and the healthcare system, affecting approximately 1 in 17 hospital and 1 in 20 community patients. They impact greatly on an individual's functional status and health-related quality of life. The mainstay of pressure ulcer prevention practice is the provision of pressure redistribution support surfaces and patient repositioning. The aim of the PRESSURE 2 study is to compare the two main mattress types utilised within the NHS: high-specification foam and alternating pressure mattresses, in the prevention of pressure ulcers. METHODS/DESIGN: PRESSURE 2 is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, double triangular, group sequential, parallel group trial. A maximum of 2954 'high-risk' patients with evidence of acute illness will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive either a high-specification foam mattress or alternating-pressure mattress in conjunction with an electric profiling bed frame. The primary objective of the trial is to compare mattresses in terms of the time to developing a new Category 2 or above pressure ulcer by 30 days post end of treatment phase. Secondary endpoints include time to developing new Category 1 and 3 or above pressure ulcers, time to healing of pre-existing Category 2 pressure ulcers, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness, incidence of mattress change and safety. Validation objectives are to determine the responsiveness of the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life-Prevention instrument and the feasibility of having a blinded endpoint assessment using photography. The trial will have a maximum of three planned analyses with unequally spaced reviews at event-driven coherent cut-points. The futility boundaries are constructed as non-binding to allow a decision for stopping early to be overruled by the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee. DISCUSSION: The double triangular, group sequential design of the PRESSURE 2 trial will provide an efficient design through the possibility of early stopping for demonstrating either superiority, inferiority of mattresses or futility of the trial. The trial optimises the potential for producing robust clinical evidence on the effectiveness of two commonly used mattresses in clinical practice earlier than in a conventional design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN01151335 . Registered on 14 May 2013. Protocol version: 5.0, dated 25 September 2015 Trial sponsor: Clare Skinner, Faculty Head of Research Support, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT; 0113 343 4897; C.E.Skinner@leeds.ac.uk.

Experts by experience; the views of service user educators providing feedback on medical students' work based assessments.

Assessment tools were designed to provide health and social care students with multi-sourced, interprofessional feedback in practice. This includes feedback from service users. Third year medical students at the University of Leeds were given accesses to 4 assessment tools whilst in practice. Completed assessments were then sent to the university where service users and carers worked with university tutors to give further feedback and comment on the overall development of students. Three service users then took part in a focus group and one provided written feedback. Four key themes were identified from the focus group: • Preparation and support • The design of the tools • The process of using the tools in practice • Feedback. We found that the project provided both challenges and rewards for all involved. The service user educators involved were able to bring a different and valuable perspective to formative feedback. The combination of their personal and professional experiences, along with the preparation they had received, helped bridge the gap between service users in practice and university based tutors. The findings from this study went on to inform a review of the assessment tools and revised versions are now being used.