Treatment options for patients with pilonidal sinus disease: PITSTOP, a mixed-methods evaluation.

Background: There is no consensus on optimal management of pilonidal disease. Surgical practice is varied, and existing literature is mainly single-centre cohort studies of varied disease severity, interventions and outcome assessments. Objectives: A prospective cohort study to determine: • disease severity and intervention relationship • most valued outcomes and treatment preference by patients • recommendations for policy and future research. Design: Observational cohort study with nested mixed-methods case study. Discrete choice experiment. Clinician survey. Three-stage Delphi survey for patients and clinicians. Inter-rater reliability of classification system. Setting: Thirty-one National Health Service trusts. Participants: Patients aged > 16 years referred for elective surgical treatment of pilonidal disease. Interventions: Surgery. Main outcome measures: Pain postoperative days 1 and 7, time to healing and return to normal activities, complications, recurrence. Outcomes compared between major and minor procedures using regression modelling, propensity score-based approaches and augmented inverse probability weighting to account for measured potential confounding features. Results: Clinician survey: There was significant heterogeneity in surgeon practice preference. Limited training opportunities may impede efforts to improve practice. Cohort study: Over half of patients (60%; N = 667) had a major procedure. For these procedures, pain was greater on day 1 and day 7 (mean difference day 1 pain 1.58 points, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 2.01 points, n = 536; mean difference day 7 pain 1.53 points, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.95 points, n = 512). There were higher complication rates (adjusted risk difference 17.5%, 95% confidence interval 9.1 to 25.9%, n = 579), lower recurrence (adjusted risk difference -10.1%, 95% confidence interval -18.1 to -2.1%, n = 575), and longer time to healing (>34 days estimated difference) and time to return to normal activities (difference 25.9 days, 95% confidence interval 18.4 to 33.4 days). Mixed-methods analysis: Patient decision-making was influenced by prior experience of disease and anticipated recovery time. The burden involved in wound care and the gap between expected and actual time for recovery were the principal reasons given for decision regret. Discrete choice experiment: The strongest predictors of patient treatment choice were risk of infection/persistence (attribute importance 70%), and shorter recovery time (attribute importance 30%). Patients were willing to trade off these attributes. Those aged over 30 years had a higher risk tolerance (22.35-34.67%) for treatment failure if they could experience rapid recovery. There was no strong evidence that younger patients were willing to accept higher risk of treatment failure in exchange for a faster recovery. Patients were uniform in rejecting excision-and-leave-open because of the protracted nursing care it entailed. Wysocki classification analysis: There was acceptable inter-rater agreement (κ = 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.61). Consensus exercise: Five research and practice priorities were identified. The top research priority was that a comparative trial should broadly group interventions. The top practice priority was that any interventions should be less disruptive than the disease itself. Limitations: Incomplete recruitment and follow-up data were an issue, particularly given the multiple interventions. Assumptions were made regarding risk adjustment. Conclusions and future work: Results suggest the burden of pilonidal surgery is greater than reported previously. This can be mitigated with better selection of intervention according to disease type and patient desired goals. Results indicate a framework for future higher-quality trials that stratify disease and utilise broad groupings of common interventions with development of a patient-centred core outcome set. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN95551898. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/17/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 33. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Pilonidal disease is caused by ingrowing hairs between the buttocks. It can cause pain and infection and may need surgery. We do not know which operation gives the best results, or who operations help. PITSTOP aimed to find out which operation is the best and what is important to patients when deciding on surgery, and to suggest ideas for better treatment and future research. We looked at what operations were done and their outcomes. We interviewed patients about their experiences. Some completed a survey to help us understand what operations they might prefer based on risks and outcomes. Surgeons completed a survey about their experiences, and we explored whether a new tool could help us tell the difference between 'mild' and 'bad' disease. We used findings from these studies to help patients and surgeons give priorities for future practice and research. Six hundred and sixty-seven patients joined PITSTOP. People who had a major operation had more pain and took longer to return to normal activities. Some were still affected 6 months after surgery. However, disease recurrence was lower than after a minor procedure. Patients based decisions about treatment on the likelihood of success and the time to recover. The study and the surgeons' survey both showed marked differences in practice. Surgeons tended to offer one or two operations learned during training. A classification tool put cases in similar groups, but this did not influence treatment choices. The consensus exercise identified five research priorities, the top one being to put types of surgery into two groups. Of the five practice priorities, the top one was that surgery should not make the patient worse than the disease. There is variation in the treatment of pilonidal disease. Wound issues and impact on daily living should be avoided. The highlighted research questions should be addressed to improve care.

Exploring the Factors that Drive Clinical Negligence Claims: Stated Preferences of Those Who Have Experienced Unintended Harm.

BACKGROUND: Better understanding of the factors that influence patients to make a financial claim for compensation is required to inform policy decisions. This study aimed to assess the relative importance of factors that influence those who have experienced a patient safety incident (PSI) to make a claim for compensation. METHOD: Participants completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) involving 10 single profile tasks where they chose whether or not to file a claim. DCE data were modelled using logistic, mixed logit and latent class regressions; scenario analyses, external validity, and willingness to accept were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 1029 participants in the United Kingdom responded to the survey. An appropriate apology and a satisfactory investigation reduced the likelihood of claiming. Respondents were more likely to claim if they could hold those responsible accountable, if the process was simple and straightforward, if the compensation amount was higher, if the likelihood of compensation was high or uncertain, if the time to receive a decision was quicker, and if they used the government compensation scheme. Men are more likely to claim for low impact PSIs. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The actions taken by the health service after a PSI, and people's perceptions about the probability of success and the size of potential reward, can influence whether a claim is made. Results show the importance of giving an appropriate apology and conducting a satisfactory investigation. This stresses the importance around how patients are treated after a PSI in influencing the clinical negligence claims that are made.

Development and Valuation of a Preference-Weighted Measure in Age-Related Macular Degeneration From the Vision Impairment in Low Luminance Questionnaire: A MACUSTAR Report.

OBJECTIVES: This study generates VILL-UI (Vision Impairment in Low Luminance - Utility Index), a preference-weighted measure (PWM) derived from the VILL-33 measure for use in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and valued to generate United Kingdom and German preference weights. METHODS: A PWM consists of a classification system to describe health and utility values for every state described by the classification. The classification was derived using existing data collected as part of the MACUSTAR study, a low-interventional study on AMD, conducted at 20 clinical sites across Europe. Items were selected using psychometric and Rasch analyses, published criteria around PWM suitability, alongside instrument developer views and concept elicitation work that informed VILL-33 development. An online discrete choice experiment (DCE) with duration of the health state was conducted with the United Kingdom and German public. Responses were modeled to generate utility values for all possible health states. RESULTS: The classification system has 5 items across the 3 domains of VILL-33: reading and accessing information, mobility and safety, and emotional well-being. The DCE samples (United Kingdom: n = 1004, Germany: n = 1008) are broadly representative and demonstrate good understanding of the tasks. The final DCE analyses produce logically consistent and significant coefficients. CONCLUSIONS: This study enables responses to VILL-33 to be directly used to inform economic evaluation in AMD. The elicitation of preferences from both United Kingdom and Germany enables greater application of VILL-UI for economic evaluation throughout Europe. VILL-UI fills a gap in AMD in which generic preference-weighted measures typically lack sensitivity.

Patient preferences for pilonidal sinus treatments: a discrete choice experiment survey.

BACKGROUND: A range of treatments are available for pilonidal sinus disease (PSD), each of which has a different risk/benefit profile. The aim of this study was to collect patient views on which interventions they would rather avoid and which outcomes they most value for PSD. METHOD: We conducted an online survey using the discrete choice experiment (DCE) method. DCE task involved participants choosing the best treatment option when presented with a set of competing hypothetical treatment profiles. Participants with symptomatic PSD, referred for elective surgery were recruited from 33 NHS trusts between 2020 and 2022. Collected DCE data were analysed using regression analyses. RESULTS: One hundred and eleven participants completed the survey. In the overall group, low risk of infection/persistence was the most important characteristic when making a treatment decision (attribute importance score of 70%), followed by treatments with shorter recovery time with an attribute importance score of 30%. The results demonstrated that patients are willing to accept trade-offs between treatment recovery time and risk of infection/persistence. Patients above 30 years old are willing to accept a higher chance of treatment failure in exchange for rapid treatment recovery (risk tolerance between 22.35 - 34.67 percentage points). Conversely, patients in the younger age groups, were risk averse, and were only willing to accept a small risk 1.51-2.15 in exchange for a treatment with faster recovery time. All patient groups appear to the reject the excision and leave open technique due to the need for protracted nursing care. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the need for shared decision making when it comes to surgery for PSD.

Measuring quality of life for people with common mental health problems.

BACKGROUND: It is important to identify valid and acceptable outcome measures so that interventions evaluating common mental health problems can be assessed appropriately. Some advocate the use of generic preference-based measures claimed to be applicable for all health interventions, but others argue that they are insensitive for common mental health problems. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (CORE-OM), to be used in cost-effectiveness studies in people with common mental health problems. METHOD: The CORE-OM measure was tested for completeness, acceptability and responsiveness in a pilot study. Analyses for missing data, distribution of scores, and standardised response means (SRMs) were calculated. RESULTS: Missing data did not exceed 5% for any of the CORE-6D items both at baseline and follow-up. The overall comprehension rate was high, and only 19 participants (14%) requested clarifications to complete the questionnaire. As expected in a feasibility study, there was a small and non-significant SRM. CONCLUSION: CORE-OM is a valid and acceptable instrument to evaluate quality of life for people with common mental health problems. More research is needed with larger sample sizes to compare CORE-6D with other condition specific quality of life instruments.

Can electronic assessment tools improve the process of shared decision-making? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient involvement in decision-making plays a prominent role in improving the quality of healthcare. Despite this, shared decision-making is not routinely implemented. However, electronic assessment tools that capture patients' history, symptoms, opinions and values prior to their medical appointment are used by healthcare professionals during patient consultations to facilitate shared decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of electronic assessment tools to improve the shared decision-making process. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Published literature was searched on MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO to identify potentially relevant studies. Data were extracted and analysed narratively. RESULTS: Seventeen articles, representing 4004 participants, were included in this review. The main findings were significant improvement in patient-provider communication and provider management of patient condition in the intervention group compared to the control group. In contrast, patient-provider satisfaction and time efficiency were assessed by relatively few included studies, and the effects of these outcomes were inconclusive. CONCLUSION: This review found that communication and healthcare professional's management of a patient's condition improves because of the use of electronic questionnaires. This is encouraging because the process of shared decision-making is reliant on high-quality communication between healthcare professionals and patients. IMPLICATIONS: We found that this intervention is especially important for people with chronic diseases, as they need to establish a long-term relationship with their healthcare provider and agree to a treatment plan that aligns with their values. More rigorous research with validated instruments is required.

Surgeon preference for treatment allocation in older people facing major gastrointestinal surgery: an application of the discrete choice experiment methodology.

AIM: Variation in major gastrointestinal surgery rates in the older population suggests heterogeneity in surgical management. A higher prevalence of comorbidities, frailty and cognitive impairments in the older population may account for some variation. The aim of this study was to determine surgeon preference for major surgery versus conservative management in hypothetical patient scenarios based on key attributes. METHOD: A survey was designed according to the discrete choice methodology guided by a separate qualitative study. Questions were designed to test for associations between key attributes (age, comorbidity, urgency of presentation, pathology, functional and cognitive status) and treatment preference for major gastrointestinal surgery versus conservative management. The survey consisting of 18 hypothetical scenarios was disseminated electronically to UK gastrointestinal surgeons. Binomial logistic regression was used to identify associations between the attributes and treatment preference. RESULTS: In total, 103 responses were received after 256 visits to the questionnaire site (response rate 40.2%). Participants answered 1847 out of the 1854 scenarios (99.6%). There was a preference for major surgery in 1112/1847 (60.2%) of all scenarios. Severe comorbidities (OR 0.001, 95% CI 0.000-0.030; P = 0.000), severe cognitive impairment (OR 0.001, 95% CI 0.000-0.033; P = 0.000) and age 85 years and above (OR 0.028, 95% CI 0.005-0.168; P = 0.000) were all significant in the decision not to offer major gastrointestinal surgery. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated variation in surgical treatment preference according to key attributes in hypothetical scenarios. The development of fitness-stratified guidelines may help to reduce variation in surgical practice in the older population.

Patient preferences and current practice for adults with steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis: POPSTER mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are a mainstay of the treatment of moderately severe relapses of ulcerative colitis, yet almost 50% of patients do not respond fully to these and risk prolonged steroid use and side effects. There is a lack of clarity about the definitions of steroid resistance, the optimum choice of treatment, and patient and health-care professional treatment preferences. OBJECTIVES: The overall aim of this research was to understand how steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis is managed in adult secondary care and how current practice compares with patient and health-care professional preferences. DESIGN: A mixed-methods study, including an online survey, qualitative interviews and discrete choice experiments. SETTING: NHS inflammatory bowel disease services in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with ulcerative colitis and health-care professionals treating inflammatory bowel disease. RESULTS: We carried out a survey of health-care professionals (n = 168), qualitative interviews with health-care professionals (n = 20) and patients (n = 33), discrete choice experiments with health-care professionals (n = 116) and patients (n = 115), and a multistakeholder workshop (n = 9). The interviews with and survey of health-care professionals showed that most health-care professionals define steroid resistance as an incomplete response to 40 mg per day of prednisolone after 2 weeks. The survey also found that anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs (particularly infliximab) are the most frequently offered drugs across most steroid-resistant (and steroid-dependent) patient scenarios, but they are less frequently offered to thiopurine-naive patients. Patient interviews identified several factors influencing their treatment choices, including effectiveness of treatment, recommendations from health-care professionals, route of administration and side effects. Over time, depending on the severity and duration of symptoms and, crucially, as medical treatment options become exhausted, patients are willing to try alternative treatments and, eventually, to undergo surgery. The discrete choice experiments found that the probability of remission and of side effects strongly influences the treatment choices of both patients and health-care professionals. Patients are less likely to choose a treatment that takes longer to improve symptoms. Health-care professionals are willing to make difficult compromises by tolerating greater safety risks in exchange for therapeutic benefits. The treatments ranked most positively by patients were infliximab and tofacitinib (each preferred by 38% of patients), and the predicted probability of uptake by health-care professionals was greatest for infliximab (62%). LIMITATIONS: The survey and the discrete choice experiments with patients and health-care professionals are limited by their relatively small sample sizes. The qualitative studies are subject to selection bias. The timing of the different substudies, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, is a potential limitation. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified factors influencing treatment decisions for steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis and the characteristics to consider when choosing treatments to evaluate in future randomised controlled trials. The findings may be used to improve discussions between patients and health-care professionals when they review treatment options for steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis. FUTURE WORK: This research highlights the need for consensus work to establish an agreed definition of steroid resistance in ulcerative colitis and a greater understanding of the optimal use of tofacitinib and surgery for this patient group. A randomised controlled trial comparing infliximab with tofacitinib is also recommended. 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. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Steroids are one of the main treatments for ulcerative colitis; however, steroids work well for only about 50% of people who take them. There are many other treatments that can be given when steroids do not work, but evidence is limited about how these treatments are best used. To carry out better research about the best treatment options and to improve clinical practice in the future, this study aimed to find out how adults with steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis are managed in hospital and why patients and health-care professionals prefer different treatments. The study combined various methods of research, including an online survey of health-care professionals (n = 168), interviews with health-care professionals (n = 20) and patients (n = 33), a survey of health-care professionals (n = 116) and patients (n = 115) to ask them about treatment preferences, and a multistakeholder workshop (n = 9). The interviews with and survey of health-care professionals found that most health-care professionals define steroid resistance as an incomplete response to 40 mg per day of prednisolone after 2 weeks. The survey also found that the most frequently offered drugs are anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs (particularly infliximab). Patient interviews found that several factors influenced treatment choices, including effectiveness of treament, guidance from health-care professionals, route of administration and side effects. Patients were willing to try alternative treatments and surgery over time. The survey found that a higher level of remission and a lower chance of side effects strongly influenced treatment choices. Patients are less likely to choose a treatment that takes longer to improve symptoms. Health-care professionals are willing to make difficult compromises by tolerating greater safety risks in exchange for therapeutic benefits. Infliximab and tofacitinib were ranked most positively by patients, and the predicted uptake by health-care professionals was greatest for infliximab. The results of this study help improve understanding of why people choose certain treatments, improve decision-making in partnership and inform the design of future research.

Managing the delivery of venous leg ulcer services: A willingness to pay study.

Background and Aims: There is widespread variation in venous leg ulcer (VLU) wound care contributing to inadequate service provision resulting in poor outcomes to patients. Little has been published on the perspectives of where treatments should be carried out. The aim of the study was to quantify respondents' preferences for the preferred place of treatment for VLU. Methods: A UK general population sample was interviewed to elicit preferences for clinic or home care treatment using the willingness to pay elicitation method. Participants were presented with two vignettes describing clinic or home care of VLU, and were asked to select the treatment process that they preferred and provide a detailed explanation for selecting that choice. Then they were asked to state their maximum hypothetical amounts that they were willing to pay for the treatment processes. Results: One hundred fifty-four participants completed the interviews. Respondents were willing to pay £498.96 to receive VLU treatment at a clinic and £505.60 to receive care at home. This difference between the clinic compared to home care was not statistically significant. Advantages of clinic care include being able to book an appointment allowing participants to plan events around the booking and for home care the convenience for those with impaired mobility who may have difficulty traveling. Conclusions: The results show that respondents placed an equal valuation on the place of treatment suggesting no strong preference for either home or clinic care. However, qualitative findings emphasized that impaired mobility may be a barrier to accessing VLU services for some therefore, individuals should be given the choice to select their preferred setting to receive treatment where possible.

A Discrete Choice Experiment to Elicit General Population Preferences Around the Factors Influencing the Choice to Make Clinical Negligence Claims.

OBJECTIVES: This article determines public stated preferences around different factors that influence the choice to make clinical negligence claims against a national healthcare system. METHODS: A large online survey was conducted using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with the UK general population (N = 1013). DCE tasks involved a single profile and participants chose whether to make a claim for compensation (yes/no) after one of 3 randomly allocated patient safety incident (PSI) "scenarios" of different severities (mild, moderate, severe). DCE attributes described the actions of the healthcare system after a PSI and characteristics of the clinical negligence claims process. The data were modeled separately for each scenario (mild, moderate, severe) using logistic regression. Marginal effects and the probability of making a claim in a baseline case were estimated. RESULTS: Probability of choosing to claim was reduced by receipt of an apology, investigation and prevention of recurrence of the PSI, and longer time until claim decision and increased by an easy and straightforward claims process and high chance of compensation and for the mild scenario higher compensation amounts. Marginal effects and baseline case probabilities differed by scenario severity. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest the actions of the healthcare system after a PSI and characteristics of the claims process have a larger impact on the probability of making a claim for milder PSIs. For more severe PSIs, a larger probability of making a claim was observed, and the choice was less influenced by the actions of the healthcare system after the PSI and characteristics of the claims process.

Patient preferences for treatment in steroid resistant ulcerative colitis - a discrete-choice experiment.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Understanding treatment preferences in those patients who are not responding to corticosteroids for ulcerative colitis is important in informing treatment choices. This study aimed to assess the relative importance of treatment characteristics to patients by conducting a discrete-choice experiment. METHODS: Patients completed the questionnaire online. All data were collected between September and December 2020. Participants were shown 13 discrete-choice experiment tasks - a series of side-by-side comparisons of competing, hypothetical treatment characteristics and asked to select a preferred treatment. Survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and regression analyses. RESULTS: 115 patients completed the study. Patient preferences were strongest for treatments with a lower chance of side effects, this attribute had the most influence on the choice of treatment patients preferred. The second most important attribute was an improvement in maintaining remission. Conversely, route and frequency of administration were least important on the choice of treatment patients preferred. Respondents were willing to make trade offs and accept treatment benefits to compensate them for receiving a treatment with a less desirable attribute level. Participants were willing to accept a larger benefit of 45% improvement in maintenance of remission to accept a treatment with a higher probability of side effects. The benefit required was smaller with a 10% improvement in remission required to accept a treatment with a lower probability of side effects. CONCLUSION: Quantifying preferences helps to identify and prioritise treatment characteristics that are important to patients. The results highlight the importance of careful discussion of side effects, including the magnitude of risk, using visualisation tools during a patient consultation to support decisions.

Person-centred experiential therapy versus cognitive behavioural therapy delivered in the English Improving Access to Psychological Therapies service for the treatment of moderate or severe depression (PRaCTICED): a pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The UK Government's implementation in 2008 of the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) initiative in England has hugely increased the availability of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for the treatment of depression and anxiety in primary care. Counselling for depression-a form of person-centred experiential therapy (PCET)-has since been included as an IAPT-approved therapy, but there is no evidence of its efficacy from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), as required for recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Therefore, we aimed to examine whether PCET is cost effective and non-inferior to CBT in the treatment of moderate and severe depression within the IAPT service. METHODS: This pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial was done in the Sheffield IAPT service in England and recruited participants aged 18 years or older with moderate or severe depression on the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised. We excluded participants presenting with an organic condition, a previous diagnosis of personality disorder, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia, drug or alcohol dependency, an elevated clinical risk of suicide, or a long-term physical condition. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), independently of the research team, and stratified by site with permuted block sizes of two, four, or six, to receive either PCET or CBT by use of a remote, web-based system that revealed therapy after patient details were entered. Those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment allocation. Participants were seen by appropriately trained PCET counsellors and CBT therapists in accordance with the IAPT service delivery model. Depression severity and symptomatology measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at 6 months post-randomisation was the primary outcome, with the PHQ-9 score at 12 months post-randomisation being a key secondary outcome. These outcomes were analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which comprised all randomly assigned patients with complete data, and the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who did not switch from their randomised treatment and received between four and 20 sessions. Safety was analysed in all randomly assigned patients. The non-inferiority margin was set a priori at 2 PHQ-9 points. Patient safety was monitored throughout the course of therapy, adhering to service risk procedures for monitoring serious adverse events. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN06461651, and is complete. FINDINGS: From Nov 11, 2014, to Aug 3, 2018, 9898 patients were referred to step three treatments in the Sheffield IAPT service for common mental health problems, of whom 761 (7·7%) were referred to the trial. Of these, we recruited and randomly assigned 510 participants to receive either PCET (n=254) or CBT (n=256). In the PCET group, 138 (54%) participants were female and 116 (46%) were male, and 225 (89%) were White, 16 (6%) were non-White, and 13 (5%) had missing ethnicity data. In the CBT group, 155 (61%) participants were female and 101 (39%) were male, and 226 (88%) were White, 17 (7%) were non-White, and 13 (5%) had missing ethnicity data. The 6-month modified intention-to-treat analysis comprised 401 (79%) of the enrolled participants (201 in the PCET group; 200 in the CBT group) and the 12-month modified intention-to-treat analysis comprised 319 participants (167 in the PCET group; 152 in the CBT group). The 6-month per-protocol analysis comprised 298 participants (154 in the PCET group; 144 in the CBT group). At 6 months post-randomisation, PCET was non-inferior to CBT in the intention-to-treat population (mean PHQ-9 score 12·74 [SD 6·54] in the PCET group and 13·25 [6·35] in the CBT group; adjusted mean difference -0·35 [95% CI -1·53 to 0·84]) and in the per-protocol population (12·73 [SD 6·57] in the PCET group and 12·71 [6·33] in the CBT group; 0·27 [95% CI -1·08 to 1·62]). At 12 months post-randomisation, there was a significant adjusted between-group difference in mean PHQ-9 score in favour of CBT (1·73 [95% CI 0·26-3·19]), with a 95% CI exceeding the 2-point non-inferiority margin. There were two deaths, one death by suicide in the PCET group and one due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the CBT group. Both were assessed by the responsible clinician to be unrelated to the trial. In terms of using emergency departments for depression-related events, four people (three in the PCET group; one in the CBT group) made more than a single use and six people (three in the PCET group; three in the CBT group) made a single use. One patient in the PCET group had inpatient treatment for a depression-related event. INTERPRETATION: This trial is the first to examine the two most frequently administered psychological therapies in the IAPT service. The finding of non-inferiority of PCET to CBT at 6 months supports the results from large, routine, non-randomised datasets from the IAPT programme. Given the high demand for psychological therapies and the need for patient choice, our findings suggest the need for continued investment in the training and delivery of PCET for improving short-term outcomes, but suggest that PCET might be inferior to CBT at 12 months. FUNDING: British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Foundation.

Patient decision-making and regret in pilonidal sinus surgery: a mixed-methods study.

AIM: Little is known about optimal management strategies for pilonidal sinus disease (PSD). We conducted a mixed-methods study to understand why patients make, and sometimes regret, treatment decisions. METHOD: We conducted longitudinal semi-structured interviews at the time of surgery and 6 months later with 20 patients from 13 UK hospitals. Framework analysis was performed, and themes were mapped to (1) the coping in deliberation framework and (2) an acceptability framework. Results were triangulated with those from structured survey instruments evaluating shared decision-making (SDM, best = 9) at baseline and decision regret (DR, most regret = 100) at 6 months. RESULTS: Nine of 20 patients were not offered a choice of treatment, but this was not necessarily seen as negative (SDM median 4; range 2-4). Factors that influenced decision-making included previous experience and anticipated recovery time. Median (range) DR was 5 (0-50). Those with the highest DR (scores 40-50) were, paradoxically, also amongst the highest scores on SDM (scores 4). Burden of wound care and the disparity between anticipated and actual recovery time were the main reasons for decision regret. CONCLUSION: To minimize regret about surgical decisions, people with PSD need better information about the burden of wound care and the risks of recurrence associated with different surgical approaches.

The impact of care farms on quality of life, depression and anxiety among different population groups: A systematic review.

Care farming (also called social farming) is the therapeutic use of agricultural and farming practices. Service users and communities supported through care farming include people with learning disabilities, mental and physical health problems, substance misuse, adult offenders, disaffected youth, socially isolated older people and the long term unemployed. Care farming is growing in popularity, especially around Europe. This review aimed to understand the impact of care farming on quality of life, depression and anxiety, on a range of service user groups. It also aimed to explore and explain the way in which care farming might work for different groups. By reviewing interview studies we found that people valued, among other things, being in contact with each other, and feeling a sense of achievement, fulfilment and belonging. Some groups seemed to appreciate different things indicating that different groups may benefit in different ways but, it is unclear if this is due to a difference in the types of activities or the way in which people take different things from the same activity. We found no evidence that care farms improved people's quality of life and some evidence that they might improve depression and anxiety. Larger studies involving single service user groups and fully validated outcome measures are needed to prove more conclusive evidence about the benefits of care farming.

From embracing to managing risks.

OBJECTIVE: To assess developments over time in the capture, curation and use of quality and safety information in managing hospital services. SETTING: Four acute National Health Service hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: 111.5 hours of observation of hospital board and directorate meetings, and 72 hours of ward observations. 86 interviews with board level and middle managers and with ward managers and staff. RESULTS: There were substantial improvements in the quantity and quality of data produced for boards and middle managers between 2013 and 2016, starting from a low base. All four hospitals deployed data warehouses, repositories where datasets from otherwise disparate departmental systems could be managed. Three of them deployed real-time ward management systems, which were used extensively by nurses and other staff. CONCLUSIONS: The findings, particularly relating to the deployment of real-time ward management systems, are a corrective to the many negative accounts of information technology implementations. The hospital information infrastructures were elements in a wider move, away from a reliance on individual professionals exercising judgements and towards team-based and data-driven approaches to the active management of risks. They were not, though, using their fine-grained data to develop ultrasafe working practices.

Assessing the impact of care farms on quality of life and offending: a pilot study among probation service users in England.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of conducting a cost-effectiveness study of using care farms (CFs) to improve quality of life and reduce reoffending among offenders undertaking community orders (COs). To pilot questionnaires to assess quality of life, connection to nature, lifestyle behaviours, health and social-care use. To assess recruitment and retention at 6 months and feasibility of data linkage to Police National Computer (PNC) reconvictions data and data held by probation services. DESIGN: Pilot study using questionnaires to assess quality of life, individually linked to police and probation data. SETTING: The pilot study was conducted in three probation service regions in England. Each site included a CF and at least one comparator CO project. CFs are working farms used with a range of clients, including offenders, for therapeutic purposes. The three CFs included one aquaponics and horticulture social enterprise, a religious charity focusing on horticulture and a family-run cattle farm. Comparator projects included sorting secondhand clothes and activities to address alcohol misuse and anger management. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 134 adults (over 18) serving COs in England, 29% female. RESULTS: 52% of participants completed follow-up questionnaires. Privatisation of UK probation trusts in 2014 negatively impacted on recruitment and retention. Linkage to PNC data was a more successful means of follow-up, with 90% consenting to access their probation and PNC data. Collection of health and social-care costs and quality-adjusted life year derivation were feasible. Propensity score adjustment provided a viable comparison method despite differences between comparators. We found worse health and higher reoffending risk among CF participants due to allocation of challenging offenders to CFs, making risk of reoffending a confounder. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment would be feasible in a more stable probation environment. Follow-up was challenging; however, assessing reconvictions from PNC data is feasible and a potential primary outcome for future studies.