Assessing fidelity of a community based psychosocial intervention for people with mild dementia within a large randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Understanding intervention delivery as intended, particularly in complex interventions, should be underpinned by good quality fidelity assessment. We present the findings from a fidelity assessment embedded as part of a trial of a complex community-based psychosocial intervention, Journeying through Dementia (JtD). The intervention was designed to equip individuals with the knowledge and skills to successfully self-manage, maintain independence, and live well with dementia and involves both group and individual sessions. The methodological challenges of developing a conceptual framework for fidelity assessment and creating and applying purposely designed measures derived from this framework are discussed to inform future studies. METHODS: A conceptual fidelity framework was created out of core components of the intervention (including the intervention manual and training for delivery), associated trial protocols and pre-defined fidelity standards and criteria against which intervention delivery and receipt could be measured. Fidelity data collection tools were designed and piloted for reliability and usability. Data collection in four selected sites (fidelity sites) was via non-participatory observations of the group aspect of the intervention, attendance registers and interventionist (facilitator and supervisor) self-report. RESULTS: Interventionists from all four fidelity sites attended intervention training. The majority of group participants at the four sites (71%) received the therapeutic dose of 10 out of 16 sessions. Weekly group meeting attendance (including at 'out of venue' sessions) was excellent at 80%. Additionally, all but one individual session was attended by the participants who completed the intervention. It proved feasible to create tools derived from the fidelity framework to assess in-venue group aspects of this complex intervention. Results of fidelity assessment of the observed groups were good with substantial inter-rater reliability between researchers KAPPA 0.68 95% CI (0.58-0.78). Self-report by interventionists concurred with researcher assessments. CONCLUSIONS: There was good fidelity to training and delivery of the group aspect of the intervention at four sites. However, the methodological challenges of assessing all aspects of this complex intervention could not be overcome due to practicalities, assessment methods and ethical considerations. Questions remain regarding how we can assess fidelity in community-based complex interventions without impacting upon intervention or trial delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17993825 .

Supporting independence at home for people living with dementia: a qualitative ethnographic study of homecare.

PURPOSE: The aim of this ethnographic study was to investigate how homecare workers support or inhibit independence in people living with dementia. METHODS: We undertook 100 h of participant observations with homecare workers (n = 16) supporting people living with dementia (n = 17); and 82 qualitative interviews with people living with dementia (n = 11), family carers (n = 22), homecare managers and support staff (n = 11), homecare workers (n = 19) and health and social care professionals (n = 19). We triangulated data and analysed findings thematically. RESULTS: We developed three themes: (1) independence and the home environment, highlighting ongoing negotiations between familiarity, suitability and safety for care; (2) independence and identity, exploring how homecare workers' understanding of their clients' identity can enable active participation in tasks and meaningful choices; and (3) independence and empowerment, considering the important position of homecare workers to advocate for clients living with dementia while navigating authoritative power amongst proxy decision-makers. CONCLUSION: We consider that person-centred care should also be home-centred, respecting the client's home as an extension of self. Homecare workers can use their understanding of clients' identities, alongside skills in providing choice and developing relationships of interdependence to engage clients in everyday tasks. Homecare workers are well placed to advocate for their client's voice within the care network, although their ability to do so is limited by their position within power structures.

"I just keep thinking that I don't want to rely on people." a qualitative study of how people living with dementia achieve and maintain independence at home: stakeholder perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Most people living with dementia want to remain in their own homes, supported by family and paid carers. Care at home often breaks down, necessitating transition to a care home and existing interventions are limited. To inform the development of psychosocial interventions to enable people with dementia to live well for longer at home, we qualitatively explored the views of people living with dementia, family carers and health and social care professionals, on how to achieve and maintain independence at home and what impedes this. METHODS: We conducted an inductive thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with 11 people living with dementia, 19 professionals and 22 family carers in England. RESULTS: We identified four overarching themes: being in a safe and familiar environment, enabling not disabling care, maintaining relationships and community connectedness, and getting the right support. For people living with dementia, the realities of staying active were complex: there was a tension between accepting support that enabled independence and a feeling that in doing so they were accepting dependency. Their and professionals' accounts prioritised autonomy and 'living well with dementia', while family carers prioritised avoiding harm. Professionals promoted positive risk-taking and facilitating independence, whereas family carers often felt they were left holding this risk. DISCUSSION: Psychosocial interventions must accommodate tensions between positive risk-taking and avoiding harm, facilitating autonomy and providing support. They should be adaptive and collaborative, combining self-management with flexible support. Compassionate implementation of rights-based dementia care must consider the emotional burden for family carers of supporting someone to live positively with risk.

Developing the New Interventions for independence in Dementia Study (NIDUS) theoretical model for supporting people to live well with dementia at home for longer: a systematic review of theoretical models and Randomised Controlled Trial evidence.

PURPOSE: To build an evidence-informed theoretical model describing how to support people with dementia to live well or for longer at home. METHODS: We searched electronic databases to August 2018 for papers meeting predetermined inclusion criteria in two reviews that informed our model. We scoped literature for theoretical models of how to enable people with dementia to live at home independently, with good life quality or for longer. We systematically reviewed Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) reporting psychosocial intervention effects on time lived with dementia at home. Two researchers independently rated risk of bias. We developed our theoretical model through discussions with experts by personal, clinical and academic experiences, informed by this evidence base. RESULTS: Our scoping review included 52 studies. We divided models identified into: values and approaches (relational and recovery models; optimising environment and activities; family carer skills and support); care strategies (family carer-focused; needs and goal-based; self-management); and service models (case management; integrated; consumer-directed). The 11 RCTs included in our systematic review, all judged at low risk of bias, described only two interventions that increased time people with dementia lived in their own homes. These collectively encompassed all these components except for consumer-directed and integrated care. We developed and revised our model, using review evidence and expert consultation to define the final model. CONCLUSIONS: Our theoretical model describes values, care strategies and service models that can be used in the design of interventions to enable people with dementia to live well and for longer at home. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2018 registration number: CRD42018099693 (scoping review). PROSPERO 2018 registration number: CRD42018099200 (RCT systematic review).

Effects of nonpharmacological interventions on functioning of people living with dementia at home: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: Slowing functional decline could enable people living with dementia to live for longer and more independently in their own homes. We aimed to update previous syntheses examining the effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in reducing functional decline (activities of daily living, activity-specific physical functioning, or function-specific goal attainment) in people living in their own homes with dementia. METHODS: We systematically searched electronic databases from January 2012 to May 2018; two researchers independently rated risk of bias of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) fitting predetermined inclusion criteria using a checklist; we narratively synthesised findings, prioritising studies judged to have a lower risk of bias. RESULTS: Twenty-nine papers (describing 26 RCTs) met eligibility criteria, of which we judged 13 RCTs to have a lower risk of bias. Study interventions were evaluated in four groups: physical exercise, occupational, multicomponent, and cognition-oriented interventions. Four out of 13 RCTs reported functional ability as a primary outcome. In studies judged to have a lower risk of bias, in-home tailored exercise, individualised cognitive rehabilitation, and in-home activities-focussed occupational therapy significantly reduced functional decline relative to control groups in individual studies. There was consistent evidence from studies at low risk of bias that group-based exercise and reminiscence therapies were ineffective at reducing functional decline. CONCLUSION: We found no replicated evidence of intervention effectiveness in decreasing functional decline. Interventions associated with slower functional decline in individual trials have been individually delivered and tailored to the needs of the person with dementia. This is consistent with previous findings. Future intervention trials should prioritise these approaches.

Embedding patient and public involvement in dementia research: Reflections from experiences during the 'Journeying through Dementia' randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The involvement of people with a diagnosis of dementia in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in research is an emerging field in the delivery of studies. Researchers need to understand and use the learning derived from various projects so that this growing body of knowledge can be applied in future research. OBJECTIVE: To embed PPIE throughout a randomised controlled trial of a psychosocial intervention called Journeying through Dementia. We identify and discuss the approaches to involvement that worked well and those where improvements were indicated. DESIGN: The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public Short Form (GRIPP2-SF) is used to describe and critically appraise the approaches taken and the impact of PPIE involvement upon study processes, the study team and those people with dementia and their supporters who acted as advisors. FINDINGS: The involvement of people with a diagnosis of dementia and supporters as study advisors improved the accessibility and relevance of the research for people living with dementia. It also highlighted issues that researchers may have otherwise overlooked. Successful engagement of people with dementia and their supporters in the study was associated with staff skills and particularly use of techniques to scaffold meaningful involvement, as well as participants' memory and cognitive capacity. However, embedding robust and meaningful involvement processes required significant time and resources. DISCUSSION: We propose that certain research processes need to be adapted to be accessible and appropriate for people living with dementia. Recruitment of PPIE advisors needs to reflect population diversity. There also needs to be greater parity of voice between people with lived experience of dementia and researchers. These steps will increase the impact of PPIE in research and improve the experience for those who volunteer to be PPIE advisors.

How does the delivery of paid home care compare to the care plan for clients living with dementia?

Many people living with dementia choose to remain in their own homes, supported by home-care workers, who provide care that is specified in care plans. We explored how care plans of clients living with dementia, compared with ethnographic observations of home care they received. In a secondary, reflexive thematic analysis, we reviewed care plans for 17 clients living with dementia and transcripts from 100 h of observations with 16 home-care workers delivering care to them. Our overarching theme was: Care plans as a starting point but incomplete repository. Clients' care plans provided useful background information but did not reflect a wealth of knowledge home-care workers built through practice. Two sub-themes described: (a) Person-centred care planning: whether and how the care plan supported tailoring of care to clients' needs and (b) Filling in the gaps: home-care workers often worked beyond the scope of vague, incomplete or out-of-date care plans. We found considerable inconsistencies between care plans and the care that was delivered. Care plans that were comprehensive about care needs, and rich in person-specific information aided the delivery of person-centred care. Lack of documentation was sometimes associated with observed failures in person-centred care, as helpful information and strategies were not shared. Including information in care plans about how, as well as what care tasks, should be completed, and frequently discussing and updating care plans can create more person-centred plans that reflect changing needs. Electronic care planning systems may support this.

The Journeying through Dementia psychosocial intervention versus usual care study: a single-blind, parallel group, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent clinical need for evidence-based psychosocial interventions for people with mild dementia. We aimed to determine the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of Journeying through Dementia (JtD), an intervention designed to promote wellbeing and independence in people with mild dementia. METHODS: We did a single-blind, parallel group, individually randomised, phase 3 trial at 13 National Health Service sites across England. People with mild dementia (Mini-Mental State Examination score of ≥18) who lived in the community were eligible for inclusion. Patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) to receive the JtD intervention plus standard care (JtD group) or standard care only (standard care group). Randomisation was stratified by study site. The JtD intervention included 12 group and four one-to-one sessions, delivered in the community at each site. The primary endpoint was Dementia Related Quality of Life (DEMQOL) 8 months after randomisation, assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Only outcome assessors were masked to group assignment. A cost-effectiveness analysis reported cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) from a UK NHS and social care perspective. The study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN17993825. FINDINGS: Between Nov 30, 2016, and Aug 31, 2018, 1183 patients were screened for inclusion, of whom 480 (41%) participants were randomly assigned: 241 (50%) to the JtD group and 239 (50%) to the standard care group. Intervention adherence was very good: 165 (68%) of 241 participants in the JtD group attended at least ten of the 16 sessions. Mean DEMQOL scores at 8 months were 93·3 (SD 13·0) for the JtD group and 91·9 (SD 14·6) for the control group. Difference in means was 0·9 (95% CI -1·2 to 3·0; p=0·38) after adjustment for covariates, lower than that identified as clinically meaningful. Incremental cost per QALY ranged from £88 000 to -£205 000, suggesting that JtD was not cost-effective. Unrelated serious adverse events were reported by 40 (17%) patients in the JtD group and 35 (15%) patients in the standard care group. INTERPRETATION: In common with other studies, the JtD intervention was not proven effective. However, this complex trial successfully recruited and retained people with dementia without necessarily involving carers. Additionally, people with dementia were actively involved as participants and study advisers throughout. More research into methods of measuring small, meaningful changes in this population is needed. Questions remain regarding how services can match the complex, diverse, and individual needs of people with mild dementia, and how interventions to meet such needs can be delivered at scale. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

An intervention to promote self-management, independence and self-efficacy in people with early-stage dementia: the Journeying through Dementia RCT.

BACKGROUND: There are few effective interventions for dementia. AIM: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intervention to promote self-management, independence and self-efficacy in people with early-stage dementia. OBJECTIVES: To undertake a randomised controlled trial of the Journeying through Dementia intervention compared with usual care, conduct an internal pilot testing feasibility, assess intervention delivery fidelity and undertake a qualitative exploration of participants' experiences. DESIGN: A pragmatic two-arm individually randomised trial analysed by intention to treat. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 480 people diagnosed with mild dementia, with capacity to make informed decisions, living in the community and not participating in other studies, and 350 supporters whom they identified, from 13 locations in England, took part. INTERVENTION: Those randomised to the Journeying through Dementia intervention (n = 241) were invited to take part in 12 weekly facilitated groups and four one-to-one sessions delivered in the community by secondary care staff, in addition to their usual care. The control group (n = 239) received usual care. Usual care included drug treatment, needs assessment and referral to appropriate services. Usual care at each site was recorded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was Dementia-Related Quality of Life score at 8 months post randomisation, with higher scores representing higher quality of life. Secondary outcomes included resource use, psychological well-being, self-management, instrumental activities of daily living and health-related quality of life. RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING: Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio. Staff conducting outcome assessments were blinded. DATA SOURCES: Outcome measures were administered in participants' homes at baseline and at 8 and 12 months post randomisation. Interviews were conducted with participants, participating carers and interventionalists. RESULTS: The mean Dementia-Related Quality of Life score at 8 months was 93.3 (standard deviation 13.0) in the intervention arm (n = 191) and 91.9 (standard deviation 14.6) in the control arm (n = 197), with a difference in means of 0.9 (95% confidence interval -1.2 to 3.0; p = 0.380) after adjustment for covariates. This effect size (0.9) was less than the 4 points defined as clinically meaningful. For other outcomes, a difference was found only for Diener's Flourishing Scale (adjusted mean difference 1.2, 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 2.3), in favour of the intervention (i.e. in a positive direction). The Journeying through Dementia intervention cost £608 more than usual care (95% confidence interval £105 to £1179) and had negligible difference in quality-adjusted life-years (-0.003, 95% confidence interval -0.044 to 0.038). Therefore, the Journeying through Dementia intervention had a mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of -£202,857 (95% confidence interval -£534,733 to £483,739); however, there is considerable uncertainty around this. Assessed fidelity was good. Interviewed participants described receiving some benefit and a minority benefited greatly. However, negative aspects were also raised by a minority. Seventeen per cent of participants in the intervention arm and 15% of participants in the control arm experienced at least one serious adverse event. None of the serious adverse events were classified as related to the intervention. LIMITATIONS: Study limitations include recruitment of an active population, delivery challenges and limitations of existing outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: The Journeying through Dementia programme is not clinically effective, is unlikely to be cost-effective and cannot be recommended in its existing format. FUTURE WORK: Research should focus on the creation of new outcome measures to assess well-being in dementia and on using elements of the intervention, such as enabling enactment in the community. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN17993825. 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. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

There are few services proven effective for people with mild dementia. We therefore explored the potential benefit of a programme called Journeying through Dementia. The content, devised in partnership with people living with dementia, aims to help affected individuals to live well and participate in life. The programme involves meeting in groups of about eight every week for 12 weeks. Each person also has four face-to-face meetings with a staff member. Carers are invited to 3 of the 12 group meetings to all individual meetings if the participant wanted this involvement. A total of 480 people with dementia and 350 carers from 13 locations in England took part. Just over half of the participants were randomly allocated to the new programme, whereas the others were not. This allowed us to compare the groups. We were interested in whether or not attending the Journeying through Dementia programme improved participants' quality of life. The results showed that it did not. We also measured participants' mood, self-management skills, positive attitudes and ability with daily living skills. Only one measure of positive psychology suggested even a small benefit. There was no difference between groups in the remaining measures. Although some individual participants described being more confident, enjoying social contact, trying new activities, feeling valued and having increased independence, overall, the programme is unlikely to be worth implementing. Certain aspects of the programme are worth implementing.

Journeying through Dementia Randomised Controlled Trial of a Psychosocial Intervention for People Living with Early Dementia: Embedded Qualitative Study with Participants, Carers and Interventionists.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a complex psychosocial intervention though a study exploring the experiences of participants, carers and interventionists during a trial. METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants, their carers, and interventionists from a sample of recruiting sites that took part in the Journeying through Dementia randomized controlled trial (RCT). Interview data were transcribed and analysed using framework analysis. Co-researcher data analysis workshops were also conducted to explore researcher interpretations of the data through the lens of those with lived experience of dementia. Triangulation enabled comparison of findings from the interviews with findings from the co-researcher workshops. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged from the interview data: being prepared; intervention engagement; and participation and outcomes from engagement. From these themes, a number of factors that can moderate delivery and receipt of the intervention as intended were identified. These were context and environment; readiness, training, skills and competencies of the workforce; identifying meaningful participation and relationships. CONCLUSION: This study highlighted that the observed benefit of the intervention was nuanced for each individual. Mechanisms of change were influenced by a range of individual, social and contextual factors. Future research should therefore consider how best to identify and measure the multifaceted interplay of mechanisms of change in complex interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17993825.

'You can't just put somebody in a situation with no armour'. An ethnographic exploration of the training and support needs of homecare workers caring for people living with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Homecare workers carry out complex work with people living with dementia, while under-supported, undervalued and undertrained. In this ethnographic study, we explore the skills, training and support needs of homecare workers supporting people living with dementia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted 82 interviews with people living with dementia (n = 11), family caregivers (n = 22), homecare staff (n = 30) and health and social care professionals (n = 19) and conducted 100-hours of participant observations with homecare workers (n = 16). We triangulated interview and observational findings and analysed data thematically. RESULTS: We developed four themes: 1) 'Navigating the homecare identity and role': describing challenges of moving between different role identities and managing associated expectations, 2) 'Developing and utilising relational and emotional skills': boundaries between caring and getting emotionally involved felt blurred and difficult to manage, 3) 'Managing clients who resist care': homecare workers experienced clients' reactions as challenging and felt "thrown to the wolves" without sufficient training, and 4) 'Drawing on agency and team support': homecare work could be isolating, with no shared workplace, busy schedules and limited opportunity for peer support. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: It is important that training and support for homecare workers addresses the relational, emotional and rights-based aspects of the role. Where a flexible, responsive, person-centred service is required, corresponding training and support is needed, alongside organisational practices, taking account of the broader context of the homecare sector.

A systematic review of observational studies of adult home care.

The home-care workforce is in high demand globally. Home-care workers provide care for people at home, including practical and personal care, as well as other tasks such as medication management. We conducted a systematic review with the aims of understanding methods of observation that have been employed to study home care and to explore how these methods have enabled researchers to understand the quality of home care. We searched the literature using PubMed and CINAHL databases in May 2018, with no limits applied to date of publication. We searched for MeSH terms of 'Home Care Services', 'Home Health Care', 'Home Nursing' and 'Observation*'. Across 15 eligible studies, the types of observation methods employed were categorised as structured, guided and unstructured. The characteristics of these methods, such as the level of participation adopted by the observer, varied across the studies. Three themes were developed through a narrative synthesis of the included studies' findings: 'The impact of care delivery and organisational factors', 'Observing relationships and communications', and 'People and places behind closed doors'. We conclude that methods of observation are a fairly novel, yet rich and meaningful way of exploring home-care practice. Researchers undertaking observations should consider elements such as the number of researchers observing and the potential for variations, how and when to record the observations, possible triangulation of data, the researcher's reflective stance as an observer, as well as ethical considerations.

CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs with major depression (CASPER plus): a multicentred randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Depression in older adults is common and is associated with poor quality of life, increased morbidity and early mortality, and increased health and social care use. Collaborative care, a low-intensity intervention for depression that is shown to be effective in working-age adults, has not yet been evaluated in older people with depression who are managed in UK primary care. The CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs (CASPER) plus trial fills the evidence gap identified by the most recent guidelines on depression management. OBJECTIVES: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for older adults with major depressive disorder in primary care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentred, two-arm, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study. Participants were automatically randomised by computer, by the York Trials Unit Randomisation Service, on a 1 : 1 basis using simple unstratified randomisation after informed consent and baseline measures were collected. Blinding was not possible. SETTING: Sixty-nine general practices in the north of England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 485 participants aged ≥ 65 years with major depressive disorder. INTERVENTIONS: A low-intensity intervention of collaborative care, including behavioural activation, delivered by a case manager for an average of six sessions over 7-8 weeks, alongside usual general practitioner (GP) care. The control arm received only usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items score at 4 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included depression severity and caseness at 12 and 18 months, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 items, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-2 items, a medication questionnaire, objective data and adverse events. Participants were followed up at 12 and 18 months. RESULTS: In total, 485 participants were randomised (collaborative care, n = 249; usual care, n = 236), with 390 participants (80%: collaborative care, 75%; usual care, 86%) followed up at 4 months, 358 participants (74%: collaborative care, 70%; usual care, 78%) followed up at 12 months and 344 participants (71%: collaborative care, 67%; usual care, 75%) followed up at 18 months. A total of 415 participants were included in primary analysis (collaborative care, n = 198; usual care, n = 217), which revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of collaborative care at the primary end point at 4 months [8.98 vs. 10.90 score points, mean difference 1.92 score points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 2.99 score points; p < 0.001], equivalent to a standard effect size of 0.34. However, treatment differences were not maintained in the longer term (at 12 months: 0.19 score points, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.29 score points; p = 0.741; at 18 months: < 0.01 score points, 95% CI -1.12 to 1.12 score points; p = 0.997). The study recorded details of all serious adverse events (SAEs), which consisted of 'unscheduled hospitalisation', 'other medically important condition' and 'death'. No SAEs were related to the intervention. Collaborative care showed a small but non-significant increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the 18-month period, with a higher cost. Overall, the mean cost per incremental QALY for collaborative care compared with usual care was £26,016; however, for participants attending six or more sessions, collaborative care appears to represent better value for money (£9876/QALY). LIMITATIONS: Study limitations are identified at different stages: design (blinding unfeasible, potential contamination), process (relatively low overall consent rate, differential attrition/retention rates) and analysis (no baseline health-care resource cost or secondary/social care data). CONCLUSION: Collaborative care was effective for older people with case-level depression across a range of outcomes in the short term though the reduction in depression severity was not maintained over the longer term of 12 or 18 months. Participants who received six or more sessions of collaborative care did benefit substantially more than those who received fewer treatment sessions but this difference was not statistically significant. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations for future research include investigating the longer-term effect of the intervention. Depression is a recurrent disorder and it would be useful to assess its impact on relapse and the prevention of future case-level depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45842879. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.