Can routine assessment of older people's mental health lead to improved outcomes: A regression discontinuity analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether case finding for depression among people aged 65 and above improves mental health. DESIGN: Opportunistic evaluation using a regression discontinuity analysis with data from a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The REFORM trial, a falls prevention study that recruited patients from NHS podiatry clinics. PARTICIPANTS: 1010 community-dwelling adults over the age of 65 with at least one risk factor for falling (recent previous fall or fear of falling). INTERVENTION: Letter sent to patient's General Practitioner if they scored 10 points or above on the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) informing them of the patient's risk of depression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: GDS-15 score six months after initial completion of GDS-15. RESULTS: 895 (88.6%) of the 1010 participants randomised into REFORM had a valid baseline and six-month GDS-15 score and were included in this study. The mean GDS-15 baseline score was 3.5 (SD 3.0, median 3.0, range 0-15); 639 (71.4%) scored 0-4, 204 (22.8%) scored 5-9 indicating mild depression, and 52 (5.8%) scored 10 or higher indicating severe depression. At six months follow-up, those scoring 10 points or higher at baseline had, on average, a reduction of 1.08 points on the GDS-15 scale (95% confidence interval -1.83 to -0.33, p = 0.005) compared to those scoring less than 10, using the simplest linear regression model. CONCLUSION: Case finding of depression in podiatry patients based on a GDS-15 score of 10 or more followed by a letter to their General Practitioner significantly reduced depression severity. Whether this applies to all older patients in primary care is unknown. Further research is required to confirm these findings. Regression discontinuity analyses could be prespecified and embedded within other existing research studies.

Relationship between age, workplace slips and the effectiveness of slip-resistant footwear among healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: To explore any age-related trend in workplace slip rate and assess the effectiveness of appropriate slip-resistant footwear in preventing workplace slips by age. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of the Stopping Slips among Healthcare Workers trial, a two-arm randomised controlled trial conducted between March 2017 and May 2019. 4553 National Health Service (NHS) staff across seven sites in England were randomised 1:1 to the intervention group (provision of 5* GRIP-rated slip-resistant footwear) or the control group (usual work footwear). The primary outcome was self-reported workplace slips, ascertained primarily through weekly text messages throughout the 14-week trial follow-up and analysed using mixed-effects negative binomial regression. This paper reports a control group-only analysis of the association between age and slip rate, and a full intention-to-treat analysis of the effectiveness of slip-resistant footwear by age. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 43 years (range 18-74). In the control group-only analysis, slip rate differed by age (p<0.001) with those aged 60+ having double the slip rate of those aged <30 years (95% CI 1.40 to 2.87). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the interaction between allocation and age was statistically significant (p=0.002). In addition, for all age groups except those aged <30 years, the slip rate in the intervention group was statistically significantly lower than the control group; the smallest incidence rate ratio (ie, the biggest effect) was 0.39 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.64) in the 60+ age group. CONCLUSION: The provision of appropriate slip-resistant footwear was more effective at reducing workplace slips for older NHS staff.

Slip-resistant footwear reduces slips among National Health Service workers in England: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Assess the effectiveness of 5* GRIP-rated slip-resistant footwear in preventing slips in the workplace compared to usual footwear (control group). METHODS: A multicentre, randomised controlled trial; 4553 National Health Service (NHS) staff were randomised 1:1 to the intervention group (provided with 5* GRIP-rated slip-resistant footwear) or the control group. The primary outcome of incidence rate of self-reported slips in the workplace over 14 weeks was analysed using a mixed-effects negative binomial model. Secondary outcome measures included incidence rate of falls from a slip, falls not from a slip, proportion of participants reporting a slip, fall or fracture and time to first slip and fall. RESULTS: 6743 slips were reported: 2633 in the intervention group (mean 1.16 per participant, range 0 to 36) and 4110 in the control group (mean 1.80 per participant, range 0 to 83). There was a statistically significant reduction in slip rate in the intervention group relative to the control group (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.70, p<0.001). Statistically significant differences, in favour of the intervention group, were observed in falls from a slip (IRR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.92, p=0.03), the proportion of participants who reported a slip (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.66, p<0.001) or fall (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.99, p=0.04) and time to first slip (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The offer and provision of 5* GRIP-rated footwear reduced slips in NHS staff in the workplace. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN33051393.

Enclosing a pen to improve response rate to postal questionnaire: an embedded randomised controlled trial.

Background: Poor response to questionnaires collecting outcome data in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can affect the validity of trial results. The aim of this study within a trial (SWAT) was to evaluate the effectiveness of including a pen with a follow-up postal questionnaire on response rate. Methods: A two-armed RCT was embedded within SSHeW (Stopping Slips among Healthcare Workers), a trial of slip-resistant footwear to reduce slips in NHS staff.  Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive a pen or no pen with their follow-up questionnaire. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who returned the questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were: time to response, completeness of response, and whether a postal reminder notice was required. Data were analysed using logistic regression, linear regression and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Overall, 1466 SSHEW trial participants were randomised into the SWAT. In total, 13 withdrew from the host trial before they were due to be sent their follow-up questionnaire, 728 participants received a pen with their questionnaire, and 725 did not receive a pen.  A questionnaire was returned from 67.7% of the pen group and 64.7% of the group who did not receive a pen. There was no significant difference in return rates between the two groups (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.43, p=0.22), nor level of completeness of the questionnaires (AMD -0.01, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.05, p=0.77).  There was weak evidence of a reduction in the proportion of participants requiring a reminder and in time to response in the pen group. Conclusion: Inclusion of a pen with the follow-up postal questionnaire sent to participants in the SSHeW trial did not statistically significantly increase the response rate. These results add to the body of evidence around improving response rates in trials. Trial registration: ISRCTN 33051393 (for SSHEW). Registered on 14/03/2017.

Poor allocation concealment methods are associated with heterogeneity in age and statistical significance of the primary outcome: Review of recent trials published in four general medical journals.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of the quality of allocation concealment with heterogeneity in age, the P value of the primary outcome and statistical significance of the primary outcome. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We extracted data from articles published in four major medical journals in 2017 and 2018 that reported the results of randomized controlled trials. The outcome measures were the quality of allocation concealment used in the trial, the P value of the primary outcome, whether the P value of the primary outcome was statistically significant and the level of heterogeneity in age between the treatment groups (measured using the I2 statistic). The association between the quality of allocation concealment and the P value of the primary outcome was assessed using a kernel density plot, while the association between the quality of allocation concealment and whether the P value was statistically significant was assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Trials that used inadequate concealment methods were more likely to report statistically significant findings than trials that used good or adequate methods (OR 1.90; 95% CI: 0.91 to 3.95; P = .09). The values of I2 for trials that used good, adequate, inadequate and unclear concealment methods were 0%, 1.0%, 32.6%, and 93.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION: There is evidence of an association between poor allocation concealment methods and statistical significance of the primary outcome. Trials that use inadequate allocation concealment methods are more likely to have statistically significant P values compared with trials using good or adequate allocation concealment methods.

SSHeW study protocol: does slip resistant footwear reduce slips among healthcare workers? A randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Slips, trips and falls are common causes of injuries in the workplace. It is estimated that in Great Britain, nearly 1 million days are taken off work due to these injuries. There is some evidence to suggest this accident burden could be reduced by the use of slip resistant footwear. This protocol describes a multicentre trial investigating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of slip resistant footwear to prevent slips in National Health Service (NHS) staff working in clinical, general or catering environments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-arm, randomised controlled trial conducted within England, with 4400 NHS staff, aged 18 years and above, who adhere to a dress code policy and work in a clinical, catering or general hospital environment. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to the intervention or waiting list control group. The intervention group will be offered a pair of 5-star GRIP rated slip resistant footwear. The control group will be offered the footwear at the end of the trial. The primary outcome is the incidence rate of self-reported slips in the workplace over a 14-week period, as reported via weekly text messages. Secondary outcomes include: time to first slip/fall, proportion of participants who slip and fall over 14 weeks and incidence rate of falls resulting from and not resulting from a slip in the workplace over 14 weeks. An economic evaluation will assess cost-effectiveness, in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. A nested qualitative study will explore the acceptability of the footwear and compliance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol received a favourable ethical opinion from the University of York, Department of Health Sciences Research Governance Committee. The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences. A summary of the findings will be made available to participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN33051393; Pre results.