Randomised pilot and feasibility trial of a group intervention for men who perpetrate intimate partner violence against women.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for robust evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of domestic abuse perpetrator programmes in reducing abusive behaviour and improving wellbeing for victim/survivors. While any randomised controlled trial can present difficulties in terms of recruitment and retention, conducting such a trial with domestic abuse perpetrators is particularly challenging. This paper reports the pilot and feasibility trial of a voluntary domestic abuse perpetrator group programme in the United Kingdom. METHODS: This was a pragmatic individually randomised pilot and feasibility trial with an integrated qualitative study in one site (covering three local-authority areas) in England. Male perpetrators were randomised to either the intervention or usual care. The intervention was a 23-week group programme for male perpetrators in heterosexual relationships, with an average of three one-to-one sessions, and one-to-one support for female current- or ex-partners delivered by third sector organisations. There was no active control treatment for men, and partners of control men were signposted towards domestic abuse support services. Data were collected at three-monthly intervals for nine months from male and female participants. The main objectives assessed were recruitment, randomisation, retention, data completeness, fidelity to the intervention model, and acceptability of the trial design. RESULTS: This study recruited 36 men (22 randomly allocated to attend the intervention group programme, 14 to usual care), and 15 current- or ex-partners (39% of eligible partners). Retention and completeness of data were high: 67% of male (24/36), and 80% (12/15) of female participants completed the self-reported questionnaire at nine months. A framework for assessing fidelity to the intervention was developed. In interviews, men who completed all or most of the intervention gave positive feedback and reported changes in their own behaviour. Partners were also largely supportive of the trial and were positive about the intervention. Participants who were not allocated to the intervention group reported feeling disappointed but understood the rationale for the trial. CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible to recruit, randomise and retain male perpetrators and female victim/survivors of abuse and collect self-reported outcome data. Participants were engaged in the intervention and reported positive benefits. The trial design was seen as acceptable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN71797549, submitted 03/08/2017, retrospectively registered 27/05/2022.

Impact of gender, ethnicity and social deprivation on access to surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis: a retrospective database study in England.

OBJECTIVE: To assess gender, ethnicity, and deprivation-based differences in provision of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in England for adults with aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS: We retrospectively identified adults with AS from the English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between April 2016 and March 2019 and those who subsequently had an AVR. We separately used HES-linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to identify people with AVR and evaluate the timeliness of their procedure (CPRD-AVR cohort). ORs for AVR in people with an AS diagnosis were estimated using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, region and comorbidity. AVR was considered timely if performed electively and without evidence of cardiac decompensation before AVR. RESULTS: 183 591 adults with AS were identified in HES; of these, 31 436 underwent AVR. The CPRD-AVR cohort comprised 10 069 adults. Women had lower odds of receiving AVR compared with men (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.66); as did people of black (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.82) or South Asian (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.82) compared with people of white ethnicities. People in the most deprived areas were less likely to receive AVR than the least deprived areas (OR 0.8; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86). Timely AVR occurred in 65% of those of white ethnicities compared with 55% of both those of black and South Asian ethnicities. 77% of the least deprived had a timely procedure compared with 58% of the most deprived; there was no gender difference. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, national dataset, female gender, black or South Asian ethnicities and high deprivation were associated with significantly reduced odds of receiving AVR in England. A lower proportion of people of minority ethnicities or high deprivation had a timely procedure. Public health initiatives may be required to increase clinician and public awareness of unconscious biases towards minority and vulnerable populations to ensure timely AVR for everyone.

Laparoscopically assisted versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer-the Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open (ROMIO) study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

INTRODUCTION: Surgery (oesophagectomy), with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, is the main curative treatment for patients with oesophageal cancer. Several surgical approaches can be used to remove an oesophageal tumour. The Ivor Lewis (two-phase procedure) is usually used in the UK. This can be performed as an open oesophagectomy (OO), a laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO) or a totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIO). All three are performed in the National Health Service, with LAO and OO the most common. However, there is limited evidence about which surgical approach is best for patients in terms of survival and postoperative health-related quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will undertake a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare LAO with OO in adult patients with oesophageal cancer. The primary outcome is patient-reported physical function at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: postoperative complications, survival, disease recurrence, other measures of quality of life, spirometry, success of patient blinding and quality assurance measures. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing LAO with OO. We will embed a randomised substudy to evaluate the safety and evolution of the TMIO procedure and a qualitative recruitment intervention to optimise patient recruitment. We will analyse the primary outcome using a multi-level regression model. Patients will be monitored for up to 3 years after their surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethical approval from the South-West Franchay Research Ethics Committee. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10386621.