Economic evaluation of the OSAC randomised controlled trial: oral corticosteroids for non-asthmatic adults with acute lower respiratory tract infection in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the costs and outcomes associated with treating non-asthmatic adults (nor suffering from other lung-disease) presenting to primary care with acute lower respiratory tract infection (ALRTI) with oral corticosteroids compared with placebo. DESIGN: Cost-consequence analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. Perspectives included the healthcare provider, patients and productivity losses associated with time off work. SETTING: Fifty-four National Health Service (NHS) general practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: 398 adults attending NHS primary practices with ALRTI but no asthma or other chronic lung disease, followed up for 28 days. INTERVENTIONS: 2× 20 mg oral prednisolone per day for 5 days versus matching placebo tablets. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life years using the 5-level EuroQol-5D version measured weekly; duration and severity of symptom. Direct and indirect resources related to the disease and its treatment were also collected. Outcomes were measured for the 28-day follow-up. RESULTS: 198 (50%) patients received the intervention (prednisolone) and 200 (50%) received placebo. NHS costs were dominated by primary care contacts, higher with placebo than with prednisolone (£13.11 vs £10.38) but without evidence of a difference (95% CI £3.05 to £8.52). The trial medication cost of £1.96 per patient would have been recouped in prescription charges of £4.30 per patient overall (55% participants would have paid £7.85), giving an overall mean 'profit' to the NHS of £7.00 (95% CI £0.50 to £17.08) per patient. There was a quality adjusted life years gain of 0.03 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.05) equating to half a day of perfect health favouring the prednisolone patients; there was no difference in duration of cough or severity of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The use of prednisolone for non-asthmatic adults with ALRTI, provided small gains in quality of life and cost savings driven by prescription charges. Considering the results of the economic evaluation and possible side effects of corticosteroids, the short-term benefits may not outweigh the long-term harms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT 2012-000851-15 and ISRCTN57309858; Pre-results.

Cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred approach to managing multimorbidity in primary care: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with multiple chronic health conditions are often managed in a disjointed fashion in primary care, with annual review clinic appointments offered separately for each condition. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of the 3D intervention, which was developed to improve the system of care. DESIGN: Economic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial. SETTING: General practices in three centres in England and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 797 adults with three or more chronic conditions were randomised to the 3D intervention, while 749 participants were randomised to receive usual care. INTERVENTION: The 3D approach: comprehensive 6-monthly general practitioner consultations, supported by medication reviews and nurse appointments. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary economic evaluation assessed the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS). Costs were related to changes in a range of secondary outcomes (QALYs accrued by both participants and carers, and deaths) in a cost-consequences analysis from the perspectives of the NHS/PSS, patients/carers and productivity losses. RESULTS: Very small increases were found in both QALYs (adjusted mean difference 0.007 (-0.009 to 0.023)) and costs (adjusted mean difference £126 (£-739 to £991)) in the intervention arm compared with usual care after 15 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £18 499, with a 50.8% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY (55.8% at £30 000 per QALY). CONCLUSIONS: The small differences in costs and outcomes were consistent with chance, and the uncertainty was substantial; therefore, the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of the 3D approach from the NHS/PSS perspective should be considered equivocal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISCRTN06180958.

Parents' preferences for nursery care when children are unwell: a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Pre-school children's daycare is associated with increased incidence of respiratory and diarrhoeal illnesses. While the incidence might be reduced if all unwell children were kept at home, parental employment pressures make this difficult when children are marginally unwell. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to identify what aspects of daycare policy and provision would affect parents' decisions to keep marginally unwell children home. Prior qualitative research informed parameter choice. The DCE was accompanied by a best-worst scaling task examining preferences for four modifiable aspects of care: swapping unused daycare sessions, reimbursing unused sessions, daycare paracetamol policy and presence of a 'quiet room'. RESULTS: Paracetamol guidelines and the presence of a quiet room had the strongest predicted influence on parents' decision-making. Conditional on assumptions about the set-up of the daycare, introducing a 'no paracetamol' policy would result in a fall from 62 to 25% in mean predicted probabilities of a parent sending a marginally unwell child to nursery, while introducing a quiet room would increase the mean probability from 34 to 53%. CONCLUSIONS: Daycare policy, particularly the use of paracetamol prior to attendance, could impact parents' decisions to send unwell children to daycare, potentially influencing the transmission of children's infectious illness.

A consultation-level intervention to improve care of frequently attending patients: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Frequent attenders (FAs) to primary care receive considerable NHS resources without necessarily gaining benefit, and may even be harmed. AIM: To assess the feasibility of a consultation-level intervention to improve care and address service use of FAs. DESIGN & SETTING: A cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial was undertaken. The study used a mixed-methods process evaluation and took place in six practices in England. METHOD: All practices screened the top 3% of all attending patients over the previous 12 months for eligibility. Following randomisation, intervention patients were matched with named GPs, trained to use the Background, Affect, Trouble, Handling, Empathy (BATHE) technique during consultations. Telephone consultations were encouraged. Feasibility outcomes assessed were recruitment, retention, data collection and completeness, implementation fidelity, and acceptability. RESULTS: A total of 599/1328 (45.1%) FAs were eligible. Four practices were randomised to the intervention (n = 451) and two to usual care (n = 148). A total of 96 (23.7%) patients were recruited to complete questionnaires. Retention and completeness of data were good; for example, 76% of those agreeing to complete questionnaires did so at the 12-month assessment point. Thirty-four GPs were trained and delivered BATHE ≥1 times to 50.1% of patients (n = 577 consultations). There were minimal increases in continuity and telephone consultations. Patients were positive about the intervention, but noticed little change in their care. Despite valuing BATHE, low adherence to training was indicated and GPs used it less than anticipated. CONCLUSION: It was feasible to identify FAs and collect trial data. GPs were keen to engage and there was evidence that the BATHE technique was taken into practice. Optimising training is likely to improve fidelity. The intervention was low cost and low risk.

Psychological advocacy towards healing (PATH): A randomized controlled trial of a psychological intervention in a domestic violence service setting.

BACKGROUND: Experience of domestic violence and abuse (DVA) is associated with mental illness. Advocacy has little effect on mental health outcomes of female DVA survivors and there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of psychological interventions for this population. OBJECTIVE: To test effectiveness of a psychological intervention delivered by advocates to DVA survivors. DESIGN, MASKING, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Pragmatic parallel group individually randomized controlled trial of normal DVA advocacy vs. advocacy + psychological intervention. Statistician and researchers blinded to group assignment. Setting: specialist DVA agencies; two UK cities. Participants: Women aged 16 years and older accessing DVA services. INTERVENTION: Eight specialist psychological advocacy (SPA) sessions with two follow up sessions. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes at 12 months: depression symptoms (PHQ-9) and psychological distress (CORE-OM). Primary analysis: intention to treat linear (logistic) regression model for continuous (binary) outcomes. RESULTS: 263 women recruited (78 in shelter/refuge, 185 in community), 2 withdrew (1 community, control group; 1 intervention, refuge group), 1 was excluded from the study for protocol violation (community, control group), 130 in intervention and 130 in control groups. Recruitment ended June 2013. 12-month follow up: 64%. At 12-month follow up greater improvement in mental health of women in the intervention group. Difference in average CORE-OM score between intervention and control groups: -3.3 points (95% CI -5.5 to -1.2). Difference in average PHQ-9 score between intervention and control group: -2.2 (95% CI -4.1 to -0.3). At 12 months, 35% of the intervention group and 55% of the control group were above the CORE-OM -2clinical threshold (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.64); 29% of the intervention group and 46% of the control group were above the PHQ-9 clinical threshold (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81). LIMITATIONS: 64% retention at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: An eight-session psychological intervention delivered by DVA advocates produced clinically relevant improvement in mental health outcomes compared with normal advocacy care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN58561170 Original Research 3675/3750.

'Trying to put a square peg into a round hole': a qualitative study of healthcare professionals' views of integrating complementary medicine into primary care for musculoskeletal and mental health comorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidity of musculoskeletal (MSK) and mental health (MH) problems is common but challenging to treat using conventional approaches. Integration of conventional with complementary approaches (CAM) might help address this challenge. Integration can aim to transform biomedicine into a new health paradigm or to selectively incorporate CAM in addition to conventional care. This study explored professionals' experiences and views of CAM for comorbid patients and the potential for integration into UK primary care. METHODS: We ran focus groups with GPs and CAM practitioners at three sites across England and focus groups and interviews with healthcare commissioners. Topics included experience of co-morbid MSK-MH and CAM/integration, evidence, knowledge and barriers to integration. Sampling was purposive. A framework analysis used frequency, specificity, intensity of data, and disconfirming evidence. RESULTS: We recruited 36 CAM practitioners (4 focus groups), 20 GPs (3 focus groups) and 8 commissioners (1 focus group, 5 interviews). GPs described challenges treating MSK-MH comorbidity and agreed CAM might have a role. Exercise- or self-care-based CAMs were most acceptable to GPs. CAM practitioners were generally pro-integration. A prominent theme was different understandings of health between CAM and general practitioners, which was likely to impede integration. Another concern was that integration might fundamentally change the care provided by both professional groups. For CAM practitioners, NHS structural barriers were a major issue. For GPs, their lack of CAM knowledge and the pressures on general practice were barriers to integration, and some felt integrating CAM was beyond their capabilities. Facilitators of integration were evidence of effectiveness and cost effectiveness (particularly for CAM practitioners). Governance was the least important barrier for all groups. There was little consensus on the ideal integration model, particularly in terms of financing. Commissioners suggested CAM could be part of social prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: CAM has the potential to help the NHS in treating the burden of MSK-MH comorbidity. Given the challenges of integration, selective incorporation using traditional referral from primary care to CAM may be the most feasible model. However, cost implications would need to be addressed, possibly through models such as social prescribing or an extension of integrated personal commissioning.

Patient understanding of two commonly used patient reported outcome measures for primary care: a cognitive interview study.

BACKGROUND: Standardised generic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) which measure health status are often unresponsive to change in primary care. Alternative formats, which have been used to increase responsiveness, include individualised PROMs (in which respondents specify the outcomes of interest in their own words) and transitional PROMs (in which respondents directly rate change over a period). The objective of this study was to test qualitatively, through cognitive interviews, two PROMs, one using each respective format. METHODS: The individualised PROM selected was the Measure Yourself Medical Outcomes Profile (MYMOP). The transitional PROM was the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI). Twenty patients who had recently attended the GP were interviewed while completing the questionnaires. Interview data was analysed using a modification of Tourangeau's model of cognitive processing: comprehension, response, recall and face validity. RESULTS: Patients found the PEI simple to complete, but for some it lacked face validity. The transitional scale was sometimes confused with a status scale and was problematic in situations when the relevant GP appointment was part of a longer episode of care. Some patients reported a high enablement score despite verbally reporting low enablement but high regard for their GP, which suggested hypothesis-guessing. The interpretation of the PEI items was inconsistent between patients. MYMOP was more difficult for patients to complete, but had greater face validity than the PEI. The scale used was open to response-shift: some patients suggested they would recalibrate their definition of the scale endpoints as their illness and expectations changed. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides information for both users of PEI/MYMOP and developers of individualised and transitional questionnaires. Users should heed the recommendation that MYMOP should be interview-administered, and this is likely to apply to other individualised scales. The PEI is open to hypothesis-guessing and may lack face-validity for a longer episode of care (e.g. in patients with chronic conditions). Developers should be cognisant that transitional scales can be inconsistently completed: some patients forget during completion that they are measuring change from baseline. Although generic questionnaires require the content to be more general than do disease-specific questionnaires, developers should avoid questions which allow broad and varied interpretations.

Management of multimorbidity using a patient-centred care model: a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial of the 3D approach.

BACKGROUND: The management of people with multiple chronic conditions challenges health-care systems designed around single conditions. There is international consensus that care for multimorbidity should be patient-centred, focus on quality of life, and promote self-management towards agreed goals. However, there is little evidence about the effectiveness of this approach. Our hypothesis was that the patient-centred, so-called 3D approach (based on dimensions of health, depression, and drugs) for patients with multimorbidity would improve their health-related quality of life, which is the ultimate aim of the 3D intervention. METHODS: We did this pragmatic cluster-randomised trial in general practices in England and Scotland. Practices were randomly allocated to continue usual care (17 practices) or to provide 6-monthly comprehensive 3D reviews, incorporating patient-centred strategies that reflected international consensus on best care (16 practices). Randomisation was computer-generated, stratified by area, and minimised by practice deprivation and list size. Adults with three or more chronic conditions were recruited. The primary outcome was quality of life (assessed with EQ-5D-5L) after 15 months' follow-up. Participants were not masked to group assignment, but analysis of outcomes was blinded. We analysed the primary outcome in the intention-to-treat population, with missing data being multiply imputed. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN06180958. FINDINGS: Between May 20, 2015, and Dec 31, 2015, we recruited 1546 patients from 33 practices and randomly assigned them to receive the intervention (n=797) or usual care (n=749). In our intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between trial groups in the primary outcome of quality of life (adjusted difference in mean EQ-5D-5L 0·00, 95% CI -0·02 to 0·02; p=0·93). 78 patients died, and the deaths were not considered as related to the intervention. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this trial is the largest investigation of the international consensus about optimal management of multimorbidity. The 3D intervention did not improve patients' quality of life. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Identification, description and appraisal of generic PROMs for primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients attend primary care with many types of problems and to achieve a range of possible outcomes. There is currently a lack of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) designed to capture these diverse outcomes. The objective of this systematic review was to identify, describe and appraise generic PROMs suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care. METHODS: We carried out a systematic Medline search, supplemented by other online and hand-searches. All potentially relevant PROMs were itemised in a long-list. Each PROM in the long-list which met inclusion criteria was included in a short-list. Short-listed PROMs were then described in terms of their measurement properties and construct, based on a previously published description of primary care outcome as three constructs: health status, health empowerment and health perceptions. PROMs were appraised in terms of extent of psychometric testing (extensive, moderate, low) and level of responsiveness (high, medium, low, unknown). RESULTS: More than 5000 abstracts were identified and screened to identify PROMs potentially suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care. 321 PROMs were long-listed, and twenty PROMs were catalogued in detail. There were five PROMs which measured change directly, without need for a baseline. Although these had less strong psychometric properties, they may be more responsive to change than PROMs which capture status at a point in time. No instruments provided coverage of all three constructs. Of the health status questionnaires, the most extensively tested was the SF-36. Of the health empowerment instruments, the PEI, PAM and heiQ provided the best combination of responsiveness and psychometric testing. The health perceptions instruments were all less responsive to change, and may measure a form of health perception which is difficult to shift in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review is the first of its kind to identify papers describing the development and validation of generic PROMs suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care. It identified that: 1) to date, there is no instrument which comprehensively covers the outcomes commonly sought in primary care, and 2) there are different benefits both to PROMs which measure status at a point in time, and PROMs which measure change directly.

Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire: psychometric testing of a new instrument.

BACKGROUND: Patients attend primary care for many reasons and to achieve a range of possible outcomes. There is currently no Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) designed to capture these diverse outcomes, and trials of interventions in primary care may thus fail to detect beneficial effects. AIM: This study describes the psychometric testing of the Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire (PCOQ), which was designed to capture a broad range of outcomes relevant to primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Questionnaires were administered in primary care in South West England. METHOD: Patients completed the PCOQ in GP waiting rooms before a consultation, and a second questionnaire, including the PCOQ and seven comparator PROMs, after 1 week. Psychometric testing included exploratory factor analysis on the PCOQ, internal consistency, correlation coefficients between domain scores and comparator measures, and repeated measures effect sizes indicating change across 1 week. RESULTS: In total, 602 patients completed the PCOQ at baseline, and 264 (44%) returned the follow-up questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis suggested four dimensions underlying the PCOQ items: health and wellbeing, health knowledge and self-care, confidence in health provision, and confidence in health plan. Each dimension was internally consistent and correlated as expected with comparator PROMs, providing evidence of construct validity. Patients reporting an improvement in their main problem exhibited small to moderate improvements in relevant domain scores on the PCOQ. CONCLUSION: The PCOQ was acceptable, feasible, showed strong psychometric properties, and was responsive to change. It is a promising new tool for assessment of outcomes of primary care interventions from a patient perspective.

Qualitative assessment of the primary care outcomes questionnaire: a cognitive interview study.

BACKGROUND: The Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire (PCOQ) is a new patient-reported outcome measure designed specifically for primary care. This paper describes the developmental process of improving the item quality and testing the face validity of the PCOQ through cognitive interviews with primary care patients. METHODS: Two formats of the PCOQ were developed and assessed: the PCOQ-Status (which has an adjectival scale) and the PCOQ-Change (which has the same items as the PCOQ-Status, but a transitional scale). Three rounds of cognitive interviews were held with twenty patients from four health centres in Bristol. Patients seeking healthcare were recruited directly by their GP or practice nurse, and others not currently seeking healthcare were recruited from patient participation groups. An adjusted form of Tourangeau's model of cognitive processing was used to identify problems. This contained four categories: general comprehension, temporal comprehension, decision process, and response process. The resultant pattern of problems was used to assess whether the items and scales were working as intended, and to make improvements to the questionnaires. RESULTS: The problems identified in the PCOQ-Status reduced from 41 in round one to seven in round three. It was noted that the PCOQ-Status seemed to be capturing a subjective view of health which might not vary with age or long-term conditions. However, as it is designed to be evaluative (measuring change over time) as opposed to discriminative (measuring change between different groups of people), this does not present a problem for validity. The PCOQ-Status was both understood by patients and was face valid. The PCOQ-Change had less face validity, and was misunderstood by three out of six patients in round 1. It was not taken forward after this round. CONCLUSIONS: The cognitive interviews successfully contributed to the development of the PCOQ. Through this study, the PCOQ-Status was found to be well understood by patients, and it was possible to improve comprehension through each round of interviews. The PCOQ-Change was poorly understood and, given that this corroborates existing research, this may call into question the use of transitional questionnaires generally.

Complementary medicine use, views, and experiences: a national survey in England.

BACKGROUND: In 2005,12% of the English population visited a complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioner. AIM: To obtain up-to-date general population figures for practitioner-led CAM use in England, and to discover people's views and experiences regarding access. DESIGN & SETTING: A face-to-face questionnaire survey was commissioned. A nationally representative adult quota sample (aged ≥15 years) was used. METHOD: Ten questions were included within Ipsos MORI's weekly population-based survey. The questions explored 12-month practitioner-led CAM use, reasons for non-use, views on NHS-provided CAM, and willingness to pay. RESULTS: Of 4862 adults surveyed, 766 (16%) had seen a CAM practitioner. People most commonly visited CAM practitioners for manual therapies (massage, osteopathy, chiropractic) and acupuncture, as well as yoga, pilates, reflexology, and mindfulness or meditation. Women, people with higher socioeconomic status (SES) and those in south England were more likely to access CAM. Musculoskeletal conditions (mainly back pain) accounted for 68% of use, and mental health 12%. Most was through self-referral (70%) and self-financing. GPs (17%) or NHS professionals (4%) referred and/or recommended CAM to users. These CAM users were more often unemployed, with lower income and social grade, and receiving NHS-funded CAM. Responders were willing to pay varying amounts for CAM; 22% would not pay anything. Almost two in five responders felt NHS funding and GP referral and/or endorsement would increase their CAM use. CONCLUSION: CAM use in England is common for musculoskeletal and mental health problems, but varies by sex, geography, and SES. It is mainly self-referred and self-financed; some is GP-endorsed and/or referred, especially for individuals of lower SES. Researchers, patients, and commissioners should collaborate to research the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CAM and consider its availability on the NHS.

Effect of Oral Prednisolone on Symptom Duration and Severity in Nonasthmatic Adults With Acute Lower Respiratory Tract Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Acute lower respiratory tract infection is common and often treated inappropriately in primary care with antibiotics. Corticosteroids are increasingly used but without sufficient evidence. Objective: To assess the effects of oral corticosteroids for acute lower respiratory tract infection in adults without asthma. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized trial (July 2013 to final follow-up October 2014) conducted in 54 family practices in England among 401 adults with acute cough and at least 1 lower respiratory tract symptom not requiring immediate antibiotic treatment and with no history of chronic pulmonary disease or use of asthma medication in the past 5 years. Interventions: Two 20-mg prednisolone tablets (n = 199) or matched placebo (n = 202) once daily for 5 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were duration of moderately bad or worse cough (0 to 28 days; minimal clinically important difference, 3.79 days) and mean severity of symptoms on days 2 to 4 (scored from 0 [not affected] to 6 [as bad as it could be]; minimal clinically important difference, 1.66 units). Secondary outcomes were duration and severity of acute lower respiratory tract infection symptoms, duration of abnormal peak flow, antibiotic use, and adverse events. Results: Among 401 randomized patients, 2 withdrew immediately after randomization, and 1 duplicate patient was identified. Among the 398 patients with baseline data (mean age, 47 [SD, 16.0] years; 63% women; 17% smokers; 77% phlegm; 70% shortness of breath; 47% wheezing; 46% chest pain; 42% abnormal peak flow), 334 (84%) provided cough duration and 369 (93%) symptom severity data. Median cough duration was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3-8 days) in the prednisolone group and 5 days (IQR, 3-10 days) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.39; P = .36 at an α = .05). Mean symptom severity was 1.99 points in the prednisolone group and 2.16 points in the placebo group (adjusted difference, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.40 to 0.00; P = .05 at an α = .001). No significant treatment effects were observed for duration or severity of other acute lower respiratory tract infection symptoms, duration of abnormal peak flow, antibiotic use, or nonserious adverse events. There were no serious adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: Oral corticosteroids should not be used for acute lower respiratory tract infection symptoms in adults without asthma because they do not reduce symptom duration or severity. Trial Registration: ISRCTN.com Identifier: ISRCTN57309858.

Feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of a within-consultation intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing for children presenting to primary care with acute respiratory tract infection and cough.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate recruitment and retention, data collection methods and the acceptability of a 'within-consultation' complex intervention designed to reduce antibiotic prescribing. DESIGN: Primary care feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 32 general practices in South West England recruiting children from October 2014 to April 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Children (aged 3 months to <12 years) with acute cough and respiratory tract infection (RTI). INTERVENTION: A web-based clinician-focussed clinical rule to predict risk of future hospitalisation and a printed leaflet with individualised child health information for carers, safety-netting advice and a treatment decision record. CONTROLS: Usual practice, with clinicians recording data on symptoms, signs and treatment decisions. RESULTS: Of 542 children invited, 501 (92.4%) consented to participate, a month ahead of schedule. Antibiotic prescribing data were collected for all children, follow-up data for 495 (98.8%) and the National Health Service resource use data for 494 (98.6%). The overall antibiotic prescribing rates for children's RTIs were 25% and 15.8% (p=0.018) in intervention and control groups, respectively. We found evidence of postrandomisation differential recruitment: the number of children recruited to the intervention arm was higher (292 vs 209); over half were recruited by prescribing nurses compared with less than a third in the control arm; children in the intervention arm were younger (median age 2 vs 3 years controls, p=0.03) and appeared to be more unwell than those in the control arm with higher respiratory rates (p<0.0001), wheeze prevalence (p=0.007) and global illness severity scores assessed by carers (p=0.045) and clinicians (p=0.01). Interviews with clinicians confirmed preferential recruitment of less unwell children to the trial, more so in the control arm. CONCLUSION: Differential recruitment may explain the paradoxical antibiotic prescribing rates. Future cluster level studies should consider designs which remove the need for individual consent postrandomisation and embed the intervention within electronic primary care records. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 23547970 UKCRN STUDY ID: 16891.

"What matters to someone who matters to me": using media campaigns with young people to prevent interpersonal violence and abuse.

BACKGROUND: While media campaigns are increasingly advocated as a strategy for preventing interpersonal violence and abuse, there is little evidence available regarding their effectiveness. SETTING AND DESIGN: Consultation with experts and young people was used as part of a UK scoping review to capture current thinking and practice on the use of media campaigns to address interpersonal violence and abuse among young people. Three focus groups and 16 interviews were undertaken with UK and international experts, and three focus groups were held with young people. MAIN RESULTS: Participants argued that, although campaigns initially needed to target whole populations of young people, subsequently, messages should be "granulated" for subgroups including young people already exposed to interpersonal violence and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young people. It was suggested that boys, as the most likely perpetrators of interpersonal violence and abuse, should be the primary target for campaigns. Young people and experts emphasized that drama and narrative could be used to evoke an emotional response that assisted learning. Authenticity emerged as important for young people and could be achieved by delivering messages through familiar characters and relevant stories. Involving young people themselves in creating and delivering campaigns strengthened authenticity. CONCLUSIONS: Practice is developing rapidly, and robust research is required to identify the key conditions for effective campaigns in this field. The emotional impact of campaigns in this field appears to be as important as the transmission of learning.

Agreeing the content of a patient-reported outcome measure for primary care: a Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: As the first contact for any health-related need, primary care clinicians often address multiple patient problems, with a range of possible outcomes. There is currently no patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) which covers this range of outcomes. Therefore, many research studies into primary care services use PROMs that do not capture the full impact of these services. OBJECTIVE: The study aim was to identify outcomes sought by primary care patients which clinicians can influence, thus providing the basis for a new primary care PROM. METHODS: We used a Delphi process starting with an outcomes list inductively derived in a prior qualitative study. Thirty-five experts were recruited into patient, clinician and academic panels. Participants rated each outcome on whether it was (i) relevant to health, (ii) influenced by primary care and (iii) detectable by patients. In each round, outcomes which passed/failed preset levels of agreement were accepted/rejected. Remaining outcomes continued to the next round. RESULTS: The process resulted in a set of outcomes occupying the domains of health status, health empowerment (internal and external), and health perceptions. Twenty-six of 36 outcomes were accepted for inclusion in a PROM. Primary care having insufficient influence was the main reason for exclusion. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first time PROM outcomes have been agreed through criteria which explicitly exclude outcomes less relevant to health, uninfluenced by primary care or undetected by patients. The PROM in development covers a unique set of outcomes and offers an opportunity for enhanced research into primary care.

Choice of Moisturiser for Eczema Treatment (COMET): feasibility study of a randomised controlled parallel group trial in children recruited from primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of 'leave on' emollients for children with eczema. DESIGN: Single-centre, pragmatic, 4-arm, observer-blinded, parallel, randomised feasibility trial. SETTING: General practices in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Children with eczema aged 1 month to <5 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome-proportion of parents who reported use of the allocated study emollient every day for the duration of follow-up (12 weeks). Other feasibility outcomes-participant recruitment and retention, data collection and completeness and blinding of observers to allocation. INTERVENTIONS: Aveeno lotion, Diprobase cream, Doublebase gel, Hydromol ointment. RESULTS: 197 children were recruited-107 by self-referral (mainly via practice mail-outs) and 90 by inconsultation (clinician consenting and randomising) pathways. Participants recruited inconsultation were younger, had more severe Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores and were more likely to withdraw than self-referrals. Parents of 20 (10%) of all the randomised participants reported using the allocated emollient daily for 84 days. The use of other non-study emollients was common. Completeness of data collected by parent-held daily diaries and at monthly study visits was good. Daily diaries were liked (81%) but mainly completed on paper rather than via electronic ('app') form. Major costs drivers were general practitioner consultations and eczema-related prescriptions. Observer unblinding was infrequent, and occurred at the baseline or first follow-up visit through accidental disclosure. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible in a primary care setting to recruit and randomise young children with eczema to emollients, follow them up and collect relevant trial data, while keeping observers blinded to their allocation. However, reported use of emollients (study and others) has design implications for future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN21828118/EudraCT2013-003001-26.

Cost-effectiveness of telehealth for patients with depression: evidence from the Healthlines randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a prevalent long-term condition that is associated with substantial resource use. Telehealth may offer a cost-effective means of supporting the management of people with depression. AIMS: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of a telehealth intervention ('Healthlines') for patients with depression. METHOD: A prospective patient-level economic evaluation conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial. Patients were recruited through primary care, and the intervention was delivered via a telehealth service. Participants with a confirmed diagnosis of depression and PHQ-9 score ≥10 were recruited from 43 English general practices. A series of up to 10 scripted, theory-led, telephone encounters with health information advisers supported participants to effect a behaviour change, use online resources, optimise medication and improve adherence. The intervention was delivered alongside usual care and was designed to support rather than duplicate primary care. Cost-effectiveness from a combined health and social care perspective was measured by net monetary benefit at the end of 12 months of follow-up, calculated from incremental cost and incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-consequence analysis included cost of lost productivity, participant out-of-pocket expenditure and the clinical outcome. RESULTS: A total of 609 participants were randomised - 307 to receive the Healthlines intervention plus usual care and 302 to receive usual care alone. Forty-five per cent of participants had missing quality of life data, 41% had missing cost data and 51% of participants had missing data on either cost or utility, or both. Multiple imputation was used for the base-case analysis. The intervention was associated with incremental mean per-patient National Health Service/personal social services cost of £168 (95% CI £43 to £294) and an incremental QALY gain of 0.001 (95% CI -0.023 to 0.026). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £132 630. Net monetary benefit at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 was -£143 (95% CI -£164 to -£122) and the probability of the intervention being cost-effective at this threshold value was 0.30. Productivity costs were higher in the intervention arm, but out-of-pocket expenses were lower. CONCLUSIONS: The Healthlines service was acceptable to patients as a means of condition management, and response to treatment after 4 months was higher for participants randomised to the intervention. However, the positive average intervention effect size was modest, and incremental costs were high relative to a small incremental QALY gain at 12 months. The intervention is not likely to be cost-effective in its current form. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None. COPYRIGHT AND USAGE: © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2016. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence.

Cost-effectiveness modelling of telehealth for patients with raised cardiovascular disease risk: evidence from a cohort simulation conducted alongside the Healthlines randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the long-term cost-effectiveness (measured as the ratio of incremental NHS cost to incremental quality-adjusted life years) of a telehealth intervention for patients with raised cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. DESIGN: A cohort simulation model developed as part of the economic evaluation conducted alongside the Healthlines randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Patients recruited through primary care, and intervention delivered via telehealth service. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with a 10-year CVD risk ≥20%, as measured by the QRISK2 algorithm, and with at least 1 modifiable risk factor, individually randomised from 42 general practices in England. INTERVENTION: A telehealth service delivered over a 12-month period. The intervention involved a series of responsive, theory-led encounters between patients and trained health information advisors who provided access to information resources and supported medication adherence and coordination of care. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness measured by net monetary benefit over the simulated lifetime of trial participants from a UK National Health Service perspective. RESULTS: The probability that the intervention was cost-effective depended on the duration of the effect of the intervention. The intervention was cost-effective with high probability if effects persisted over the lifetime of intervention recipients. The probability of cost-effectiveness was lower for shorter durations of effect. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was likely to be cost-effective under a lifetime perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN27508731; Results.

Cost-effectiveness of telehealth for patients with raised cardiovascular disease risk: evidence from the Healthlines randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of a telehealth intervention for primary care patients with raised cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. DESIGN: A prospective within-trial patient-level economic evaluation conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Patients recruited through primary care, and intervention delivered via telehealth service. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with a 10-year CVD risk ≥20%, as measured by the QRISK2 algorithm, with at least 1 modifiable risk factor. INTERVENTION: A series of up to 13 scripted, theory-led telehealth encounters with healthcare advisors, who supported participants to make behaviour change, use online resources, optimise medication and improve adherence. Participants in the control arm received usual care. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness measured by net monetary benefit at the end of 12 months of follow-up, calculated from incremental cost and incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Productivity impacts, participant out-of-pocket expenditure and the clinical outcome were presented in a cost-consequences framework. RESULTS: 641 participants were randomised-325 to receive the telehealth intervention in addition to usual care and 316 to receive only usual care. 18% of participants had missing data on either costs, utilities or both. Multiple imputation was used for the base case results. The intervention was associated with incremental mean per-patient National Health Service (NHS) costs of £138 (95% CI 66 to 211) and an incremental QALY gain of 0.012 (95% CI -0.001 to 0.026). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £10 859. Net monetary benefit at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY was £116 (95% CI -58 to 291), and the probability that the intervention was cost-effective at this threshold value was 0.77. Similar results were obtained from a complete case analysis. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to suggest that the Healthlines telehealth intervention was likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN27508731; Results. Prospectively registered 05 July 2012.