Acceptance and Commitment Therapy plus usual care for improving quality of life in people with motor neuron disease (COMMEND): a multicentre, parallel, randomised controlled trial in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Motor neuron disease is a progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease for which there is no cure. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is a psychological therapy incorporating acceptance, mindfulness, and behaviour change techniques. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ACT plus usual care, compared with usual care alone, for improving quality of life in people with motor neuron disease. METHODS: We conducted a parallel, multicentre, two-arm randomised controlled trial in 16 UK motor neuron disease care centres or clinics. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of definite or laboratory-supported probable, clinically probable, or possible familial or sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; progressive muscular atrophy; or primary lateral sclerosis; which met the World Federation of Neurology's El Escorial diagnostic criteria. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive up to eight sessions of ACT adapted for people with motor neuron disease plus usual care or usual care alone by a web-based system, stratified by site. Participants were followed up at 6 months and 9 months post-randomisation. Outcome assessors and trial statisticians were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was quality of life using the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire-Revised (MQOL-R) at 6 months post-randomisation. Primary analyses were multi-level modelling and modified intention to treat among participants with available data. This trial was pre-registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN12655391). FINDINGS: Between Sept 18, 2019, and Aug 31, 2022, 435 people with motor neuron disease were approached for the study, of whom 206 (47%) were assessed for eligibility, and 191 were recruited. 97 (51%) participants were randomly assigned to ACT plus usual care and 94 (49%) were assigned to usual care alone. 80 (42%) of 191 participants were female and 111 (58%) were male, and the mean age was 63·1 years (SD 11·0). 155 (81%) participants had primary outcome data at 6 months post-randomisation. After controlling for baseline scores, age, sex, and therapist clustering, ACT plus usual care was superior to usual care alone for quality of life at 6 months (adjusted mean difference on the MQOL-R of 0·66 [95% CI 0·22-1·10]; d=0·46 [0·16-0·77]; p=0·0031). Moderate effect sizes were clinically meaningful. 75 adverse events were reported, 38 of which were serious, but no adverse events were deemed to be associated with the intervention. INTERPRETATION: ACT plus usual care is clinically effective for maintaining or improving quality of life in people with motor neuron disease. As further evidence emerges confirming these findings, health-care providers should consider how access to ACT, adapted for the specific needs of people with motor neuron disease, could be provided within motor neuron disease clinical services. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment and Motor Neurone Disease Association.

Cost-effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy for people living with motor neuron disease, and their health-related quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Given the degenerative nature of the condition, people living with motor neuron disease (MND) experience high levels of psychological distress. The purpose of this research was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), adapted for the specific needs of this population, for improving quality of life. METHODS: A trial-based cost-utility analysis over a 9-month period was conducted comparing ACT plus usual care (n = 97) versus usual care alone (n = 94) from the perspective of the National Health Service. In the primary analysis, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were computed using health utilities generated from the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were also carried out. RESULTS: Difference in costs was statistically significant between the two arms, driven mainly by the intervention costs. Effects measured by EQ-5D-5L were not statistically significantly different between the two arms. The incremental cost-effectiveness was above the £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained threshold used in the UK. However, the difference in effects was statistically significant when measured by the McGill Quality of Life-Revised (MQOL-R) questionnaire. The intervention was cost-effective in a subgroup experiencing medium deterioration in motor neuron symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the intervention being cost-ineffective in the primary analysis, the significant difference in the effects measured by MQOL-R, the low costs of the intervention, the results in the subgroup analysis, and the fact that ACT was shown to improve the quality of life for people living with MND, suggest that ACT could be incorporated into MND clinical services.

Incorporating frailty to address the key challenges to geriatric economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The multidimensional and dynamically complex process of ageing presents key challenges to economic evaluation of geriatric interventions, including: (1) accounting for indirect, long-term effects of a geriatric shock such as a fall; (2) incorporating a wide range of societal, non-health outcomes such as informal caregiver burden; and (3) accounting for heterogeneity within the demographic group. Measures of frailty aim to capture the multidimensional and syndromic nature of geriatric health. Using a case study of community-based falls prevention, this article explores how incorporating a multivariate frailty index in a decision model can help address the above key challenges. METHODS: A conceptual structure of the relationship between geriatric shocks and frailty was developed. This included three key associations involving frailty: (A) the shock-frailty feedback loop; (B) the secondary effects of shock via frailty; and (C) association between frailty and intervention access. A case study of economic modelling of community-based falls prevention for older persons aged 60 + was used to show how parameterising these associations contributed to addressing the above three challenges. The English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) was the main data source for parameterisation. A new 52-item multivariate frailty index was generated from ELSA. The main statistical methods were multivariate logistic and linear regressions. Estimated regression coefficients were inputted into a discrete individual simulation with annual cycles to calculate the continuous variable value or probability of binary event given individuals' characteristics. RESULTS: All three conceptual associations, in their parameterised forms, contributed to addressing challenge (1). Specifically, by worsening the frailty progression, falls incidence in the model increased the risk of falling in subsequent cycles and indirectly impacted the trajectories and levels of EQ-5D-3 L, mortality risk, and comorbidity care costs. Intervention access was positively associated with frailty such that the greater access to falls prevention by frailer individuals dampened the falls-frailty feedback loop. Association (B) concerning the secondary effects of falls via frailty was central to addressing challenge (2). Using this association, the model was able to estimate how falls prevention generated via its impact on frailty paid and unpaid productivity gains, out-of-pocket care expenditure reduction, and informal caregiving cost reduction. For challenge (3), frailty captured the variations within demographic groups of key model outcomes including EQ-5D-3 L, QALY, and all-cause care costs. Frailty itself was shown to have a social gradient such that it mediated socially inequitable distributions of frailty-associated outcomes. CONCLUSION: The frailty-based conceptual structure and parameterisation methods significantly improved upon the methods previously employed by falls prevention models to address the key challenges for geriatric economic evaluation. The conceptual structure is applicable to other geriatric and non-geriatric intervention areas and should inform the data selection and statistical methods to parameterise structurally valid economic models of geriatric interventions.

Outpatient paracentesis for the management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: study protocol for the STOP-OHSS randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is the most significant short-term complication of pharmacological ovarian stimulation. Symptoms range from mild abdominal discomfort to rare complications such as renal failure, thromboembolism and respiratory distress syndrome.Currently, clinical practice typically involves monitoring the patient until the condition becomes severe, at which point they are admitted to hospital, where drainage of ascitic fluid (paracentesis) may take place. Preliminary studies have indicated that earlier outpatient paracentesis may reduce the progression of OHSS and prevent hospitalisation in women. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This UK, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, adaptive (group sequential with one interim analysis), open-label, superiority, confirmatory, group sequential, individually randomised controlled trial, with internal pilot will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness and safety of outpatient paracentesis versus conservative management (usual care) for moderate or severe OHSS. 224 women from 20 National Health Service and private fertility units will be randomised (1:1) and followed up for up to 13.5 months. The primary outcome is the rate of OHSS related hospital admission of at least 24 hours within 28 days postrandomisation. The primary analysis will be an intention to treat with difference in hospitalisation rates as measure of treatment effect. Secondary outcomes include time to resolution of symptoms, patient satisfaction, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. A qualitative substudy will facilitate the feasibility of recruitment. Participant recruitment commenced in June 2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: London-Southeast Research Ethics Committee approved the protocol (reference: 22/LO/0015). Findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and abstracts to relevant national and international conferences, as well as being disseminated to trial participants and patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN71978064.

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for people living with motor neuron disease: an uncontrolled feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Motor neuron disease (MND) is a fatal, progressive neurodegenerative disease that causes progressive weakening and wasting of limb, bulbar, thoracic and abdominal muscles. Clear evidence-based guidance on how psychological distress should be managed in people living with MND (plwMND) is lacking. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is a form of psychological therapy that may be particularly suitable for this population. However, to the authors' knowledge, no study to date has evaluated ACT for plwMND. Consequently, the primary aim of this uncontrolled feasibility study was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of ACT for improving the psychological health of plwMND. METHODS: PlwMND aged ≥ 18 years were recruited from 10 UK MND Care Centres/Clinics. Participants received up to 8 one-to-one ACT sessions, developed specifically for plwMND, plus usual care. Co-primary feasibility and acceptability outcomes were uptake (≥ 80% of the target sample [N = 28] recruited) and initial engagement with the intervention (≥ 70% completing ≥ 2 sessions). Secondary outcomes included measures of quality of life, anxiety, depression, disease-related functioning, health status and psychological flexibility in plwMND and quality of life and burden in caregivers. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and 6 months. RESULTS: Both a priori indicators of success were met: 29 plwMND (104%) were recruited and 76% (22/29) attended ≥ 2 sessions. Attrition at 6-months was higher than anticipated (8/29, 28%), but only two dropouts were due to lack of acceptability of the intervention. Acceptability was further supported by good satisfaction with therapy and session attendance. Data were possibly suggestive of small improvements in anxiety and psychological quality of life from baseline to 6 months in plwMND, despite a small but expected deterioration in disease-related functioning and health status. CONCLUSIONS: There was good evidence of acceptability and feasibility. Limitations included the lack of a control group and small sample size, which complicate interpretation of findings. A fully powered RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ACT for plwMND is underway. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was pre-registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN12655391).

Economic model of community-based falls prevention: seeking methodological solutions in evaluating the efficiency and equity of UK guideline recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Falls significantly harm geriatric health and impose substantial costs on care systems and wider society. Decision modelling can inform the commissioning of falls prevention but face methodological challenges, including: (1) capturing non-health outcomes and societal intervention costs; (2) considering heterogeneity and dynamic complexity; (3) considering theories of human behaviour and implementation; and (4) considering issues of equity. This study seeks methodological solutions in developing a credible economic model of community-based falls prevention for older persons (aged 60 +) to inform local falls prevention commissioning as recommended by UK guidelines. METHODS: A framework for conceptualising public health economic models was followed. Conceptualisation was conducted in Sheffield as a representative local health economy. Model parameterisation used publicly available data including English Longitudinal Study of Ageing and UK-based falls prevention trials. Key methodological developments in operationalising a discrete individual simulation model included: (1) incorporating societal outcomes including productivity, informal caregiving cost, and private care expenditure; (2) parameterising dynamic falls-frailty feedback loop whereby falls influence long-term outcomes via frailty progression; (3) incorporating three parallel prevention pathways with unique eligibility and implementation conditions; and (4) assessing equity impacts through distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) and individual-level lifetime outcomes (e.g., number reaching 'fair innings'). Guideline-recommended strategy (RC) was compared against usual care (UC). Probabilistic sensitivity, subgroup, and scenario analyses were conducted. RESULTS: RC had 93.4% probability of being cost-effective versus UC at cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained under 40-year societal cost-utility analysis. It increased productivity and reduced private expenditure and informal caregiving cost, but productivity gain and private expenditure reduction were outstripped by increases in intervention time opportunity costs and co-payments, respectively. RC reduced inequality delineated by socioeconomic status quartile. Gains in individual-level lifetime outcomes were small. Younger geriatric age groups can cross-subsidise their older peers for whom RC is cost-ineffective. Removing the falls-frailty feedback made RC no longer efficient or equitable versus UC. CONCLUSION: Methodological advances addressed several key challenges associated with falls prevention modelling. RC appears cost-effective and equitable versus UC. However, further analyses should confirm whether RC is optimal versus other potential strategies and investigate feasibility issues including capacity implications.

The effect of a specialist paramedic primary care rotation on appropriate non-conveyance decisions (SPRAINED) study: a controlled interrupted time series analysis.

Introduction: NHS ambulance service non-conveyance rates in the United Kingdom are around 30%, despite an increase in non-emergency cases and a national policy of integrating urgent and emergency care to provide patients with the 'right care, in the right place, at the right time'. Emergency department overcrowding is a significant issue for patients, resulting in poorer quality of care, increased healthcare costs and potentially, increased mortality. It also contributes to increased ambulance turnaround times. Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust (YAS) introduced a specialist paramedic (SP) to improve the management of lower acuity cases, but non-conveyance rates in this group have not been as high as expected.In 2018, Health Education England funded a pilot scheme to rotate paramedics into a range of healthcare settings and in YAS, 10 SPs undertook a 10-week placement in a GP practice. This study aimed to evaluate whether a primary care placement appropriately increased the level and trend of non-conveyance decisions made by SPs following a 10-week GP placement, in a cost-effective manner. Methods: We conducted a controlled interrupted time series analysis using data from incidents between 1 June 2017 and 31 December 2019, to study appropriate non-conveyance rates before and after a GP placement. A costing analysis, examining the average cost per appropriate non-conveyance achieved for patients receiving care from intervention group SPs pre- and post-placement, was also conducted. Results: A total of 7349 incidents attended by intervention group SPs were eligible for inclusion. Following removal of cases with missing data, 5537 (75.3%) cases remained. Post-placement, the intervention group demonstrated an increase in appropriate non-conveyance rate of 35.0% (95% CI 23.8%-46.2%), and a reduction in the trend of appropriate non-conveyance of -1.2% (95% CI -2.8%-0.5%), relative to the control group.Post-placement, the cost per appropriate non-conveyance for intervention group SPs was a mean of £509.41 (95% bootstrapped CI £454.92-£564.26) versus £1257.81 (95% bootstrapped CI £1233.42-£1283.95) for the same group in the pre-placement phase. Conclusion: In this single UK NHS ambulance service study, we found a clinically important and statistically significant increase in appropriate non-conveyance rates by SPs who had completed a 10-week GP placement. This improvement persisted for the 12-month period following the placement and demonstrated cost savings compared to usual care.

A randomised controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy plus usual care compared to usual care alone for improving psychological health in people with motor neuron disease (COMMEND): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Motor neuron disease (MND) is a rapidly progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease that predominantly affects motor neurons from the motor cortex to the spinal cord and causes progressive wasting and weakening of bulbar, limb, abdominal and thoracic muscles. Prognosis is poor and median survival is 2-3 years following symptom onset. Psychological distress is relatively common in people living with MND. However, formal psychotherapy is not routinely part of standard care within MND Care Centres/clinics in the UK, and clear evidence-based guidance on improving the psychological health of people living with MND is lacking. Previous research suggests that Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) may be particularly suitable for people living with MND and may help improve their psychological health. AIMS: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ACT modified for MND plus usual multidisciplinary care (UC) in comparison to UC alone for improving psychological health in people living with MND. METHODS: The COMMEND trial is a multi-centre, assessor-blind, parallel, two-arm RCT with a 10-month internal pilot phase. 188 individuals aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of definite, laboratory-supported probable, clinically probable, or possible familial or sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and additionally the progressive muscular atrophy and primary lateral sclerosis variants, will be recruited from approximately 14 UK-based MND Care Centres/clinics and via self-referral. Participants will be randomly allocated to receive up to eight 1:1 sessions of ACT plus UC or UC alone by an online randomisation system. Participants will complete outcome measures at baseline and at 6- and 9-months post-randomisation. The primary outcome will be quality of life at six months. Secondary outcomes will include depression, anxiety, psychological flexibility, health-related quality of life, adverse events, ALS functioning, survival at nine months, satisfaction with therapy, resource use and quality-adjusted life years. Primary analyses will be by intention to treat and data will be analysed using multi-level modelling. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide definitive evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ACT plus UC in comparison to UC alone for improving psychological health in people living with MND. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN12655391. Registered 17 July 2017, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12655391 . PROTOCOL VERSION: 3.1 (10/06/2020).

Optimal pharmacotherapy pathway in adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: the OPTION-DM RCT.

BACKGROUND: The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not based on robust evidence, as the treatments and their combinations have not been directly compared. OBJECTIVES: To determine the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. DESIGN: A randomised crossover trial with health economic analysis. SETTING: Twenty-one secondary care centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain with a 7-day average self-rated pain score of ≥ 4 points (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to three commonly used treatment pathways: (1) amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, (2) duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin and (3) pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline. Participants and research teams were blinded to treatment allocation, using over-encapsulated capsules and matching placebos. Site pharmacists were unblinded. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average 24-hour Numeric Rating Scale score between pathways, measured during the final week of each pathway. Secondary end points included 7-day average daily Numeric Rating Scale pain score at week 6 between monotherapies, quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-36 items), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score, the proportion of patients achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction, Brief Pain Inventory - Modified Short Form items scores, Insomnia Severity Index score, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory score, tolerability (scale 0-10), Patient Global Impression of Change score at week 16 and patients' preferred treatment pathway at week 50. Adverse events and serious adverse events were recorded. A within-trial cost-utility analysis was carried out to compare treatment pathways using incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS and social care perspective. RESULTS: A total of 140 participants were randomised from 13 UK centres, 130 of whom were included in the analyses. Pain score at week 16 was similar between the arms, with a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin and a mean difference of 0.0 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.4 to 0.4 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. Results for tolerability, discontinuation and quality of life were similar. The adverse events were predictable for each drug. Combination therapy (weeks 6-16) was associated with a further reduction in Numeric Rating Scale pain score (mean 1.0 points, 98.3% confidence interval 0.6 to 1.3 points) compared with those who remained on monotherapy (mean 0.2 points, 98.3% confidence interval -0.1 to 0.5 points). The pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline pathway had the fewest monotherapy discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events and was most commonly preferred (most commonly preferred by participants: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, 24%; duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin, 33%; pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, 43%; p = 0.26). No single pathway was superior in cost-effectiveness. The incremental gains in quality-adjusted life-years were small for each pathway comparison [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -0.002 (95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.007) quality-adjusted life-years, amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline -0.006 (95% confidence interval -0.002 to 0.014) quality-adjusted life-years and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline 0.007 (95% confidence interval 0.0002 to 0.015) quality-adjusted life-years] and incremental costs over 16 weeks were similar [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -£113 (95% confidence interval -£381 to £90), amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £155 (95% confidence interval -£37 to £625) and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £141 (95% confidence interval -£13 to £398)]. LIMITATIONS: Although there was no placebo arm, there is strong evidence for the use of each study medication from randomised placebo-controlled trials. The addition of a placebo arm would have increased the duration of this already long and demanding trial and it was not felt to be ethically justifiable. FUTURE WORK: Future research should explore (1) variations in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management at the practice level, (2) how OPTION-DM (Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus) trial findings can be best implemented, (3) why some patients respond to a particular drug and others do not and (4) what options there are for further treatments for those patients on combination treatment with inadequate pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: The three treatment pathways appear to give comparable patient outcomes at similar costs, suggesting that the optimal treatment may depend on patients' preference in terms of side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered as ISRCTN17545443 and EudraCT 2016-003146-89. 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. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The number of people with diabetes is growing rapidly in the UK and is predicted to rise to over 5 million by 2025. Diabetes causes nerve damage that can lead to severe painful symptoms in the feet, legs and hands. One-quarter of all people with diabetes experience these symptoms, known as 'painful diabetic neuropathy'. Current individual medications provide only partial benefit, and in only around half of patients. The individual drugs, and their combinations, have not been compared directly against each other to see which is best. We conducted a study to see which treatment pathway would be best for patients with painful diabetic neuropathy. The study included three treatment pathways using combinations of amitriptyline, duloxetine and pregabalin. Patients received all three treatment pathways (i.e. amitriptyline treatment for 6 weeks and pregabalin added if needed for a further 10 weeks, duloxetine treatment for 6 weeks and pregabalin added if needed for a further 10 weeks and pregabalin treatment for 6 weeks and amitriptyline added if needed for a further 10 weeks); however, the order of the treatment pathways was decided at random. We compared the level of pain that participants experienced in each treatment pathway to see which worked best. On average, people said that their pain was similar after each of the three treatments and their combinations. However, two treatments in combination helped some patients with additional pain relief if they only partially responded to one. People also reported improved quality of life and sleep with the treatments, but these were similar for all the treatments. In the health economic analysis, the value for money and quality of life were similar for each pathway, and this resulted in uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness conclusions, with no one pathway being more cost-effective than the others. The treatments had different side effects, however; pregabalin appeared to make more people feel dizzy, duloxetine made more people nauseous and amitriptyline resulted in more people having a dry mouth. The pregabalin supplemented by amitriptyline pathway had the smallest number of treatment discontinuations due to side effects and may be the safest for patients.

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.

Systematic review and critical methodological appraisal of community-based falls prevention economic models.

BACKGROUND: Falls impose significant health and economic burdens on community-dwelling older persons. Decision modelling can inform commissioning of alternative falls prevention strategies. Several methodological challenges arise when modelling public health interventions including community-based falls prevention. This study aims to conduct a systematic review (SR) to: systematically identify community-based falls prevention economic models; synthesise and critically appraise how the models handled key methodological challenges associated with public health modelling; and suggest areas for further methodological research. METHODS: The SR followed the 2021 PRISMA reporting guideline and covered the period 2003-2020 and 12 academic databases and grey literature. The extracted methodological features of included models were synthesised by their relevance to the following challenges: (1) capturing non-health outcomes and societal intervention costs; (2) considering heterogeneity and dynamic complexity; (3) considering theories of human behaviour and implementation; and (4) considering equity issues. The critical appraisal assessed the prevalence of each feature across models, then appraised the methods used to incorporate the feature. The methodological strengths and limitations stated by the modellers were used as indicators of desirable modelling practice and scope for improvement, respectively. The methods were also compared against those suggested in the broader empirical and methodological literature. Areas of further methodological research were suggested based on appraisal results. RESULTS: 46 models were identified. Comprehensive incorporation of non-health outcomes and societal intervention costs was infrequent. The assessments of heterogeneity and dynamic complexity were limited; subgroup delineation was confined primarily to demographics and binary disease/physical status. Few models incorporated heterogeneity in intervention implementation level, efficacy and cost. Few dynamic variables other than age and falls history were incorporated to characterise the trajectories of falls risk and general health/frailty. Intervention sustainability was frequently based on assumptions; few models estimated the economic/health returns from improved implementation. Seven models incorporated ethnicity- and severity-based subgroups but did not estimate the equity-efficiency trade-offs. Sixteen methodological research suggestions were made. CONCLUSION: Existing community-based falls prevention models contain methodological limitations spanning four challenge areas relevant for public health modelling. There is scope for further methodological research to inform the development of falls prevention and other public health models.

A Qualitative Investigation of Older Adults' Conceptualization of Quality of Life and a Think-Aloud Content Validation of the EQ-5D-5L, SF-12v2, Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale, and Office of National Statistics-4.

OBJECTIVES: Old age is characterized by declining health, comorbidities, and increasing health and social care service use. Traditionally, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including the EQ-5D-5L and SF-12v2 have focused on health. Nevertheless, aged care often aims to improve broader elements of quality of life (QoL), captured by well-being measures, such as the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS) and Office of National Statistics-4 (ONS-4). This study investigates older adults' conceptualization of QoL and the content validity of the EQ-5D-5L, SF-12v2, WEMWBS, and ONS-4 in measuring their QoL. METHODS: Qualitative cognitive think-aloud interviews were undertaken with older adults aged 75+, exploring their views on what was important to QoL and, for each measure, the relevance, acceptability, and interpretation of items; suitability of response options; and the comprehensiveness of the measure. Conceptualization of QoL was analyzed thematically and content validity using framework analysis. RESULTS: Twenty interviews were undertaken. Older adults' conceptualization of QoL centered on health, ability to perform usual activities, social contact, and emotional functioning. Possible response shift was observed, as older adults assessed their health relative to lower health expectations at their age or to people in worse states. Participants questioned the relevance of negatively phrased mental items and often preferred the functioning-focused EQ-5D-5L to more subjective ONS-4 and WEMWBS items. Domains suggested to improve comprehensiveness included social contact, coping, security, dignity, and control. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are useful to researchers developing new PROMs for older adults or for the developers of included PROMs considering permanently adapting or bolting-on domains to improve content validity in older adults.

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.

An Investigation of Age-Related Differential Item Functioning in the EQ-5D-5L Using Item Response Theory and Logistic Regression.

OBJECTIVES: In economic evaluations, quality of life is measured using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), such as the EQ-5D-5L. A key assumption for the validity of PROMs data is measurement invariance, which requires that PROM items and response options are interpreted the same across respondents. If measurement invariance is violated, PROMs exhibit differential item functioning (DIF), whereby individuals from different groups with the same underlying health respond differently, potentially biasing scores. One important group of healthcare consumers who have been shown to have different views or priorities over health is older adults. This study investigates age-related DIF in the EQ-5D-5L using item response theory (IRT) and ordinal logistic regression approaches. METHODS: Multiple-group IRT models were used to investigate DIF, by assessing whether older adults aged 65+ years and younger adults aged 18 to 64 years with the same underlying health had different IRT parameter estimates and expected item and EQ-5D-5L level sum scores. Ordinal logistic regression was also used to examine whether DIF resulted in meaningful differences in expected EQ level sum scores. Effect sizes examined whether DIF indicated meaningful score differences. RESULTS: The anxiety/depression item exhibited meaningful DIF in both approaches, with older adults less likely to report problems. Pain/discomfort and mobility exhibited DIF to a lesser extent. CONCLUSIONS: When using the EQ-5D-5L to evaluate interventions and make resource allocation decisions, scoring bias due to DIF should be controlled for to prevent inefficient service provision, where the most cost-effective services are not provided, which could be detrimental to patients and the efficiency of health budgets.

Economic models of community-based falls prevention: a systematic review with subsequent commissioning and methodological recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Falls impose significant health and economic burdens among older populations, making their prevention a priority. Health economic models can inform whether the falls prevention intervention represents a cost-effective use of resources and/or meet additional objectives such as reducing social inequities of health. This study aims to conduct a systematic review (SR) of community-based falls prevention economic models to: (i) systematically identify such models; (ii) synthesise and critically appraise modelling methods/results; and (iii) formulate methodological and commissioning recommendations. METHODS: The SR followed PRISMA 2021 guideline, covering the period 2003-2020, 12 academic databases and grey literature. A study was included if it: targeted community-dwelling persons aged 60 and over and/or aged 50-59 at high falls risk; evaluated intervention(s) designed to reduce falls or fall-related injuries; against any comparator(s); reported outcomes of economic evaluation; used decision modelling; and had English full text. Extracted data fields were grouped by: (A) model and evaluation overview; (B) falls epidemiology features; (C) falls prevention intervention features; and (D) evaluation methods and outcomes. A checklist for falls prevention economic evaluations was used to assess reporting/methodological quality. Extracted fields were narratively synthesised and critically appraised to inform methodological and commissioning recommendations. The SR protocol is registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021232147). RESULTS: Forty-six models were identified. The most prevalent issue according to the checklist was non-incorporation of all-cause care costs. Based on general population, lifetime models conducting cost-utility analyses, seven interventions produced favourable ICERs relative to no intervention under the cost-effectiveness threshold of US$41,900 (£30,000) per QALY gained; of these, results for (1) combined multifactorial and environmental intervention, (2) physical activity promotion for women, and (3) targeted vitamin D supplementation were from validated models. Decision-makers should explore the transferability and reaches of interventions in their local settings. There was some evidence that exercise and home modification exacerbate existing social inequities of health. Sixteen methodological recommendations were formulated. CONCLUSION: There is significant methodological heterogeneity across falls prevention models. This SR's appraisals of modelling methods should facilitate the conceptualisation of future falls prevention models. Its synthesis of evaluation outcomes, though limited to published evidence, could inform commissioning.

Economic evaluation of community-based falls prevention interventions for older populations: a systematic methodological overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Falls impose significant health and economic burdens on older people. The volume of falls prevention economic evaluations has increased, the findings from which have been synthesised by systematic reviews (SRs). Such SRs can inform commissioning and design of future evaluations; however, their findings can be misleading and incomplete, dependent on their pre-specified criteria. This study aims to conduct a systematic overview (SO) to: (1) systematically identify SRs of community-based falls prevention economic evaluations; (2) describe the methodology and findings of SRs; (3) critically appraise the methodology of SRs; and (4) suggest commissioning recommendations based on SO findings. METHODS: The SO followed the PRISMA guideline and the Cochrane guideline on SO, covering 12 databases and grey literature for the period 2003-2020. Eligible studies were SRs with 50% or more included studies that were economic evaluations of community-based falls prevention (against any comparator) for older persons (aged 60 +) or high-risk individuals aged 50-59. Identified SRs' aims, search strategies and results, extracted data fields, quality assessment methods/results, and commissioning and research recommendations were synthesised. The comprehensiveness of previous SRs' data synthesis was judged against criteria drawn from literature on falls prevention/public health economic evaluation. Outcomes of general population, lifetime decision models were re-analysed to inform commissioning recommendations. The SO protocol is registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021234379). RESULTS: Seven SRs were identified, which extracted 8 to 33 data fields from 44 economic evaluations. Four economic evaluation methodological/reporting quality checklists were used; three SRs narratively synthesised methodological features to varying extent and focus. SRs generally did not appraise decision modelling features, including methods for characterising dynamic complexity of falls risk and intervention need. Their commissioning recommendations were based mainly on cost-per-unit ratios (e.g., incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) and neglected aggregate impact. There is model-based evidence of multifactorial and environmental interventions, home assessment and modification and Tai Chi being cost-effective but also the risk that they exacerbate social inequities of health. CONCLUSIONS: Current SRs of falls prevention economic evaluations do not holistically inform commissioning and evaluation. Accounting for broader decisional factors and methodological nuances of economic evaluations, particularly decision models, is needed.

Endometrial scratch to increase live birth rates in women undergoing first-time in vitro fertilisation: RCT and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In vitro fertilisation is a widely used reproductive technique that can be undertaken with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The endometrial scratch procedure is an in vitro fertilisation 'add-on' that is sometimes provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle, but there is a lack of evidence to support its use. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of endometrial scratch compared with treatment as usual in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle (the 'Endometrial Scratch Trial') and (2) to undertake a systematic review to combine the results of the Endometrial Scratch Trial with those of previous trials in which endometrial scratch was provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, open-label, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) via a web-based system to receive endometrial scratch or treatment as usual using stratified block randomisation. The systematic review involved searching electronic databases (undertaken in January 2020) and clinicaltrials.gov (undertaken in September 2020) for relevant trials. SETTING: Sixteen UK fertility units. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 18-37 years, inclusive, undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle. The exclusion criteria included severe endometriosis, body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m2 and previous trauma to the endometrium. INTERVENTIONS: Endometrial scratch was undertaken in the mid-luteal phase of the menstrual cycle prior to in vitro fertilisation, and involved inserting a pipelle into the cavity of the uterus and rotating and withdrawing it three or four times. The endometrial scratch group then received usual in vitro fertilisation treatment. The treatment-as-usual group received usual in vitro fertilisation only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was live birth after completion of 24 weeks' gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection. Secondary outcomes included implantation, pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, pain and tolerability of the procedure, adverse events and treatment costs. RESULTS: One thousand and forty-eight (30.3%) women were randomised to treatment as usual (n = 525) or endometrial scratch (n = 523) and were followed up between July 2016 and October 2019 and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the endometrial scratch group, 453 (86.6%) women received the endometrial scratch procedure. A total of 494 (94.1%) women in the treatment-as-usual group and 497 (95.0%) women in the endometrial scratch group underwent in vitro fertilisation. The live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the treatment-as-usual group and 38.6% (202/523) in the endometrial scratch group: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval -4.4% to 7.4%; p = 0.621). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes. Safety events were comparable across groups. No neonatal deaths were recorded. The cost per successful live birth was £11.90 per woman (95% confidence interval -£134 to £127). The pooled results of this trial and of eight similar trials found no evidence of a significant effect of endometrial scratch in increasing live birth rate (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.22). LIMITATIONS: A sham endometrial scratch procedure was not undertaken, but it is unlikely that doing so would have influenced the results, as objective fertility outcomes were used. A total of 9.2% of women randomised to receive endometrial scratch did not undergo the procedure, which may have slightly diluted the treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support the theory that performing endometrial scratch in the mid-luteal phase in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle significantly improves live birth rate, although the procedure was well tolerated and safe. We recommend that endometrial scratch is not undertaken in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN23800982. 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. 26, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The endometrial scratch is a simple procedure that involves 'scratching' the lining of the womb (the endometrium). Several small studies have shown that undertaking this before the first in vitro fertilisation cycle may improve live birth rates; however, other studies have contradicted this. This large study was carried out to confirm whether or not having an endometrial scratch before the first in vitro fertilisation cycle would increase the number of women having a live birth compared with those having 'usual' in vitro fertilisation treatment (known as the 'control' group). We collected information about pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, pain during the procedure and costs of treatment to find out if there were any meaningful differences. A total of 1048 women aged between 18 and 37 years were randomly allocated to the two groups, so participants had a 50% chance of having the endometrial scratch. Women were followed up throughout their pregnancy to ascertain the outcome of their in vitro fertilisation cycle. Although the live birth rate was 1.5% higher in the endometrial scratch group (38.6%) than in the control group (37.1%), the difference was not large enough to show any benefit of having the procedure. Other outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the procedure was safe and tolerable. We found that the cost of treatment was, on average, £316 per participant higher in the group that received endometrial scratch than in the control group; the difference was not large enough to show that receiving endometrial scratch was more cost-effective. We combined the results of this trial with those of previous trials that looked to answer a similar question, and found that, overall, the endometrial scratch procedure does not enhance the chances of achieving a live birth. We conclude that endometrial scratch before first-time in vitro fertilisation does not improve the outcome of treatment, and we recommend that this procedure is not undertaken prior to a first cycle of in vitro fertilisation.

Community Ageing Research 75+ (CARE75+) REMOTE study: a remote model of recruitment and assessment of the health, well-being and social circumstances of older people.

INTRODUCTION: The Community Ageing Research 75+ (CARE75+) study is a longitudinal cohort study collecting extensive health and social data, with a focus on frailty, independence and quality of life in older age. CARE75+ was the first international experimental frailty research cohort designed using trial within cohorts (TwiCs) methodology, aligning epidemiological research with clinical trial evaluation of interventions to improve the health and well-being of older people. CARE75+ REMOTE is an extension of CARE75+ using a remote model that does not require face-to-face interactions for data collection in the current circumstances of a global pandemic and will provide an efficient, sustainable data collection model. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Prospective cohort study using TwiCs. One thousand community-dwelling older people (≥75 years) will be recruited from UK general practices by telephone. Exclusions include: nursing home/care home residents; those with an estimated life expectancy of 3 months or less; and people receiving palliative care. DATA COLLECTION: Assessments will be conducted by telephone, web-submission or postal questionnaire: baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months and 36 months. Measures include activities of daily living, mood, health-related quality of life, comorbidities, medications, frailty, informal care, healthcare and social care service use. Consent will be sought for data linkage and invitations to additional studies (sub-studies). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: CARE75+ was approved by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee Yorkshire and the Humber-Bradford Leeds 10 October 2014 (14/YH/1120). CARE75+ REMOTE (amendment 13) was approved on the 18th November 2020. Consent is sought if an individual is willing to participate and has capacity to provide informed consent. Consultee assent is sought if an individual lacks capacity. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences. Results will be summarised and disseminated to study participants via newsletters, local engagement events and on a bespoke website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16588124.

Qualitative research to inform economic modelling: a case study in older people's views on implementing the NICE falls prevention guideline.

BACKGROUND: High prevalence of falls among older persons makes falls prevention a public health priority. Yet community-based falls prevention face complexity in implementation and any commissioning strategy should be subject to economic evaluation to ensure cost-effective use of healthcare resources. The study aims to capture the views of older people on implementing the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline on community-based falls prevention and explore how the qualitative data can be used to inform commissioning strategies and conceptual modelling of falls prevention economic evaluation in the local area of Sheffield. METHODS: Focus group and interview participants (n = 27) were recruited from Sheffield, England, and comprised falls prevention service users and eligible non-users of varying falls risks. Topics concerned key components of the NICE-recommended falls prevention pathway, including falls risk screening, multifactorial risk assessment and treatment uptake and adherence. Views on other topics concerning falls prevention were also invited. Framework analysis was applied for data analysis, involving data familiarisation, identifying themes, indexing, charting and mapping and interpretation. The qualitative data were mapped to three frameworks: (1) facilitators and barriers to implementing the NICE-recommended pathway and contextual factors; (2) intervention-related causal mechanisms for formulating commissioning strategies spanning context, priority setting, need, supply and demand; and (3) methodological and evaluative challenges for public health economic modelling. RESULTS: Two cross-component factors were identified: health motives of older persons; and professional competence. Participants highlighted the need for intersectoral approaches and prioritising the vulnerable groups. The local commissioning strategy should consider the socioeconomic, linguistic, geographical, legal and cultural contexts, priority setting challenges, supply-side mechanisms spanning provider, organisation, funding and policy (including intersectoral) and health and non-health demand motives. Methodological and evaluative challenges identified included: incorporating non-health outcomes and societal intervention costs; considering dynamic complexity; considering social determinants of health; and conducting equity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Holistic qualitative research can inform how commissioned falls prevention pathways can be feasible and effective. Qualitative data can inform commissioning strategies and conceptual modelling for economic evaluations of falls prevention and other geriatric interventions. This would improve the structural validity of quantitative models used to inform geriatric public health policies.

A breakthrough series collaborative to increase patient participation with hemodialysis tasks: A stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Compared to in-centre, home hemodialysis is associated with superior outcomes. The impact on patient experience and clinical outcomes of consistently providing the choice and training to undertake hemodialysis-related treatment tasks in the in-centre setting is unknown. METHODS: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in 12 UK renal centres recruited prevalent in-centre hemodialysis patients with sites randomised into early and late participation in a 12-month breakthrough series collaborative that included data collection, learning events, Plan-Study-Do-Act cycles, and teleconferences repeated every 6 weeks, underpinned by a faculty, co-production, materials and a nursing course. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients undertaking five or more hemodialysis-related tasks or home hemodialysis. Secondary outcomes included independent hemodialysis, quality of life, symptoms, patient activation and hospitalisation. ISRCTN Registration Number 93999549. RESULTS: 586 hemodialysis patients were recruited. The proportion performing 5 or more tasks or home hemodialysis increased from 45.6% to 52.3% (205 to 244/449, difference 6.2%, 95% CI 1.4 to 11%), however after analysis by step the adjusted odds ratio for the intervention was 1.63 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.81, P = 0.08). 28.3% of patients doing less than 5 tasks at baseline performed 5 or more at the end of the study (69/244, 95% CI 22.2-34.3%, adjusted odds ratio 3.71, 95% CI 1.66-8.31). Independent or home hemodialysis increased from 7.5% to 11.6% (32 to 49/423, difference 4.0%, 95% CI 1.0-7.0), but the remaining secondary endpoints were unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: Our intervention did not increase dialysis related tasks being performed by a prevalent population of centre based patients, but there was an increase in home hemodialysis as well as an increase in tasks among patients who were doing fewer than 5 at baseline. Further studies are required that examine interventions to engage people who dialyse at centres in their own care.