Advances in Addressing Patient Heterogeneity in Economic Evaluation: A Review of the Methods Literature.

Cost-effectiveness analyses commonly use population or sample averages, which can mask key differences across subgroups and may lead to suboptimal resource allocation. Despite there being several new methods developed over the last decade, there is no recent summary of what methods are available to researchers. This review sought to identify advances in methods for addressing patient heterogeneity in economic evaluations and to provide an overview of these methods. A literature search was conducted using the Econlit, Embase and MEDLINE databases to identify studies published after 2011 (date of a previous review on this topic). Eligible studies needed to have an explicit methodological focus, related to how patient heterogeneity can be accounted for within a full economic evaluation. Sixteen studies were included in the review. Methodologies were varied and included regression techniques, model design and value of information analysis. Recent publications have applied methodologies more commonly used in other fields, such as machine learning and causal forests. Commonly noted challenges associated with considering patient heterogeneity included data availability (e.g., sample size), statistical issues (e.g., risk of false positives) and practical factors (e.g., computation time). A range of methods are available to address patient heterogeneity in economic evaluation, with relevant methods differing according to research question, scope of the economic evaluation and data availability. Researchers need to be aware of the challenges associated with addressing patient heterogeneity (e.g., data availability) to ensure findings are meaningful and robust. Future research is needed to assess whether and how methods are being applied in practice.

Development and evaluation of a de-escalation training intervention in adult acute and forensic units: the EDITION systematic review and feasibility trial.

Background: Containment (e.g. physical restraint and seclusion) is used frequently in mental health inpatient settings. Containment is associated with serious psychological and physical harms. De-escalation (psychosocial techniques to manage distress without containment) is recommended to manage aggression and other unsafe behaviours, for example self-harm. All National Health Service staff are trained in de-escalation but there is little to no evidence supporting training's effectiveness. Objectives: Objectives were to: (1) qualitatively investigate de-escalation and identify barriers and facilitators to use across the range of adult acute and forensic mental health inpatient settings; (2) co-produce with relevant stakeholders an intervention to enhance de-escalation across these settings; (3) evaluate the intervention's preliminary effect on rates of conflict (e.g. violence, self-harm) and containment (e.g. seclusion and physical restraint) and understand barriers and facilitators to intervention effects. Design: Intervention development informed by Experience-based Co-design and uncontrolled pre and post feasibility evaluation. Systematic reviews and qualitative interviews investigated contextual variation in use and effects of de-escalation. Synthesis of this evidence informed co-design of an intervention to enhance de-escalation. An uncontrolled feasibility trial of the intervention followed. Clinical outcome data were collected over 24 weeks including an 8-week pre-intervention phase, an 8-week embedding and an 8-week post-intervention phase. Setting: Ten inpatient wards (including acute, psychiatric intensive care, low, medium and high secure forensic) in two United Kingdom mental health trusts. Participants: In-patients, clinical staff, managers, carers/relatives and training staff in the target settings. Interventions: Enhancing de-escalation techniques in adult acute and forensic units: Development and evaluation of an evidence-based training intervention (EDITION) interventions included de-escalation training, two novel models of reflective practice, post-incident debriefing and feedback on clinical practice, collaborative prescribing and ward rounds, practice changes around admission, shift handovers and the social and physical environment, and sensory modulation and support planning to reduce patient distress. Main outcome measures: Outcomes measured related to feasibility (recruitment and retention, completion of outcome measures), training outcomes and clinical and safety outcomes. Conflict and containment rates were measured via the Patient-Staff Conflict Checklist. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Attitudes to Containment Measures Questionnaire, Attitudes to Personality Disorder Questionnaire, Violence Prevention Climate Scale, Capabilities, Opportunities, and Motivation Scale, Coercion Experience Scale and Perceived Expressed Emotion in Staff Scale. Results: Completion rates of the proposed primary outcome were very good at 68% overall (excluding remote data collection), which increased to 76% (excluding remote data collection) in the post-intervention period. Secondary outcomes had high completion rates for both staff and patient respondents. Regression analyses indicated that reductions in conflict and containment were both predicted by study phase (pre, embedding, post intervention). There were no adverse events or serious adverse events related to the intervention. Conclusions: Intervention and data-collection procedures were feasible, and there was a signal of an effect on the proposed primary outcome. Limitations: Uncontrolled design and self-selecting sample. Future work: Definitive trial determining intervention effects. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN12826685 (closed to recruitment). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/101/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 3. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Context: Conflict (a term used to describe a range of potentially unsafe events including violence, self-harm, rule-breaking, medication refusal, illicit drug and alcohol use and absconding) in mental health settings causes serious physical and psychological harm. Containment interventions which are intended to minimise harm from violence (and other conflict behaviours) such as restraint, seclusion and rapid tranquilisation can result in serious injuries to patients and, occasionally, death. Involvement in physical restraint is the most common cause of serious physical injury to National Health Service mental health staff in the United Kingdom. Violence to staff results in substantial costs to the health service in sickness and litigation payments. Containment interventions are also expensive (e.g. physical restraint costs mental health services £6.1 million and enhanced observations £88 million per annum). Despite these harms, recent findings indicate containment interventions such as seclusion and physical restraint continue to be used frequently in mental health settings. Clinical trials have demonstrated that interventions can reduce containment without increasing violence and other conflict behaviours (e.g. verbal aggression, self-harm). Substantial cost-savings result from reducing containment use. De-escalation, as an intervention to manage aggression and potential violence without restrictive practices, is a core intervention. 'De-escalation' is a collective term for a range of psychosocial techniques designed to reduce distress and anger without the need to use 'containment' interventions (measures to prevent harm through restricting a person's ability to act independently, such as physical restraint and seclusion). Evidence indicates that de-escalation involves ensuring conditions for safe intervention and effective communication are established, clarifying and attempting to resolve the patient's concern, conveyance of respect and empathy and regulating unhelpful emotions such as anxiety and anger. Despite featuring prominently in clinical guidelines and training policy domestically and internationally and being a component of mandatory National Health Service training, there is no evidence-based model on which to base training. A systematic review of de-escalation training effectiveness and acceptability conducted in 2015 concluded: (1) no model of training has demonstrated effectiveness in a sufficiently rigorous evaluation, (2) the theoretical underpinning of evaluated models was often unclear and (3) there has been inadequate investigation of the characteristics of training likely to enhance acceptability and uptake. Despite all National Health Service staff being trained in de-escalation there have been no high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of training. Feasibility studies are needed to establish whether it is possible to conduct a definitive trial that can determine the clinical, safety and cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

Mental health hospitals are stressful places for patients and staff. Patients are often detained against their will, in places that are noisy, unfamiliar and frightening. Violence and self-injury happen quite frequently. Sometimes staff physically restrain patients or isolate patients in locked rooms (called seclusion). While these measures might sometimes be necessary to maintain safety, they are psychologically and physically harmful. To help reduce the use of these unsafe measures, staff are trained in communication skills designed to reduce anger and distress without using physical force. Professionals call these skills 'de-escalation'. Although training in de-escalation is mandatory, there is no good evidence to say whether it works or not, or what specific techniques staff should be trained in. The Enhancing de-escalation techniques in adult acute and forensic units: Development and evaluation of an evidence-based training intervention (EDITION) project aimed to develop and evaluate a de-escalation training programme informed by research evidence. We interviewed over one hundred people who either worked in or received treatment in a mental health hospital. These people were clear that the training should target key sources of interpersonal and environmental stress that prevent de-escalation from working. We also reviewed all the scientific studies on de-escalation and training, aiming to identify the elements of training that are most likely to increase use of de-escalation. Then, in partnership with current mental health service users and clinical staff, we developed the training programme. Training was delivered to more than 270 staff working in 10 different wards in mental health hospitals. We measured rates of violence, self-injury and use of physical restraint and seclusion 8 weeks before staff received training and 16 weeks after they received training (24 weeks of data collection in total). Analysis of these data showed that these unsafe events were occurring significantly less frequently after training than they were before training, which raised the possibility that the training was helping to reduce harm.

Trauma-focused therapy in early psychosis: results of a feasibility randomized controlled trial of EMDR for psychosis (EMDRp) in early intervention settings.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is prevalent amongst early psychosis patients and associated with adverse outcomes. Past trials of trauma-focused therapy have focused on chronic patients with psychosis/schizophrenia and comorbid Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). We aimed to determine the feasibility of a large-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for psychosis (EMDRp) intervention for early psychosis service users. METHODS: A single-blind RCT comparing 16 sessions of EMDRp + TAU v. TAU only was conducted. Participants completed baseline, 6-month and 12-month post-randomization assessments. EMDRp and trial assessments were delivered both in-person and remotely due to COVID-19 restrictions. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment and retention, therapy attendance/engagement, adherence to EMDRp treatment protocol, and the 'promise of efficacy' of EMDRp on relevant clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty participants (100% of the recruitment target) received TAU or EMDR + TAU. 83% completed at least one follow-up assessment, with 74% at 6-month and 70% at 12-month. 74% of EMDRp + TAU participants received at least eight therapy sessions and 97% rated therapy sessions demonstrated good treatment fidelity. At 6-month, there were signals of promise of efficacy of EMDRp + TAU v. TAU for total psychotic symptoms (PANSS), subjective recovery from psychosis, PTSD symptoms, depression, anxiety, and general health status. Signals of efficacy at 12-month were less pronounced but remained robust for PTSD symptoms and general health status. CONCLUSIONS: The trial feasibility criteria were fully met, and EMDRp was associated with promising signals of efficacy on a range of valuable clinical outcomes. A larger-scale, multi-center trial of EMDRp is feasible and warranted.

A randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PASS Plus intervention for young children with autism spectrum disorder in New Delhi, India: study protocol for the COMPASS trial.

BACKGROUND: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disability affecting at least 5 million children in South Asia. Majority of these children are without access to evidence-based care. The UK Pre-school Autism Communication Therapy (PACT) is the only intervention to have shown sustained impact on autism symptoms. It was systematically adapted for non-specialist community delivery in South Asia, as the 'Parent-mediated Autism Social Communication Intervention for non-Specialists (PASS)' and extended 'PASS Plus' interventions. RCTs of both showed feasibility, acceptability and positive effect on parent and child dyadic outcomes. METHODS: The Communication-centred Parent-mediated treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorder in South Asia (COMPASS) trial is now a scale-up two-centre, two-arm single (rater) blinded random allocation parallel group study of the PASS Plus intervention in addition to treatment as usual (TAU) compared to TAU alone, plus health economic evaluation embedded in the India health system. Two hundred forty children (approximately 120 intervention/120 TAU) with ASD aged 2-9 years will be recruited from two tertiary care government hospitals in New Delhi, India. Accredited Social Health Activists will be one of the intervention delivery agents. Families will undertake up to 12 communication sessions over 8 months and will be offered the Plus modules which address coexisting problems. The trial's primary endpoint is at 9 months from randomisation, with follow-up at 15 months. The primary outcome is autism symptom severity; secondary outcomes include parent-child communication, child adaptation, quality of life and parental wellbeing. Primary analysis will follow intention-to-treat principles using linear mixed model regressions with group allocation and repeated measures as random effects. The cost-effectiveness analysis will use a societal perspective over the 15-month period of intervention and follow-up. DISCUSSION: If clinically and cost-effective, this programme will fill an important gap of scalable interventions delivered by non-specialist health workers within the current care pathways for autistic children and their families in low-resource contexts. The programme has been implemented through the COVID-19 pandemic when restrictions were in place; intervention delivery and evaluation processes have been adapted to address these conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN; ISRCTN21454676 ; Registered 22 June 2018.

The effectiveness of a primary care-based collaborative care model to improve quality of life in people with severe mental illness: PARTNERS2 cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with severe mental illness can have significant emotional, physical and social challenges. Collaborative care combines clinical and organisational components. AIMS: We tested whether a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) would improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other psychoses, compared with usual care. METHOD: We conducted a general practice-based, cluster randomised controlled superiority trial. Practices were recruited from four English regions and allocated (1:1) to intervention or control. Individuals receiving limited input in secondary care or who were under primary care only were eligible. The 12-month PARTNERS intervention incorporated person-centred coaching support and liaison work. The primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). RESULTS: We allocated 39 general practices, with 198 participants, to the PARTNERS intervention (20 practices, 116 participants) or control (19 practices, 82 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 99 (85.3%) intervention and 71 (86.6%) control participants. Mean change in overall MANSA score did not differ between the groups (intervention: 0.25, s.d. 0.73; control: 0.21, s.d. 0.86; estimated fully adjusted between-group difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.31; P = 0.819). Acute mental health episodes (safety outcome) included three crises in the intervention group and four in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life, as measured with the MANSA, between those receiving the PARTNERS intervention and usual care. Shifting care to primary care was not associated with increased adverse outcomes.

Retrospective study of more than 5 million emergency admissions to hospitals in England: Epidemiology and outcomes for people with dementia.

INTRODUCTION: People living with dementia (PwD) admitted in emergency to an acute hospital may be at higher risk of inappropriate care and poorer outcomes including longer hospitalisations and higher risk of emergency re-admission or death. Since 2009 numerous national and local initiatives in England have sought to improve hospital care for PwD. We compared outcomes of emergency admissions for cohorts of patients aged 65+ with and without dementia at three points in time. METHODS: We analysed emergency admissions (EAs) from the Hospital Episodes Statistics datasets for England 2010/11, 2012/13 and 2016/17. Dementia upon admission was based on a diagnosis in the patient's hospital records within the last five years. Outcomes were length of hospital stays (LoS), long stays (> = 15 days), emergency re-admissions (ERAs) and death in hospital or within 30 days post-discharge. A wide range of covariates were taken into account, including patient demographics, pre-existing health and reasons for admission. Hierarchical multivariable regression analysis, applied separately for males and females, estimated group differences adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: We included 178 acute hospitals and 5,580,106 EAs, of which 356,992 (13.9%) were male PwD and 561,349 (18.6%) female PwD. Uncontrolled differences in outcomes between the patient groups were substantial but were considerably reduced after control for covariates. Covariate-adjusted differences in LoS were similar at all time-points and in 2016/17 were 17% (95%CI 15%-18%) and 12% (10%-14%) longer for male and female PwD respectively compared to patients without dementia. Adjusted excess risk of an ERA for PwD reduced over time to 17% (15%-18%) for males and 17% (16%-19%) for females, but principally due to increased ERA rates amongst patients without dementia. Adjusted overall mortality was 30% to 40% higher for PwD of both sexes throughout the time-period; however, adjusted in-hospital rates of mortality differed only slightly between the patient groups, whereas PwD had around double the risk of dying within 30 days of being discharged. CONCLUSION: Over the six-year period, covariate-adjusted hospital LoS, ERA rates and in-hospital mortality rates for PwD were only slightly elevated compared to similar patients without dementia and remaining differences potentially reflect uncontrolled confounding. PwD however, were around twice as likely to die shortly after discharge, the reasons for which require further investigation. Despite being widely used for service evaluation, LoS, ERA and mortality may lack sensitivity to changes in hospital care and support to PwD.

Metacognitive therapy home-based self-help for anxiety and depression in cardiovascular disease patients in the UK: A single-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and depression in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) are associated with greater morbidity, mortality, and increased healthcare costs. Current psychological interventions within CR have small effects based on low-quality studies of clinic-based interventions with limited access to home-based psychological support. We tested the effectiveness of adding self-help metacognitive therapy (Home-MCT) to CR in reducing anxiety and depression in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We ran a single-blind, multi-centre, two-arm RCT. A total of 240 CR patients were recruited from 5 NHS-Trusts across North West England between April 20, 2017 and April 6, 2020. Patients were randomly allocated to Home-MCT+CR (n = 118, 49.2%) or usual CR alone (n = 122, 50.8%). Randomisation was 1:1 via randomised blocks within hospital site, balancing arms on sex and baseline Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores. The primary outcome was the HADS total score at posttreatment (4-month follow-up). Follow-up data collection occurred between August 7, 2017 and July 20, 2020. Analysis was by intention to treat. The 4-month outcome favoured the MCT intervention group demonstrating significantly lower end of treatment scores (HADS total: adjusted mean difference = -2.64 [-4.49 to -0.78], p = 0.005, standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.38). Sensitivity analysis using multiple imputation (MI) of missing values supported these findings. Most secondary outcomes also favoured Home-MCT+CR, especially in reduction of post-traumatic stress symptoms (SMD = 0.51). There were 23 participants (19%) lost to follow-up in Home-MCT+CR and 4 participants (3%) lost to follow-up in CR alone. No serious adverse events were reported. The main limitation is the absence of longer term (e.g., 12-month) follow-up data. CONCLUSION: Self-help home-based MCT was effective in reducing total anxiety/depression in patients undergoing CR. Improvement occurred across most psychological measures. Home-MCT was a promising addition to cardiac rehabilitation and may offer improved access to effective psychological treatment in cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03999359.

Discrete choice experiment to investigate preferences for psychological intervention in cardiac rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is offered to people who recently experienced a cardiac event, and often comprises of exercise, education and psychological care. This stated preference study aimed to investigate preferences for attributes of a psychological therapy intervention in CR. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted and recruited a general population sample and a trial sample. DCE attributes included the modality (group or individual), healthcare professional providing care, information provided prior to therapy, location and the cost to the National Health Service (NHS). Participants were asked to choose between two hypothetical designs of therapy, with a separate opt-out included. A mixed logit model was used to analyse preferences. Cost to the NHS was used to estimate willingness to pay (WTP) for aspects of the intervention design. RESULTS: Three hundred and four participants completed the DCE (general public sample (n=262, mean age 47, 48% female) and trial sample (n=42, mean age 66, 45% female)). A preference for receiving psychological therapy was demonstrated by both samples (general population WTP £1081; 95% CI £957 to £1206). The general population appeared to favour individual therapy (WTP £213; 95% CI £160 to £266), delivered by a CR professional (WTP £48; 9% % CI £4 to £93) and with a lower cost (ß=-0.002; p<0.001). Participants preferred to avoid options where no information was received prior to starting therapy (WTP -£106; 95% CI -£153 to -£59). Results for the location attribute were variable and challenging to interpret. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates a preference for psychological therapy as part of a programme of CR, as participants were more likely to opt-in to therapy. Results indicate that some aspects of the delivery which may be important to participants can be tailored to design a psychological therapy. Preference heterogeneity is an issue which may prevent a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to psychological therapy in CR.

Respiratory distress symptom intervention for non-pharmacological management of the lung cancer breathlessness-cough-fatigue symptom cluster: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: In lung cancer, three prominent symptoms, such as breathlessness, cough and fatigue, are closely related with each other forming a 'respiratory distress symptom cluster'. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the respiratory distress symptom intervention (RDSI) for the management of this symptom cluster in people with lung cancer. METHODS: A single blind, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial conducted in eight centres in England, UK. A total of 263 patients with lung cancer were randomised, including 132 who received RDSI and 131 who received standard care. To be eligible, participants self-reported adverse impact in daily life from at least two of the three symptoms, in any combination. Outcomes were change at 12 weeks for each symptom within the cluster, including Dyspnoea-12 (D-12), Manchester Cough in Lung Cancer (MCLC) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness-Fatigue. RESULTS: At baseline, nearly 60% of participants reported all three symptoms. At trial completion the total trial attrition was 109 (41.4%). Compared with the control group, the RDSI group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in D-12 (p=0.007) and MCLC (p<0.001). The minimal clinically important difference MCID) was achieved for each outcome: D-12 -4.13 (MCID >3), MCLC -5.49 (MCID >3) and FACIT-F 4.91 (MCID >4). CONCLUSION: RDSI is a clinically effective, low-risk intervention to support the management of the respiratory distress symptom cluster in lung cancer. However, the study did experience high attrition, which needs to be taken onto consideration when interpreting these results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03223805.

Development of a cost of illness inventory questionnaire for children with autism spectrum disorder in South Asia.

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of autism is substantial and includes a range of costs, including healthcare, education, productivity losses, informal care and respite care, among others. In India, approximately, 2 million children aged 2-9 years have autism. Given the likely substantial burden of illness and the need to identify effective and cost-effective interventions, this research aimed to produce a comprehensive cost of illness inventory (COII) suitable for children with autism in South Asia (India) to support future research. METHODS: A structured and iterative design process was followed to create the COII, including literature reviews, interviews with caregivers, pilot testing and translation. Across the development of the COII, thirty-two families were involved in the design and piloting of the tool. The COII was forward translated (from English to Hindi) and back translated. Each stage of the process of development of the COII resulted in the further refinement of the tool. RESULTS: Domains covered in the final COII include education, childcare, relocation, healthcare contacts (outpatient, inpatient, medical emergencies, investigations and medication), religious retreats and rituals, specialist equipment, workshops and training, special diet, support and care, certification, occupational adjustments and government rebates/schemes. Administration and completion of the COII determined it to be feasible to complete in 35 minutes by qualified and trained researchers. The final COII is hosted by REDCap Cloud and is a bilingual instrument (Hindi and English). CONCLUSIONS: The COII was developed using experiences gathered from an iterative process in a metropolitan area within the context of one low- and middle-income country (LMIC) setting, India. Compared to COII tools used for children with autism in high-income country settings, additional domains were required, such as complimentary medication (e.g. religious retreats and homeopathy). The COII will allow future research to quantify the cost of illness of autism in India from a broad perspective and will support relevant economic evaluations. Understanding the process of developing the questionnaire will help researchers working in LMICs needing to adapt the current COII or developing similar questionnaires.

REACH-ASD: a UK randomised controlled trial of a new post-diagnostic psycho-education and acceptance and commitment therapy programme against treatment-as-usual for improving the mental health and adjustment of caregivers of children recently diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.

BACKGROUND: Autism is a neurodevelopmental disability affecting over 1% of UK children. The period following a child's autism diagnosis can present real challenges in adaptation for families. Twenty to 50% of caregivers show clinically significant levels of mental health need within the post-diagnostic period and on an ongoing basis. Best practice guidelines recommend timely post-diagnostic family support. Current provision is patchy, largely unevidenced, and a source of dissatisfaction for both families and professionals. There is a pressing need for an evidenced programme of post-diagnostic support focusing on caregiver mental health and adjustment, alongside autism psycho-education. This trial tests the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a new brief manualised psychosocial intervention designed to address this gap. METHODS: This is a multi-centre two-parallel-group single (researcher)-blinded randomised controlled trial of the Empower-Autism programme plus treatment-as-usual versus usual local post-diagnostic offer plus treatment-as-usual. Caregivers of children aged 2-15 years with a recent autism diagnosis will be recruited from North West England NHS or local authority centres. Randomisation is individually by child, with one "index" caregiver per child, stratified by centre, using 2:1 randomisation ratio to assist recruitment and timely intervention. Empower-Autism is a group-based, manualised, post-diagnostic programme that combines autism psycho-education and psychotherapeutic components based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy to support caregiver mental health, stress management and adjustment to their child's diagnosis. The comparator is any usual local group-based post-diagnostic psycho-education offer. Receipt of services will be specified through health economic data. PRIMARY OUTCOME: caregiver mental health (General Health Questionnaire-30) at 52-week follow-up. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: key caregiver measures (wellbeing, self-efficacy, adjustment, autism knowledge) at 12-, 26- and 52-week follow-up and family and child outcomes (wellbeing and functioning) at 52-week endpoint. SAMPLE: N=380 (approximately 253 intervention/127 treatment-as-usual). Primary analysis will follow intention-to-treat principles using linear mixed models with random intercepts for group membership and repeated measures. Cost-effectiveness acceptability analyses will be over 52 weeks, with decision modelling to extrapolate to longer time periods. DISCUSSION: If effective, this new approach will fill a key gap in the provision of evidence-based care pathways for autistic children and their families. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 45412843 . Prospectively registered on 11 September 2019.

Evaluating Metacognitive Therapy to Improve Treatment of Anxiety and Depression in Cardiovascular Disease: The NIHR Funded PATHWAY Research Programme.

Background: Anxiety and depression contribute to poorer physical and mental health outcomes in cardiac patients. Psychological treatments are not routinely offered in cardiac care and have mixed and small effects. We conducted a series of studies under the PATHWAY research programme aimed at understanding and improving mental health outcomes for patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation (CR) through provision of metacognitive therapy (MCT). Methods: PATHWAY was a series of feasibility trials, single-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), qualitative, stated preferences for therapy and health economics studies. Findings: Patients felt their psychological needs were not met in CR and their narratives of distress could be parsimoniously explained by the metacognitive model. Patients reported they would prefer therapy over no therapy as part of CR, which included delivery by a cardiac professional. Two feasibility studies demonstrated that RCTs of group-based and self-help MCT were acceptable, could be embedded in CR services, and that RCTs of these interventions were feasible. A definitive RCT of group-MCT within CR (n = 332) demonstrated significantly greater reductions in the severity of anxiety and depression, exceeding CR alone, with gains maintained at 12 month follow-up (SMD HADS total score = 0.52 at 4 months and 0.33 at 12 months). A definitive trial of self-help MCT is ongoing. Conclusion: There is a need to better meet the psychological needs of CR patients. Embedding MCT into CR demonstrated high acceptability and improved efficacy on psychological outcomes. Results support roll-out of MCT in CR with evaluation of national implementation. Registration: URL: NCT02420431; ISRCTN74643496; NCT03129282.

Metacognitive therapy self-help for anxiety-depression: Single-blind randomized feasibility trial in cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: One in three cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients experience significant anxiety and depression. Current psychological interventions have limited efficacy in reducing such symptoms and are offered as a face-to-face intervention that may be a barrier to accessing treatment. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of delivering assisted home-based self-help metacognitive therapy (home-MCT) to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) patients experiencing anxiety and depression. METHOD: One hundred eight CR patients with elevated anxiety and/or depression were recruited to a single-blind randomized feasibility trial across two United Kingdom National Health Service Trusts and were randomized to usual CR or usual CR plus home-MCT. The feasibility and acceptability of adding home-MCT to CR was based on credibility or expectancy ratings, recruitment rate, drop-outs, number of CR and home-MCT modules completed, and ability of outcome measures to discriminate between patients. The study was used to refine the sample size estimate for a full-scale trial. The quality of telephone support calls delivered by CR staff trained in MCT was assessed. RESULTS: Home-MCT was found to be feasible and acceptable for the current CR patients with anxiety and depression. Recruitment and retention of participants was high, and attendance at CR was similar for both groups. Completion of home-MCT was high, but the quality of telephone support calls delivered was lower than expected. CONCLUSIONS: Home-MCT was acceptable and feasible to deliver to CR patients experiencing anxiety and depression, and the feasibility of conducting a full-scale trial of the intervention was established. Home-MCT may provide additional treatment options for cardiac patients experiencing psychological distress. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Is conscientious beachcombing the key to 'unlock' marine plastic pollution trends through citizen science? A case study from Cockburn Sound, Western Australia.

Despite the global implementation of plastic waste reduction policies and bans on single use plastics (SuPs), their effectiveness for protecting marine ecosystems remains unclear. Frequent monitoring could confirm policy effectiveness, but this is difficult due to resourcing and logistic constraints. This study tested a 'beach litter' beachcombing citizen science approach that could overcome some constraints. Between November 2018 and January 2021, 168 beach visits led to the collection of 12,659 pieces of litter from a beach in Western Australia. Litter was predominantly plastic (87%) and mostly associated with fishing/boating (34%). Significant reductions in six types of litter, including fishing/boating items, balloons, and straws were detected and four coincided with local government waste mitigation measures. We show potential to harness conscientious beachcombers as citizen scientists to help evaluate plastic policy impact. Furthermore, we propose how to harness this effort and increase spatial and temporal coverage of marine plastic pollution monitoring.

A review of economic evaluations of health care for people at risk of psychosis and for first-episode psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Preventing psychotic disorders and effective treatment in first-episode psychosis are key priorities for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. This review assessed the evidence base for the cost-effectiveness of health and social care interventions for people at risk of psychosis and for first-episode psychosis. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted using the PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify relevant published full economic evaluations published before August 2020. Full-text English-language studies reporting a full economic evaluation of a health or social care intervention aiming to reduce or prevent symptoms in people at risk of psychosis or experiencing first-episode psychosis were included. Screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal were performed using pre-specified criteria and forms based on the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) handbook and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist for economic evaluations. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42018108226). Results were summarised qualitatively. RESULTS: Searching identified 1,628 citations (1,326 following the removal of duplications). After two stages of screening 14 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Interventions were varied and included multidisciplinary care, antipsychotic medication, psychological therapy, and assertive outreach. Evidence was limited in the at-risk group with only four identified studies, though all interventions were found to be cost-effective with a high probability (> 80%). A more substantial evidence base was identified for first-episode psychosis (11 studies), with a focus on early intervention (7/11 studies) which again had positive conclusions though with greater uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings generally concluded interventions were cost-effective. The evidence for the population who are at-risk of psychosis was limited, and though there were more studies for the population with first-episode psychosis, limitations of the evidence base (including generalisability and heterogeneity across the methods used) affect the certainty of conclusions.

Acknowledging Patient Heterogeneity in Economic Evaluations in Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Schizophrenia is a severe mental illness with heterogeneous etiology, range of symptoms, and course of illness. Cost-effectiveness analysis often applies averages from populations, which disregards patient heterogeneity even though there are a range of methods available to acknowledge patient heterogeneity. This review evaluates existing economic evaluations of interventions in schizophrenia to understand how patient heterogeneity is currently reflected in economic evaluation. METHODS: Electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO via Ovid and the Health Technology Assessment database were run to identify full economic evaluations of interventions aiming to reduce the symptoms associated with schizophrenia. Two levels of screening were used, and explicit inclusion criteria were applied. Prespecified data extraction and critical appraisal were performed. RESULTS: Seventy-six relevant studies were identified. More than half (41 of 76) of the articles acknowledged patient heterogeneity in some way through discussion or methods. There was a range of patient characteristics considered, including demographics and socioeconomic factors (eg, age, educational level, ethnicity), clinical characteristics (eg, symptom severity, comorbidities), and preferences (eg, preferences related to outcomes or symptoms). Subgroup analyses were rarely reported (8 of 76). CONCLUSIONS: Patient heterogeneity was frequently mentioned in studies but was rarely thoroughly investigated in the identified economic evaluations. When investigated, included patient characteristics and methods were found to be heterogeneous. Understanding and acknowledging patient heterogeneity may alter the conclusions of cost-effectiveness evaluations; subsequently, we would encourage further research in this area.

Factors Limiting Subgroup Analysis in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and a Call for Transparency.

The use of population averages in cost-effectiveness analysis may hide important differences across subgroups, potentially resulting in suboptimal resource allocation, reduced population health and/or increased health inequalities. We discuss the factors that limit subgroup analysis in cost-effectiveness analysis and propose more thorough and transparent reporting. There are many issues that may limit whether subgroup analysis can be robustly included in cost-effectiveness analysis, including challenges with prespecifying and justifying subgroup analysis, identifying subgroups that can be implemented (identified and targeted) in practice, resource and data requirements, and statistical and ethical concerns. These affect every stage of the design, development and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses. It may not always be possible to include and report relevant subgroups in cost effectiveness, e.g. due to data limitations. Reasons for not conducting subgroup analysis may be heterogeneous, and the consequences of not acknowledging patient heterogeneity can be substantial. We recommend that when potentially relevant subgroups have not been included in a cost-effectiveness analysis, authors report this and discuss their rationale and the limitations of this. Greater transparency of subgroup reporting should provide a starting point to overcoming these challenges in future research.

Developing a Management Guide (the DemPower App) for Couples Where One Partner Has Dementia: Nonrandomized Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Promoting the health and well-being of couples where one partner has dementia is an overlooked area of care practice. Most postdiagnostic services currently lack a couple-centered approach and have a limited focus on the couple relationship. To help address this situation, we developed a tablet-based self-management guide (DemPower) focused on helping couples enhance their well-being and relationship quality. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the DemPower app. METHODS: A nonrandomized feasibility design was used to evaluate the DemPower intervention over 3 months among couples where a partner had a diagnosis of dementia. The study recruited 25 couples in the United Kingdom and 19 couples in Sweden. Outcome measures were obtained at baseline and postintervention. The study process and interventions were evaluated at various stages. RESULTS: The study was completed by 48% (21/44) of couples where one partner had dementia, of whom 86% (18/21) of couples accessed all parts of the DemPower app. Each couple spent an average of 8 hours (SD 3.35 hours) using the app during the study period. In total, 90% (19/21) of couples reported that all sections of DemPower were useful in addressing various aspects of daily life and helped to focus on how they interacted in their relationship. Of the 4 core subjects on which the DemPower app was structured, home and neighborhood received the highest number of visits. Couples used activity sections more often than the core subject pages. The perception of DemPower's utility varied with each couple's lived experience of dementia, geographic location, relationship dynamics, and opportunities for social interaction. A 5.2-point increase in the dementia quality of life score for people with dementia and a marginal increase in the Mutuality scale (+1.23 points) for caregiver spouses were found. Design and navigational challenges were reported in the DemPower app. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the DemPower app is a useful resource for couples where one partner has dementia and that the implementation of the app requires the support of memory clinics to reach couples at early diagnosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN10122979; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10122979.

Delivery preferences for psychological intervention in cardiac rehabilitation: a pilot discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a programme of care offered to people who recently experienced a cardiac event. There is a growing focus on home-based formats of CR and a lack of evidence on preferences for psychological care in CR. This pilot study aimed to investigate preferences for delivery attributes of a psychological therapy intervention in CR patients with symptoms of anxiety and/or depression. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted and recruited participants from a feasibility trial. Participants were asked to choose between two hypothetical interventions, described using five attributes; intervention type (home or centre-based), information provided, therapy manual format, cost to the National Health Service (NHS) and waiting time. A separate opt-out was included. A conditional logit using maximum likelihood estimation was used to analyse preferences. The NHS cost was used to estimate willingness to pay for aspects of the intervention delivery. RESULTS: 35 responses were received (39% response rate). Results indicated that participants would prefer to receive any form of therapy compared with no therapy. Statistically significant results were limited, but included participants being keen to avoid not receiving information prior to therapy (ß=-0.270; p=0.03) and preferring a lower cost to the NHS (ß=-0.001; p=0.00). No significant results were identified for the type of psychological intervention, format of therapy/exercises and programme start time. Coefficients indicated preferences were stronger for home-based therapy compared with centre-based, but this was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of a DCE in this group, it identifies potential attributes and levels, and estimates the sample sizes needed for a full study. Preliminary evidence indicated that sampled participants tended to prefer home-based psychological therapy in CR and wanted to receive information before initiating therapy. Results are limited due to the pilot design and further research is needed.