RETurn to work After stroKE (RETAKE) Trial: protocol for a mixed-methods process evaluation using normalisation process theory.

OBJECTIVES: This mixed-method process evaluation underpinned by normalisation process theory aims to measure fidelity to the intervention, understand the social and structural context in which the intervention is delivered and identify barriers and facilitators to intervention implementation. SETTING: RETurn to work After stroKE (RETAKE) is a multicentre individual patient randomised controlled trial to determine whether Early Stroke Specialist Vocational Rehabilitation (ESSVR) plus usual care is a clinically and cost-effective therapy to facilitate return to work after stroke, compared with usual care alone. This protocol paper describes the embedded process evaluation. PARTICIPANTS AND OUTCOME MEASURES: Intervention training for therapists will be observed and use of remote mentor support reviewed through documentary analysis. Fidelity will be assessed through participant questionnaires and analysis of therapy records, examining frequency, duration and content of ESSVR sessions. To understand the influence of social and structural contexts, the process evaluation will explore therapists' attitudes towards evidence-based practice, competency to deliver the intervention and evaluate potential sources of contamination. Longitudinal case studies incorporating non-participant observations will be conducted with a proportion of intervention and usual care participants. Semistructured interviews with stroke survivors, carers, occupational therapists, mentors, service managers and employers will explore their experiences as RETAKE participants. Analysis of qualitative data will draw on thematic and framework approaches. Quantitative data analysis will include regression models and descriptive statistics. Qualitative and quantitative data will be independently analysed by process evaluation and Clinical Trials Research Unit teams, respectively. Linked data, for example, fidelity and describing usual care will be synthesised by comparing and integrating quantitative descriptive data with the qualitative findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval obtained through the East Midlands-Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 18/EM/0019) and the National Health ServiceResearch Authority. Dissemination via journal publications, stroke conferences, social media and meetings with national Stroke clinical leads. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12464275.

An intervention to increase physical activity in care home residents: results of a cluster-randomised, controlled feasibility trial (the REACH trial).

BACKGROUND: Care home (CH) residents are mainly inactive, leading to increased dependency and low mood. Strategies to improve activity are required. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial with embedded process and health economic evaluations. Twelve residential CHs in Yorkshire, United Kingdom, were randomised to the MoveMore intervention plus usual care (UC) (n = 5) or UC only (n = 7). PARTICIPANTS: Permanent residents aged ≥65 years. INTERVENTION: MoveMore: a whole home intervention involving all CH staff designed to encourage and support increase in movement of residents. OBJECTIVES AND MEASUREMENTS: Feasibility objectives relating to recruitment, intervention delivery, data collection and follow-up and safety concerns informed the feasibility of progression to a definitive trial. Data collection at baseline, 3, 6 and 9 months included: participants' physical function and mobility, perceived health, mood, quality of life, cognitive impairment questionnaires; accelerometry; safety data; intervention implementation. RESULTS: 300 residents were screened; 153 were registered (62 MoveMore; 91 UC). Average cluster size: MoveMore: 12.4 CHs; UC: 13.0 CHs. There were no CH/resident withdrawals. Forty (26.1%) participants were unavailable for follow-up: 28 died (12 MoveMore; 16 UC); 12 moved from the CH. Staff informant/proxy data collection for participants was >80%; data collection from participants was <75%; at 9 months, 65.6% of residents provided valid accelerometer data; two CHs fully, two partially and one failed to implement the intervention. There were no safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Recruiting CHs and residents was feasible. Intervention implementation and data collection methods need refinement before a definitive trial. There were no safety concerns.

Effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ to reduce agitation in care home residents with dementia: an open-cohort cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Agitation is common and problematic in care home residents with dementia. This study investigated the (cost)effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) for reducing agitation in this population. METHOD: Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis in 50 care homes, follow-up at 6 and 16 months and stratified randomisation to intervention (n = 31) and control (n = 19). Residents with dementia were recruited at baseline (n = 726) and 16 months (n = 261). Clusters were not blinded to allocation. Three DCM cycles were scheduled, delivered by two trained staff per home. Cycle one was supported by an external DCM expert. Agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI)) at 16 months was the primary outcome. RESULTS: DCM was not superior to control on any outcomes (cross-sectional sample n = 675: 287 control, 388 intervention). The adjusted mean CMAI score difference was -2.11 points (95% CI -4.66 to 0.44, p = 0.104, adjusted ICC control = 0, intervention 0.001). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis. Incremental cost per unit improvement in CMAI and QALYs (intervention vs control) on closed-cohort baseline recruited sample (n = 726, 418 intervention, 308 control) was £289 and £60,627 respectively. Loss to follow-up at 16 months in the original cohort was 312/726 (43·0%) mainly (87·2%) due to deaths. Intervention dose was low with only a quarter of homes completing more than one DCM cycle. CONCLUSION: No benefits of DCM were evidenced. Low intervention dose indicates standard care homes may be insufficiently resourced to implement DCM. Alternative models of implementation, or other approaches to reducing agitation should be considered.

An individually randomised controlled multi-centre pragmatic trial with embedded economic and process evaluations of early vocational rehabilitation compared with usual care for stroke survivors: study protocol for the RETurn to work After stroKE (RETAKE) trial.

BACKGROUND: Return to work (RTW) is achieved by less than 50% of stroke survivors. The rising incidence of stroke among younger people, the UK economic forecast, and clinical drivers highlight the need for stroke survivors to receive support with RTW. However, evidence for this type of support is lacking. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) will investigate whether Early Stroke Specialist Vocational Rehabilitation (ESSVR) plus usual care (UC) (i.e. usual NHS rehabilitation) is more clinically and cost-effective for supporting post-stroke RTW, than UC alone. METHODS: Seven hundred sixty stroke survivors and their carers will be recruited from approximately 20 NHS stroke services. A 5:4 allocation ratio will be employed to randomise participants to receive ESSVR plus UC, or UC alone. The individually tailored ESSVR intervention will commence within 12 weeks of stroke onset and be delivered for up to 12 months as necessary by trained RETAKE occupational therapists in the community, participants' homes or workplaces, and outpatient/inpatient therapy settings, via telephone, email, or SMS text message. Outcome data will be collected via self-report questionnaires administered by post or online at 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up. The primary outcome will be self-reported RTW and job retention at 12 months (minimum 2 h/week). Secondary outcomes will include mood, function, participation, health-related quality of life, confidence, intervention compliance, health and social care resource use, and mortality. An embedded economic evaluation will estimate cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses from National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspectives. An embedded process evaluation will employ a mixed methods approach to explore ESSVR implementation, contextual factors linked to outcome variation, and factors affecting NHS roll-out. DISCUSSION: This article describes the protocol for a multi-centre RCT evaluating the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of an early vocational rehabilitation intervention aimed at supporting adults to return to work following a stroke. Evidence favouring the ESSVR intervention would support its roll-out in NHS settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN12464275 . Registered on 26 February 2018.

Dementia Care Mapping™ to reduce agitation in care home residents with dementia: the EPIC cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: The quality of care for people with dementia in care homes is of concern. Interventions that can improve care outcomes are required. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) for reducing agitation and improving care outcomes for people living with dementia in care homes, versus usual care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with an open-cohort design, follow-up at 6 and 16 months, integrated cost-effectiveness analysis and process evaluation. Clusters were not blinded to allocation. The primary end point was completed by staff proxy and independent assessors. SETTING: Stratified randomisation of 50 care homes to the intervention and control groups on a 3 : 2 ratio by type, size, staff exposure to dementia training and recruiting hub. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty care homes were randomised (intervention, n = 31; control, n = 19), with 726 residents recruited at baseline and a further 261 recruited after 16 months. Care homes were eligible if they recruited a minimum of 10 residents, were not subject to improvement notices, had not used DCM in the previous 18 months and were not participating in conflicting research. Residents were eligible if they lived there permanently, had a formal diagnosis of dementia or a score of 4+ on the Functional Assessment Staging Test of Alzheimer's Disease, were proficient in English and were not terminally ill or permanently cared for in bed. All homes were audited on the delivery of dementia and person-centred care awareness training. Those not reaching a minimum standard were provided training ahead of randomisation. Eighteen homes took part in the process evaluation. INTERVENTION: Two staff members from each intervention home were trained to use DCM and were asked to carry out three DCM cycles; the first was supported by an external expert. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory), measured at 16 months. Secondary outcomes included resident behaviours and quality of life. RESULTS: There were 675 residents in the final analysis (intervention, n = 388; control, n = 287). There was no evidence of a difference in agitation levels between the treatment arms. The adjusted mean difference in Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score was -2.11 points, being lower in the intervention group than in the control (95% confidence interval -4.66 to 0.44; p = 0.104; adjusted intracluster correlation coefficient: control = 0, intervention = 0.001). The sensitivity analyses results supported the primary analysis. No differences were detected in any of the secondary outcomes. The health economic analyses indicated that DCM was not cost-effective. Intervention adherence was problematic; only 26% of homes completed more than their first DCM cycle. Impacts, barriers to and facilitators of DCM implementation were identified. LIMITATIONS: The primary completion of resident outcomes was by staff proxy, owing to self-report difficulties for residents with advanced dementia. Clusters were not blinded to allocation, although supportive analyses suggested that any reporting bias was not clinically important. CONCLUSIONS: There was no benefit of DCM over control for any outcomes. The implementation of DCM by care home staff was suboptimal compared with the protocol in the majority of homes. FUTURE WORK: Alternative models of DCM implementation should be considered that do not rely solely on leadership by care home staff. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852. 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. 24, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Agitation is common in care home residents and may result from care that does not meet individual needs. Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) is a tool used within care homes to improve the delivery of person-centred care, which may help reduce agitation. This randomised controlled trial aimed to understand whether or not DCM is better than usual care at reducing resident agitation, behaviours that staff may find difficult to support and the use of antipsychotic medicines, as well as at improving residents' quality of life and staff communication. It also assessed its value for money. We recruited 726 residents with dementia from 50 care homes. After initial data collection, care homes were randomly assigned to DCM (31/50) or told to continue with usual care (19/50) and data were collected again after 6 and 16 months. A further 261 residents were recruited after 16 months. We also interviewed staff, relatives and residents about the use of DCM after the final data collection had taken place. Two staff members in each DCM home were trained to use DCM and were helped by an expert to use it for the first time. They were asked to use it again a further two times without support. Results showed that DCM was no better than usual care in relation to any of the outcomes. It was also not shown to be value for money. Only one-quarter of care homes used DCM more than once. The care staff who were interviewed said that the benefits of using DCM included reduced resident boredom and increased staff confidence. There were also many challenges, including the time needed to complete DCM, a lack of managerial support and problems with staffing levels. Putting DCM into practice in care homes was difficult, even with expert support, and most care homes did not complete three DCM cycles. Future research should explore models of implementing DCM that do not rely on care home staff to lead them.

Recruiting care homes to a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There are more than a quarter of a million individuals aged ≥ 65 years who are resident in care homes in England and Wales. Care home residents have high levels of cognitive impairment, physical disability, multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Research is needed to ensure there are robust, evidence-based interventions to improve the quality of life of this frail group. However, there is a paucity of research studies in this area. Recruiting care homes and their residents to research is challenging. A feasibility, cluster randomised controlled trial was undertaken as part of a research programme to identify ways to develop and test methods to enhance the physical activity of care home residents. This paper describes two methods of recruiting care homes to the trial and draws out learning to inform future studies. METHODS: Eligible care homes met the following criteria: they were within a defined geographical area in the north of England; provided residential care for adults ≥ 65 years of age; had not previously been involved in the research programme; were not taking part in a conflicting study; were not recorded on the Care Quality Commission website as 'inadequate' or 'requiring improvements' in any area; and had ≥ 10 beds. Care homes were identified by a 'systematic approach' using the Care Quality Commission website database of care homes or a 'targeted approach' via a network of research-ready care homes. A standardised method was used to recruit care homes including eligibility screening; invitation letters; telephone contact; visits; formal letter of agreement. RESULTS: In the systematic approach, 377 care homes were screened, 230 (61%) were initially eligible and invited to participate, 11 were recruited (recruitment rate (RR) 4.8%). In the targeted approach, 15 care homes were invited to participate, two were recruited (RR 13.3%). Overall, 245 care homes were approached and 13 recruited (RR 5.3%). A variety of care homes were recruited to the trial in terms of size, location, ownership and care provision. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic recruitment of care homes to the study was time-consuming and resource-heavy but led to a variety of care homes being recruited. The targeted approach led to a higher recruitment rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN16076575 . Registered on 25 June 2015.

Research Exploring Physical Activity in Care Homes (REACH): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: As life expectancy increases and the number of older people, particularly those aged 85 years and over, expands there is an increase in demand for long-term care. A large proportion of people in a care home setting spend most of their time sedentary, and this is one of the leading preventable causes of death. Encouraging residents to engage in more physical activity could deliver benefits in terms of physical and psychological health, and quality of life. This study is the final stage of a programme of research to develop and preliminarily test an evidence-based intervention designed to enhance opportunities for movement amongst care home residents, thereby increasing levels of physical activity. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a cluster randomised feasibility trial, aiming to recruit at least 8-12 residents at each of 12 residential care homes across Yorkshire, UK. Care homes will be randomly allocated on a 1:1 basis to receive either the intervention alongside usual care, or to continue to provide usual care alone. Assessment will be undertaken with participating residents at baseline (prior to care home randomisation) and at 3, 6, and 9 months post-randomisation. Data relating to changes in physical activity, physical function, level of cognitive impairment, mood, perceived health and wellbeing, and quality of life will be collected. Data at the level of the home will also be collected and will include staff experience of care, and changes in the numbers and types of adverse events residents experience (for example, hospital admissions, falls). Details of National Health Service (NHS) usage will be collected to inform the economic analysis. An embedded process evaluation will obtain information to test out the theory of change underpinning the intervention and its acceptability to staff and residents. DISCUSSION: This feasibility trial with embedded process evaluation and collection of health economic data will allow us to undertake detailed feasibility work to inform a future large-scale trial. It will provide valuable information to inform research procedures in this important but challenging area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN16076575 . Registered on 25 June 2015.