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

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

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

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

Urodynamics tests for the diagnosis and management of bladder outlet obstruction in men: the UPSTREAM non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men may indicate bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) or weakness, known as detrusor underactivity (DU). Severe bothersome LUTS are a common indication for surgery. The diagnostic tests may include urodynamics (UDS) to confirm whether BOO or DU is the cause, potentially reducing the number of people receiving (inappropriate) surgery. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to determine whether a care pathway including UDS is no worse for symptom outcome than one in which it is omitted, at 18 months after randomisation. Rates of surgery was the key secondary outcome. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm (unblinded) randomised controlled trial, incorporating a health economic analysis and qualitative research. SETTING: Urology departments of 26 NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: Men (aged ≥ 18 years) seeking further treatment, potentially including surgery, for bothersome LUTS. Exclusion criteria were as follows: unable to pass urine without a catheter, having a relevant neurological disease, currently undergoing treatment for prostate or bladder cancer, previously had prostate surgery, not medically fit for surgery and/or unwilling to be randomised. INTERVENTIONS: Men were randomised to a care pathway based on non-invasive routine tests (control) or routine care plus invasive UDS (intervention arm). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 18 months after randomisation and the key secondary outcome was rates of surgery. Additional secondary outcomes included adverse events (AEs), quality of life, urinary and sexual symptoms, UDS satisfaction, maximum urinary flow rate and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 820 men were randomised (UDS, 427; routine care, 393). Sixty-seven men withdrew before 18 months and 11 died (unrelated to trial procedures). UDS was non-inferior to routine care for IPSS 18 months after randomisation, with a confidence interval (CI) within the margin of 1 point (-0.33, 95% CI -1.47 to 0.80). A lower surgery rate in the UDS arm was not found (38% and 36% for UDS and routine care, respectively), with overall rates lower than expected. AEs were similar between the arms at 43-44%. There were more cases of acute urinary retention in the routine care arm. Patient-reported outcomes for LUTS improved in both arms and satisfaction with UDS was high in men who received it. UDS was more expensive than routine care. From a secondary care perspective, UDS cost an additional £216 over an 18-month time horizon. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were similar, with a QALY difference of 0.006 in favour of UDS over 18 months. It was established that UDS was acceptable to patients, and valued by both patients and clinicians for its perceived additional insight into the cause and probable best treatment of LUTS. LIMITATIONS: The trial met its predefined recruitment target, but surgery rates were lower than anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of UDS in the diagnostic tests results in a symptom outcome that is non-inferior to a routine care pathway, but does not affect surgical rates for treating BOO. Results do not support the routine use of UDS in men undergoing investigation of LUTS. FUTURE WORK: Focus should be placed on indications for selective utilisation of UDS in individual cases and long-term outcomes of diagnosis and therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56164274. 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. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

After hospital referral, men with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are assessed with standard tests. These include measurement of urine flow rate, bladder diaries and questionnaires, including the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). UPSTREAM (Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery Trial; Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods) researched whether or not including an extra test, urodynamics (UDS), helps when considering treatment options. UDS is a more invasive test and measures pressure in the bladder to check whether or not the prostate is causing obstruction. It was presumed that, if there is no obstruction, surgery would not be offered, so that using UDS would reduce the number of prostate operations. Each man participating (820 in total) was assessed with the standard tests. Around half of them had no extra tests (the 'routine care' arm of the trial); the rest had the UDS tests (the 'UDS' arm). Men then went on to have treatment, which they chose having discussed their test results with a urologist. IPSS and other symptom scores were examined for each man 18 months after joining the trial. At 18 months, surgery outcomes were known for 792 men and IPSS was known for 669 men. We investigated if the two trial arms showed similar changes in the IPSS and if there were fewer operations done in the UDS arm. We identified similar reductions in the IPSS in both arms. However, UDS tests did not reduce the number of operations. Analysing all the costs, it was found that a pathway including UDS costs more than routine care. Interviews were conducted that showed that men found UDS acceptable, and that the additional information helped both the men and their doctors consider which treatment would be most appropriate. These results do not support the routine use of UDS in the assessment of every man considering prostate surgery for LUTS. Further exploration of the data may identify circumstances in which UDS could be helpful.

The use of micro-costing in economic analyses of surgical interventions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Compared with conventional top down costing, micro-costing may provide a more accurate method of resource-use assessment in economic analyses of surgical interventions, but little is known about its current use. The aim of this study was to systematically-review the use of micro-costing in surgery. METHODS: Comprehensive searches identified complete papers, published in English reporting micro-costing of surgical interventions up to and including 22nd June 2018. Studies were critically appraised using a modified version of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) Checklist. Study demographics and details of resources identified; methods for measuring and valuing identified resources and any cost-drivers identified in each study were summarised. RESULTS: A total of 85 papers were identified. Included studies were mainly observational comparative studies (n = 42, 49.4%) with few conducted in the context of a randomised trial (n = 5, 5.9%). The majority of studies were single-centre (n = 66, 77.6%) and almost half (n = 40, 47.1%) collected data retrospectively. Only half (n = 46, 54.1%) self-identified as being 'micro-costing' studies. Rationale for the use of micro-costing was most commonly to compare procedures/techniques/processes but over a third were conducted specifically to accurately assess costs and/or identify cost-drivers. The most commonly included resources were personnel costs (n = 76, 89.4%); materials/disposables (n = 76, 89.4%) and operating-room costs (n = 62,72.9%). No single resource was included in all studies. Most studies (n = 72, 84.7%) identified key cost-drivers for their interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There is lack of consistency regarding the current use of micro-costing in surgery. Standardising terminology and focusing on identifying and accurately costing key cost-drivers may improve the quality and value of micro-costing in future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42018099604.

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

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