Supporting physical activity through co-production in people with severe mental ill health (SPACES): protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe mental ill health (SMI) includes schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and schizoaffective disorder and is associated with premature deaths when compared to people without SMI. Over 70% of those deaths are attributed to preventable health conditions, which have the potential to be positively affected by the adoption of healthy behaviours, such as physical activity. People with SMI are generally less active than those without and face unique barriers to being physically active. Physical activity interventions for those with SMI demonstrate promise, however, there are important questions remaining about the potential feasibility and acceptability of a physical activity intervention embedded within existing NHS pathways. METHOD: This is a two-arm multi-site randomised controlled feasibility trial, assessing the feasibility and acceptability of a co-produced physical activity intervention for a full-scale trial across geographically dispersed NHS mental health trusts in England. Participants will be randomly allocated via block, 1:1 randomisation, into either the intervention arm or the usual care arm. The usual care arm will continue to receive usual care throughout the trial, whilst the intervention arm will receive usual care plus the offer of a weekly, 18-week, physical activity intervention comprising walking and indoor activity sessions and community taster sessions. Another main component of the intervention includes one-to-one support. The primary outcome is to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and to scale it up to a full-scale trial, using a short proforma provided to all intervention participants at follow-up, qualitative interviews with approximately 15 intervention participants and 5 interventions delivery staff, and data on intervention uptake, attendance, and attrition. Usual care data will also include recruitment and follow-up retention. Secondary outcome measures include physical activity and sedentary behaviours, body mass index, depression, anxiety, health-related quality of life, healthcare resource use, and adverse events. Outcome measures will be taken at baseline, three, and six-months post randomisation. DISCUSSION: This study will determine if the physical activity intervention is feasible and acceptable to both participants receiving the intervention and NHS staff who deliver it. Results will inform the design of a larger randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical and cost effectiveness of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN83877229. Registered on 09.09.2022.

Testing the feasibility of a co-designed intervention, comprising self-managed, home-based, exercise training with embedded behavioural support and compression therapy for people with venous leg ulcers receiving treatment at home (FISCU-II).

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulcers (VLUs) heal slowly, are painful for patients and are costly for healthcare systems; they also affect patients' quality of life. Previous work suggests that supervised exercise training used in combination with compression therapy may offer clinical benefits. However, a large population of people with VLUs are unable to access such an intervention due to frailty and age. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of 'FISCU Home' (a co-designed, 12-week home-based self-managed lifestyle programme based on exercise and behaviour support) as an adjunct therapy to compression in people with VLUs. METHODS: Forty people with VLUs, receiving treatment at home, were recruited from community nursing and tissue viability teams, and via a newspaper advertisement. Participants were randomized 1 : 1 either to exercise with behaviour support (three times per week) plus compression therapy or compression only. The feasibility of the programme was assessed using progression criteria that included exercise attendance rate, loss to follow-up, patient preference(s) and adverse events (AEs). Baseline assessments were repeated at 12 weeks and 6 months. Secondary outcomes (i.e. ulcer recurrence, healing rate and healing time) were also documented at these intervals. Intervention and healthcare utilization costs were calculated. RESULTS: The study recruitment rate was 65%, while 75% of the exercise group participants attended all scheduled exercise sessions. All participants completed compression therapy. No serious AEs or exercise-related AEs were reported. Median (interquartile range) ulcer healing time was shorter in the exercise group [29 (7-108) vs. 42 (6-116) weeks]. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility and acceptability of both a home- and exercise-based lifestyle intervention in conjunction with compression therapy and the study procedures are supported.

Exploring the Feasibility of a Self-Managed Lifestyle Intervention, Based on Exercise and Behaviour Support, as an Adjunct Therapy to Compression: A Sub-Study Focusing on People with Venous Leg Ulcers and Early Neuro-Degenerative Diseases (FISCU-NDD).

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to adapt the "FISCU Home" intervention (a co-produced, self-managed and expert-supported lifestyle intervention comprising exercise and behaviour support aimed at people with Venous Leg Ulcers (VLUs), in a way that is suitable for the needs of people with combined VLUs and early-stage, Neuro-degenerative diseases (NDDs), and to explore its feasibility (e.g., estimate rates of recruitment and completion of sessions, calculate study adherence rates, assess participant satisfaction via participant interviews, and assess ease of data collection) within this clinical sub-group. METHODS: We recruited seven people belonging to this VLUs sub-group (e.g., people with early-stage dementia or Parkinson's), who were ≥18 years' old, had VLU(s) of diameter ≥1 cm, ABPI ≥ 0.8, had the ability to tolerate lower-leg compression and were receiving VLU treatment at home. In Phase 1, participants helped us adapt the intervention. In Phase 2 we carried out a 4-week "training crash-course". This consisted of three, 1 h, self-managed, exercise sessions per week (12 sessions in total), among the participants that completed the interviews. For Phase 3, we carried out post-interviews with all participants to investigate their study experiences, which were analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: All assessments were completed successfully (100% retention and assessment completion), with no exercise-related adverse events. All participants completed the 4-week intervention (100%; all sessions completed by all participants). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the adapted intervention is feasible, enjoyable and well-received, and has the potential to provide clinical benefits to the participants.

The co-design of an exercise-based, lifestyle intervention for people with venous leg ulcers; a self-care, expert-supported strategy for a chronic condition.

Exercise is recommended as an adjunct treatment, alongside compression therapy to increase venous leg ulcer (VLU) wound healing times, however, there are no published programmes available that support patients to exercise at home on their own. To develop an exercise-based lifestyle intervention that is feasible and acceptable to people with VLUs, a participatory approach was utilised. Clinicians, researchers, and people living with VLUs collaborated in the design of "FISCU Home". Two focus groups and nine interviews were conducted with people living with a VLU. Tissue viability nurses provided clinical expertise. Data was analysed through thematic analysis. Ten key themes were identified and incorporated into FISCU Home: (I) a condition-specific flexible programme, (II) personal assessment and tailored exercises, (III) tapered individualised support, (IV) short lower-intensity sessions, (V) chair-based options, (VI) falls prevention, (VII) accessible resources, (VIII) functional, compact, self-managed exercises, (IX) a behaviour change strategy, and (X) education. FISCU Home has integrated patients' needs and preferences with evidence-based principles and theory to create an exercise-based lifestyle intervention for people with VLUs. FISCU Home could provide a mainstream adjunct therapy in wound care and support the movement towards self-management.

Promoting and Maintaining Changes in Smoking Behavior for Patients Following Discharge from a Smoke-free Mental Health Inpatient Stay: Development of a Complex Intervention Using the Behavior Change Wheel.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence suggests that smokers can successfully quit, remain abstinent or reduce smoking during a smoke-free mental health inpatient stay, provided behavioral/pharmacological support are offered. However, few evidence-based strategies to prevent the return to prehospital smoking behaviors post-discharge exist. AIMS AND METHODS: We report the development of an intervention designed to support smoking-related behavior change following discharge from a smoke-free mental health stay. We followed the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW) intervention development process. The target behavior was supporting patients to change their smoking behaviors following discharge from a smoke-free mental health stay. Using systematic reviews, we identified the barriers and enablers, classified according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Potential intervention functions to address key influences were identified by consulting the BCW and Behavior Change Technique (BCT) taxonomy. Another systematic review identified effectiveness of BCTs in this context. Stakeholder consultations were conducted to prioritize and refine intervention content. RESULTS: Barriers and enablers to supporting smoking cessation were identified within the domains of environmental context and resources (lack of staff time); knowledge (ill-informed interactions about smoking); social influences, and intentions (lack of intention to deliver support). Potential strategies to address these influences included goal setting, problem-solving, feedback, social support, and information on health consequences. A strategy for operationalizing these techniques into intervention components was agreed upon: Pre-discharge evaluation sessions, a personalized resource folder, tailored behavioral and text message support post-discharge, and a peer interaction group, delivered by a trained mental health worker. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention includes targeted resources to support smoking-related behavior change in patients following discharge from a smoke-free mental health setting. IMPLICATIONS: Using the BCW and TDF supported a theoretically and empirically informed process to define and develop a tailored intervention that acknowledges barriers and enablers to supporting smoking cessation in mental health settings. The result is a novel complex theory- and evidence-based intervention that will be formally tested in a randomized controlled feasibility study.

Study protocol for the Multiple Symptoms Study 3: a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial of a clinic for patients with persistent (medically unexplained) physical symptoms.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent physical symptoms (which cannot be adequately attributed to physical disease) affect around 1 million people (2% of adults) in the UK. They affect patients' quality of life and account for at least one third of referrals from General Practitioners (GPs) to specialists. These referrals give patients little benefit but have a real cost to health services time and diagnostic resources. The symptoms clinic has been designed to help people make sense of persistent physical symptoms (especially if medical tests have been negative) and to reduce the impact of symptoms on daily life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the symptoms clinic intervention plus usual care compared with usual care alone. Patients were identified through GP searches and mail-outs and recruited by the central research team. 354 participants were recruited and individually randomised (1:1). The primary outcome is the self-reported Physical Health Questionnaire-15 at 52 weeks postrandomisation. Secondary outcome measures include the EuroQol 5 dimension 5 level and healthcare resource use. Outcome measures will also be collected at 13 and 26 weeks postrandomisation. A process evaluation will be conducted including consultation content analysis and interviews with participants and key stakeholders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained via Greater Manchester Central Research Ethics Committee (Reference 18/NW/0422). The results of the trial will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, presented at relevant conferences and disseminated to trial participants and patient interest groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN57050216.

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.

Comparison of amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (OPTION-DM): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) is common and often distressing. Most guidelines recommend amitriptyline, duloxetine, pregabalin, or gabapentin as initial analgesic treatment for DPNP, but there is little comparative evidence on which one is best or whether they should be combined. We aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of different combinations of first-line drugs for treatment of DPNP. METHODS: OPTION-DM was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, crossover trial in patients with DPNP with mean daily pain numerical rating scale (NRS) of 4 or higher (scale is 0-10) from 13 UK centres. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1), with a predetermined randomisation schedule stratified by site using permuted blocks of size six or 12, to receive one of six ordered sequences of the three treatment pathways: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin (A-P), pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline (P-A), and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin (D-P), each pathway lasting 16 weeks. Monotherapy was given for 6 weeks and was supplemented with the combination medication if there was suboptimal pain relief (NRS >3), reflecting current clinical practice. Both treatments were titrated towards maximum tolerated dose (75 mg per day for amitriptyline, 120 mg per day for duloxetine, and 600 mg per day for pregabalin). The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average daily pain during the final week of each pathway. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN17545443. FINDINGS: Between Nov 14, 2017, and July 29, 2019, 252 patients were screened, 140 patients were randomly assigned, and 130 started a treatment pathway (with 84 completing at least two pathways) and were analysed for the primary outcome. The 7-day average NRS scores at week 16 decreased from a mean 6·6 (SD 1·5) at baseline to 3·3 (1·8) at week 16 in all three pathways. The mean difference was -0·1 (98·3% CI -0·5 to 0·3) for D-P versus A-P, -0·1 (-0·5 to 0·3) for P-A versus A-P, and 0·0 (-0·4 to 0·4) for P-A versus D-P, and thus not significant. Mean NRS reduction in patients on combination therapy was greater than in those who remained on monotherapy (1·0 [SD 1·3] vs 0·2 [1·5]). Adverse events were predictable for the monotherapies: we observed a significant increase in dizziness in the P-A pathway, nausea in the D-P pathway, and dry mouth in the A-P pathway. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this was the largest and longest ever, head-to-head, crossover neuropathic pain trial. We showed that all three treatment pathways and monotherapies had similar analgesic efficacy. Combination treatment was well tolerated and led to improved pain relief in patients with suboptimal pain control with a monotherapy. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme.

Integrating physical activity into the treatment of depression in adults: A qualitative enquiry.

Around 246 million people globally suffer from depression. Physical activity (PA) can reduce the risk of depression by 30% and is recognised as an effective treatment for mild-to-moderate depression (MMD). However, a high proportion of patients with MMD are currently inactive and the implementation of PA as an adherent treatment for MMD is not well understood. This study contributes to a growing body of research exploring how to support people who are experiencing MMD to increase their PA levels (i.e. initiation and maintenance). It investigated which factors individuals with MMD perceived to be important for integrating PA into the treatment of depression in adults. In-depth interviews were carried out with individuals with MMD (N = 6), and data were analysed using thematic analysis. Two main theories of social capital that of Bourdieu and Putnam informed the discussion of findings. The initiation and maintenance of PA were linked to individual factors including health (i.e. nature of depression; comorbidities); abilities and tastes; socioeconomic status (e.g. financial position) and positive encouragement. In addition, maintenance emerged as dependent upon the choice, enjoyment, and meaningfulness of PA itself, and, for those who engaged in group PA, on social capital. PA interventions need to be personalised. This goes beyond a simple exercise prescription based on functional ability, but instead takes into account the needs, desires and capabilities of the whole person. The nature of MMD, the wider physical and socio-economic context and the social capital that is available to the individual also need to be harnessed.

Investigating Changes in Patients' Smoking Behavior, Tobacco Dependence, and Motivation to Stop Smoking Following a "Smoke-Free" Mental Health Inpatient Stay: Results From a Longitudinal Survey in England.

INTRODUCTION: In line with national guidance, mental health Trusts in England are implementing complete smoke-free policies. We investigated inpatients' changes in smoking behavior, tobacco dependence, vaping, and motivation to stop smoking between pre-admission and post-discharge. METHODS: We surveyed acute adult mental health inpatients from 14 wards in three mental health Trusts in England in 2019. Structured face-to-face and telephone interviews with patients who smoked on or during admission were conducted during the admission period and at one week and one month after discharge. Data on smoking status; daily cigarette consumption; Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI); Strength of Urges to Smoke (SUTS); Motivation to Stop Smoking (MTSS) and vaping were collected and analyzed using regression and probit models. RESULTS: Inpatient smoking prevalence was 51.9%, and a total of 152 of all 555 eligible smokers (27%) were recruited. Attrition was high: 49.3% at the first and 50.7% at the second follow-up interview. Changes in self-reported smoking status, motivation to quit, and vaping did not change significantly over the study period. Cigarette consumption (p < 0.001) and Heaviness of Smoking Index (p < 0.001) modestly reduced. The frequency and strength of urges to smoke (p = 0.011 and 0.012, respectively) decreased modestly after discharge but were scored as high by 57% and 60% of participants during admission respectively. Just over half (56%) reported being offered smoking cessation support on admission. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified very modest changes in smoking-related outcomes during and after admission and indicates major challenges to smoke-free policy implementation, including limited support for patients who smoke. IMPLICATIONS: Despite mental health Trusts in England had developed and implemented smoke-free policies to meet national guidelines, adherence to these policies and provision of effective smoking cessation and temporary abstinence support for inpatients admitted to acute adult mental health wards appear to be limited. Patients who smoke on admission are likely to continue to do so during admission and after discharge, and only a very modest change in smoking behaviors appears to take place. Important opportunities to promote smoking cessation in this population are missed. Barriers to effective support need to be identified and addressed.

Understanding the experience of initiating community-based group physical activity by people with serious mental illness: A systematic review using a meta-ethnographic approach.

BACKGROUND: People living with serious mental illness (SMI) experience debilitating symptoms that worsen their physical health and quality of life. Regular physical activity (PA) may bring symptomatic improvements and enhance wellbeing. When undertaken in community-based group settings, PA may yield additional benefits such as reduced isolation. Initiating PA can be difficult for people with SMI, so PA engagement is commonly low. Designing acceptable and effective PA programs requires a better understanding of the lived experiences of PA initiation among people with SMI. METHODS: This systematic review of qualitative studies used the meta-ethnography approach by Noblit and Hare (1988). Electronic databases were searched from inception to November 2017. Eligible studies used qualitative methodology; involved adults (≥18 years) with schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder, major depressive disorder, or psychosis; reported community-based group PA; and captured the experience of PA initiation, including key features of social support. Study selection and quality assessment were performed by four reviewers. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in the review. We identified a "journey" that depicted a long sequence of phases involved in initiating PA. The journey demonstrated the thought processes, expectations, barriers, and support needs of people with SMI. In particular, social support from a trusted source played an important role in getting people to the activity, both physically and emotionally. DISCUSSION: The journey illustrated that initiation of PA for people with SMI is a long complex transition. This complex process needs to be understood before ongoing participation in PA can be addressed. Registration-The review was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 22/03/2017 (registration number CRD42017059948).

A bespoke smoking cessation service compared with treatment as usual for people with severe mental ill health: the SCIMITAR+ RCT.

BACKGROUND: There is a high prevalence of smoking among people with severe mental ill health (SMI). Helping people with SMI to quit smoking could improve their health and longevity, and reduce health inequalities. However, those with SMI are less likely to access and engage with routine smoking cessation services than the general population. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a bespoke smoking cessation (BSC) intervention with usual stop smoking services for people with SMI. DESIGN: A pragmatic, two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care and secondary care mental health services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Smokers aged ≥ 18 years with SMI who would like to cut down on or quit smoking. INTERVENTIONS: A BSC intervention delivered by mental health specialists trained to deliver evidence-supported smoking cessation interventions compared with usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported, CO-verified smoking cessation at 12 months. Smoking-related secondary outcomes were self-reported smoking cessation, the number of cigarettes smoked per day, the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence and the Motivation to Quit questionnaire. Other secondary outcomes were Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7 items and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey, to assess mental health and body mass index measured at 6 and 12 months post randomisation. RESULTS: The trial randomised 526 people (265 to the intervention group, 261 to the usual-care group) aged 19 to 72 years (mean 46 years). About 60% of participants were male. Participants smoked between 3 and 100 cigarettes per day (mean 25 cigarettes per day) at baseline. The intervention group had a higher rate of exhaled CO-verified smoking cessation at 6 and 12 months than the usual-care group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 12 months: 1.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9 to 2.8; adjusted OR 6 months: 2.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.7]. This was not statistically significant at 12 months (p = 0.12) but was statistically significant at 6 months (p = 0.01). In total, 111 serious adverse events were reported (69 in the BSC group and 42 in the usual-care group); the majority were unplanned hospitalisations due to a deterioration in mental health (n = 98). The intervention is likely (57%) to be less costly but more effective than usual care; however, this result was not necessarily associated with participants' smoking status. LIMITATIONS: Follow-up was not blind to treatment allocation. However, the primary outcome included a biochemically verified end point, less susceptible to observer biases. Some participants experienced difficulties in accessing nicotine replacement therapy because of changes in service provision. Efforts were made to help participants access nicotine replacement therapy, but this may have affected participants' quit attempt. CONCLUSIONS: People with SMI who received the intervention were more likely to have stopped smoking at 6 months. Although more people who received the intervention had stopped smoking at 12 months, this was not statistically significant. FUTURE WORK: Further research is needed to establish how quitting can be sustained among people with SMI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72955454. 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. 23, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Smoking is an important health issue, especially among people who have experienced mental ill health such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. This is because people with severe mental ill health (SMI) are more likely to smoke than the general population. Despite this, they are less likely to get help to stop smoking, and it may be that people with mental ill health problems need greater support to help them stop smoking. To address this problem, we developed and tested a 'bespoke smoking cessation' (BSC) service tailored to people with SMI. People aged ≥ 18 years who said that they would like to stop smoking were randomly allocated to either a BSC service or the usual stop smoking services. Those in the BSC service were allocated a mental health professional who had been trained to deliver smoking cessation interventions. The mental health professional worked with the participant and their care team to advise on stop smoking medication and provide information, support and motivation. Usual-care participants were signposted to local smoking services, but their subsequent care was not directly provided or supervised by trial smoking cessation advisors. Between October 2015 and December 2016, 526 people with SMI were recruited into the study: 265 of these people were randomly assigned to the BSC service and 261 were randomly assigned to usual care. At 6 and 12 months after randomisation, participants completed questionnaires that asked about their smoking status and health. Participants had their smoking status tested by measuring the amount of carbon monoxide in their breath. After 6 months, more people who received the BSC intervention had stopped smoking than those who had received usual care. At 12 months, the results were less clear in terms of the difference in the number of people who had stopped smoking. The BSC service cost less than or similar to usual care, when considering the overall health-care services. The improvement in health of people who received the BSC service remains uncertain. In addition, we do not know whether or not this was related to people stopping smoking.

Smoking cessation for people with severe mental illness (SCIMITAR+): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia are three times more likely to smoke than the wider population, contributing to widening health inequalities. Smoking remains the largest modifiable risk factor for this health inequality, but people with severe mental illness have not historically engaged with smoking cessation services. We aimed to test the effectiveness of a combined behavioural and pharmacological smoking cessation intervention targeted specifically at people with severe mental illness. METHODS: In the smoking cessation intervention for severe mental illness (SCIMITAR+) trial, a pragmatic, randomised controlled study, we recruited heavy smokers with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia from 16 primary care and 21 community-based mental health sites in the UK. Participants were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, and smoked at least five cigarettes per day. Exclusion criteria included substantial comorbid drug or alcohol problems and people who lacked capacity to consent at the time of recruitment. Using computer-generated random numbers, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a bespoke smoking cessation intervention or to usual care. Participants, mental health specialists, and primary care physicians were unmasked to assignment. The bespoke smoking cessation intervention consisted of behavioural support from a mental health smoking cessation practitioner and pharmacological aids for smoking cessation, with adaptations for people with severe mental illness-such as, extended pre-quit sessions, cut down to quit, and home visits. Access to pharmacotherapy was via primary care after discussion with the smoking cessation specialist. Under usual care participants were offered access to local smoking cessation services not specifically designed for people with severe mental illnesses. The primary endpoint was smoking cessation at 12 months ascertained via carbon monoxide measurements below 10 parts per million and self-reported cessation for the past 7 days. Secondary endpoints were biologically verified smoking cessation at 6 months; number of cigarettes smoked per day, Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) and Motivation to Quit (MTQ) questionnaire; general and mental health functioning determined via the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) questionnaire, and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12); and body-mass index (BMI). This trial was registerd with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN72955454, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 7, 2015, and Dec 16, 2016, 526 eligible patients were randomly assigned to the bespoke smoking cessation intervention (n=265) or usual care (n=261). 309 (59%) participants were male, median age was 47·2 years (IQR 36·3-54·5), with high nicotine dependence (mean 24 cigarettes per day [SD 13·2]), and the most common severe mental disorders were schizophrenia or other psychotic illness (n=343 [65%]), bipolar disorder (n=115 [22%]), and schizoaffective disorder (n=66 [13%]). 234 (88%) of intervention participants engaged with the treatment programme and attended 6·4 (SD 3·5) quit smoking sessions, with an average duration of 39 min (SD 17; median 35 min, range 5-120). Verified quit data at 12 months were available for 219 (84%) of 261 usual care and 223 (84%) of 265 intervention participants. The proportion of participants who had quit at 12 months was higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group, but non-significantly (34 [15%] of 223 [13% of those assigned to group] vs 22 [10%] of 219 [8% of those assigned to group], risk difference 5·2%, 95% CI -1·0 to 11·4; odds ratio [OR] 1·6, 95% CI 0·9 to 2·9; p=0·10). The proportion of participants who quit at 6 months was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group (32 [14%] of 226 vs 14 [6%] of 217; risk difference 7·7%, 95% CI 2·1 to 13·3; OR 2·4, 95% CI 1·2 to 4·6; p=0·010). The incidence rate ratio for number of cigarettes smoked per day at 6 months was 0·90 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·01; p=0·079), and at 12 months was 1·00 (0·89 to 1·13; p=0·95). At both 6 months and 12 months, the intervention group was non-significantly favoured in the FTND (adjusted mean difference 6 months -0·18, 95% CI -0·53 to 0·17, p=0·32; and 12 months -0·01, -0·39 to 0·38, p=0·97) and MTQ questionnaire (adjusted mean difference 0·58, -0·01 to 1·17, p=0·056; and 12 months 0·64, 0·04 to 1·24, p=0·038). The PHQ-9 showed no difference between the groups (adjusted mean difference at 6 months 0·20, 95% CI -0·85 to 1·24 vs 12 months -0·12, -1·18 to 0·94). For the SF-12 survey, we saw evidence of improvement in physical health in the intervention group at 6 months (adjusted mean difference 1·75, 95% CI 0·21 to 3·28), but this difference was not evident at 12 months (0·59, -1·07 to 2·26); and we saw no difference in mental health between the groups at 6 or 12 months (adjusted mean difference at 6 months -0·73, 95% CI -2·82 to 1·36, and 12 months -0·41, -2·35 to 1·53). The GAD-7 questionnaire showed no difference between the groups (adjusted mean difference at 6 months -0·32 95% CI -1·26 to 0·62 vs 12 months -0·10, -1·05 to 0·86). No difference in BMI was seen between the groups (adjusted mean difference 6 months 0·16, 95% CI -0·54 to 0·85; 12 months 0·25, -0·62 to 1·13). INTERPRETATION: This bespoke intervention is a candidate model of smoking cessation for clinicians and policy makers to address high prevalence of smoking. The incidence of quitting at 6 months shows that smoking cessation can be achieved, but the waning of this effect by 12 months means more effort is needed for sustained quitting. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Correction to: Economic Evaluations Alongside Efficient Study Designs Using Large Observational Datasets: the PLEASANT Trial Case Study.

The original article can be found online.

Open-label, cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a brief letter from a GP on unscheduled medical contacts associated with the start of the school year: the PLEASANT trial.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is seasonal with peaks in exacerbation rates in school-age children associated with the return to school following the summer vacation. A drop in prescription collection in August is associated with an increase in the number of unscheduled contacts after the school return. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a public health intervention delivered in general practice reduced unscheduled medical contacts in children with asthma. DESIGN: Cluster randomised trial with trial-based economic evaluation. Randomisation was at general practice level, stratified by size of practice. The intervention group received a letter from their general practitioner (GP) in late July outlining the importance of (re)taking asthma medication before the return to school. The control group was usual care. SETTING: General practices in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 12 179 school-age children in 142 general practices (70 randomised to intervention). MAIN OUTCOME: Proportion of children aged 5-16 years who had an unscheduled contact in September. Secondary endpoints included collection of prescriptions in August and medical contacts over 12 months (September-August). Economic endpoints were quality-adjusted life-years gained and health service costs. RESULTS: There was no evidence of effect (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.25 against treatment) on unscheduled contacts in September. The intervention increased the proportion of children collecting a prescription in August by 4% (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.24 to 1.64). The intervention also reduced the total number of medical contacts between September-August by 5% (incidence ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99).The mean reduction in medical contacts informed the health economics analyses. The intervention was estimated to save £36.07 per patient, with a high probability (96.3%) of being cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention succeeded in increasing children collecting prescriptions. It did not reduce unscheduled care in September (the primary outcome), but in the year following the intervention, it reduced the total number of medical contacts. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN03000938; Results.

Economic Evaluations Alongside Efficient Study Designs Using Large Observational Datasets: the PLEASANT Trial Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Large observational datasets such as Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) provide opportunities to conduct clinical studies and economic evaluations with efficient designs. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to report the economic evaluation methodology for a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a UK NHS-delivered public health intervention for children with asthma that was evaluated using CPRD and describe the impact of this methodology on results. METHODS: CPRD identified eligible patients using predefined asthma diagnostic codes and captured 1-year pre- and post-intervention healthcare contacts (August 2012 to July 2014). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) 4 months post-intervention were estimated by assigning utility values to exacerbation-related contacts; a systematic review identified these utility values because preference-based outcome measures were not collected. Bootstrapped costs were evaluated 12 months post-intervention, both with 1-year regression-based baseline adjustment (BA) and without BA (observed). RESULTS: Of 12,179 patients recruited, 8190 (intervention 3641; control 4549) were evaluated in the primary analysis, which included patients who received the protocol-defined intervention and for whom CPRD data were available. The intervention's per-patient incremental QALY loss was 0.00017 (bias-corrected and accelerated 95% confidence intervals [BCa 95% CI] -0.00051 to 0.00018) and cost savings were £14.74 (observed; BCa 95% CI -75.86 to 45.19) or £36.07 (BA; BCa 95% CI -77.11 to 9.67), respectively. The probability of cost savings was much higher when accounting for BA versus observed costs due to baseline cost differences between trial arms (96.3 vs. 67.3%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Economic evaluations using data from a large observational database without any primary data collection is feasible, informative and potentially efficient. Clinical Trials Registration Number: ISRCTN03000938.

PLEASANT: Preventing and Lessening Exacerbations of Asthma in School-age children Associated with a New Term - a cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Asthma episodes and deaths are known to be seasonal. A number of reports have shown peaks in asthma episodes in school-aged children associated with the return to school following the summer vacation. A fall in prescription collection in the month of August has been observed, and was associated with an increase in the number of unscheduled contacts after the return to school in September. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study was to assess whether or not a NHS-delivered public health intervention reduces the September peak in unscheduled medical contacts. DESIGN: Cluster randomised trial, with the unit of randomisation being 142 NHS general practices, and trial-based economic evaluation. SETTING: Primary care. INTERVENTION: A letter sent (n = 70 practices) in July from their general practitioner (GP) to parents/carers of school-aged children with asthma to remind them of the importance of taking their medication, and to ensure that they have sufficient medication prior to the start of the new school year in September. The control group received usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of children aged 5-16 years who had an unscheduled medical contact in September 2013. Supporting end points included the proportion of children who collected prescriptions in August 2013 and unscheduled contacts through the following 12 months. Economic end points were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and costs from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. RESULTS: There is no evidence of effect in terms of unscheduled contacts in September. Among children aged 5-16 years, the odds ratio (OR) was 1.09 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.25] against the intervention. The intervention did increase the proportion of children collecting a prescription in August (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.64) as well as scheduled contacts in the same month (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.52). For the wider time intervals (September-December 2013 and September-August 2014), there is weak evidence of the intervention reducing unscheduled contacts. The intervention did not reduce unscheduled care in September, although it succeeded in increasing the proportion of children collecting prescriptions in August as well as having scheduled contacts in the same month. These unscheduled contacts in September could be a result of the intervention, as GPs may have wanted to see patients before issuing a prescription. The economic analysis estimated a high probability that the intervention was cost-saving, for baseline-adjusted costs, across both base-case and sensitivity analyses. There was no increase in QALYs. LIMITATION: The use of routine data led to uncertainty in the coding of medical contacts. The uncertainty was mitigated by advice from a GP adjudication panel. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention did not reduce unscheduled care in September, although it succeeded in increasing the proportion of children both collecting prescriptions and having scheduled contacts in August. After September there is weak evidence in favour of the intervention. The intervention had a favourable impact on costs but did not demonstrate any impact on QALYs. The results of the trial indicate that further work is required on assessing and understanding adherence, both in terms of using routine data to make quantitative assessments, and through additional qualitative interviews with key stakeholders such as practice nurses, GPs and a wider group of children with asthma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03000938. FUNDING DETAILS: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 93. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

PPI in the PLEASANT trial: involving children with asthma and their parents in designing an intervention for a randomised controlled trial based within primary care.

Aims We describe how patient and public involvement (PPI) was integrated into the design of an intervention for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) based within primary care. The RCT, known as the PLEASANT trial, aimed to reduce unscheduled medical contacts in children with asthma associated with start of the new school year in September with a simple postal intervention, highlighting the importance of maintaining asthma medication for helping to prevent increased asthma exacerbations. BACKGROUND: PPI is a key feature of UK health research policy, and is often a requirement of funding from the National Institute for Health Research. There are few detailed accounts of PPI in the design and conduct of clinical trials in the PPI literature for researchers to learn from. METHODS: We held PPI consultation events to determine whether the proposed intervention for the trial was acceptable to children with asthma and their parents, and to ascertain whether enhancements should be made. Two PPI consultation events were held with children with asthma and their parents, prior to the research commencing. Detailed field notes were taken by the research team at each consultation event. Findings At the first consultation event, parents and children endorsed the trial's rationale, made suggestions to the wording of the trial intervention letter, and made recommendations about to whom the letter should be sent out. At the second consultation event, parents discussed the timing of the intervention, commented on the lay summary of the Research Ethics Application, and were invited to join the trial's steering committee, while the children selected a logo for the study. PPI has resulted in enhancements to the PLEASANT study's intervention. A further PPI consultation event is scheduled for the end of the trial, in order for children with asthma and their parents to contribute to the trial's dissemination strategy.

Preventing and Lessening Exacerbations of Asthma in School-aged children Associated with a New Term (PLEASANT): Recruiting Primary Care Research Sites-the PLEASANT experience.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment of general practices and their patients into research studies is frequently reported as a challenge. The Preventing and Lessening Exacerbations of Asthma in School-aged children Associated with a New Term (PLEASANT) trial recruited 142 general practices, across England and Wales and delivered the study intervention to time and target. AIMS: To describe the process of recruitment used within the cluster randomised PLEASANT trial and present results on factors that influenced recruitment. METHODS: Data were collected on the number of and types of contact used to gain expression of interest and subsequent randomisation into the PLEASANT trial. Practice size and previous research experience were also collected. RESULTS: The mean number of contacts required to gain expression of interest were m=3.01 (s.d. 1.6) and total number of contacts from initial invitation to randomisation m=6.8 (s.d. 3.5). Previous randomised controlled trial involvement (hazard ratio (HR)=1.81 (confidence interval (CI) 95%, 1.55-2.11) P<0.001) and number of studies a practice had previously engaged in (odds ratio (OR) 1.91 (CI 95%, (1.52-2.42)) P<0.001), significantly influenced whether a practice would participate in PLEASANT. Practice size was not a significant deciding factor (OR=1.04 (95% CI 0.99-1.08) P=0.137). CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment to time and target can be achieved in general practice. The amount of resource required for site recruitment should not, however, be underestimated and multiple strategies for contacting practices should be considered. General practitioners with more research experience are more likely to participate in studies.

Preventing and lessening exacerbations of asthma in school-age children associated with a new term (PLEASANT): study protocol for a cluster randomised control trial.

BACKGROUND: Within the UK, during September, there is a pronounced increase in the number of unscheduled medical contacts by school-aged children (4-16 years) with asthma. It is thought that that this might be caused by the return back to school after the summer holidays, suddenly mixing with other children again and picking up viruses which could affect their asthma. There is also a drop in the number of prescriptions administered in August. It is possible therefore that children might not be taking their medication as they should during the summer contributing to them becoming ill when they return to school.It is hoped that a simple intervention from the GP to parents of children with asthma at the start of the summer holiday period, highlighting the importance of maintaining asthma medication can help prevent increased asthma exacerbation, and unscheduled NHS appointments, following return to school in September. METHODS/DESIGN: PLEASANT is a cluster randomised trial. A total of 140 General Practices (GPs) will be recruited into the trial; 70 GPs randomised to the intervention and 70 control practices of "usual care". An average practice is expected to have approximately 100 children (aged 4-16 with a diagnosis of asthma) hence observational data will be collected on around 14000 children over a 24-month period. The Clinical Practice Research Datalink will collect all data required for the study which includes diagnostic, prescription and referral data. DISCUSSION: The trial will assess whether the intervention can reduce exacerbation of asthma and unscheduled medical contacts in school-aged children associated with the return to school after the summer holidays. It has the potential to benefit the health and quality of life of children with asthma while also improving the effectiveness of NHS services by reducing NHS use in one of the busiest months of the year.An exploratory health economic analysis will gauge any cost saving associated with the intervention and subsequent impacts on quality of life. If results for the intervention are positive it is hoped that this could be adopted as part of routine care management of childhood asthma in general practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials: ISRCTN03000938 (assigned 19/10/12) http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN03000938/. UKCRN ID: 13572.