Key components of rehabilitation programmes for adults with complex fractures following traumatic injury: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Complex fractures are severe injuries that cause considerable disability, particularly in the working population. Effective rehabilitation is essential to achieve good outcomes, however, it is unclear what the best rehabilitation strategy is for adults with complex fractures, after their discharge from hospital. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and map the breadth of evidence available on this topic. METHODS: A systematic search was completed on 24th July 2023 using a combination of subject and specialist databases. In addition, a secondary search assessed unpublished literature from trial registries. A citation search was completed on the selected studies. The template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist was used to extract consistent data on the interventions reported in the studies. The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews was followed. RESULTS: 19,253 studies were identified from the search strategy of which 25 studies met the eligibility criteria. Most interventions were exercise-based and delivered by physiotherapists. Some studies compared manual therapy treatments to other forms of physiotherapy or a placebo, whilst others investigated psychosocial interventions, such as cognitive behavioural therapy, in comparison to usual care. Two studies took a multidisciplinary team approach, incorporating components such as exercise, functional activities and self-management strategies. DISCUSSION: The studies included were heterogenous in terms of population (fracture type, location and complexity), intervention content and therapeutic aims. However, commonalities were found with most interventions or comparators including range of movement, strengthening and task specific exercises; functional tasks; gait and balance training; and advice on return to activities as components. Value was attributed to components such as, a coordinated team approach, person-centred rehabilitation, supervised exercise and psychosocial support. CONCLUSION: There is a broad and varied approach to the rehabilitation of complex fractures. The studies differed in population and approach, with a wide range of injuries, interventions and modes of delivery reported. Fidelity was poorly described, with only a third of studies reporting adherence or acceptability. There was inconclusive evidence to inform clinical practice and further research is advised. Qualitative, expert consensus, and coproduction approaches are recommended methods to develop complex interventions and best practice guidance.

Association between changes in disease severity and physical function after surviving a critical illness: A multicentre retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Whilst disease severity can significantly impact functional outcomes, the ability to predict the scale of this impact has not been consistent. AIM: We aimed to investigate whether changes in disease severity within the first 48 h of ICU admission are more strongly associated with physical dysfunction than a single-time assessment of disease severity at ICU admission. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective study in seven tertiary ICUs in Japan, including all consecutive adult ICU patients (>48 h ICU stay) between September 2019 and February 2020. The primary outcome was physical function defined as the Barthel Index, which is an ordinal scale (0-100: larger indicates better function) to measure physical independence and performance. The association between Barthel Index score at hospital discharge and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores, measured at ICU admission, the highest recorded score within 48 h of ICU admission, and the level of change between these two timepoints were investigated in multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients were included. Median SOFA score at ICU admission and the highest recorded score within the first 48 h were 6 (interquartile range: 5-10) and 8 (interquartile range: 6-11), respectively. A quarter of patients had a Barthel Index score of 60 or less at hospital discharge. The highest SOFA score within 48 h of ICU admission and the level of change in SOFA scores between ICU admission and the highest recorded score within 48 h were significantly associated with lower Barthel Index scores at hospital discharge. No significant association was identified with regard to Barthel Index scores and SOFA score at ICU admission. An increase in SOFA score of 1 or more within the first 48 h of ICU admission was the threshold to predict a Barthel Index score of 60 or less at hospital discharge. Larger changes in SOFA scores over the first 48 h of ICU admission were also significantly associated with smaller changes in Barthel Index scores from ICU discharge to hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The level of change in SOFA score between ICU admission and the highest recorded score within the first 48 h of ICU stay can more accurately predict the presence of physical dysfunction at hospital discharge than a single-time assessment of disease severity at ICU admission. The larger worsening in SOFA potentially indicates lower recovery after a critical illness.

Clinical effectiveness of an online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme for adults with post-covid-19 condition (REGAIN study): multicentre randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a structured online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme can improve health related quality of life compared with usual care in adults with post-covid-19 condition (long covid). DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial. SETTING: England and Wales, with home based interventions delivered remotely online from a single trial hub. PARTICIPANTS: 585 adults (26-86 years) discharged from NHS hospitals at least three months previously after covid-19 and with ongoing physical and/or mental health sequelae (post-covid-19 condition), randomised (1:1.03) to receive the Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN (REGAIN) intervention (n=298) or usual care (n=287). INTERVENTIONS: Best practice usual care was a single online session of advice and support with a trained practitioner. The REGAIN intervention was delivered online over eight weeks and consisted of weekly home based, live, supervised, group exercise and psychological support sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was health related quality of life using the patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) preference (PROPr) score at three months. Secondary outcomes, measured at three, six, and 12 months, included PROMIS subscores (depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain interference, physical function, social roles/activities, and cognitive function), severity of post-traumatic stress disorder, general health, and adverse events. RESULTS: Between January 2021 and July 2022, 39 697 people were invited to take part in the study and 725 were contacted and eligible. 585 participants were randomised. Mean age was 56 (standard deviation (SD) 12) years, 52% were female participants, mean health related quality of life PROMIS-PROPr score was 0.20 (SD 0.17), and mean time from hospital discharge was 323 (SD 144) days. Compared with usual care, the REGAIN intervention led to improvements in health related quality of life (adjusted mean difference in PROPr score 0.03 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.05), P=0.02) at three months, driven predominantly by greater improvements in the PROMIS subscores for depression (1.39 (0.06 to 2.71), P=0.04), fatigue (2.50 (1.19 to 3.81), P<0.001), and pain interference (1.80 (0.50 to 3.11), P=0.01). Effects were sustained at 12 months (0.03 (0.01 to 0.06), P=0.02). Of 21 serious adverse events, only one was possibly related to the REGAIN intervention. In the intervention group, 141 (47%) participants fully adhered to the programme, 117 (39%) partially adhered, and 40 (13%) did not receive the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with post-covid-19 condition, an online, home based, supervised, group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme was clinically effective at improving health related quality of life at three and 12 months compared with usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN11466448.

Self-directed versus peer-supported digital self-management programmes for mental and sexual wellbeing after acquired brain injury (HOPE4ABI): protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acquired brain injury (ABI) can lead to biopsychosocial changes such as depression, low self-esteem and fatigue. These changes can cause, and be caused by, sexual issues affecting relationships and wellbeing. Given the relationship between sexual wellbeing and mental health, it is feasible that supporting sexual wellbeing will benefit psychological wellbeing. However, neurorehabilitation is inconsistent and often fragmented across the UK, and psychological, sexual and social support are lacking. Research shows that self-management and peer-support programmes can improve quality of life, self-efficacy and psychological wellbeing after brain injury. This protocol describes a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a digital self-management programme to support mental and sexual wellbeing (known as HOPE4ABI), co-designed with and for people with ABI. METHODS: This mixed-methods feasibility RCT has two parallel trial arms of the 8-week digital HOPE4ABI self-management programme. Eligibility criteria include age > 18 years, diagnosed or suspected ABI > 3 months prior to trial entry, access to an Internet-enabled device and ability to engage with the intervention. Referrals to the study website will be made via the National Health Service (NHS), social media and partnering organisations. Sixty eligible participants will be randomised at a ratio of 1:1 to peer-supported (n = 30) or self-directed (n = 30) HOPE4ABI programmes. Primary feasibility outcomes include recruitment and retention rates, engagement, adherence and usage. Secondary outcomes related to standardised measures of quality of life, sexual wellbeing and mental wellbeing. Participants and peer facilitators will be interviewed after the course to assess acceptability across both trial arms. DISCUSSION: This feasibility trial data is not sufficiently powered for inferential statistical analyses but will provide evidence of the feasibility of a full RCT. Quantitative trial data will be analysed descriptively, and participant screening data representing age, ethnicity and gender will be presented as proportions at the group level. These data may indicate trends in reach to particular demographic groups that can inform future recruitment strategies to widen participation. Progression to a definitive trial will be justified if predetermined criteria are met, relating to recruitment, retention, engagement and acceptability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN46988394 registered on March 1, 2023.

Development of an online intervention for the Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN (REGAIN) trial.

Background: Up to half of people hospitalised with COVID-19 report diverse and persistent symptoms affecting quality of life for months and sometimes years after discharge (long-COVID). We describe the development of an online group exercise and behavioural support intervention for people who continue to experience such physical and/or emotional health problems more than three months after hospital discharge. Methods: Intervention development was informed by the Medical Research Council framework for complex interventions. Our multidisciplinary team of academics, clinicians, and people with long-COVID, had collective expertise in the development and testing of complex interventions. We integrated a bio-psycho-social model of care drawing on rehabilitation literature for long-term health conditions and experiences from our pre-pilot study. Multiple stakeholder meetings were held to refine the intervention which was designed to be deliverable within the UK National Health Service. We adhere to TIDieR guidance for transparent and explicit reporting of telehealth interventions. Results: The final REGAIN online exercise and behavioural support intervention consisted of an initial 1:1 consultation with a trained practitioner, followed by eight online group exercise, and six group support, sessions delivered over eight weeks. Participants could also access an online library of on-demand exercise and support videos. Conclusions: The final REGAIN intervention, combining exercise and behavioural support, is fully manualised with clear pathways to delivery and implementation. It is currently being tested in a randomised controlled trial. The intervention, developed with extensive patient and stakeholder engagement, could be incorporated into existing NHS rehabilitation programmes, should it prove to be clinically and cost-effective for people with long-COVID. Trial registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 11466448: Rehabilitation exercise and psychological support after COVID-19 infection: REGAIN.

Long-COVID has many debilitating symptoms, such as breathlessness, muscle weakness and fatigue, which significantly affect peoples' physical and mental health and quality of life. Rehabilitation programmes can help people improve their quality of life in other medical conditions with similar symptoms. We developed a programme of physical and mental health rehabilitation, delivered online, specifically to support people with ongoing long-COVID symptoms more than three months after hospital discharge. The programme was developed by people with long-COVID along with clinicians and researchers. The programme described in this article is now being tested in a large research trial to see if it can help people with long-COVID.

Mobilisation in the EveNing to prevent and TreAt deLirium (MENTAL): a mixed-methods, randomised controlled feasibility trial.

Background: Delirium is common in critically ill patients and associated with longer hospital stays, increased morbidity and higher healthcare costs. Non-pharmacological interventions have been advocated for delirium management, however there is little evidence evaluating feasibility and acceptability of physical interventions administered in the evening. The aim of this study was to conduct a feasibility trial of evening mobilisation to prevent and treat delirium in patients admitted to intensive care. Methods: In this mixed-methods, randomised controlled feasibility trial we recruited participants from intensive care units at two university hospitals in the United Kingdom. Eligible participants who were able to respond to verbal stimulus (Richmond agitation and sedation scale ≥3) and expected to stay in intensive care for at least 24 h were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive usual care or usual care plus evening mobilisation. The evening mobilisation was delivered between 19:00 and 21:00, for up to seven consecutive evenings or ICU discharge, whichever was sooner. All outcome assessments were completed by a team member blinded to randomisation and group allocation. Primary objective was to assess feasibility and acceptability of evening mobilisation. Primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment, consent and retention rates, and intervention fidelity. Intervention acceptability was evaluated through semi-structured interviews of participants and staff. Secondary outcomes included prevalence in incidence and duration of delirium, measured using the Confusion Assessment Method for ICU. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05401461. Findings: Between July 16th, 2022, and October 31st, 2022, 58 eligible patients (29 usual care; 29 usual care plus evening mobilisation) were enrolled. We demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of both the trial design and evening mobilisation intervention. Consent and retention rates over three months were 88% (58/66) and 90% (52/58) respectively, with qualitative analysis demonstrating good acceptability reported by both participants and staff. Secondary outcomes for the evening intervention group compared with the control group were: delirium incidence 5/26 (19%; 95% CI: 6-39%) vs 8/28 (29%; 95% CI: 13-49%) and mean delirium duration 2 days (SD 0.7) vs 4.25 days (SD 2.0). Interpretation: Results of this trial will inform the development of a definitive full-scale randomised controlled trial investigating the effects of evening mobilisation to treat delirium and improve health-related outcomes. Funding: None.

Early mobilisation for prevention and treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Does early mobilisation as standalone or part of a bundle intervention, compared to usual care, prevent and/or shorten delirium in adult patients in Intensive Care Units? BACKGROUND: Early mobilisation is recommended for the prevention and treatment of delirium in critically ill patients, but the evidence remains inconclusive. METHOD: Systematic literature search in Pubmed, CINAHL, PEDRo, Cochrane from inception to March 2022, and hand search in previous meta-analysis. Included were randomized trials or quality-improvement projects. meta-analysis was performed for Odds Ratios or mean differences including 95% Confidence Intervals for presence/duration of delirium. Risk of bias was assessed by using Joanna Briggs Quality criteria. meta-regression was performed to analyse heterogeneity. RESULTS: The search led to 13 studies of low-moderate risk of bias including 2,164 patients. Early mobilisation reduced the risk of delirium by 47 % (13 studies, 2,164 patients, low to moderate risk of bias: Odds Ratio 0.53 (95 % Confidence Interval 0.34 till 0.83, p = 0.01), with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 78 %, p < 0.001). Early mobilisation also reduced the duration of delirium by 1.8 days (3 studies, 296 patients, low-moderate risk of bias: Mean difference -1.78 days (95 % Confidence Interval -2.73 till -0.83 days, p < 0.001), heterogeneity 0 % (p = 0.41). Other analyses such as low risk of bias studies, randomised trials, studies published ≥ 2017, high intensity, and mobilisation as stand-alone intervention showed no significant results, with conflicting certainty of evidence and high heterogeneity. meta-regression could not explain heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: There is an uncertain effect of mobilisation on delirium. Provision of early mobilisation to critical ill patients might prevent delirium. There is a possible effect of early mobilisation to shorten the duration of delirium. Due to the heterogeneity in the findings, further research to define the best method and dosage of early rehabilitation is required.

Virtual Post-Intensive-Care Rehabilitation for Survivors of COVID-19: A Service Evaluation.

AIM: The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety, utilisation, and effectiveness of a novel, virtual rehabilitation programme for survivors of SARS­CoV­2 infection (COVID-19) and intensive care admission. METHODS: A service evaluation was performed. Adults admitted to a United Kingdom intensive care unit with COVID-19-induced respiratory failure and surviving hospital discharge were invited to an eight-week rehabilitation programme. The programme consisted of virtually delivered exercise classes and support groups led by critical care physiotherapists and follow-up nurses. RESULTS: Thirty-eight of 76 eligible patients (50%) agreed to participate, of which 28 (74%) completed the rehabilitation programme. On completion of the rehabilitation programme, there were significant improvements in exercise capacity (one-minute sit-to-stand test; 20 stands vs. 25 stands, p < 0.001), perceived breathlessness (Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale; 3 vs. 2 p < 0.001), shoulder disability (Quick Dash; 43 vs. 19 p = 0.001), anxiety (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale; 4 vs. 3 p = 0.021), depression (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale; 4 vs. 2.5 p = 0.010), and psychological distress (Intensive Care Psychological Assessment Tool; 3 vs. 2 p = 0.002). No adverse events or injuries were recorded during the programme. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to recruit and retain survivors of COVID-19-induced respiratory failure for virtual post-intensive-care rehabilitation. It appears that the virtual rehabilitation programme is safe and improves physical and psychological morbidity.

Mobilisation in the EveNing to TreAt deLirium (MENTAL): protocol for a mixed-methods feasibility randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Delirium is common in critically ill patients and is associated with longer hospital stays, increased mortality and higher healthcare costs. A number of risk factors have been identified for the development of delirium in intensive care, two of which are sleep disturbance and immobilisation. Non-pharmacological interventions for the management of intensive care unit (ICU) delirium have been advocated, including sleep protocols and early mobilisation. However, there is a little published evidence evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of evening mobilisation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Mobilisation in the EveNing to TreAt deLirium (MENTAL) is a two-centre, mixed-methods feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT). Sixty patients will be recruited from ICUs at two acute NHS trusts and randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive additional evening mobilisation, delivered between 19:00 and 21:00, or standard care. The underpinning hypothesis is that the physical exertion associated with evening mobilisation will promote better sleep, subsequently having the potential to reduce delirium incidence. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a future, multicentre RCT. The primary outcome measures, which will determine feasibility, are recruitment and retention rates, and intervention fidelity. Acceptability of the intervention will be evaluated through semi-structured interviews of participants and staff. Secondary outcome measures include collecting baseline, clinical and outcome data to inform the power calculations of a future definitive trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained through the Wales Research and Ethics Committee 6 (22/WA/0106). Participants are required to provide written informed consent. We aim to disseminate the findings through international conferences, international peer-reviewed journals and social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05401461.

Comparing rehabilitation outcomes for patients admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation during the first two waves of the pandemic: A service evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To compare rehabilitation outcomes of patients admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 and mechanically ventilated during wave 1 and 2, receiving two different models of physiotherapy delivery. METHODS: Adults admitted to the intensive care unit between October-March 2021 (wave 2) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and mechanically ventilated for >24 hours were included. During wave 2, rehabilitation was provided by physiotherapists over five days, with only emergency respiratory physiotherapy delivered at weekends. Rehabilitation status was measured daily using the Manchester Mobility Score to identify time taken to first mobilise and highest level of mobility achieved at ICU discharge. Outcomes were compared to data previously published from the same ICU during 'wave 1' (March-April 2020) when a seven-day rehabilitation physiotherapy service was provided. RESULTS: A total of n = 291 patients were included in analysis; 110 from wave 1, and 181 from wave 2. Patient characteristics and medical management were similar between waves. Mean ± SD time to first mobilise was slower in wave 2 (15 ± 11 days vs 14 ± 7 days), with overall mobility scores lower at both ICU (MMS 5 (Step transferring) vs MMS 4 (standing practice) (4), p < 0.05) and hospital (MMS 7 (Mobile > 30 m MMS) vs MMS 6 (Mobile < 30 m MMS), p < 0.0001) discharge. Significantly more patients in wave 2 required ongoing rehabilitation either at home or as an inpatient compared to wave 1 (81 % vs 49 %, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The change in physiotherapy staff provision from a seven-day rehabilitation service during wave 1 to a five day rehabilitation service with emergency respiratory physio only at weekends in wave 2 was associated with delayed time to first mobilise, lower levels of mobility at both intensive care unit and hospital discharge and higher requirement for ongoing rehabilitation at the point of hospital discharge.

Mobilization in the evening to prevent delirium: A pilot randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common complication in patients in Intensive Care Units (ICU). Interventions such as mobilization are effective in the prevention and treatment of delirium, although this is usually completed during the daytime. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of mobilization in the evening to prevent and treat ICU patients from delirium by an additional mobility team over 2 weeks. METHODS: The design was a pilot, multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial in four mixed ICUs over a period of 2 weeks. The mobility team consisted of trained nurses and physiotherapists. Patients in the intervention group were mobilized onto the edge of the bed or more between 21.00 and 23.00. Patients in the control group received usual care. The primary outcome parameter was the feasibility of the study, measured as recruitment rate, delivery rate, and safety. Secondary outcomes were duration and incidence of delirium, mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), and hospital length of stay for 28 days follow-up, and power calculation for a full trial. RESULTS: Out of 185 patients present in the ICUs, 28.6% (n = 53) were eligible and could be recruited, of which 24.9% (n = 46, Intervention = 26, Control = 20) were included in the final analysis. In the intervention group, mobilization could be delivered in 75% (n = 54) of 72 possible occasions; mobilization-related safety events appeared in 16.7% (n = 9) without serious consequences. Secondary parameters were similar, with less delirium in the intervention group albeit not significant. With an association of Cramer's V = 0.237, a complete study reaching statistical significance would require at least 140 patients, last 6 weeks, and cost >30 000 €. CONCLUSIONS: In a mixed ICU population, mobilization in the evening was feasible in one-quarter of patients with a low rate of safety events. Future trials seem to be feasible and worth conducting.

Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN' (REGAIN): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to determine which of two interventions: 1) an eight week, online, home-based, supervised, group rehabilitation programme (REGAIN); or 2) a single online session of advice (best-practice usual care); is the most clinically and cost-effective treatment for people with ongoing COVID-19 sequelae more than three months after hospital discharge. TRIAL DESIGN: Multi-centre, 2-arm (1:1 ratio) parallel group, randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation and health economic evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with ongoing COVID-19 sequelae more than three months after hospital discharge Inclusion criteria: 1) Adults ≥18 years; 2) ≥ 3 months after any hospital discharge related to COVID-19 infection, regardless of need for critical care or ventilatory support; 3) substantial (as defined by the participant) COVID-19 related physical and/or mental health problems; 4) access to, and able/supported to use email and internet audio/video; 4) able to provide informed consent; 5) able to understand spoken and written English, Bengali, Gujarati, Urdu, Punjabi or Mandarin, themselves or supported by family/friends. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: 1) exercise contraindicated; 2) severe mental health problems preventing engagement; 3) previous randomisation in the present study; 4) already engaged in, or planning to engage in an alternative NHS rehabilitation programme in the next 12 weeks; 5) a member of the same household previously randomised in the present study. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention 1: The Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN (REGAIN) programme: an eight week, online, home-based, supervised, group rehabilitation programme. Intervention 2: A thirty-minute, on-line, one-to-one consultation with a REGAIN practitioner (best-practice usual care). MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is health-related quality of life (HRQoL) - PROMIS® 29+2 Profile v2.1 (PROPr) - measured at three months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include dyspnoea, cognitive function, health utility, physical activity participation, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom severity, depressive and anxiety symptoms, work status, health and social care resource use, death - measured at three, six and 12 months post-randomisation. RANDOMISATION: Participants will be randomised to best practice usual care or the REGAIN programme on a 1:1.03 basis using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, performed by minimisation and stratified by age, level of hospital care, and case level mental health symptomatology. Once consent and baseline questionnaires have been completed by the participant online at home, randomisation will be performed automatically by a bespoke web-based system. BLINDING (MASKING): To ensure allocation concealment from both participant and REGAIN practitioner at baseline, randomisation will be performed only after the baseline questionnaires have been completed online at home by the participant. After randomisation has been performed, participants and REGAIN practitioners cannot be blind to group allocation. Follow-up outcome assessments will be completed by participants online at home. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 535 participants will be randomised: 263 to the best-practice usual care arm, and 272 participants to the REGAIN programme arm. TRIAL STATUS: Current protocol: Version 3.0 (27th October 2020) Recruitment will begin in December 2020 and is anticipated to complete by September 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN:11466448 , 23rd November 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol Version 3.0 (27th October 2020) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interests of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines.