A preoperative package of care for osteoarthritis, consisting of weight loss, orthotics, rehabilitation, and topical and oral analgesia (OPPORTUNITY): a two-centre, open-label, randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis of the knee is a major cause of disability worldwide. Non-operative treatments can reduce the morbidity but adherence is poor. We hypothesised that adherence could be optimised if behavioural change was established in the preoperative period. Therefore, we aimed to assess feasibility, acceptability, and recruitment and retention rates of a preoperative package of non-operative care in patients awaiting knee replacement surgery. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled, feasibility trial in two secondary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 15-85 years, on the waiting list for a knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis, and met at least one of the thresholds for one of the four components of the preoperative package of non-operative care intervention (ie, weight loss, exercise therapy, use of insoles, and analgesia adjustment). Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to either the intervention group or the standard of care (ie, control) group. All four aspects of the intervention were delivered weekly over 12 weeks. Participants in the intervention group were reviewed regularly to assess adherence. The primary outcome was acceptability and feasibility of delivering the intervention, as measured by recruitment rate, retention rate at follow-up review after planned surgery, health-related quality of life, joint-specific scores, and adherence (weight change and qualitative interviews). This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN96684272. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3 2018, and Aug 30, 2019, we screened 233 patients, of whom 163 (73%) were excluded and 60 (27%) were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=40) or the control group (n=20). 34 (57%) of 60 participants were women, 26 (43%) were men, and the mean age was 66·8 years (SD 8·6). Uptake of the specific intervention components varied: 31 (78%) of 40 had exercise therapy, 28 (70%) weight loss, 22 (55%) analgesia adjustment, and insoles (18 [45%]). Overall median adherence was 94% (IQR 79·5-100). At the final review, the intervention group lost a mean of 11·2 kg (SD 5·6) compared with 1·3 kg (3·8) in the control group (estimated difference -9·8 kg [95% CI -13·4 to -6·3]). A clinically significant improvement in health-related quality o life (mean change 0·078 [SD 0·195]) were reported, and joint-specific scores showed greater improvement in the intervention group than in the control group. No adverse events attributable to the intervention occurred. INTERPRETATION: Participants adhered well to the non-operative interventions and their health-related quality of life improved. Participant and health professional feedback were extremely positive. These findings support progression to a full-scale effectiveness trial. FUNDING: Versus Arthritis.

Social network interventions to support cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention in the management of people with heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Globally, cardiovascular diseases (CVD, that is, coronary heart (CHD) and circulatory diseases combined) contribute to 31% of all deaths, more than any other cause. In line with guidance in the UK and globally, cardiac rehabilitation programmes are widely offered to people with heart disease, and include psychosocial, educational, health behaviour change, and risk management components. Social support and social network interventions have potential to improve outcomes of these programmes, but whether and how these interventions work is poorly understood.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of social network and social support interventions to support cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention in the management of people with heart disease. The comparator was usual care with no element of social support (i.e. secondary prevention alone or with cardiac rehabilitation).  SEARCH METHODS: We undertook a systematic search of the following databases on 9 August 2022: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Science. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We reviewed the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and included primary studies, and we contacted experts to identify additional studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of social network or social support interventions for people with heart disease. We included studies regardless of their duration of follow-up, and included those reported as full text, published as abstract only, and unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using Covidence, two review authors independently screened all identified titles. We retrieved full-text study reports and publications marked 'included', and two review authors independently screened these, and conducted data extraction. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular-related mortality, all-cause hospital admission, cardiovascular-related hospital admission, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured at > 12 months follow-up.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 54 RCTs (126 publications) reporting data for a total of 11,445 people with heart disease. The median follow-up was seven months and median sample size was 96 participants. Of included study participants, 6414 (56%) were male, and the mean age ranged from 48.6 to 76.3 years. Studies included heart failure (41%), mixed cardiac disease (31%), post-myocardial infarction (13%), post-revascularisation (7%), CHD (7%), and cardiac X syndrome (1%) patients. The median intervention duration was 12 weeks. We identified notable diversity in social network and social support interventions, across what was delivered, how, and by whom.  We assessed risk of bias (RoB) in primary outcomes at > 12 months follow-up as either 'low' (2/15 studies), 'some concerns' (11/15), or 'high' (2/15). 'Some concerns' or 'high' RoB resulted from insufficient detail on blinding of outcome assessors, data missingness, and absence of pre-agreed statistical analysis plans. In particular, HRQoL outcomes were at high RoB. Using the GRADE method, we assessed the certainty of evidence as low or very low across outcomes. Social network or social support interventions had no clear effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.13, I2 = 40%) or cardiovascular-related mortality (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.10, I2 = 0%) at > 12 months follow-up. The evidence suggests that social network or social support interventions for heart disease may result in little to no difference in all-cause hospital admission (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.22, I2 = 0%), or cardiovascular-related hospital admission (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10, I2 = 16%), with a low level of certainty. The evidence was very uncertain regarding the impact of social network interventions on HRQoL at > 12 months follow-up (SF-36 physical component score: mean difference (MD) 31.53, 95% CI -28.65 to 91.71, I2 = 100%, 2 trials/comparisons, 166 participants; mental component score MD 30.62, 95% CI -33.88 to 95.13, I2 = 100%, 2 trials/comparisons, 166 participants).  Regarding secondary outcomes, there may be a decrease in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure with social network or social support interventions. There was no evidence of impact found on psychological well-being, smoking, cholesterol, myocardial infarction, revascularisation, return to work/education, social isolation or connectedness, patient satisfaction, or adverse events.  Results of meta-regression did not suggest that the intervention effect was related to risk of bias, intervention type, duration, setting, and delivery mode, population type, study location, participant age, or percentage of male participants.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no strong evidence for the effectiveness of such interventions, although modest effects were identified in relation to blood pressure. While the data presented in this review are indicative of potential for positive effects, the review also highlights the lack of sufficient evidence to conclusively support such interventions for people with heart disease. Further high-quality, well-reported RCTs are required to fully explore the potential of social support interventions in this context. Future reporting of social network and social support interventions for people with heart disease needs to be significantly clearer, and more effectively theorised, in order to ascertain causal pathways and effect on outcomes.

SAFETEL: a pilot randomised controlled trial to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a safety planning and telephone follow-up intervention to reduce suicidal behaviour.

BACKGROUND: A previous suicide attempt is an important predictor of future suicide. However, there are no evidence-based interventions administered in UK general hospital contexts to reduce suicidal behaviour in patients admitted following a suicide attempt. Consequently, the objective of this pilot randomised controlled trial was to explore whether a safety planning and telephone follow-up intervention (SAFETEL) was feasible and acceptable for individuals treated in hospital following a suicide attempt. METHODS: In this three-phase study with an embedded process evaluation, a safety planning intervention was tailored to the UK context (Phase I), piloted (Phase II, n = 32), and tested in a feasibility randomised controlled trial (Phase III). In Phase III, participants were allocated to either the intervention (n = 80) or control group (n = 40) using telephone randomisation with a 2:1 ratio. The acceptability and feasibility of the trial and intervention procedures were evaluated using both qualitative (interviews and focus groups) and quantitative data. The number of hospital representations of suicidal behaviour was also collected 6 months after study recruitment based on electronic patient records. RESULTS: Findings indicated that SAFETEL was both acceptable and feasible. Hospital staff reported the intervention fitted and complemented existing services, and patients reported that they favoured the simplicity and person-centred approach of the safety planning intervention. CONCLUSIONS: All progression criteria were met supporting further evaluation of the intervention in a full-scale clinical effectiveness trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCT, ISRCTN62181241 , 5/5/2017.

Effectiveness of social network interventions to support cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention in the management of people with heart disease.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effectiveness of social network and social support interventions to support cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention in the management of people with heart disease. As a secondary output of this review, and to assist in conceptualising future research focused on social network and social support interventions, we aim to develop a logic model theorising the relationship between social networks or social support and heart disease outcomes. We will draw on existing models of social support for health (e.g. Berkman 2000), as well as established approaches to theorising and implementing behaviour change (e.g. Michie 2011).

SAFETEL randomised controlled feasibility trial of a safety planning intervention with follow-up telephone contact to reduce suicidal behaviour: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There are no evidence-based interventions that can be administered in hospital settings following a general hospital admission after a suicide attempt. AIM: To determine whether a safety planning intervention (SPI) with follow-up telephone support (SAFETEL) is feasible and acceptable to patients admitted to UK hospitals following a suicide attempt. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Three-phase development and feasibility study with embedded process evaluation. Phase I comprises tailoring an SPI with telephone follow-up originally designed for veterans in the USA, for use in the UK. Phase II involves piloting the intervention with patients (n=30) who have been hospitalised following a suicide attempt. Phase III is a feasibility randomised controlled trial of 120 patients who have been hospitalised following a suicide attempt with a 6-month follow-up. Phase III participants will be recruited from across four National Health Service hospitals in Scotland and randomised to receive either the SPI with telephone follow-up and treatment as usual (n=80) or treatment as usual only (n=40). The primary outcomes are feasibility outcomes and include the acceptability of the intervention to participants and intervention staff, the feasibility of delivery in this setting, recruitment, retention and intervention adherence as well as the feasibility of collecting the self-harm re-admission to hospital outcome data. Statistical analyses will include description of recruitment rates, intervention adherence/use, response rates and estimates of the primary outcome event rates, and intervention effect size (Phase III). Thematic analyses will be conducted on interview and focus group data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The East of Scotland Research Ethics Service (EoSRES) approved this study in March 2017 (GN17MH101 Ref: 17/ES/0036). The study results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. A participant summary paper will also be disseminated to patients, service providers and policy makers alongside the main publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN62181241.