Multifactorial falls prevention programme compared with usual care in UK care homes for older people: multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a multifactorial fall prevention programme compared with usual care in long term care homes. DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel, cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Long term care homes in the UK, registered to care for older people or those with dementia. PARTICIPANTS: 1657 consenting residents and 84 care homes. 39 were randomised to the intervention group and 45 were randomised to usual care. INTERVENTIONS: Guide to Action for Care Homes (GtACH): a multifactorial fall prevention programme or usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was fall rate at 91-180 days after randomisation. The economic evaluation measured health related quality of life using quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the five domain five level version of the EuroQoL index (EQ-5D-5L) or proxy version (EQ-5D-5L-P) and the Dementia Quality of Life utility measure (DEMQOL-U), which were self-completed by competent residents and by a care home staff member proxy (DEMQOL-P-U) for all residents (in case the ability to complete changed during the study) until 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcome measures were falls at 1-90, 181-270, and 271-360 days after randomisation, Barthel index score, and the Physical Activity Measure-Residential Care Homes (PAM-RC) score at 91, 180, 270, and 360 days after randomisation. RESULTS: Mean age of residents was 85 years. 32% were men. GtACH training was delivered to 1051/1480 staff (71%). Primary outcome data were available for 630 participants in the GtACH group and 712 in the usual care group. The unadjusted incidence rate ratio for falls between 91 and 180 days was 0.57 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.71, P<0.001) in favour of the GtACH programme (GtACH: six falls/1000 residents v usual care: 10 falls/1000). Barthel activities of daily living indices and PAM-RC scores were similar between groups at all time points. The incremental cost was £108 (95% confidence interval -£271.06 to 487.58), incremental QALYs gained for EQ-5D-5L-P was 0.024 (95% confidence interval 0.004 to 0.044) and for DEMQOL-P-U was 0.005 (-0.019 to 0.03). The incremental costs per EQ-5D-5L-P and DEMQOL-P-U based QALY were £4544 and £20 889, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The GtACH programme was associated with a reduction in fall rate and cost effectiveness, without a decrease in activity or increase in dependency. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN34353836.

Acceptability of the Medication Adherence for Patients Support intervention to improve adherence to patients prescribed medications for hypertension or comorbidities, as an adjunct to primary care: A qualitative study.

Tailored interventions delivered via text and voice messages can improve adherence to multiple medications. However, no such intervention has been developed in the UK primary-care setting. We conducted focus groups with 12 patients with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or both conditions, presumed to be non-adherent and recruited from deprived neighborhoods, to assess the acceptability and inform the development of an intervention to provide ongoing support for adherence, as an adjunct to primary-care consultations. Patients recommended ways to improve the tailored content and delivery of the intervention; like highly interactive messages to report both medication taking and determinants of medication adherence.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of a diabetes education and behavioural weight management programme versus a diabetes education programme in adults with a recent diagnosis of type 2 diabetes: study protocol for the Glucose Lowering through Weight management (GLoW) randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: People with type 2 diabetes (T2D) can improve glycaemic control or even achieve remission through weight loss and reduce their use of medication and risk of cardiovascular disease. The Glucose Lowering through Weight management (GLoW) trial will evaluate whether a tailored diabetes education and behavioural weight management programme (DEW) is more effective and cost-effective than a diabetes education (DE) programme in helping people with overweight or obesity and a recent diagnosis of T2D to lower their blood glucose, lose weight and improve other markers of cardiovascular risk. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a pragmatic, randomised, single-blind, parallel group, two-arm, superiority trial. We will recruit 576 adults with body mass index>25 kg/m2 and diagnosis of T2D in the past 3 years and randomise them to a tailored DEW or a DE programme. Participants will attend measurement appointments at a local general practitioner practice or research centre at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is 12-month change in glycated haemoglobin. The effect of the intervention on the primary outcome will be estimated and tested using a linear regression model (analysis of covariance) including randomisation group and adjusted for baseline value of the outcome and the randomisation stratifiers. Participants will be included in the group to which they were randomised, under the intention-to-treat principle. Secondary outcomes include 6-month and 12-month changes in body weight, body fat percentage, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and lipid profile; probability of achieving good glycaemic control; probability of achieving remission from diabetes; probability of losing 5% and 10% body weight and modelled cardiovascular risk (UKPDS). An intention-to-treat within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted from NHS and societal perspectives using participant-level data. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with participants to understand why and how the programme achieved its results and how participants manage their weight after the programme ends. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was received from East of Scotland Research Ethics Service on 15 May 2018 (18/ES/0048). This protocol (V.3) was approved on 19 June 2019. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and communicated to other stakeholders as appropriate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18399564.

Randomised controlled trial of a theory-based behavioural intervention to reduce formula milk intake.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of a theory-based behavioural intervention to prevent rapid weight gain in formula milk-fed infants. DESIGN: In this single (assessor) blind, randomised controlled trial, 669 healthy full-term infants receiving formula milk within 14 weeks of birth were individually randomised to intervention (n=340) or attention-matched control (n=329) groups. The intervention aimed to reduce formula milk intakes, and promote responsive feeding and growth monitoring to prevent rapid weight gain (≥+0.67 SD scores (SDS)). It was delivered to mothers by trained facilitators up to infant age 6 months through three face-to-face contacts, two telephone contacts and written materials. RESULTS: Retention was 93% (622) at 6 months, 88% (586) at 12 months and 94% attended ≥4/5 sessions. The intervention strengthened maternal attitudes to following infant feeding recommendations, reduced reported milk intakes at ages 3 (-14%; intervention vs control infants), 4 (-12%), 5 (-9%) and 6 (-7%) months, slowed initial infant weight gain from baseline to 6 months (mean change 0.32 vs 0.42 SDS, baseline-adjusted difference (intervention vs control) -0.08 (95% CI -0.17 to -0.004) SDS), but had no effect on the primary outcome of weight gain to 12 months (baseline-adjusted difference -0.04 (-0.17, 0.10) SDS). By 12 months, 40.3% of infants in the intervention group and 45.9% in the control group showed rapid weight gain (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.17). CONCLUSIONS: Despite reducing milk intakes and initial weight gain, the intervention did not alter the high prevalence of rapid weight gain to age 12 months suggesting the need for sustained intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN20814693.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of issuing longer versus shorter duration (3-month vs. 28-day) prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions: systematic review and economic modelling.

BACKGROUND: To reduce expenditure on, and wastage of, drugs, some commissioners have encouraged general practitioners to issue shorter prescriptions, typically 28 days in length; however, the evidence base for this recommendation is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shorter versus longer prescriptions for people with stable chronic conditions treated in primary care. DESIGN/DATA SOURCES: The design of the study comprised three elements. First, a systematic review comparing 28-day prescriptions with longer prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions treated in primary care, evaluating any relevant clinical outcomes, adherence to treatment, costs and cost-effectiveness. Databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches were from database inception to October 2015 (updated search to June 2016 in PubMed). Second, a cost analysis of medication wastage associated with < 60-day and ≥ 60-day prescriptions for five patient cohorts over an 11-year period from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Third, a decision model adapting three existing models to predict costs and effects of differing adherence levels associated with 28-day versus 3-month prescriptions in three clinical scenarios. REVIEW METHODS: In the systematic review, from 15,257 unique citations, 54 full-text papers were reviewed and 16 studies were included, five of which were abstracts and one of which was an extended conference abstract. None was a randomised controlled trial: 11 were retrospective cohort studies, three were cross-sectional surveys and two were cost studies. No information on health outcomes was available. RESULTS: An exploratory meta-analysis based on six retrospective cohort studies suggested that lower adherence was associated with 28-day prescriptions (standardised mean difference -0.45, 95% confidence interval -0.65 to -0.26). The cost analysis showed that a statistically significant increase in medication waste was associated with longer prescription lengths. However, when accounting for dispensing fees and prescriber time, longer prescriptions were found to be cost saving compared with shorter prescriptions. Prescriber time was the largest component of the calculated cost savings to the NHS. The decision modelling suggested that, in all three clinical scenarios, longer prescription lengths were associated with lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-years. LIMITATIONS: The available evidence was found to be at a moderate to serious risk of bias. All of the studies were conducted in the USA, which was a cause for concern in terms of generalisability to the UK. No evidence of the direct impact of prescription length on health outcomes was found. The cost study could investigate prescriptions issued only; it could not assess patient adherence to those prescriptions. Additionally, the cost study was based on products issued only and did not account for underlying patient diagnoses. A lack of good-quality evidence affected our decision modelling strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Although the quality of the evidence was poor, this study found that longer prescriptions may be less costly overall, and may be associated with better adherence than 28-day prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions being treated in primary care. FUTURE WORK: There is a need to more reliably evaluate the impact of differing prescription lengths on adherence, on patient health outcomes and on total costs to the NHS. The priority should be to identify patients with particular conditions or characteristics who should receive shorter or longer prescriptions. To determine the need for any further research, an expected value of perfect information analysis should be performed. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027042. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Pragmatic randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a multi-component intervention to reduce substance use and risk-taking behaviour in adolescents involved in the criminal justice system: A trial protocol (RISKIT-CJS).

BACKGROUND: Adolescence is a critical developmental stage when young people make lifestyle choices that have the potential to impact on their current and future health and social wellbeing. The relationship between substance use and criminal activity is complex but there is clear evidence that the prevalence of problematic substance use is far higher among adolescent offenders than the general adolescent population. Adolescent offenders are a marginalized and vulnerable population who are significantly more likely to experience health and social inequalities in later life than their non-offending peers. There is a paucity of evidence on effective interventions to address substance use and risk-taking behaviours in adolescent offender populations but it is clear that preventative or abstinence orientated interventions are not effective. RISKIT-CJS is an intervention developed in collaboration with young people taking account of the current best evidence. Feasibility and pilot studies have found the intervention addresses the needs of adolescents, is acceptable and has demonstrated potential in reducing substance use and risk-taking behavior. METHODS: The study is a mixed method, two-armed, prospective, pragmatic randomized controlled trial with individual randomisation to either treatment as usual alone or the RISKIT-CJS intervention in addition to treatment as usual. Adolescents, aged 13 to 17 years inclusive, engaged with the criminal justice system who are identified as having problematic substance use are eligible to participate. The study will be conducted across three geographical areas; South and South East England, London and North East England between March 2017 and February 2019. DISCUSSION: The study represents an ambitious programme of work to address an area of need for a marginalized and vulnerable population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN77037777 registered 15/09/2016.

Patients' use and views of real-time feedback technology in general practice.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in real-time feedback (RTF), which involves collecting and summarizing information about patient experience at the point of care with the aim of informing service improvement. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility and acceptability of RTF in UK general practice. DESIGN: Exploratory randomized trial. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Ten general practices in south-west England and Cambridgeshire. All patients attending surgeries were eligible to provide RTF. INTERVENTION: Touch screens were installed in waiting areas for 12 weeks with practice staff responsible for encouraging patients to provide RTF. All practices received fortnightly feedback summaries. Four teams attended a facilitated reflection session. OUTCOMES: RTF 'response rates' among consulting patients were estimated, and the representativeness of touch screen users were assessed. The frequency of staff-patient interactions about RTF (direct observation) and patient views of RTF (exit survey) were summarized. Associated costs were collated. RESULTS: About 2.5% consulting patients provided RTF (range 0.7-8.0% across practices), representing a mean of 194 responses per practice. Patients aged above 65 were under-represented among touch screen users. Receptionists rarely encouraged RTF but, when this did occur, 60% patients participated. Patients were largely positive about RTF but identified some barriers. Costs per practice for the twelve-week period ranged from £1125 (unfacilitated team-level feedback) to £1887 (facilitated team ± practitioner-level feedback). The main cost was the provision of touch screens. CONCLUSIONS: Response rates for RTF were lower than those of other survey modes, although the numbers of patients providing feedback to each practice were comparable to those achieved in the English national GP patient survey. More patients might engage with RTF if the opportunity were consistently highlighted to them.

A randomised controlled trial of three very brief interventions for physical activity in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Very brief interventions (VBIs) for physical activity are promising, but there is uncertainty about their potential effectiveness and cost. We assessed potential efficacy, feasibility, acceptability, and cost of three VBIs in primary care, in order to select the most promising intervention for evaluation in a subsequent large-scale RCT. METHODS: Three hundred and ninety four adults aged 40-74 years were randomised to a Motivational (n = 83), Pedometer (n = 74), or Combined (n = 80) intervention, delivered immediately after a preventative health check in primary care, or control (Health Check only; n = 157). Potential efficacy was measured as the probability of a positive difference between an intervention arm and the control arm in mean physical activity, measured by accelerometry at 4 weeks. RESULTS: For the primary outcome the estimated effect sizes (95 % CI) relative to the Control arm for the Motivational, Pedometer and Combined arms were respectively: +20.3 (-45.0, +85.7), +23.5 (-51.3, +98.3), and -3.1 (-69.3, +63.1) counts per minute. There was a73% probability of a positive effect on physical activity for each of the Motivational and Pedometer VBIs relative to control, but only 46 % for the Combined VBI. Only the Pedometer VBI was deliverable within 5 min. All VBIs were acceptable and low cost. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the four criteria, the Pedometer VBI was selected for evaluation in a large-scale trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02863077 . Retrospectively registered 05/10/2012.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief physical activity intervention delivered in NHS Health Checks (VBI Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity interventions that are targeted at individuals can be effective in encouraging people to be more physically active. However, most such interventions are too long or complex and not scalable to the general population. This trial will test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief physical activity intervention when delivered as part of preventative health checks in primary care (National Health Service (NHS) Health Check). METHODS/DESIGN: The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial is a two parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial with 1:1 individual allocation and follow-up at 3 months. A total of 1,140 participants will be recruited from 23 primary care practices in the east of England. Participants eligible for an NHS Health Check and who are considered suitable to take part by their doctor and able to provide written informed consent are eligible for the trial. Participants are randomly assigned at the beginning of the NHS Health Check to either 1) the control arm, in which they receive only the NHS Health Check, or 2) the intervention arm, in which they receive the NHS Health Check plus 'Step It Up' (a very brief intervention that can be delivered in 5 minutes by nurses and/or healthcare assistants at the end of the Health Check). 'Step It Up' includes (1) a face-to-face discussion, including feedback on current activity level, recommendations for physical activity, and information on how to use a pedometer, set step goals, and monitor progress; (2) written material supporting the discussion and tips and links to further resources to help increase physical activity; and (3) a pedometer to wear and a step chart for monitoring progress. The primary outcome is accelerometer counts per minute at 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the time spent in the different levels of physical activity, self-reported physical activity and economic measures. Trial recruitment is underway. DISCUSSION: The VBI trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Step It Up intervention delivered during NHS Health Checks and will inform policy decisions about introducing very brief interventions into routine primary care practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN72691150 . Registered on 17 July 2014.

Effectiveness of a behavioural intervention to prevent excessive weight gain during infancy (The Baby Milk Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Infancy is a period of rapid growth and habit formation and hence could be a critical period for obesity prevention. Excess weight gain during infancy is associated with later obesity and formula-fed babies are more likely to gain excess weight compared to breastfed babies. The primary trial outcome is a change in the weight standard deviation score from birth to 1 year. METHODS/DESIGN: We will recruit 650 to 700 parents who introduce formula-milk feeds within 14 weeks of their baby's birth to a single (assessor) blind, parallel group, individually randomised controlled trial. The focus of the intervention is the caregiver (usually the mother), and the focus of the primary outcome is the infant. The intervention group will receive the behavioural intervention, which aims to reduce formula-milk intake, promote responsive feeding and healthy weaning, and prevent excessive weight gain during infancy. The intervention is based on Social Cognitive Theory and action planning ('implementation intentions'). It consists of three components: (1) a motivational component to strengthen parents' motivation to follow the Baby Milk feeding guidelines, (2) an action planning component to help translate motivation into action, and (3) a coping planning component to help parents deal with difficult situations. It will be delivered by trained facilitators (research nurses) over 6 months through three face-to-face contacts, two telephone contacts and written materials. The control group will have the same number of contacts with facilitators, and general issues about feeding will be discussed. Anthropometric outcomes will be measured by trained research staff, blind to group allocation, at baseline, 6 months and 12 months following standard operating procedures. Validated questionnaires will assess milk intake, temperament, appetite, sleep, maternal quality of life and maternal psychological factors. A 4-day food diary will be completed at 8 months. DISCUSSION: The results of the trial will help to inform infant feeding guidelines and to understand the links between infant feeding, behaviour, appetite and growth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRTCN20814693 . Registration date 13 January 2011.

Loosening the limbic grip on pain and disability.

A 34 years old male, previously fit and strong, sustained a "crush" injury to a foot. The patient experienced pain and had a marked limp despite various therapies during the 4 months prior to presentation for treatment with the author. Three visits at 2-day intervals produced complete symptomatic resolution. Therapy consisted not of foot treatment but of an oscillating form of light touch massage to his lumbar spine that had been a site of chronic pain in the past.