Protocol for a definitive randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a community-based rehabilitation programme following hip fracture: fracture in the elderly multidisciplinary rehabilitation-phase III (FEMuR III).

INTRODUCTION: Proximal femoral (hip) fracture is common, serious and costly. Rehabilitation may improve functional recovery but evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are lacking. An enhanced rehabilitation intervention was previously developed and a feasibility study tested the methods used for this randomised controlled trial (RCT). The objectives are to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the enhanced rehabilitation programme following surgical repair of proximal femoral fracture in older people compared with usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Protocol for phase III, parallel-group, two-armed, superiority, pragmatic RCT with 1:1 allocation ratio; allocation sequence by minimisation programme with a built-in random element; secure web-based allocation concealment. The two treatments will be usual care (control) and usual care plus an enhanced rehabilitation programme (intervention). The enhanced rehabilitation will consist of a patient-held information workbook, goal setting diary and up to six additional therapy sessions. Outcome assessment and statistical analysis will be performed blind; patient and carer participants will be unblinded. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 17 and 52 weeks' follow-up. Primary outcome at 52 weeks will be the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale. Secondary outcomes will measure anxiety and depression, health utility, cognitive status, hip pain intensity, falls self-efficacy, fear of falling, grip strength and physical function. Carer strain, anxiety and depression will be measured in carers. All safety events will be recorded, and serious adverse events will be assessed to determine whether they are related to the intervention and expected. Concurrent economic evaluation will be a cost-utility analysis from a health service and personal social care perspective. An embedded process evaluation will determine the mechanisms and processes that explain the implementation and impacts of the enhanced rehabilitation programme. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: National Health Service research ethics approval reference 18/NE/0300. Results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN28376407; Pre-results registered on 23 November 2018.

Parenting for Autism, Language, And Communication Evaluation Study (PALACES): protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Children with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) often have associated behavioural difficulties that can present a challenge for parents and parenting. There are several effective social learning theory-based parenting programmes for dealing with behavioural difficulties, including the Incredible Years (IY) parent programmes. However, these programmes typically do not specifically target parents of children with ASD. Recently, a new addition to the IY suite of programmes known as the IY Autistic Spectrum and Language Delays (IY-ASLD) parent programme was developed. The main aims of the present study are to examine the feasibility of delivering this programme within child health services and to provide initial evidence for effectiveness and economic costs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Parenting for Autism, Language, And Communication Evaluation Study (PALACES) trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, pilot randomised controlled trial comparing the IY-ASLD programme with a wait-list control condition. 72 parents of children with ASD (aged 3-8 years) will be randomly allocated to either the intervention or control condition. Data will be collected prior to randomisation and 6 months postrandomisation for all families. Families in the intervention condition only will also be followed up at 12 and 18 months postrandomisation. This study will provide initial evidence of effectiveness for the newly developed IY-ASLD parenting programme. It will also add to the limited economic evidence for an intervention targeting parents of children with ASD and provide longer term data, an important component for evaluations of parenting programmes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval for the study was granted by the Research Ethics Committee at the School of Psychology, Bangor University (reference number: 2016-15768) and the North Wales Research Ethics Committee, UK (reference number: 16/WA/0224). The findings will be disseminated through research conferences and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN57070414; Pre-results.

Public health economics: a systematic review of guidance for the economic evaluation of public health interventions and discussion of key methodological issues.

BACKGROUND: If Public Health is the science and art of how society collectively aims to improve health, and reduce inequalities in health, then Public Health Economics is the science and art of supporting decision making as to how society can use its available resources to best meet these objectives and minimise opportunity cost. A systematic review of published guidance for the economic evaluation of public health interventions within this broad public policy paradigm was conducted. METHODS: Electronic databases and organisation websites were searched using a 22 year time horizon (1990-2012). References of papers were hand searched for additional papers for inclusion. Government reports or peer-reviewed published papers were included if they; referred to the methods of economic evaluation of public health interventions, identified key challenges of conducting economic evaluations of public health interventions or made recommendations for conducting economic evaluations of public health interventions. Guidance was divided into three categories UK guidance, international guidance and observations or guidance provided by individual commentators in the field of public health economics. An assessment of the theoretical frameworks underpinning the guidance was made and served as a rationale for categorising the papers. RESULTS: We identified 5 international guidance documents, 7 UK guidance documents and 4 documents by individual commentators. The papers reviewed identify the main methodological challenges that face analysts when conducting such evaluations. There is a consensus within the guidance that wider social and environmental costs and benefits should be looked at due to the complex nature of public health. This was reflected in the theoretical underpinning as the majority of guidance was categorised as extra-welfarist. CONCLUSIONS: In this novel review we argue that health economics may have come full circle from its roots in broad public policy economics. We may find it useful to think in this broader paradigm with respect to public health economics. We offer a 12 point checklist to support government, NHS commissioners and individual health economists in their consideration of economic evaluation methodology with respect to the additional challenges of applying health economics to public health.