Supported exercise TrAining for Men wIth prostate caNcer on Androgen deprivation therapy (STAMINA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the STAMINA lifestyle intervention compared with optimised usual care, including internal pilot and parallel process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: UK national clinical guidance recommends that men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy are offered twice weekly supervised aerobic and resistance exercise to address iatrogenic harm caused by treatment. Very few NHS trusts have established adequate provision of such services. Furthermore, interventions fail to demonstrate sustained behaviour change. The STAMINA lifestyle intervention offers a system-level change to clinical care delivery addressing barriers to long-term behaviour change and implementation of new prostate cancer care pathways. This trial aims to establish whether STAMINA is clinically and cost-effective in improving cancer-specific quality of life and/or reducing fatigue compared to optimised usual care. The process evaluation aims to inform the interpretation of results and, if the intervention is shown to benefit patients, to inform the implementation of the intervention into the NHS. METHODS: Men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy (n = 697) will be identified from a minimum of 12 UK NHS trusts to participate in a multi-centre, two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial. Consenting men will have a 'safety to exercise' check and be randomly allocated (5:4) to the STAMINA lifestyle intervention (n = 384) or optimised usual care (n = 313). Outcomes will be collected at baseline, 3-, 6- and 12-month post-randomisation. The two primary outcomes are cancer-specific quality of life and fatigue. The parallel process evaluation will follow a mixed-methods approach to explore recruitment and aspects of the intervention including, reach, fidelity, acceptability, and implementation. An economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness of the STAMINA lifestyle intervention versus optimised usual care and a discrete choice experiment will explore patient preferences. DISCUSSION: The STAMINA lifestyle intervention has the potential to improve quality of life and reduce fatigue in men on androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Embedding supervised exercise into prostate cancer care may also support long-term positive behaviour change and reduce adverse events caused by treatment. Findings will inform future clinical care and could provide a blueprint for the integration of supervised exercise and behavioural support into other cancer and/or clinical services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 46385239, registered on 30/07/2020. Cancer Research UK 17002, retrospectively registered on 24/08/2022.

PeRsOnaliSed care Planning for oldER people with frailty (PROSPER): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is common in older age and is characterised by loss of biological reserves across multiple organ systems. These changes associated with frailty mean older people can be vulnerable to sudden, dramatic changes in health because of relatively small problems. Older people with frailty are at increased risk of adverse outcomes including disability, hospitalisation, and care home admission, with associated reduction in quality of life and increased NHS and social care costs. Personalised Care Planning offers an anticipatory, preventative approach to supporting older adults to live independently for longer, but it has not been robustly evaluated in a population of older adults with frailty. METHODS: Following an initial feasibility study, this multi-centre, individually randomised controlled trial aims to establish whether personalised care planning for older people improves health-related quality of life. It will recruit 1337 participants from general practices across Yorkshire and Humber and Mid-Mersey in the North of England. Eligible patients will be aged 65 and over with an electronic frailty index score of 0.21 or above, living in their own homes, without severe cognitive impairment and not in receipt of end-of-life care. Following confirmation of eligibility, informed consent and baseline data collection, participants will be individually randomised to the PeRsOnaliSed care Planning for oldER people with frailty (PROSPER) intervention or usual care in a 2.6:1 allocation ratio. Participants will not be blinded to allocation, but data collection and analysis will be blinded. The intervention will be delivered over 12 weeks by a Personal Independence Co-ordinator worker based within a voluntary sector organisation, Age UK. The primary outcomes are health-related quality of life, measured using both the physical and mental components of the Short-Form 12 Item Health Questionnaire at 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes comprise activities of daily living, self-management capabilities and loneliness, admission to care homes, hospitalisations, and health and social care resource use at 12 months post randomisation. Parallel cost-effectiveness and process evaluations will be conducted alongside the trial. DISCUSSION: The PROSPER study will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a personalised care planning approach for older people with frailty and inform the process of its implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16123291 .  Registered on  28 August 2020.

STAndardised DIagnostic Assessment for children and young people with emotional difficulties (STADIA): protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Emotional disorders (such as anxiety and depression) are associated with considerable distress and impairment in day-to-day function for affected children and young people and for their families. Effective evidence-based interventions are available but require appropriate identification of difficulties to enable timely access to services. Standardised diagnostic assessment (SDA) tools may aid in the detection of emotional disorders, but there is limited evidence on the utility of SDA tools in routine care and equipoise among professionals about their clinical value. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, two-arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial, with embedded qualitative and health economic components. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the Development and Well-Being Assessment SDA tool as an adjunct to usual clinical care, or usual care only. A total of 1210 participants (children and young people referred to outpatient, specialist Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services with emotional difficulties and their parent/carers) will be recruited from at least 6 sites in England. The primary outcome is a clinician-made diagnosis about the presence of an emotional disorder within 12 months of randomisation. Secondary outcomes include referral acceptance, diagnosis and treatment of emotional disorders, symptoms of emotional difficulties and comorbid disorders and associated functional impairment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received favourable opinion from the South Birmingham Research Ethics Committee (Ref. 19/WM/0133). Results of this trial will be reported to the funder and published in full in the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Journal series and also submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15748675; Pre-results.

Group cognitive rehabilitation to reduce the psychological impact of multiple sclerosis on quality of life: the CRAMMS RCT.

BACKGROUND: People with multiple sclerosis have problems with memory and attention. The effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation has not been established. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a cognitive rehabilitation programme for people with multiple sclerosis. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in which participants were randomised in a ratio of 6 : 5 to receive cognitive rehabilitation plus usual care or usual care alone. Participants were assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. SETTING: The trial was set in hospital neurology clinics and community services. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were people with multiple sclerosis who had cognitive problems, were aged 18-69 years, could travel to attend group sessions and gave informed consent. INTERVENTION: The intervention was a group cognitive rehabilitation programme delivered weekly by an assistant psychologist to between four and six participants for 10 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included results from the Everyday Memory Questionnaire, the 30-Item General Health Questionnaire, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version and a service use questionnaire from participants, and the Everyday Memory Questionnaire - relative version and the Modified Carer Strain Index from a relative or friend of the participant. RESULTS: Of the 449 participants randomised, 245 were allocated to cognitive rehabilitation (intervention group) and 204 were allocated to usual care (control group). Of these, 214 in the intervention group and 173 in the control group were included in the primary analysis. There was no clinically important difference in the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale score between the two groups at the 12-month follow-up (adjusted difference in means -0.6, 95% confidence interval -1.5 to 0.3; p = 0.20). There were no important differences between the groups in relation to cognitive abilities, fatigue, employment, or carer strain at follow-up. However, there were differences, although small, between the groups in the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale score at 6 months (adjusted difference in means -0.9, 95% confidence interval -1.7 to -0.1; p = 0.03) and in everyday memory on the Everyday Memory Questionnaire as reported by participants at 6 (adjusted difference in means -5.3, 95% confidence interval -8.7 to -1.9) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -4.4, 95% confidence interval -7.8 to -0.9) and by relatives at 6 (adjusted difference in means -5.4, 95% confidence interval -9.1 to -1.7) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -5.5, 95% confidence interval -9.6 to -1.5) in favour of the cognitive rehabilitation group. There were also differences in mood on the 30-Item General Health Questionnaire at 6 (adjusted difference in means -3.4, 95% confidence interval -5.9 to -0.8) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -3.4, 95% confidence interval -6.2 to -0.6) in favour of the cognitive rehabilitation group. A qualitative analysis indicated perceived benefits of the intervention. There was no evidence of a difference in costs (adjusted difference in means -£574.93, 95% confidence interval -£1878.93 to £729.07) or quality-adjusted life-year gain (adjusted difference in means 0.00, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.02). No safety concerns were raised and no deaths were reported. LIMITATIONS: The trial included a sample of participants who had relatively severe cognitive problems in daily life. The trial was not powered to perform subgroup analyses. Participants could not be blinded to treatment allocation. CONCLUSIONS: This cognitive rehabilitation programme had no long-term benefits on quality of life for people with multiple sclerosis. FUTURE WORK: Future research should evaluate the selection of those who may benefit from cognitive rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09697576. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 4. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Cognitive (or mental processing) problems, particularly those affecting memory and attention, are common in people with multiple sclerosis. Multiple sclerosis is a condition that affects the brain and causes nerve damage. Cognitive rehabilitation can involve: retraining cognitive skills, which are the core skills your brain uses to think, read, learn, remember, reason and concentrateteaching strategies to cope in daily life. Cognitive rehabilitation is rarely provided for people with multiple sclerosis. A trial was carried out to determine whether or not providing a group cognitive rehabilitation programme improved quality of life more than usual clinical care, which did not involve any cognitive rehabilitation. The effects on daily memory problems, mood, fatigue and employment were examined and also the cost-effectiveness of the treatment. A total of 449 people with multiple sclerosis took part in the trial. They all agreed to be part of the research trial, had cognitive problems, were aged 18­69 years and could travel to attend group sessions. Participants were then allocated to receive cognitive rehabilitation or not, on the basis of chance (i.e. randomly). All participants were followed up for 1 year. Although both groups showed no differences in quality of life after 1 year, those who received cognitive rehabilitation had fewer memory problems in daily life and reported better mood than those who received only their usual clinical care. There were no differences in their levels of fatigue or disability, or in employment status. The qualitative results indicated that participants found the intervention useful. Treatment cost slightly less than usual care but had modest benefits. Overall, the results suggest that there may be modest short-term benefits of cognitive rehabilitation, and future studies will consider how such benefits can be maintained and whether or not some people benefit more than others.

Cognitive rehabilitation for attention and memory in people with multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial (CRAMMS).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation for attention and memory problems in people with multiple sclerosis. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: People with multiple sclerosis aged 18-69 years, who reported cognitive problems in daily life and had cognitive problems on standardized assessment. INTERVENTIONS: A group cognitive rehabilitation programme delivered in 10 weekly sessions in comparison with usual care. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Psychological subscale at 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes included measures of everyday memory problems, mood, fatigue, cognitive abilities and employment at 6 and 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: In all, 245 participants were allocated to cognitive rehabilitation and 204 to usual care. Mean Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Psychological at 12 months was 22.2 (SD = 6.1) for cognitive rehabilitation and 23.4 (SD = 6.0) for usual care group; adjusted difference -0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.5 to 0.3, P = 0.20. No differences were observed in cognitive abilities, fatigue or employment. There were small differences in favour of cognitive rehabilitation for the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Psychological at 6 months and everyday memory and mood at 6 and 12 months. There was no evidence of an effect on costs (-£808; 95% CI = -£2248 to £632) or on quality-adjusted life year gain (0.00; 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.02). CONCLUSION: This rehabilitation programme had no long-term benefits on the impact of multiple sclerosis on quality of life, but there was some evidence of an effect on everyday memory problems and mood.

Promoting Independence in Dementia (PRIDE): protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Memory services often see people with early stage dementia who are largely independent and able to participate in community activities but who run the risk of reducing activities and social networks. PRIDE is a self-management intervention designed to promote living well and enhance independence for people with mild dementia. This study aims to examine the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PRIDE intervention offered in addition to usual care or with usual care alone. METHODS/DESIGN: PRIDE is a parallel, two-arm, multicentre, feasibility, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Eligible participants aged 18 or over who have mild dementia (defined as a score of 0.5 or 1 on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale) who can participate in the intervention and provide informed consent will be randomised (1:1) to treatment with the PRIDE intervention delivered in addition to usual care, or usual care only. Participants will be followed-up at 3 and 6 month's post-randomisation. There will be an option for a supporter to join each participant. Each supporter will be provided with questionnaires at baseline and follow-ups at 3 to 6 months. Embedded qualitative research with both participants and supporters will explore their perspectives on the intervention investigating a range of themes including acceptability and barriers and facilitators to delivery and participation. The feasibility of conducting a full RCT associated with participant recruitment and follow-up of both conditions, intervention delivery including the recruitment, training, retention of PRIDE trained facilitators, clinical outcomes, intervention and resource use costs and the acceptability of the intervention and study related procedures will be examined. DISCUSSION: This study will assess whether a definitive randomised trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of whether the PRIDE intervention offered in addition to usual care is feasible in comparison to usual care alone, and if so, will provide data to inform the design and conduct of a future trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN11288961, registered on 23 October 2019, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12345678 Protocol V2.1 dated 19 June 2019.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of a group-based memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injury. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial in England. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: People with memory problems following traumatic brain injury, aged 18-69 years, able to travel to group sessions, communicate in English, and give consent. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 10 weekly group sessions of manualized memory rehabilitation plus usual care (intervention) vs. usual care alone (control). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the patient-reported Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ-p) at six months post randomization. Secondary outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months post randomization. RESULTS: We randomized 328 participants. There were no clinically important differences in the primary outcome between arms at six-month follow-up (mean EMQ-p score: 38.8 (SD 26.1) in intervention and 44.1 (SD 24.6) in control arms, adjusted difference in means: -2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): -6.7 to 2.5, p = 0.37) or 12-month follow-up. Objectively assessed memory ability favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at the 6-month, but not at the 12-month outcome. There were no between-arm differences in mood, experience of brain injury, or relative/friend assessment of patient's everyday memory outcomes, but goal attainment scores favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at both outcome time points. Health economic analyses suggested that the intervention was unlikely to be cost effective. No safety concerns were raised. CONCLUSION: This memory rehabilitation programme did not lead to reduced forgetting in daily life for a heterogeneous sample of people with traumatic brain injury. Further research will need to examine who benefits most from such interventions.

A group memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injuries: the ReMemBrIn RCT.

BACKGROUND: People with traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) commonly report memory impairments. These are persistent, debilitating and reduce quality of life, but patients do not routinely receive memory rehabilitation after discharge from hospital. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group memory rehabilitation programme for people with TBI. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Qualitative and health economic evaluations were also undertaken. SETTING: Community settings in nine sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were aged 18-69 years, had undergone a TBI > 3 months prior to recruitment, reported memory problems, were able to travel to a site to attend group sessions, could communicate in English and gave informed consent. RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING: Clusters of four to six participants were randomised to the memory rehabilitation arm or the usual-care arm on a 1 : 1 ratio. Randomisation was based on a computer-generated pseudo-random code using random permuted blocks of randomly varying size, stratified by study site. Participants and therapists were aware of the treatment allocation whereas outcome assessors were blinded. INTERVENTIONS: In the memory rehabilitation arm 10 weekly sessions of a manualised memory rehabilitation programme were provided in addition to usual care. Participants were taught restitution strategies to retrain impaired memory functions and compensation strategies to enable them to cope with memory problems. The usual-care arm received usual care only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Primary outcome: patient-completed Everyday Memory Questionnaire - patient version (EMQ-p) at 6 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes: Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test - third edition (RBMT-3), General Health Questionnaire 30-item version, European Brain Injury Questionnaire, Everyday Memory Questionnaire - relative version and individual goal attainment. Costs (based on a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective) were collected using a service use questionnaire, with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, used to derive quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A Markov model was developed to explore cost-effectiveness at 5 and 10 years, with a 3.5% discount applied. RESULTS: We randomised 328 participants (memory rehabilitation, n = 171; usual care, n = 157), with 129 in the memory rehabilitation arm and 122 in the usual-care arm included in the primary analysis. We found no clinically important difference on the EMQ-p between the two arms at 6 months' follow-up (adjusted difference in mean scores -2.1, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 2.5; p = 0.37). For secondary outcomes, differences favouring the memory rehabilitation arm were observed at 6 months' follow-up for the RBMT-3 and goal attainment, but remained only for goal attainment at 12 months' follow-up. There were no differences between arms in mood or quality of life. The qualitative results suggested positive experiences of participating in the trial and of attending the groups. Participants reported that memory rehabilitation was not routinely accessible in usual care. The primary health economics outcome at 12 months found memory rehabilitation to be £26.89 cheaper than usual care but less effective, with an incremental QALY loss of 0.007. Differences in costs and effects were not statistically significant and non-parametric bootstrapping demonstrated considerable uncertainty in these findings. No safety concerns were raised and no deaths were reported. LIMITATIONS: As a pragmatic trial, we had broad inclusion criteria and, therefore, there was considerable heterogeneity within the sample. The study was not powered to perform further subgroup analyses. Participants and therapists could not be blinded to treatment allocation. CONCLUSIONS: The group memory rehabilitation delivered in this trial is very unlikely to lead to clinical benefits or to be a cost-effective treatment for people with TBI in the community. Future studies should examine the selection of participants who may benefit most from memory rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN65792154. 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. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People with brain injuries often report memory problems. These difficulties can continue long after the injury, causing complications in daily life. Many people do not receive specific help for these memory problems after leaving hospital. Our study explored whether receiving 'memory rehabilitation' (a group treatment to help people deal with memory difficulties) was better than the treatment that people usually receive to help reduce the frequency of forgetting in daily life. We recruited 328 people who had memory problems following brain injury. About half were allocated at random to receive memory rehabilitation and half did not have any extra memory treatments, but everyone continued to receive their usual care. Those who had memory rehabilitation were offered 10 group sessions at which strategies were taught to help them cope with memory problems. We asked all participants to complete memory tests and questionnaires at the start of the study and again 6 and 12 months afterwards to find out whether the memory rehabilitation had any effect. Some participants were also interviewed about the study. At the 6- and 12-month assessments, there were no differences between those who received memory rehabilitation and those who did not in terms of how often participants reported memory problems in their daily lives or how well they performed on memory tests. We also did not find any differences in participants' mood or quality of life. However, individual goals set by the participants at the start of the study were a little better met by those who received memory rehabilitation than by those who did not. The memory rehabilitation did not represent value for money. In interviews, participants reported positive experiences of taking part in the study and of attending the group sessions. This group memory rehabilitation programme is unlikely to help people with memory problems following a brain injury more than the usual treatment that people receive. Some people may benefit more from memory rehabilitation than others, but this needs further investigation.

The LeucoPatch® system in the management of hard-to-heal diabetic foot ulcers: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic foot ulcers are a common and severe complication of diabetes mellitus. Standard treatment includes debridement, offloading, management of infection and revascularisation where appropriate, although healing times may be long. The LeucoPatch® device is used to generate an autologous platelet-rich fibrin and leucocyte wound dressing produced from the patient's own venous blood by centrifugation, but without the addition of any reagents. The final product comprises a thin, circular patch composed predominantly of fibrin together with living platelets and leucocytes. Promising results have been obtained in non-controlled studies this system, but this now needs to be tested in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). If confirmed, the LeucoPatch® may become an important new tool in the armamentarium in the management of diabetic foot ulcers which are hard-to-heal. METHODS: People with diabetes and hard-to-heal ulcers of the foot will receive either pre-specified good standard care or good standard care supplemented by the application of the LeucoPatch® device. The primary outcome will be the percentage of ulcers healed within 20 weeks. Healing will be defined as complete epithelialisation without discharge that is maintained for 4 weeks and is confirmed by an observer blind to randomisation group. DISCUSSION: Ulcers of the foot are a major source of morbidity to patients with diabetes and costs to health care economies. The study population is designed to be as inclusive as possible with the aim of maximising the external validity of any findings. The primary outcome measure is healing within 20 weeks of randomisation and the trial also includes a number of secondary outcome measures. Among these are rate of change in ulcer area as a predictor of the likelihood of eventual healing, minor and major amputation of the target limb, the incidence of infection and quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, ISRCTN27665670 . Registered on 5 July 2013.

Psychoeducation and Problem Solving (PEPS) Therapy for Adults With Personality Disorder: A Pragmatic Randomized-Controlled Trial.

We compared psychoeducation and problem solving (PEPS) therapy against usual treatment in a multisite randomized-controlled trial. The primary outcome was social functioning. We aimed to recruit 444 community-dwelling adults with personality disorder; however, safety concerns led to an early cessation of recruitment. A total of 154 people were randomized to PEPS and 152 to usual treatment. Follow-up at 72 weeks was completed for 68%. PEPS therapy was no more effective than usual treatment for improving social functioning (adjusted difference in mean Social Functioning Questionnaire scores = -0.73; 95% CI [-1.83, 0.38]; p = 0.19). PEPS therapy is not an effective treatment for improving social functioning of adults with personality disorder living in the community.

Psychoeducation with problem-solving (PEPS) therapy for adults with personality disorder: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a manualised intervention to improve social functioning.

BACKGROUND: If effective, less intensive treatments for people with personality disorder have the potential to serve more people. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychoeducation with problem-solving (PEPS) therapy plus usual treatment against usual treatment alone in improving social problem-solving with adults with personality disorder. DESIGN: Multisite two-arm, parallel-group, pragmatic randomised controlled superiority trial. SETTING: Community mental health services in three NHS trusts in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults with any personality disorder recruited from community mental health services. INTERVENTIONS: Up to four individual sessions of psychoeducation, a collaborative dialogue about personality disorder, followed by 12 group sessions of problem-solving therapy to help participants learn a process for solving interpersonal problems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was measured by the Social Functioning Questionnaire (SFQ). Secondary outcomes were service use (general practitioner records), mood (measured via the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and client-specified three main problems rated by severity. We studied the mechanism of change using the Social Problem-Solving Inventory. Costs were identified using the Client Service Receipt Inventory and quality of life was identified by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions questionnaire. Research assistants blinded to treatment allocation collected follow-up information. RESULTS: There were 739 people referred for the trial and 444 were eligible. More adverse events in the PEPS arm led to a halt to recruitment after 306 people were randomised (90% of planned sample size); 154 participants received PEPS and 152 received usual treatment. The mean age was 38 years and 67% were women. Follow-up at 72 weeks after randomisation was completed for 62% of participants in the usual-treatment arm and 73% in the PEPS arm. Intention-to-treat analyses compared individuals as randomised, regardless of treatment received or availability of 72-week follow-up SFQ data. Median attendance at psychoeducation sessions was approximately 90% and for problem-solving sessions was approximately 50%. PEPS therapy plus usual treatment was no more effective than usual treatment alone for the primary outcome [adjusted difference in means for SFQ -0.73 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.83 to 0.38 points; p = 0.19], any of the secondary outcomes or social problem-solving. Over the follow-up, PEPS costs were, on average, £182 less than for usual treatment. It also resulted in 0.0148 more quality-adjusted life-years. Neither difference was statistically significant. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds, the intervention had a 64% likelihood of being the more cost-effective option. More adverse events, mainly incidents of self-harm, occurred in the PEPS arm, but the difference was not significant (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.64). LIMITATIONS: There was possible bias in adverse event recording because of dependence on self-disclosure or reporting by the clinical team. Non-completion of problem-solving sessions and non-standardisation of usual treatment were limitations. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support the use of PEPS therapy alongside standard care for improving social functioning of adults with personality disorder living in the community. FUTURE WORK: We aim to investigate adverse events by accessing centrally held NHS data on deaths and hospitalisation for all PEPS trial participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70660936. 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. 20, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Psycho-education with problem solving (PEPS) therapy for adults with personality disorder: a pragmatic multi-site community-based randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Impairment in social functioning is a key component of personality disorder. Therefore psycho-education and problem solving (PEPS) therapy may benefit people with this disorder. Psycho-education aims to educate, build rapport, and motivate people for problem solving therapy. Problem solving therapy aims to help clients solve interpersonal problems positively and rationally, thereby improving social functioning and reducing distress. PEPS therapy has been evaluated with community adults with personality disorder in an exploratory trial. At the end of treatment, compared to a wait-list control group, those treated with PEPS therapy showed better social functioning, as measured by the Social Functioning Questionnaire (SFQ). A definitive evaluation is now being conducted to determine whether PEPS therapy is a clinically and cost-effective treatment for people with personality disorder METHODS: This is a pragmatic, two-arm, multi-centre, parallel, randomised controlled clinical trial. The target population is community-dwelling adults with one or more personality disorder, as identified by the International Personality Disorder Examination (IPDE). Inclusion criteria are: Living in the community (including residential or supported care settings); presence of one or more personality disorder; aged 18 or over; proficiency in spoken English; capacity to provide informed consent. Exclusion criteria are: Primary diagnosis of a functional psychosis; insufficient degree of literacy, comprehension or attention to be able to engage in trial therapy and assessments; currently engaged in a specific programme of psychological treatment for personality disorder or likely to start such treatment during the trial period; currently enrolled in any other trial. Suitable participants are randomly allocated to PEPS therapy plus treatment as usual (TAU) or TAU only. We aim to recruit 340 men and women. The primary outcome is social functioning as measured by the SFQ. A reduction (i.e., an improvement) of 2 points or more on the SFQ at follow-up 72 weeks post-randomisation is our pre-specified index of clinically significant change. Secondary outcomes include a reduction of unscheduled service usage and an increase in scheduled service usage; improved quality of life; and a reduction in mental distress. DISCUSSION: PEPS therapy has potential as an economical, accessible, and acceptable intervention for people with personality disorder. The results from this randomised controlled trial will tell us if PEPS therapy is effective and cost-effective. If so, then it will be a useful treatment for inclusion in a broader menu of treatment options for this group of service users. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number - ISRCTN70660936.