Patient and Public Involvement in Research Evaluating Integrated Care for People Experiencing Homelessness: Findings From the PHOENIx Community Pharmacy Pilot Randomised-Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of research on and a limited understanding of patient and public involvement (PPI) in the context of research in homelessness and, in particular, direct involvement of people with lived and living experience of homelessness (PEH) as expert advisors. We aim to report on outcomes and reflections from lived experience advisory panel (LEAP) meetings and PPI activities, held throughout the study lifecycle of a pilot randomised-controlled trial (RCT) focused on evaluating integrated health and practical support for PEH. METHODS: Community Pharmacy Homeless Outreach Engagement Non-medical Independent prescribing Rx (PHOENIx Community Pharmacy RCT) is an integrated health and social care intervention for people experiencing homelessness who present to community pharmacy. Intervention includes weekly support from a pharmacist prescriber and a third sector support worker for up to 6 months. PPI activities undertaken throughout the study were documented, including outcomes of LEAP meetings. Outcome reporting followed Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 Short Form (GRIPP2-SF). RESULTS: In total, 17 members were recruited into the LEAP; six meetings (three in two study sites) were held. PPI input was also received through representation from homelessness third sector organisation staff as study co-applicants and core membership in the trial steering committee. Together, the PPI activities helped shape the study proposal, design of study materials, data analysis and dissemination materials. LEAP panel members offered valuable input via their experience and expertise into the delivery and refinement of interventions. Although longitudinal input was received from some LEAP members, ensuring repeat attendance in the pre-planned meetings was challenging. CONCLUSION: People who face social exclusion and marginalisation can provide highly valuable input as equal partners in co-design and delivery of interventions seeking to improve their health and well-being. Fluid membership and flexible methods of seeking and incorporating advice can offer pragmatic approaches to minimising barriers to continued involvement in research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study reports findings and learning relevant to involvement of people with lived and living experience of homelessness as advisors in a research study. It is important for researchers to offer fluid memberships and use diverse methods to receive input from lived experience members, as traditional PPI methodology may be insufficient to ensure inclusivity. Staff and volunteers from third sector organisations were important PPI partners who bring their experience based on frontline service provision, often as the first port of call for people experiencing severe and multiple disadvantage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN88146807.

Management of fatigue with physical activity and behavioural change support in vasculitis: a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) experience high levels of fatigue, despite disease remission. This study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of a definitive randomized controlled trial of a behavioural-based physical activity intervention to support fatigue self-management in AAV patients. METHODS: AAV patients in disease remission with fatigue (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory-20 general fatigue domain ≥14) were randomly allocated to intervention or standard care in this single-centre open-label randomized controlled feasibility study. The intervention lasted 12 weeks and comprised eight face-to-face physical activity sessions with a facilitator and 12 weekly telephone calls. Participants were encouraged to monitor their physical activity using a tracker device (Fitbit). Standard care involved sign-posting to fatigue websites. The primary outcome was feasibility of a phase III trial assessed against three stop/go traffic light criteria, (recruitment, intervention adherence and study withdrawal). A qualitative study assessed participant views about the intervention. RESULTS: A total of 248 patients were screened and 134 were eligible to participate (54%). Stop/go criteria were amber for recruitment; 43/134 (32%, 95% CI: 24, 40) eligible participants randomized, amber for adherence; 73% of participants attended all eight physical activity sessions, but only 11/22 (50%, 95% CI: 29, 71%) completed the intervention as per the intended schedule, and green for study withdrawal; 2/43 participants withdrew before 24 weeks (5%, 95% CI: 0, 11). Qualitative results suggested the intervention was acceptable. CONCLUSION: This study suggests a behavioural-based physical activity intervention targeting fatigue self-management was acceptable to patients with AAV, although recruitment and protocol adherence will need modification prior to a definitive trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11929227.

Screening and brief intervention for obesity in primary care: cost-effectiveness analysis in the BWeL trial.

BACKGROUND: The Brief Intervention for Weight Loss Trial enrolled 1882 consecutively attending primary care patients who were obese and participants were randomised to physicians opportunistically endorsing, offering, and facilitating a referral to a weight loss programme (support) or recommending weight loss (advice). After one year, the support group lost 1.4 kg more (95%CI 0.9 to 2.0): 2.4 kg versus 1.0 kg. We use a cohort simulation to predict effects on disease incidence, quality of life, and healthcare costs over 20 years. METHODS: Randomly sampling from the trial population, we created a virtual cohort of 20 million adults and assigned baseline morbidity. We applied the weight loss observed in the trial and assumed weight regain over four years. Using epidemiological data, we assigned the incidence of 12 weight-related diseases depending on baseline disease status, age, gender, body mass index. From a healthcare perspective, we calculated the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) accruing and calculated the incremental difference between trial arms in costs expended in delivering the intervention and healthcare costs accruing. We discounted future costs and benefits at 1.5% over 20 years. RESULTS: Compared with advice, the support intervention reduced the cumulative incidence of weight-related disease by 722/100,000 people, 0.33% of all weight-related disease. The incremental cost of support over advice was £2.01million/100,000. However, the support intervention reduced health service costs by £5.86 million/100,000 leading to a net saving of £3.85 million/100,000. The support intervention produced 992 QALYs/100,000 people relative to advice. CONCLUSIONS: A brief intervention in which physicians opportunistically endorse, offer, and facilitate a referral to a behavioural weight management service to patients with a BMI of at least 30 kg/m2 reduces healthcare costs and improves health more than advising weight loss.

Screening and brief intervention for obesity in primary care: a parallel, two-arm, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a common cause of non-communicable disease. Guidelines recommend that physicians screen and offer brief advice to motivate weight loss through referral to behavioural weight loss programmes. However, physicians rarely intervene and no trials have been done on the subject. We did this trial to establish whether physician brief intervention is acceptable and effective for reducing bodyweight in patients with obesity. METHODS: In this parallel, two-arm, randomised trial, patients who consulted 137 primary care physicians in England were screened for obesity. Individuals could be enrolled if they were aged at least 18 years, had a body-mass index of at least 30 kg/m2 (or at least 25 kg/m2 if of Asian ethnicity), and had a raised body fat percentage. At the end of the consultation, the physician randomly assigned participants (1:1) to one of two 30 s interventions. Randomisation was done via preprepared randomisation cards labelled with a code representing the allocation, which were placed in opaque sealed envelopes and given to physicians to open at the time of treatment assignment. In the active intervention, the physician offered referral to a weight management group (12 sessions of 1 h each, once per week) and, if the referral was accepted, the physician ensured the patient made an appointment and offered follow-up. In the control intervention, the physician advised the patient that their health would benefit from weight loss. The primary outcome was weight change at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population, which was assessed blinded to treatment allocation. We also assessed asked patients' about their feelings on discussing their weight when they have visited their general practitioner for other reasons. Given the nature of the intervention, we did not anticipate any adverse events in the usual sense, so safety outcomes were not assessed. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN26563137. FINDINGS: Between June 4, 2013, and Dec 23, 2014, we screened 8403 patients, of whom 2728 (32%) were obese. Of these obese patients, 2256 (83%) agreed to participate and 1882 were eligible, enrolled, and included in the intention-to-treat analysis, with 940 individuals in the support group and 942 individuals in the advice group. 722 (77%) individuals assigned to the support intervention agreed to attend the weight management group and 379 (40%) of these individuals attended, compared with 82 (9%) participants who were allocated the advice intervention. In the entire study population, mean weight change at 12 months was 2·43 kg with the support intervention and 1·04 kg with the advice intervention, giving an adjusted difference of 1·43 kg (95% CI 0·89-1·97). The reactions of the patients to the general practitioners' brief interventions did not differ significantly between the study groups in terms of appropriateness (adjusted odds ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·75-1·07, p=0·21) or helpfulness (1·05, 0·89-1·26, p=0·54); overall, four (<1%) patients thought their intervention was inappropriate and unhelpful and 1530 (81%) patients thought it was appropriate and helpful. INTERPRETATION: A behaviourally-informed, very brief, physician-delivered opportunistic intervention is acceptable to patients and an effective way to reduce population mean weight. FUNDING: The UK National Prevention Research Initiative.

A mixed methods feasibility study of nicotine-assisted smoking reduction programmes delivered by community pharmacists - The RedPharm study.

BACKGROUND: Pivotal trials have established that, among people who have no immediate intention to quit smoking, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) helps people reduce and eventually stop smoking. The prime aim of this trial was to investigate the feasibility of implementing such a programme in community pharmacies. In addition, we investigated the effectiveness of providing behavioural support compared with self-help methods and of shorter compared with standard length reduction programmes. METHODS: Pharmacists were trained to deliver a smoking reduction programme and opportunistically invite people to participate in the programme. In a 2 × 2 factorial design, eligible volunteers were randomised to either receive in-person behavioural support or a self-help booklet. In both cases, participants were supported to set targets to reduce their smoking and use behavioural techniques to assist reduction. In addition, participants were randomised to cut down and stop over 4 weeks or over 16 weeks, but in either case continue NRT for up to nine months. We assessed uptake and adherence to the programme and smoking cessation four weeks and six months after a quit day and reduction in the three months following programme end and incorporated a qualitative processes assessment. RESULTS: Only 68 of the planned 160 smokers could be recruited. Pharmacists were deterred by the bureaucracy of trial enrolment and that many smokers did not return for further support. Pharmacists sometimes subverted the randomisation or provided support to participants in the self-help arm. Smokers stayed in the programme for an average of 6 weeks rather than the 9 months envisaged. Rates of follow-up declined to around 20% of participants by 12 months. There was insufficient evidence to assess whether support or speed of reduction enhanced cessation or reduction but cessation and reduction were less common overall than in the pivotal trials for licensing NRT for this indication. CONCLUSIONS: This programme of smoking reduction and the trial design to assess its effectiveness proved unpopular to potential participants and pharmacists. As a result, the trial produced no evidence on the effectiveness of behavioural support or speed or smoking reduction. A trial of this programme in this context is unfeasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 54805841 . Registered 18 March 2010.

Making Every Contact Count: health professionals' experiences of integrating conversations about Snacktivity to promote physical activity within routine consultations - a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Helping people to change their health behaviours is becoming a greater feature within the role of health professionals, including through whole system initiatives such as Making Every Contact Count. Health services provide an ideal setting to routinely promote health behaviours, including physical activity. Snacktivity is a novel approach that promotes small bouts of physical activity (activity snacks) throughout the day. This study explored health professionals' initial experiences of delivering a Snacktivity intervention to promote physical activity within routine health consultations. A further aim was to investigate health professionals' ability/fidelity in delivering the Snacktivity intervention to their patients. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews (n=11) and audio recording of consultations (n=46). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals from a variety of specialisms who delivered the Snacktivity intervention within patient consultations. RESULTS: Analyses revealed two higher-level themes of interest: (1) health professionals' conceptualisation of Snacktivity (subthemes: observations/reflections about patients' understanding, engagement and enthusiasm for delivering the Snacktivity intervention) and (2) health professionals' understanding of Snacktivity and experience in delivering the intervention (subthemes: delivering Snacktivity; limitations, challenges and possible improvements). Consultation audio recordings demonstrated health professionals delivered the Snacktivity intervention with high levels of fidelity. Health professionals were proficient and supportive of delivering the Snacktivity intervention within consultations although practical barriers to implementation such as time constraints were raised, and confidence in doing so was mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Health professionals were proficient and supportive of delivering the Snacktivity intervention within consultations. The primary barrier to implementation was the time to deliver it, however, gaining greater experience in the intervention and improving behaviour change counselling skills may reduce this barrier. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN64851242.

Health screening clinic to reduce absenteeism and presenteeism among NHS Staff: eTHOS a pilot RCT.

Background: Staff sickness absenteeism and presenteeism (attending work while unwell) incur high costs to the NHS, are associated with adverse patient outcomes and have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The main causes are mental and musculoskeletal ill health with cardiovascular risk factors common. Objectives: To undertake a feasibility study to inform the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a health screening clinic in reducing absenteeism and presenteeism amongst the National Health Service staff. Design: Individually randomised controlled pilot trial of the staff health screening clinic compared with usual care, including qualitative process evaluation. Setting: Four United Kingdom National Health Service hospitals from two urban and one rural Trust. Participants: Hospital employees who had not previously attended a pilot health screening clinic at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham. Interventions: Nurse-led staff health screening clinic with assessment for musculoskeletal health (STarT musculoskeletal; STarT Back), mental health (patient health questionnaire-9; generalised anxiety disorder questionnaire-7) and cardiovascular health (NHS health check if aged ≥ 40, lifestyle check if < 40 years). Screen positives were given advice and/or referral to services according to UK guidelines. Main outcome measures: The three coprimary outcomes were recruitment, referrals and attendance at referred services. These formed stop/go criteria when considered together. If any of these values fell into the 'amber' zone, then the trial would require modifications to proceed to full trial. If all were 'red', then the trial would be considered unfeasible. Secondary outcomes collected to inform the design of the definitive randomised controlled trial included: generalisability, screening results, individual referrals required/attended, health behaviours, acceptability/feasibility of processes, indication of contamination and costs. Outcomes related to the definitive trial included self-reported and employee records of absenteeism with reasons. Process evaluation included interviews with participants, intervention delivery staff and service providers. Descriptive statistics were presented and framework analysis conducted for qualitative data. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, outcomes were captured up to 6 months only. Results: Three hundred and fourteen participants were consented (236 randomised), the majority within 4 months. The recruitment rate of 314/3788 (8.3%) invited was lower than anticipated (meeting red for this criteria), but screening identified that 57/118 (48.3%) randomised were eligible for referral to either general practitioner (81%), mental health (18%) and/or physiotherapy services (30%) (green). Early trial closure precluded determination of attendance at referrals, but 31.6% of those eligible reported intending to attend (amber). Fifty-one of the 80 (63.75%) planned qualitative interviews were conducted. Quantitative and qualitative data from the process evaluation indicated that the electronic database-driven screening intervention and data collection were efficient, promoting good fidelity, although needing more personalisation at times. Recruitment and delivery of the full trial would benefit from a longer development period to better understand local context, develop effective strategies for engaging with underserved groups, provide longer training and better integration with referral services. Delivery of the pilot was limited by the impact of COVID-19 with staff redeployment, COVID-research prioritisation and reduced availability of community and in-house referral services. While recruitment was rapid, it did not fully represent ethnic minority groups and truncated follow-up due to funding limitations prevented full assessment of attendance at recommended services and secondary outcomes. Conclusions: There is both a clinical need (evidenced by 48% screened eligible for a referral) and perceived benefit (data from the qualitative interviews) for this National Health Service staff health screening clinic. The three stop/go criteria were red, green and amber; therefore, the Trial Oversight Committee recommended that a full-scale trial should proceed, but with modifications to adapt to local context and adopt processes to engage better with underserved communities. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN10237475. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/42/42) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Sickness absenteeism and presenteeism (attendance at work while ill, with poor work performance) are major problems in the NHS and associated with worse patient health care. The most common causes of NHS staff sickness absenteeism and presenteeism are muscular complaints and mental ill health. Poor lifestyle and illnesses associated with heart disease are also important factors. Staff health checks might improve the health of NHS staff, but no studies have included screening tests to address the most common causes of poor staff health. This pilot study tested whether it would be possible to deliver a randomised controlled trial of an NHS staff health screening clinic, where some people get the screening check and others do not (chosen at random, like flipping a coin). We used an electronic database to capture all data. Participants completed initial questionnaires either at home or at work, then attended a face-to-face screening clinic using recognised screening questionnaires and tests to detect problems with muscular, mental or heart health. We considered how NHS staff and healthcare organisations would want the screening clinic and trial to run, how a diverse range of NHS staff could best be approached, how many staff might need to be invited and what their healthcare needs would be. The study ran in four UK NHS hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two hundred and thirty-six NHS staff participated, but early trial closure due to the pandemic meant that some results were unavailable. For the primary feasibility outcomes, although recruitment rates of around 8% were lower than anticipated, half of staff screened needed referral for further health care and one-third reported intending to attend. Staff felt that the clinic addressed an important health need. The Trial Oversight Committee recommended proceeding to a full-scale trial but with modifications to address findings from the process evaluation, including ways to encourage a wider group of NHS staff to take part.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Assets-based feeding help Before and After birth (ABA-feed) for improving breastfeeding initiation and continuation: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (Version 3.0).

INTRODUCTION: Breastfeeding has health benefits for infants and mothers, yet the UK has low rates with marked social inequalities. The Assets-based feeding help Before and After birth (ABA) feasibility study demonstrated the acceptability of a proactive, assets-based, woman-centred peer support intervention, inclusive of all feeding types, to mothers, peer supporters and maternity services. The ABA-feed study aims to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the ABA-feed intervention compared with usual care in first-time mothers in a full trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation to explore clinical and cost-effectiveness, and embedded process evaluation to explore differences in implementation between sites. We aim to recruit 2730 primiparous women, regardless of feeding intention. Women will be recruited at 17 sites from antenatal clinics and various remote methods including social media and invitations from midwives and health visitors. Women will be randomised at a ratio of 1.43:1 to receive either ABA-feed intervention or usual care. A train the trainer model will be used to train local Infant Feeding Coordinators to train existing peer supporters to become 'infant feeding helpers' in the ABA-feed intervention. Infant feeding outcomes will be collected at 3 days, and 8, 16 and 24 weeks postbirth. The primary outcome will be any breastfeeding at 8 weeks postbirth. Secondary outcomes will include breastfeeding initiation, any and exclusive breastfeeding, formula feeding practices, anxiety, social support and healthcare utilisation. All analyses will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee. Trial results will be available through open-access publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant meetings and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17395671.

Promoting participation in physical activity through Snacktivity: A qualitative mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Public health guidance acknowledges the benefits of physical activity of any duration. We have proposed a whole-day approach to promoting physical activity called Snacktivity™, which encourages frequent 2-5 minute 'activity snacks' of moderate-to-vigorous intensity. METHODS: Using repeated semi-structured interviews and a think aloud protocol, this study aimed to understand participants' experiences of integrating Snacktivity™ into daily life, to provide insights to refine the delivery of Snacktivity™ interventions. Physically inactive adults recruited via primary care and a community health service engaged with an intervention to encourage Snacktivity™ over three weeks, which included using a Fitbit and linked mobile phone app (SnackApp). Participants took part in semi-structured interviews on two occasions during the intervention, with a sub-group participating in a think aloud study. Three study data sets were generated and independently explored using inductive thematic analysis, with findings combined into a single set of themes. RESULTS: Eleven adults participated in the interview study who were interviewed twice (total interviews completed n = 21, 1 participant declined the second interview), of whom six completed the think aloud study (total voice recordings n = 103). Three main themes emerged from the combined data; lived experience of participating in Snacktivity™, motivation for Snacktivity™ and experiences with the Snacktivity™ technology. Participants undertook a variety of activity snacks, utilising their environment, which they believed improved their psychological wellbeing. Participants were enthusiastic about Snacktivity™, with some stating that activity snacks were more accessible than traditional exercise, but perceived they were often prevented from doing so in the presence of others. Participants were mostly enthusiastic about using the Snacktivity™ technology. CONCLUSION: Participants were able to incorporate Snacktivity™ into their lives, particularly at home, and found this approach acceptable. Participants felt they experienced health benefits from Snacktivity™ although barriers to participation were reported. This study offers insights for translating guidance into practice and supporting people to become more physically active.

Protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial to evaluate integrated support from pharmacist independent prescriber and third sector worker for people experiencing homelessness: the PHOENIx community pharmacy study.

BACKGROUND: People experiencing homelessness (PEH) have complex health and social care needs and most die in their early 40 s. PEH frequently use community pharmacies; however, evaluation of the delivery of structured, integrated, holistic health and social care intervention has not been previously undertaken in community pharmacies for PEH. PHOENIx (Pharmacy Homeless Outreach Engagement Non-medical Independent prescribing Rx) has been delivered and tested in Glasgow, Scotland, by NHS pharmacist independent prescribers and third sector homelessness support workers offering health and social care intervention in low threshold homeless drop-in venues, emergency accommodation and emergency departments, to PEH. Building on this work, this study aims to test recruitment, retention, intervention adherence and fidelity of community pharmacy-based PHOENIx intervention. METHODS: Randomised, multi-centre, open, parallel-group external pilot trial. A total of 100 PEH aged 18 years and over will be recruited from community pharmacies in Glasgow and Birmingham. PHOENIx intervention includes structured assessment in the community pharmacy of health, housing, benefits and activities, in addition to usual care, through weekly visits lasting up to six months. A primary outcome is whether to proceed to a definitive trial based on pre-specified progression criteria. Secondary outcomes include drug/alcohol treatment uptake and treatment retention; overdose rates; mortality and time to death; prison/criminal justice encounters; healthcare utilisation; housing tenure; patient-reported measures and intervention acceptability. Analysis will include descriptive statistics of recruitment and retention rates. Process evaluation will be conducted using Normalisation Process Theory. Health, social care and personal resource use data will be identified, measured and valued. DISCUSSION: If the findings of this pilot study suggest progression to a definitive trial, and if the definitive trial offers positive outcomes, it is intended that PHOENIx will be a publicly funded free-to-access service in community pharmacy for PEH. The study results will be shared with wider stakeholders and patients in addition to dissemination through medical journals and scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Clinical Trial Registration ISRCTN88146807. Approved protocol version 2.0 dated July 19, 2022.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of thoracic epidural and paravertebral blockade in reducing chronic post-thoracotomy pain: 2 (TOPIC 2).

BACKGROUND: Thoracotomy is considered one of the most painful surgical procedures and can cause debilitating chronic post-surgical pain lasting months or years postoperatively. Aggressive management of acute pain resulting from thoracotomy may reduce the likelihood of developing chronic pain. This trial compares the two most commonly used modes of acute analgesia provision at the time of thoracotomy (thoracic epidural blockade (TEB) and paravertebral blockade (PVB)) in terms of their clinical and cost-effectiveness in preventing chronic post-thoracotomy pain. METHODS: TOPIC 2 is a multi-centre, open-label, parallel group, superiority, randomised controlled trial, with an internal pilot investigating the use of TEB and PVB in 1026 adult (≥ 18 years old) patients undergoing thoracotomy in up to 20 thoracic centres throughout the UK. Patients (N = 1026) will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either TEB or PVB. During the first year, the trial will include an integrated QuinteT (Qualitative Research Integrated into Trials) Recruitment Intervention (QRI) with the aim of optimising recruitment and informed consent. The primary outcome is the incidence of chronic post-surgical pain at 6 months post-randomisation defined as 'worst chest pain over the last week' equating to a visual analogue score greater than or equal to 40 mm indicating at least a moderate level of pain. Secondary outcomes include acute pain, complications of regional analgesia and surgery, health-related quality of life, mortality and a health economic analysis. DISCUSSION: Both TEB and PVB have been demonstrated to be effective in the prevention of acute pain following thoracotomy and nationally practice is divided. Identification of which mode of analgesia is both clinically and cost-effective in preventing chronic post-thoracotomy pain could ameliorate the debilitating effects of chronic pain, improving health-related quality of life, facilitating return to work and caring responsibilities and resulting in a cost saving to the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03677856 [ClinicalTrials.gov] registered September 19, 2018. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03677856 . First patient recruited 8 January 2019.

Antidepressants for the prevention of depression following first-episode psychosis (ADEPP): study protocol for a multi-centre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depressive episodes are common after first-episode psychosis (FEP), affecting more than 40% of people, adding to individual burden, poor outcomes, and healthcare costs. If the risks of developing depression were lower, this could have a beneficial effect on morbidity and mortality, as well as improving outcomes. Sertraline is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and a common first-line medication for the treatment of depression in adults. It has been shown to be safe when co-prescribed with antipsychotic medication, and there is evidence that it is an effective treatment for depression in established schizophrenia. We present a protocol for a multi-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial called ADEPP that aims to investigate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of sertraline in preventing depression after FEP. METHODS: The recruitment target is 452 participants between the ages of 18 and 65 years who are within 12 months of treatment initiation for FEP. Having provided informed consent, participants will be randomised to receive either 50 mg of sertraline daily or matched placebo for 6 months, in addition to treatment as usual. The primary outcome measure will be a comparison of the number of new cases of depression between the treatment and placebo arms over the 6-month intervention phase. Secondary outcomes include suicidal behaviour, anxiety, rates of relapse, functional outcome, quality of life, and resource use. DISCUSSION: The ADEPP trial will test whether the addition of sertraline following FEP is a clinically useful, acceptable, and cost-effective way of improving outcomes following FEP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12682719 registration date 24/11/2020.

Snacktivity™ to promote physical activity and reduce future risk of disease in the population: protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial and nested qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Many people do not regularly participate in physical activity, which may negatively impact their health. Current physical activity guidelines are focused on promoting weekly accumulation of at least 150 min of moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA). Whilst revised guidance now recognises the importance of making small changes to physical activity behaviour, guidance still focuses on adults needing to achieve at least 150 min of MVPA per week. An alternative 'whole day' approach that could motivate the public to be more physically active, is a concept called Snacktivity™. Instead of focusing on achieving 150 min per week of physical activity, for example 30 min of MVPA over 5 days, Snacktivity™ encourages the public to achieve this through small, but frequent, 2-5 min 'snacks' of MVPA throughout the whole day. METHODS: The primary aim is to undertake a feasibility trial with nested qualitative interviews to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the Snacktivity™ intervention to inform the design of a subsequent phase III randomised trial. A two-arm randomised controlled feasibility trial aiming to recruit 80 inactive adults will be conducted. Recruitment will be from health and community settings and social media. Participants will be individually randomised (1:1 ratio) to receive either the Snacktivity™ intervention or usual care. The intervention will last 12 weeks with assessment of outcomes completed before and after the intervention in all participants. We are interested in whether the Snacktivity™ trial is appealing to participants (assessed by the recruitment rate) and if the Snacktivity™ intervention and trial methods are acceptable to participants (assessed by Snacktivity™/physical activity adherence and retention rates). The intervention will be delivered by health care providers within health care consultations or by researchers. Participants' experiences of the trial and intervention, and health care providers' views of delivering the intervention within health consultations will be explored. DISCUSSION: The development of physical activity interventions that can be delivered at scale are needed. The findings from this study will inform the viability and design of a phase III trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Snacktivity™ to increase physical activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 64851242.

Structured follow-up pathway to support people after transient ischaemic attack and minor stroke (SUPPORT TIA): protocol for a feasibility study and process evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: People who experience transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke have limited follow-up despite rapid specialist review in hospital. This means they often have unmet needs and feel abandoned following discharge. Care needs after TIA/minor stroke include information provision (diagnosis and stroke risk), stroke prevention (medication and lifestyle change) and holistic care (residual problems and return to work or usual activities). This protocol describes a feasibility study and process evaluation of an intervention to support people after TIA/minor stroke. The study aims to assess the feasibility and acceptability of (1) the intervention and (2) the trial procedures for a future randomised controlled trial of this intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, randomised (1:1) feasibility study with a mixed-methods process evaluation. Sixty participants will be recruited from TIA clinics or stroke wards at three hospital sites (England). Intervention arm participants will be offered a nurse or allied health professional-led follow-up appointment 4 weeks after TIA/minor stroke. The multifaceted intervention includes: a needs checklist, action plan, resources to support management of needs, a general practitioner letter and training to deliver the intervention. Control arm participants will receive usual care. Follow-up will be self-completed questionnaires (12 weeks and 24 weeks) and a clinic appointment (24 weeks). Follow-up questionnaires will measure anxiety, depression, fatigue, health related quality of life, self-efficacy and medication adherence. The clinic appointment will collect body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol and medication. Assessment of feasibility and acceptability will include quantitative process variables (such as recruitment and questionnaire response rates), structured observations of study processes, and interviews with a subsample of participants and clinical staff. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Favourable ethical opinion was gained from the Wales Research Ethics Committee (REC) 1 (23 February 2021, REC reference: 21/WA/0036). Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. A lay summary and dissemination strategy will be codesigned with consumers. The lay summary and journal publication will be distributed on social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN39864003.

Urine collection devices to reduce contamination in urine samples for diagnosis of uncomplicated UTI: a single-blind randomised controlled trial in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Urine collection devices (UCDs) are being marketed and used in clinical settings to reduce urine sample contamination, despite inadequate supporting evidence. AIM: To determine whether UCDs, compared with standardised instructions for urine sample collection, reduce the proportion of contaminated samples. DESIGN AND SETTING: Single-blind randomised controlled trial in general practices in England and Wales. METHOD: Women aged ≥18 years presenting with symptoms attributable to urinary tract infection (UTI) were randomised (1:1:1) to use either a Peezy UCD or a Whiz Midstream UCD, or were given standardised verbal instructions (SVI) for midstream sample collection. The primary outcome was the proportion of urine samples reported as contaminated by microbiology laboratory analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1264 women (Peezy UCD: n = 424; Whiz Midstream UCD: n = 421; SVI: n = 419) were randomised between October 2016 and August 2018. Ninety women were excluded from the primary analysis as a result of ineligibility or lack of primary outcome data, leaving 1174 (Peezy UCD: n = 381; Whiz Midstream UCD: n = 390; SVI: n = 403) for intention-to-treat analysis. The proportion of contaminated samples was 26.5% with the Peezy UCD, 28.2% with the Whiz Midstream UCD, and 29.0% with SVI (relative risk: Peezy UCD versus SVI = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.09, P = 0.32; Whiz Midstream UCD versus SVI = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.97 to 1.20, P = 0.82). There were 100 (25.3%) device failures with the Peezy UCD and 35 (8.8%) with the Whiz Midstream UCD; the proportion of contaminated samples was similar after device failure samples were excluded. CONCLUSION: Neither the Peezy UCD nor the Whiz Midstream UCD reduced urine sample contamination when used by women presenting to primary care with suspected UTI. Their use cannot be recommended for this purpose in this setting.

Enhancing the health of NHS staff: eTHOS - protocol for a randomised controlled pilot trial of an employee health screening clinic for NHS staff to reduce absenteeism and presenteeism, compared with usual care.

BACKGROUND: Staff absenteeism and presenteeism incur high costs to the NHS and are associated with adverse health outcomes. The main causes are musculoskeletal complaints and mental ill-health, which are potentially modifiable, and cardiovascular risk factors are also common. We will test the feasibility of an RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an employee health screening clinic on reducing sickness absenteeism and presenteeism. METHODS: This is an individually randomised controlled pilot trial aiming to recruit 480 participants. All previously unscreened employees from four hospitals within three UK NHS hospital Trusts will be eligible. Those randomised to the intervention arm will be invited to attend an employee health screening clinic consisting of a screening assessment for musculoskeletal (STarT MSK and STarT Back), mental (PHQ-9 and GAD-7) and cardiovascular (NHS Health Check if aged ≥ 40, lifestyle check if < 40 years) health. Screen positives will be given advice and/or referral to recommended services. Those randomised to the control arm will receive usual care. Participants will complete a questionnaire at baseline and 26 weeks; anonymised absenteeism and staff demographics will also be collected from personnel records. The co-primary outcomes are as follows: recruitment, referrals and uptake of recommended services in the intervention arm. Secondary outcomes include the following: results of screening assessments, uptake of individual referrals, reported changes in health behaviours, acceptability and feasibility of intervention, indication of contamination and costs. Outcomes related to the definitive trial include self-reported and employee records of absenteeism with reasons. Process evaluation to inform a future trial includes interviews with participants, intervention delivery staff and service providers receiving referrals. Analyses will include presentation of descriptive statistics, framework analysis for qualitative data and costs and consequences presented for health economics. DISCUSSION: The study will provide data to inform the design of a definitive RCT which aims to find an effective and cost-effective method of reducing absenteeism and presenteeism amongst NHS staff. The feasibility study will test trial procedures, and process outcomes, including the success of strategies for including underserved groups, and provide information and data to help inform the design and sample size for a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN reference number 10237475 .

The impact of sleep disorders on microvascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (SLEEP T2D): the protocol of a cohort study and feasibility randomised control trial.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is very common in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). We and others have shown that OSA was associated with diabetes-related microvascular complications in patients with T2D in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies and that compliance with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) reduced the progression of microvascular complications. Hence, we hypothesised that adequate CPAP reduces the development of microvascular complication in patients with T2D. METHODS: SLEEP T2D is a cohort study with embedded feasibility, open-label, parallel-arm, randomised control trial (RCT) over 2 years. The primary aim is the feasibility of conducting a definitive RCT assessing the impact of CPAP on chronic kidney disease and other microvascular complications in patients with T2D. The main parameters are to assess willingness of participants to be randomised, follow-up rates, CPAP adherence/compliance, to optimise the choice of outcome measures for a substantive trial, and to identify the parameters for sample size calculations. The secondary aims of the study are related to the impact of CPAP, sleep-related disorders, and sleep chronotype on a variety of diabetes-related end points. The study participants were recruited from the T2D services in multiple NHS trusts across England. The main exclusion criteria for the cohort study are as follows: T1D, eGFR < 15 mL/min/1.73 m2, known OSA, active malignancy or chronic kidney disease from reasons other than diabetes, pregnancy, professional drivers, and a history of falling asleep whilst driving within last 2 years. The main exclusion criteria from the RCT were as follows: Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index < 10 and Epworth Sleepiness Score ≥ 11. Study participants were extensively phenotyped clinically and biochemically. The OSA diagnosis was based on multichannel portable device (ApneaLink AirTM, Resmed). DISCUSSION: The feasibility RCT will help us design the future RCT to assess the impact of CPAP on diabetes-related microvascular complications. The cohort study will generate preliminary data regarding the impact of sleep quality, duration, and chronotype on diabetes-related outcomes which could lead to further mechanistic and interventional studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN12361838 . Registered 04 April 2018, Protocol version: v5.0 02.12.19.

Practice nurse-supported weight self-management delivered within the national child immunisation programme for postnatal women: a feasibility cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy is a high-risk time for excessive weight gain. The rising prevalence of obesity in women, combined with excess weight gain during pregnancy, means that there are more women with obesity in the postnatal period. This can have adverse health consequences for women in later life and increases the health risks during subsequent pregnancies. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim was to produce evidence of whether or not a Phase III trial of a brief weight management intervention, in which postnatal women are encouraged by practice nurses as part of the national child immunisation programme to self-monitor their weight and use an online weight management programme, is feasible and acceptable. DESIGN: The research involved a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial and two semistructured interview studies with intervention participants and practice nurses who delivered the intervention. Trial data were collected at baseline and 3 months later. The interview studies took place after trial follow-up. SETTING: The trial took place in Birmingham, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-eight postnatal women who were overweight/obese were recruited via Birmingham Women's Hospital or general practices. Nine intervention participants and seven nurses were interviewed. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention was delivered in the context of the national child immunisation programme. The intervention group were offered brief support that encouraged self-management of weight when they attended their practice to have their child immunised at 2, 3 and 4 months of age. The intervention involved the provision of motivation and support by nurses to encourage participants to make healthier lifestyle choices through self-monitoring of weight and signposting to an online weight management programme. The role of the nurse was to provide regular external accountability for weight loss. Women were asked to weigh themselves weekly and record this on a record card in their child's health record ('red book') or using the online programme. The behavioural goal was for women to lose 0.5-1 kg per week. The usual-care group received a healthy lifestyle leaflet. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the feasibility of a Phase III trial to test the effectiveness of the intervention, as assessed against three traffic-light stop-go criteria (recruitment, adherence to regular self-weighing and registration with an online weight management programme). RESULTS: The traffic-light criteria results were red for recruitment (28/80, 35% of target), amber for registration with the online weight loss programme (9/16, 56%) and green for adherence to weekly self-weighing (10/16, 63%). Nurses delivered the intervention with high fidelity. In the qualitative studies, participants indicated that the intervention was acceptable to them and they welcomed receiving support to lose weight at their child immunisation appointments. Although nurses raised some caveats to implementation, they felt that the intervention was easy to deliver and that it would motivate postnatal women to lose weight. LIMITATIONS: Fewer participants were recruited than planned. CONCLUSIONS: Although women and practice nurses responded well to the intervention and adherence to self-weighing was high, recruitment was challenging and there is scope to improve engagement with the intervention. FUTURE WORK: Future research should focus on investigating other methods of recruitment and, thereafter, testing the effectiveness of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12209332. 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. 25, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

After giving birth, many women find it hard to lose the weight that they gained during pregnancy. Research so far has focused on testing intensive weight loss programmes that cannot be given to all women who give birth because it would be too expensive. Instead, we tested a brief intervention delivered by practice nurses to mothers when they attended their practice to have their child immunised. We completed a study to test how well our recruitment methods worked, how well the intervention could be delivered by nurses during immunisation appointments and whether or not women followed the intervention. Women who were overweight/obese and had given birth at least 4 weeks previously were invited to participate. Women interested in participating were visited at home at the start and end of the study to measure their weight and to collect information about them. Participants were allocated to the intervention group or to a comparison group based on which practice they attended. For the intervention group, nurses encouraged women to monitor their weight weekly and record this on a record card in their child's health record (the 'red book') when they attended the practice to have their child immunised when their child was 2, 3 and 4 months old. Women were encouraged to use an online weight loss programme to help them lose weight and were advised to aim to lose 0.5­1 kg per week. Those in the comparison group were given a healthy living leaflet. Women and nurses were interviewed about their experiences of the study. Recruiting women to the study was difficult; however, women who did participate mostly followed the intervention well and weighed themselves weekly. Nurses liked the intervention; they felt that it could be incorporated into immunisation appointments and suggested some ideas for improvement. The study appeared feasible and acceptable, but better ways of recruiting women are needed.

Gender differences in response to an opportunistic brief intervention for obesity in primary care: Data from the BWeL trial.

Weight loss programmes appeal mainly to women, prompting calls for gender-specific programmes. In the United Kingdom, general practitioners (GPs) refer nine times as many women as men to community weight loss programmes. GPs endorsement and offering programmes systematically could reduce this imbalance. In this trial, consecutively attending patients in primary care with obesity were invited and 1882 were enrolled and randomized to one of two opportunistic 30-second interventions to support weight loss given by GPs in consultations unrelated to weight. In the support arm, clinicians endorsed and offered referral to a weight loss programme and, in the advice arm, advised that weight loss would improve health. Generalized linear mixed effects models examined whether gender moderated the intervention. Men took effective weight loss action less often in both arms (support: 41.6% vs 60.7%; advice: 12.1% vs 18.3%; odds ratio (OR) = 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.27, 0.52, P < .001) but there was no evidence that the relative effect differed by gender (interaction P = .32). In the support arm, men accepted referral and attended referral less often, 69.3% vs 82.4%; OR = 0.48, 95% CI, 0.35, 0.66, P < .001 and 30.4% vs 47.6%; OR = 0.48, 95% CI, 0.36, 0.63, P < .001, respectively. Nevertheless, the gender balance in attending weight loss programmes closed to 1.6:1. Men and women attended the same number of sessions (9.7 vs 9.1 sessions, P = .16) and there was no evidence weight loss differed by gender (6.05 kg men vs 4.37 kg women, P = .39). Clinician-delivered opportunistic 30-second interventions benefits men and women equally and reduce most of the gender imbalance in attending weight loss programmes.