Earlier cancer diagnosis in primary care: a feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer!

BACKGROUND: UK cancer survival rates are much lower compared with other high-income countries. In primary care, there are opportunities for GPs and other healthcare professionals to act more quickly in response to presented symptoms that might represent cancer. ThinkCancer! is a complex behaviour change intervention aimed at primary care practice teams to improve the timely diagnosis of cancer. AIM: To explore the costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: Feasibility economic analysis using a micro-costing approach, which was undertaken in 19 general practices in Wales, UK. METHOD: From an NHS perspective, micro-costing methodology was used to determine whether it was feasible to gather sufficient economic data to cost the ThinkCancer! INTERVENTION: Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, ThinkCancer! was mainly delivered remotely online in a digital format. Budget impact analysis (BIA) and sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore the costs of face-to-face delivery of the ThinkCancer! intervention as intended pre-COVID-19. RESULTS: The total costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention across 19 general practices in Wales was £25 030, with an average cost per practice of £1317 (standard deviation [SD]: 578.2). Findings from the BIA indicated a total cost of £34 630 for face-to-face delivery. CONCLUSION: Data collection methods were successful in gathering sufficient health economics data to cost the ThinkCancer! INTERVENTION: Results of this feasibility study will be used to inform a future definitive economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT).

Effects of an e-health intervention 'iSupport' for reducing distress of dementia carers: protocol for a randomised controlled trial and feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: In the UK, National Health Service (NHS) guidelines recommend that informal carers of people living with dementia should be offered training to help them develop care skills and manage their own physical and mental health. The WHO recommends access to affordable, proven, well-designed, online technologies for education, skills training and support for dementia carers. In response to these recommendations, this multisite randomised controlled trial (RCT) is the first study in the UK to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an online support programme developed by the WHO called 'iSupport for dementia carers'. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 350 informal carers (age 18+ years) living in Britain who self-identify as experiencing stress and depression will be recruited. They will be randomised to receive 'iSupport', or standardised information about caring for someone with dementia (control-comparison). Data will be collected via videoconferencing (eg, Zoom) or telephone interview at baseline, 3 months and 6 months. Intention-to-treat analysis will ascertain effectiveness in the primary outcomes (distress and depression) and combined cost, and quality-adjusted life-year data will be used to assess cost-effectiveness compared with usual care from a public sector and wider societal perspective. A mixed-methods process evaluation with a subgroup of carers in the intervention (~N=50) will explore the barriers and facilitators to implementing 'iSupport'. A non-randomised feasibility study will adapt 'iSupport' for young carers (n=38 participants, age 11-17 years). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research plan was scrutinised by National Institute for Health Research reviewers ahead of funding being awarded. Ethical approval was granted by Bangor University's School of Health and Medical Sciences Academic Ethics Committee, reference number 2021-16915. Dissemination plans include delivering events for stakeholders, social media, a project website, developing policy briefings, presenting at conferences and producing articles for open access publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17420703.

The Development of Videoconference-Based Support for People Living With Rare Dementias and Their Carers: Protocol for a 3-Phase Support Group Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: People living with rarer dementias face considerable difficulty accessing tailored information, advice, and peer and professional support. Web-based meeting platforms offer a critical opportunity to connect with others through shared lived experiences, even if they are geographically dispersed, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: We aim to develop facilitated videoconferencing support groups (VSGs) tailored to people living with or caring for someone with familial or sporadic frontotemporal dementia or young-onset Alzheimer disease, primary progressive aphasia, posterior cortical atrophy, or Lewy body dementia. This paper describes the development, coproduction, field testing, and evaluation plan for these groups. METHODS: We describe a 3-phase approach to development. First, information and knowledge were gathered as part of a coproduction process with members of the Rare Dementia Support service. This information, together with literature searches and consultation with experts by experience, clinicians, and academics, shaped the design of the VSGs and session themes. Second, field testing involved 154 Rare Dementia Support members (people living with dementia and carers) participating in 2 rounds of facilitated sessions across 7 themes (health and social care professionals, advance care planning, independence and identity, grief and loss, empowering your identity, couples, and hope and dementia). Third, a detailed evaluation plan for future rounds of VSGs was developed. RESULTS: The development of the small groups program yielded content and structure for 9 themed VSGs (the 7 piloted themes plus a later stages program and creativity club for implementation in rounds 3 and beyond) to be delivered over 4 to 8 sessions. The evaluation plan incorporated a range of quantitative (attendance, demographics, and geography; pre-post well-being ratings and surveys; psycholinguistic analysis of conversation; facial emotion recognition; facilitator ratings; and economic analysis of program delivery) and qualitative (content and thematic analysis) approaches. Pilot data from round 2 groups on the pre-post 3-word surveys indicated an increase in the emotional valence of words selected after the sessions. CONCLUSIONS: The involvement of people with lived experience of a rare dementia was critical to the design, development, and delivery of the small virtual support group program, and evaluation of this program will yield convergent data about the impact of tailored support delivered to geographically dispersed communities. This is the first study to design and plan an evaluation of VSGs specifically for people affected by rare dementias, including both people living with a rare dementia and their carers, and the outcome of the evaluation will be hugely beneficial in shaping specific and targeted support, which is often lacking in this population. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/35376.

The clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of clozapine for inpatients with severe borderline personality disorder (CALMED study): a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Data from case series suggest that clozapine may benefit inpatients with borderline personality disorder (BPD), but randomised trials have not been conducted. Methods: Multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. We aimed to recruit 222 inpatients with severe BPD aged 18 or over, who had failed to respond to other antipsychotic medications. We randomly allocated participants on a 1:1 ratio to receive up to 400 mg of clozapine per day or an inert placebo using a remote web-based randomisation service. The primary outcome was total score on the Zanarini Rating scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included self-harm, aggression, resource use and costs, side effects and adverse events. We used a modified intention to treat analysis (mITT) restricted to those who took one or more dose of trial medication, using a general linear model fitted at 6 months adjusted for baseline score, allocation group and site. Results: The study closed early due to poor recruitment and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of 29 study participants, 24 (83%) were followed up at 6 months, of whom 21 (72%) were included in the mITT analysis. At 6 months, 11 (73%) participants assigned to clozapine and 6 (43%) of those assigned to placebo were still taking trial medication. Adjusted difference in mean total ZAN-BPD score at 6 months was -3.86 (95% Confidence Intervals = -10.04 to 2.32). There were 14 serious adverse events; 6 in the clozapine arm and 8 in the placebo arm of the trial. There was little difference in the cost of care between groups. Interpretation: We recruited insufficient participants to test the primary hypothesis. The study findings highlight problems in conducting placebo-controlled trials of clozapine and in using clozapine for people with BPD, outside specialist inpatient mental health units. Trial registration: ISRCTN18352058. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN18352058.

Evaluating the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the 'strengthening families, strengthening communities' group-based parenting programme: study protocol and initial insights.

BACKGROUND: Up to 20% of UK children experience socio-emotional difficulties which can have serious implications for themselves, their families and society. Stark socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in children's well-being exist. Supporting parents to develop effective parenting skills is an important preventive strategy in reducing inequalities. Parenting interventions have been developed, which aim to reduce the severity and impact of these difficulties. However, most parenting interventions in the UK focus on early childhood (0-10 years) and often fail to engage families from ethnic minority groups and those living in poverty. Strengthening Families, Strengthening Communities (SFSC) is a parenting programme designed by the Race Equality Foundation, which aims to address this gap. Evidence from preliminary studies is encouraging, but no randomised controlled trials have been undertaken so far. METHODS/DESIGN: The TOGETHER study is a multi-centre, waiting list controlled, randomised trial, which aims to test the effectiveness of SFSC in families with children aged 3-18 across seven urban areas in England with ethnically and socially diverse populations. The primary outcome is parental mental well-being (assessed by the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale). Secondary outcomes include child socio-emotional well-being, parenting practices, family relationships, self-efficacy, quality of life, and community engagement. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, post intervention, three- and six-months post intervention. Cost effectiveness will be estimated using a cost-utility analysis and cost-consequences analysis. The study is conducted in two stages. Stage 1 comprised a 6-month internal pilot to determine the feasibility of the trial. A set of progression criteria were developed to determine whether the stage 2 main trial should proceed. An embedded process evaluation will assess the fidelity and acceptability of the intervention. DISCUSSION: In this paper we provide details of the study protocol for this trial. We also describe challenges to implementing the protocol and how these were addressed. Once completed, if beneficial effects on both parental and child outcomes are found, the impact, both immediate and longer term, are potentially significant. As the intervention focuses on supporting families living in poverty and those from minority ethnic communities, the intervention should also ultimately have a beneficial impact on reducing health inequalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered Randomised Controlled Trial ISRCTN15194500 .

Protocol for a feasibility study incorporating a randomised pilot trial with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer!: a primary care intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in Wales.

BACKGROUND: Compared to the rest of Europe, the UK has relatively poor cancer outcomes, with late diagnosis and a slow referral process being major contributors. General practitioners (GPs) are often faced with patients presenting with a multitude of non-specific symptoms that could be cancer. Safety netting can be used to manage diagnostic uncertainty by ensuring patients with vague symptoms are appropriately monitored, which is now even more crucial due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its major impact on cancer referrals. The ThinkCancer! workshop is an educational behaviour change intervention aimed at the whole general practice team, designed to improve primary care approaches to ensure timely diagnosis of cancer. The workshop will consist of teaching and awareness sessions, the appointment of a Safety Netting Champion and the development of a bespoke Safety Netting Plan and has been adapted so it can be delivered remotely. This study aims to assess the feasibility of the ThinkCancer! intervention for a future definitive randomised controlled trial. METHODS: The ThinkCancer! study is a randomised, multisite feasibility trial, with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis. Twenty-three to 30 general practices will be recruited across Wales, randomised in a ratio of 2:1 of intervention versus control who will follow usual care. The workshop will be delivered by a GP educator and will be adapted iteratively throughout the trial period. Baseline practice characteristics will be collected via questionnaire. We will also collect primary care intervals (PCI), 2-week wait (2WW) referral rates, conversion rates and detection rates at baseline and 6 months post-randomisation. Participant feedback, researcher reflections and economic costings will be collected following each workshop. A process evaluation will assess implementation using an adapted Normalisation Measure Development (NoMAD) questionnaire and qualitative interviews. An economic feasibility analysis will inform a future economic evaluation. DISCUSSION: This study will allow us to test and further develop a novel evidenced-based complex intervention aimed at general practice teams to expedite the diagnosis of cancer in primary care. The results from this study will inform the future design of a full-scale definitive phase III trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04823559 .