Statistical analysis plan for HOMESIDE: a randomised controlled trial for home-based family caregiver-delivered music and reading interventions for people living with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Most people with dementia live in the community, not in residential care. Therefore, quality informal care for them is critical for managing behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). Music therapy has been shown to reduce BPSD. However, no randomised controlled trial has examined the effects of music interventions delivered by caregivers in home settings. The HOME-based caregiver-delivered music intervention for people living with dementia (HOMESIDE) trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a 12-week music intervention in addition to standard care for BPSD. This article describes the statistical analysis plan. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: HOMESIDE is a large, pragmatic international three-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial. Dyads (persons with dementia and caregiver) in Australia, Germany, the UK, Poland and Norway were randomised to receive music and standard care, reading and standard care or standard care alone. The primary outcome is BPSD (proxy) of the person living with dementia, measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Questionnaire (NPI-Q) at 90 and 180 days post-randomisation. Longitudinal analysis will compare NPI-Q severity between music and standard care versus standard care alone. Secondary outcomes include quality of life and depression (both person with dementia and caregiver), cognition (person with dementia only), distress, resilience, competence and caregiver-patient relationship (caregiver only). Treatment effects will be obtained at 90 and 180 days post-randomisation, where applicable. Safety outcomes (adverse events, hospitalisations, deaths) will be summarised. DISCUSSION: This statistical analysis plan provides a detailed methodology for the analysis of HOMESIDE and will improve the validity of the study and reduce the potential for bias. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618001799246. Registered on November 05, 2018. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT03907748. Registered on April 09, 2019.

The impact of strict lockdowns on the mental health and well-being of people living in Australia during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: There are limited longitudinal studies on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and well-being, including the effects of imposed restrictions and lockdowns. AIMS: This study investigates how living in a pandemic, and related lockdowns and restrictions, affected the mental health of people living in Australia during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: A total of 875 people living in Australia participated in a longitudinal survey from 27 May to 14 December 2020. This time period includes dates that span pre-, during and post-wave 2 lockdowns in Australia, with strict and sustained public health measures. Linear mixed models were fitted to investigate the effect of lockdown on depression and anxiety symptoms. RESULTS: Symptoms of depression and anxiety improved over time, during and after lockdowns. More adverse mental health symptoms were observed for people with a history of medical or mental health problems, caring responsibilities, more neurotic personality traits or less conscientiousness, and for people who were younger. People who reported being more conscientious reported better mental health. CONCLUSIONS: Despite notoriously strict lockdowns, participants did not experience a deterioration of mental health over time. Results suggest a lack of significant adverse effects of lockdown restrictions on mental health and well-being. Findings highlight cohorts that could benefit from targeted mental health support and interventions, so that public policy can be better equipped to support them, particularly if future strict public health measures such as lockdowns are being considered or implemented for the COVID-19 pandemic and other disasters.

Effect of motion control versus neutral walking footwear on pain associated with lateral tibiofemoral joint osteoarthritis: a comparative effectiveness randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if motion control walking shoes are superior to neutral walking shoes in reducing knee pain on walking in people with lateral knee osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Participant-blinded and assessor-blinded, comparative effectiveness, superiority randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: People with symptomatic radiographic lateral tibiofemoral OA from the community and our volunteer database. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to receive either motion control or neutral shoes and advised to wear them >6 hours/day over 6 months. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in average knee pain on walking over the previous week (11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), 0-10) at 6 months. The secondary outcomes included other measures of knee pain, physical function, quality of life, participant-perceived change in pain and function, and physical activity. RESULTS: We planned to recruit 110 participants (55 per arm) but ceased recruitment at 40 (n=18 motion control shoes, n=22 neutral shoes) due to COVID-19-related impacts. All 40 participants completed 6-month outcomes. There was no evidence that motion control shoes were superior to neutral shoes for the primary outcome of pain (mean between-group difference 0.4 NRS units, 95% CI -1.0 to 1.7) nor for any secondary outcome. The number of participants experiencing any adverse events was similar between groups (motion control shoes: n=5, 28%; neutral shoes: n=4, 18.2%) and were minor. CONCLUSIONS: Motion control shoes were not superior to neutral shoes in improving knee pain on walking in symptomatic radiographic lateral tibiofemoral joint OA. Further research is needed to identify effective treatments in this important but under-researched knee OA subgroup. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12618001864213.

Effect of a postoperative home-based exercise and self-management programme on physical function in people with lung cancer (CAPACITY): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Exercise is important in the postoperative management of lung cancer, yet no strong evidence exists for delivery of home-based programmes. Our feasibility (phase I) study established feasibility of a home-based exercise and self-management programme (the programme) delivered postoperatively. This efficacy (phase II) study aims to determine whether the programme, compared with usual care, is effective in improving physical function (primary outcome) in patients after lung cancer surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This will be a prospective, multisite, two-arm parallel 1:1, randomised controlled superiority trial with assessors blinded to group allocation. 112 participants scheduled for surgery for lung cancer will be recruited and randomised to usual care (no exercise programme) or, usual care plus the 12-week programme. The primary outcome is physical function measured with the EORTC QLQ c30 questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life (HRQoL); exercise capacity; muscle strength; physical activity levels and patient reported outcomes. HRQoL and patient-reported outcomes will be measured to 12 months, and survival to 5 years. In a substudy, patient experience interviews will be conducted in a subgroup of intervention participants. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was gained from all sites. Results will be submitted for publications in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617001283369.