REACH-ASD: a UK randomised controlled trial of a new post-diagnostic psycho-education and acceptance and commitment therapy programme against treatment-as-usual for improving the mental health and adjustment of caregivers of children recently diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.

BACKGROUND: Autism is a neurodevelopmental disability affecting over 1% of UK children. The period following a child's autism diagnosis can present real challenges in adaptation for families. Twenty to 50% of caregivers show clinically significant levels of mental health need within the post-diagnostic period and on an ongoing basis. Best practice guidelines recommend timely post-diagnostic family support. Current provision is patchy, largely unevidenced, and a source of dissatisfaction for both families and professionals. There is a pressing need for an evidenced programme of post-diagnostic support focusing on caregiver mental health and adjustment, alongside autism psycho-education. This trial tests the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a new brief manualised psychosocial intervention designed to address this gap. METHODS: This is a multi-centre two-parallel-group single (researcher)-blinded randomised controlled trial of the Empower-Autism programme plus treatment-as-usual versus usual local post-diagnostic offer plus treatment-as-usual. Caregivers of children aged 2-15 years with a recent autism diagnosis will be recruited from North West England NHS or local authority centres. Randomisation is individually by child, with one "index" caregiver per child, stratified by centre, using 2:1 randomisation ratio to assist recruitment and timely intervention. Empower-Autism is a group-based, manualised, post-diagnostic programme that combines autism psycho-education and psychotherapeutic components based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy to support caregiver mental health, stress management and adjustment to their child's diagnosis. The comparator is any usual local group-based post-diagnostic psycho-education offer. Receipt of services will be specified through health economic data. PRIMARY OUTCOME: caregiver mental health (General Health Questionnaire-30) at 52-week follow-up. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: key caregiver measures (wellbeing, self-efficacy, adjustment, autism knowledge) at 12-, 26- and 52-week follow-up and family and child outcomes (wellbeing and functioning) at 52-week endpoint. SAMPLE: N=380 (approximately 253 intervention/127 treatment-as-usual). Primary analysis will follow intention-to-treat principles using linear mixed models with random intercepts for group membership and repeated measures. Cost-effectiveness acceptability analyses will be over 52 weeks, with decision modelling to extrapolate to longer time periods. DISCUSSION: If effective, this new approach will fill a key gap in the provision of evidence-based care pathways for autistic children and their families. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 45412843 . Prospectively registered on 11 September 2019.

Cost-effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is recognised as cost-effective for individuals following a cardiac event. However, home-based alternatives are becoming increasingly popular, especially since COVID-19, which necessitated alternative modes of care delivery. This review aimed to assess whether home-based CR interventions are cost-effective (vs centre-based CR). METHODS: Using the MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO databases, literature searches were conducted in October 2021 to identify full economic evaluations (synthesising costs and effects). Studies were included if they focused on home-based elements of a CR programme or full home-based programmes. Data extraction and critical appraisal were completed using the NHS EED handbook, Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Drummond checklists and were summarised narratively. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42021286252). RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the review. Interventions were heterogeneous in terms of delivery, components of care and duration. Most studies were economic evaluations within clinical trials (8/9). All studies reported quality-adjusted life years, with the EQ-5D as the most common measure of health status (6/9 studies). Most studies (7/9 studies) concluded that home-based CR (added to or replacing centre-based CR) was cost-effective compared with centre-based options. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that home-based CR options are cost-effective. The limited size of the evidence base and heterogeneity in methods limits external validity. There were further limitations to the evidence base (eg, limited sample sizes) that increase uncertainty. Future research is needed to cover a greater range of home-based designs, including home-based options for psychological care, with greater sample sizes and the potential to acknowledge patient heterogeneity.

A framework for implementing Patient and Public Involvement in mental health research: The PATHWAY research programme benchmarked against NIHR standards.

BACKGROUND: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research has become a key component recommended by research commissioners, grant award bodies and specified in government policies. Despite the increased call for PPI, few studies have demonstrated how to implement PPI within large-scale research studies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study was to provide a case example of the implementation of a patient advisory group in a large-scale mental health research programme (PATHWAY) and to benchmark this against UK standards. METHOD: A PPI group was incorporated throughout the PATHWAY research programme, from grant development to dissemination. The group attended regular meetings and supported participant recruitment, evaluated patient-facing documents, supported the piloting of the research intervention and co-developed the dissemination and impact strategy. The implementation of PPI throughout the project was benchmarked against the UK standards for PPI. RESULTS: The inclusion of PPI in the PATHWAY project provided tangible changes to the research project (i.e., improving study documents, co-developing dissemination materials) but also proved to be a beneficial experience to PPI members through the development of new skills and the opportunity to provide a patient voice in research. We show how PPI was involved across seven study phases and provide examples of implementation of the six UK standards. The study did not include PPI in data analysis but met all the UK standards for PPI. Challenges regarding practical components (i.e., meeting frequency, language use), increasing diversity and PPI members' knowledge of research were highlighted as areas for further improvement. CONCLUSIONS: We provide a case example of how PPI can be implemented throughout a research lifecycle and we note the barriers faced and make suggestions for PPI in future implementation and research. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: PPI members were involved throughout the lifecycle of the research programme. The PPI lead was a co-author on the manuscript and contributed to report writing.