Performance of the GAD-7 in adults with dissociative seizures.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the accuracy of the GAD-7, a self-report anxiety measure, in detecting generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) in people with dissociative seizures (DS). We evaluated the reliability, validity and uniformity of the GAD-7 using a diagnosis of GAD on the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview as a reference. METHODS: We assessed 368 adults with DS at the pre-randomisation phase of the CODES trial. Factor analysis for categorical data assessed GAD-7 uniformity. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed by estimating the area under the curve (AUC). We evaluated discriminant validity, reviewed data on convergent validity and calculated internal consistency. We explored correlations between GAD-7 scores and monthly DS frequency, frequency of severe seizures and measures of behavioural and emotional avoidance. RESULTS: Internal consistency of the GAD-7 was high (α = 0.92). Factor analysis elicited one main factor and general measurement invariance. Diagnostic accuracy was fair (AUC = 0.72) but the best balance of sensitivity and specificity occurred at a cut-off of ≥12 and still had a specificity rate of only 68%. Discriminant and convergent validity were good. GAD-7 scores correlated positively with DS frequency, severe seizure frequency, behavioural and emotional avoidance (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Findings regarding internal consistency and factor structure parallel previous psychometric evaluations of the GAD-7. Correlations between GAD-7 scores and DS occurrence/severity and avoidance are evidence of the concept validity of GAD-7 and provide further support for a fear-avoidance treatment model for DS. However, the utility of the GAD-7 as a diagnostic instrument for generalised anxiety disorder is limited in patients with DS.

Protocol for a feasibility study and process evaluation of a psychosocially modelled diabetes education programme for young people with type 1 diabetes: the Youth Empowerment Skills (YES) programme.

INTRODUCTION: Adolescence is a challenging period for young people with type 1 diabetes, associated with worsening glycaemia and care disengagement. Educational interventions in this period tend to focus on diabetes-specific skills, with less emphasis on the psychosocial challenges associated with diabetes experienced by young people. To address this limitation, we codesigned with young people a psychosocially modelled programme of diabetes education, named 'Youth Empowerment Skills' (YES). The programme aims to facilitate a positive adaptation to life with diabetes and engagement with diabetes care through peer-based learning, immersive simulations and support from an outreach youth worker. Here, we present a protocol for a feasibility study of the YES programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study was designed following the Medical Research Council Complex Intervention Evaluation Framework to: test the feasibility (acceptance, implementability, recruitment and completion) of the YES programme; and estimate its efficacy in relation to metabolic and psychosocial outcomes. The study will take place in diabetes centres serving socioculturally diverse populations. We will conduct a feasibility randomised controlled trial (waiting-list design) with integrated process evaluation. Fifty young people with type 1 diabetes (aged 14-19 years) will be randomly allocated to either the YES intervention or a waiting-list control. Randomisation acceptability will be assessed with provision for a preference allocation. Outcomes will be evaluated at 6 months, at which point the waiting list participants will be exposed to the YES programme with further follow-up to 12 months. A simultaneous process evaluation will use a mixed-methods approach collecting qualitative and quantitative data. Study findings will be used to optimise the intervention components, outcome measures and recruitment methods to inform a subsequent definitive trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has ethical approval from the UK Health Research Authority (approval IRAS project ID: 279877). Findings will be disseminated in multiple formats for lay and professional audiences. PROTOCOL DATE AND VERSION: 7 April 2021, V.1.1. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04670198.

Evaluation of a community-based performance arts programme for people who have experienced stroke in the UK: protocol for the SHAPER-Stroke Odysseys study.

INTRODUCTION: Stroke survivors, once in the community, face challenges with their long-term rehabilitation care and present higher levels of loneliness, depression and anxiety than the rest of the population. A community-based performance arts programme, Stroke Odysseys (SO), has been devised to tackle the challenges of living with stroke in the UK. In this study, we aim to evaluate the implementation, impact and experiences of SO for stroke survivors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Scaling-up Health Arts Programmes: Implementation and Effectiveness Research (SHAPER)-SO aims to scale-up SO to 75 participants and 47 stakeholders, while simultaneously evaluating the effectiveness and implementation of the programme. The main research aim is to evaluate the implementation, effectiveness, impact and experiences of a community-based performance arts programme (SO for stroke survivors). This mixed-methods study will evaluate the experience and impact of SO on those participating using mixed methods (interviews, observations and surveys) before and after each stage and carry out non-participant observations during a percentage of the workshops, training and tour. Data will be analysed using quantitative and qualitative approaches. This is a study within the SHAPER programme. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the King's College London PNM Research Ethics Panel, REC reference: LRS/DP-20/21-21549. Written informed consent will be sought for participants and stakeholders. The results of the study will be reported and disseminated at international conferences and in peer-reviewed scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04864470.

Study protocol: randomised controlled hybrid type 2 trial evaluating the scale-up of two arts interventions for postnatal depression and Parkinson's disease.

INTRODUCTION: Research on the benefits of 'arts' interventions to improve individuals' physical, social and psychological well-being is growing, but evidence on implementation and scale-up into health and social care systems is lacking. This protocol reports the SHAPER-Implement programme (Scale-up of Health-Arts Programmes Effectiveness-Implementation Research), aimed at studying the impact, implementation and scale-up of: Melodies for Mums (M4M), a singing intervention for postnatal depression; and Dance for Parkinson's (PD-Ballet) a dance intervention for Parkinson's disease. We examine how they could be embedded in clinical pathways to ensure their longer-term sustainability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised two-arm effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 2 trial design will be used across M4M/PD-Ballet. We will assess the implementation in both study arms (intervention vs control), and the cost-effectiveness of implementation. The design and measures, informed by literature and previous research by the study team, were refined through stakeholder engagement. Participants (400 in M4M; 160 in PD-Ballet) will be recruited to the intervention or control group (2:1 ratio). Further implementation data will be collected from stakeholders involved in referring to, delivering or supporting M4M/PD-Ballet (N=25-30 for each intervention).A mixed-methods approach (surveys and semi-structured interviews) will be employed. 'Acceptability' (measured by the 'Acceptability Intervention Measure') is the primary implementation endpoint for M4M/PD-Ballet. Relationships between clinical and implementation outcomes, implementation strategies (eg, training) and outcomes will be explored using generalised linear mixed models. Qualitative data will assess factors affecting the acceptability, feasibility and appropriateness of M4M/PD-Ballet, implementation strategies and longer-term sustainability. Costs associated with implementation and future scale-up will be estimated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: SHAPER-PND (the M4M trial) and SHAPER-PD (the PD trial) are approved by the West London and GTAC (20/PR/0813) and the HRA and Health and Care Research Wales (REC Reference: 20/WA/0261) Research Ethics Committees. Study findings will be disseminated through scientific peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Both trials are registered with NIH US National Library of Medicine, ClinicalTrials.gov. The trial registration numbers, URLs of registry records, and dates of registration are: (1) PD-Ballet: URL: NCT04719468 (https://eur03.safelinks.protection. OUTLOOK: com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.clinicaltrials.gov%2Fct2%2Fshow%2FNCT04719468%3Fterm%3DNCT04719468%26draw%3D2%26rank%3D1&data=04%7C01%7Crachel.davis%40kcl.ac.uk%7C11a7c5142782437919f808d903111449%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0%7C0%7C6375441942616) (date of registration: 22 Jan 2021). (2) Melodies for Mums: NCT04834622 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04834622?term=shaper-pnd&draw=2&rank=1) (date of registration: 8 Apr 2021).

Cognitive-behavioural therapy compared with standardised medical care for adults with dissociative non-epileptic seizures: the CODES RCT.

BACKGROUND: Dissociative (non-epileptic) seizures are potentially treatable by psychotherapeutic interventions; however, the evidence for this is limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy for adults with dissociative seizures. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-arm, mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. SETTING: This took place in 27 UK-based neurology/epilepsy services, 17 liaison psychiatry/neuropsychiatry services and 18 cognitive-behavioural therapy services. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with dissociative seizures in the previous 8 weeks and no epileptic seizures in the previous year and meeting other eligibility criteria were recruited to a screening phase from neurology/epilepsy services between October 2014 and February 2017. After psychiatric assessment around 3 months later, eligible and interested participants were randomised between January 2015 and May 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Standardised medical care consisted of input from neurologists and psychiatrists who were given guidance regarding diagnosis delivery and management; they provided patients with information booklets. The intervention consisted of 12 dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy 1-hour sessions (plus one booster session) that were delivered by trained therapists, in addition to standardised medical care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was monthly seizure frequency at 12 months post randomisation. The secondary outcomes were aspects of seizure occurrence, quality of life, mood, anxiety, distress, symptoms, psychosocial functioning, clinical global change, satisfaction with treatment, quality-adjusted life-years, costs and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In total, 698 patients were screened and 368 were randomised (standardised medical care alone, n = 182; and cognitive-behavioural therapy plus standardised medical care, n = 186). Primary outcome data were obtained for 85% of participants. An intention-to-treat analysis with multivariate imputation by chained equations revealed no significant between-group difference in dissociative seizure frequency at 12 months [standardised medical care: median of seven dissociative seizures (interquartile range 1-35 dissociative seizures); cognitive-behavioural therapy and standardised medical care: median of four dissociative seizures (interquartile range 0-20 dissociative seizures); incidence rate ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.09; p = 0.144]. Of the 16 secondary outcomes analysed, nine were significantly better in the arm receiving cognitive-behavioural therapy at a p-value < 0.05, including the following at a p-value ≤ 0.001: the longest dissociative seizure-free period in months 7-12 inclusive post randomisation (incidence rate ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.20; p = 0.001); better psychosocial functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale, standardised treatment effect -0.39, 95% confidence interval -0.61 to -0.18; p < 0.001); greater self-rated and clinician-rated clinical improvement (self-rated: standardised treatment effect 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.62; p = 0.001; clinician rated: standardised treatment effect 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.57; p < 0.001); and satisfaction with treatment (standardised treatment effect 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 0.73; p < 0.001). Rates of adverse events were similar across arms. Cognitive-behavioural therapy plus standardised medical care produced 0.0152 more quality-adjusted life-years (95% confidence interval -0.0106 to 0.0392 quality-adjusted life-years) than standardised medical care alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life-year) for cognitive-behavioural therapy plus standardised medical care versus standardised medical care alone based on the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, and imputed data was £120,658. In sensitivity analyses, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged between £85,724 and £206,067. Qualitative and quantitative process evaluations highlighted useful study components, the importance of clinical experience in treating patients with dissociative seizures and potential benefits of our multidisciplinary care pathway. LIMITATIONS: Unlike outcome assessors, participants and clinicians were not blinded to the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant additional benefit of dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy in reducing dissociative seizure frequency, and cost-effectiveness over standardised medical care was low. However, this large, adequately powered, multicentre randomised controlled trial highlights benefits of adjunctive dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy for several clinical outcomes, with no evidence of greater harm from dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy. FUTURE WORK: Examination of moderators and mediators of outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN05681227 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02325544. 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. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Dissociative seizures resemble epileptic seizures or faints, but can be distinguished from them by trained doctors. Dissociation is the medical word for a 'trance-like' or 'switching off' state. People with dissociative seizures commonly have other psychological or physical problems. Quality of life may be low. The condition accounts for about one in every six patients seen in hospitals because of seizures. We wanted to find out if people with dissociative seizures receiving standardised treatment would also benefit from a talking therapy, called cognitive­behavioural therapy, made specific to this disorder. We did a randomised controlled trial to find out if people with dissociative seizures given standardised treatment and cognitive­behavioural therapy (talking therapy) would do better than those given standardised treatment alone. Standardised treatment of dissociative seizures began with careful diagnosis from a neurologist and then further assessment and treatment from a psychiatrist. In total, 368 people with dissociative seizures participated, with half receiving standardised treatment alone and half having talking therapy plus standardised treatment. We measured seizures and psychological and physical health in both trial groups. We also investigated whether or not cognitive­behavioural therapy was good value for money. After 12 months, patients in both trial groups seemed to have fewer monthly seizures, but there was no advantage in the talking therapy group. Patients in the talking therapy group had more consecutive days without seizures, reporting less impact from them in everyday situations. Patients in the talking therapy group, and their doctors, considered improvements to be better, and patients in this group reported greater satisfaction with treatment. However, the talking therapy was expensive and not as cost-effective as hoped. Interviews with patients and study clinicians showed that they valued aspects of both treatments and of the care provided by the multidisciplinary teams. Overall, cognitive­behavioural therapy designed for dissociative seizures plus standardised treatment was not better at reducing the total numbers of seizures reported, but did produce several positive benefits for participants compared with standardised treatment alone.

Validation of the PHQ-9 in adults with dissociative seizures.

BACKGROUND: The PHQ-9 is a self-administered depression screening instrument. Little is known about its utility and accuracy in detecting depression in adults with dissociative seizures (DS). OBJECTIVES: Using the Mini - International Neuropsychiatric Interview as a reference, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-9 in adults with DS, and examined its convergent and discriminant validity and uniformity. METHODS: Our sample comprised 368 people with DS who completed the pre-randomisation assessment of the CODES trial. The uniformity of the PHQ-9 was determined using factor analysis for categorical data. Optimal cut-offs were determined using the area under the curve (AUC), Youden Index, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed against pre-randomisation measures. RESULTS: Internal consistency of the PHQ-9 was high (α = 0.87). While the diagnostic odds ratio suggested that a cut-off of ≥10 had the best predictive performance (DOR = 14.7), specificity at this cut off was only 0.49. AUC (0.74) and Youden Index (0.48) suggested a ≥ 13 cut-off would yield an optimal sensitivity (0.81) and specificity (0.67) balance. However, a cut-off score of ≥20 would be required to match specificity resulting from a cut-off of ≥13 in other medical conditions. We found good convergent and discriminant validity and one main factor for the PHQ-9. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of internal consistency and structure, our findings were consistent with previous validation studies but indicated that a higher cut-off would be required to identify DS patients with depression with similar specificity achieved with PHQ-9 screening in different clinical and non-clinical populations.