Evaluating a grant development public involvement funding scheme: a qualitative document analysis.

BACKGROUND: Undertaking Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) when developing health and social care research grant applications is critical. However, researchers may not have any funding to undertake PPI when developing grants. In response, the National Institute for Health and Care Research- Research Design Service for Yorkshire and the Humber in the United Kingdom, provided Public Involvement Fund Awards of up to £600 to fund PPI activity when researchers were developing grant applications. Researchers provided post-activity reports about how they utilised the Public Involvement Fund. These reports were analysed with the aim of evaluating the usefulness of the Public Involvement Fund and to provide learning about supporting researchers to undertake PPI when developing grants. METHODS: The project was a qualitative document analysis of 55 reports. Initially a researcher coded four reports and three Public Contributors provided feedback. Researchers coded the remaining reports and identified key findings. A workshop was held with the three Public Contributors to develop the findings. RESULTS: Researchers accessing the Public Involvement Fund award were generally early career researchers or clinicians who did not have other sources of funding for pre-grant PPI input. Researchers felt the award was useful in enabling them to conduct PPI, which strengthened their grant applications. Some researchers found that the award limit of £600 and guidance encouraging expenditure within three months, made it difficult to undertake PPI throughout the full grant development process. Instead, the majority of researchers consulted Public Contributors on one or two occasions. Researchers struggled to recruit diverse members or run group sessions due to the time pressures of grant deadlines. Researchers wanted training on undertaking PPI alongside the financial support. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers, especially early career researchers found having a Public Involvement Fund award instrumental in enabling them to undertake PPI when developing grant applications. It would be beneficial for similar schemes to be widely available. Schemes need to provide sufficient funding to enable meaningful PPI and allow researchers to hold the award for long enough to facilitate involvement during the whole grant development process. Researchers continue to need training on undertaking PPI.

Undertaking Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) when developing health and social care research grant applications is important. This ensures that patients have a voice in deciding what topics are researched. However, researchers often do not have funding to undertake PPI when developing grants. In response, a regional research advice service in the United Kingdom established a small grant scheme (up to £600) to fund PPI activity. This was called the Public Involvement Fund (PIF). Researchers developing health and social care grant applications could apply. After spending the funding, researchers wrote reports to explain how they used the Public Involvement Fund and the challenges they faced. We analysed 55 reports submitted over a three-year period to understand researchers' experiences of the fund. Researchers found the funding critical in enabling them to undertake PPI. Many felt their grants were improved from consulting Public Contributors. For example, helping them to decide a topic, changing their research method or choosing a questionnaire. However, researchers sometimes struggled to recruit Public Contributors, particularly when the research was not about a specific health condition. Researchers wanted to be able to have the award for long enough to enable them to involve Public Contributors throughout the whole grant development process. Alongside funding, researchers also need specific training about undertaking PPI when developing grants. For example, how to recruit representative Public Contributors quickly. It is recommended that similar schemes to the PIF are available to enable researchers to fund PPI activities when developing grant applications.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a sustainable obesity prevention programme for preschool children delivered at scale 'HENRY' (Health, Exercise, Nutrition for the Really Young): protocol for the HENRY III cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: One-fifth of children start school already overweight or living with obesity, with rates disproportionately impacting those living in the most deprived areas. Social, environmental and biological factors contribute to excess weight gain and programmes delivered in early years settings aim to support families to navigate these in order to prevent obesity. One of these programmes (Health, Exercise and Nutrition for the Really Young, HENRY) has been delivered in UK community venues (hereon named 'centres') in high deprivation areas since 2008 and aims to help families to provide a healthy start for their preschool children. We aim to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HENRY, including its potential role from a wider systems perspective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, open-labelled, two-group, prospective, cluster randomised controlled trial, with cost-effectiveness analysis, systems-based process evaluation and internal pilot. Primary analysis will compare body mass index (BMI) z-score at 12 months in children (n=984) whose parents have attended HENRY to those who have not attended. Secondary outcomes include parent and staff BMI and waist circumference, parenting efficacy, feeding, eating habits, quality of life, resource use and medium term (3 years) BMI z-scores (child and siblings). 82 centres in ~14 local authority areas will be randomised (1:1) to receive HENRY or continue with standard practice. Intention-to-treat analysis will compare outcomes using mixed effects linear regression. Economic evaluation will estimate a within-trial calculation of cost-per unit change in BMI z-score and longer-term trajectories to determine lifelong cost savings (long-term outcomes). A systems process evaluation will explore whether (and how) implementation of HENRY impacts (and is impacted by) the early years obesity system. An established parent advisory group will support delivery and dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the University of York, Health Sciences' Research Governance Committee (HSRGC/2022/537/E). Dissemination includes policy reports, community resources, social media and academic outputs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16529380.

Using co-production to implement patient reported outcome measures in third sector organisations: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Third sector organisations such as charities and community groups are using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) at an aggregated service level to demonstrate their impact to commissioners to generate or retain funding. Despite this motivation, organisations can struggle with implementing PROMs. Previous studies have identified facilitators including organisations using an appropriate measure, co-producing the PROMs process with staff, and investing resources to support the use of measures. However, to date no studies have applied this learning to third sector organisations to evaluate whether taking an evidence-informed implementation approach improves the use of PROMs. METHODS: A Community-Based Participatory Research approach was used which involved university-based researchers supporting two third sector organisations to implement PROMs. The researchers provided evidence-informed advice and training. The organisations were responsible for implementing PROMs. The researchers evaluated implementation through a mixed methods approach including five key informant interviews, four evaluation groups and analysis of collected PROMs data (n = 313). RESULTS: Both third sector organisations faced considerable constraints in incorporating known facilitators and addressing barriers. The organisations involved staff in choosing an acceptable measure. However, competing priorities including external pressures to use specific PROMs, busy workloads and staff opinions created challenges to using measures. Investment of time and energy into developing an outcomes-based organisational culture was key to enable the prioritisation of PROMs. For example, discussing PROMs in supervision so that they were viewed as part of people's job roles. Organisations found that implementation took several years and was disrupted by other pressures. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst organisations were motivated to implement PROMs to obtain or retain funding, they faced considerable practical and ideological challenges. Consequently, some stakeholders felt that alternative methods to measuring impact could potentially be more feasible than PROMs.

An intervention to promote self-management, independence and self-efficacy in people with early-stage dementia: the Journeying through Dementia RCT.

BACKGROUND: There are few effective interventions for dementia. AIM: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intervention to promote self-management, independence and self-efficacy in people with early-stage dementia. OBJECTIVES: To undertake a randomised controlled trial of the Journeying through Dementia intervention compared with usual care, conduct an internal pilot testing feasibility, assess intervention delivery fidelity and undertake a qualitative exploration of participants' experiences. DESIGN: A pragmatic two-arm individually randomised trial analysed by intention to treat. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 480 people diagnosed with mild dementia, with capacity to make informed decisions, living in the community and not participating in other studies, and 350 supporters whom they identified, from 13 locations in England, took part. INTERVENTION: Those randomised to the Journeying through Dementia intervention (n = 241) were invited to take part in 12 weekly facilitated groups and four one-to-one sessions delivered in the community by secondary care staff, in addition to their usual care. The control group (n = 239) received usual care. Usual care included drug treatment, needs assessment and referral to appropriate services. Usual care at each site was recorded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was Dementia-Related Quality of Life score at 8 months post randomisation, with higher scores representing higher quality of life. Secondary outcomes included resource use, psychological well-being, self-management, instrumental activities of daily living and health-related quality of life. RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING: Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio. Staff conducting outcome assessments were blinded. DATA SOURCES: Outcome measures were administered in participants' homes at baseline and at 8 and 12 months post randomisation. Interviews were conducted with participants, participating carers and interventionalists. RESULTS: The mean Dementia-Related Quality of Life score at 8 months was 93.3 (standard deviation 13.0) in the intervention arm (n = 191) and 91.9 (standard deviation 14.6) in the control arm (n = 197), with a difference in means of 0.9 (95% confidence interval -1.2 to 3.0; p = 0.380) after adjustment for covariates. This effect size (0.9) was less than the 4 points defined as clinically meaningful. For other outcomes, a difference was found only for Diener's Flourishing Scale (adjusted mean difference 1.2, 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 2.3), in favour of the intervention (i.e. in a positive direction). The Journeying through Dementia intervention cost £608 more than usual care (95% confidence interval £105 to £1179) and had negligible difference in quality-adjusted life-years (-0.003, 95% confidence interval -0.044 to 0.038). Therefore, the Journeying through Dementia intervention had a mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of -£202,857 (95% confidence interval -£534,733 to £483,739); however, there is considerable uncertainty around this. Assessed fidelity was good. Interviewed participants described receiving some benefit and a minority benefited greatly. However, negative aspects were also raised by a minority. Seventeen per cent of participants in the intervention arm and 15% of participants in the control arm experienced at least one serious adverse event. None of the serious adverse events were classified as related to the intervention. LIMITATIONS: Study limitations include recruitment of an active population, delivery challenges and limitations of existing outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: The Journeying through Dementia programme is not clinically effective, is unlikely to be cost-effective and cannot be recommended in its existing format. FUTURE WORK: Research should focus on the creation of new outcome measures to assess well-being in dementia and on using elements of the intervention, such as enabling enactment in the community. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN17993825. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

There are few services proven effective for people with mild dementia. We therefore explored the potential benefit of a programme called Journeying through Dementia. The content, devised in partnership with people living with dementia, aims to help affected individuals to live well and participate in life. The programme involves meeting in groups of about eight every week for 12 weeks. Each person also has four face-to-face meetings with a staff member. Carers are invited to 3 of the 12 group meetings to all individual meetings if the participant wanted this involvement. A total of 480 people with dementia and 350 carers from 13 locations in England took part. Just over half of the participants were randomly allocated to the new programme, whereas the others were not. This allowed us to compare the groups. We were interested in whether or not attending the Journeying through Dementia programme improved participants' quality of life. The results showed that it did not. We also measured participants' mood, self-management skills, positive attitudes and ability with daily living skills. Only one measure of positive psychology suggested even a small benefit. There was no difference between groups in the remaining measures. Although some individual participants described being more confident, enjoying social contact, trying new activities, feeling valued and having increased independence, overall, the programme is unlikely to be worth implementing. Certain aspects of the programme are worth implementing.

Identifying the evidence base of interventions supporting mental health nurses to cope with stressful working environments: A scoping review.

AIM: To scope the evidence on interventions used to help mental health nurses cope with stressful working environments. BACKGROUND: Nursing managers may implement interventions to support mental health nurses cope in their role. However, the evidence supporting these interventions has not been recently reviewed. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted which entailed searching and selecting potential studies, undertaking data extraction and synthesis. RESULTS: Eighteen studies published since 2000 were identified. They employed different designs, ten used quasi-experimental methods. Interventions involving active learning appeared beneficial, for example stress reduction courses and mindfulness. However, small sample sizes, short follow-up periods and variation in outcome measures make it difficult to identify the optimum interventions. No studies have considered cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: There is some evidence that mental health nurses benefit from interventions to help them cope with stressful working environments. However, higher quality research is needed to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different interventions. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Managers should provide opportunities and encourage mental health nurses to engage in active learning interventions, for example mindfulness to help them cope with stressful working environments. Nurses also want managers to address organisational issues; however, no research on these types of interventions was identified.

Impact of social prescribing to address loneliness: A mixed methods evaluation of a national social prescribing programme.

Loneliness is considered a global public health issue because of its detrimental impact on physical and mental health but little is known about which interventions can reduce loneliness. One potential intervention is social prescribing, where a link worker helps service-users to access appropriate support such as community activities and social groups. Some qualitative studies have identified that social prescribing may help to reduce service-users' loneliness. Given this, the British Red Cross (a third sector organisation) developed and delivered a national social prescribing service in the United Kingdom to support people who were experiencing, or at risk of, loneliness. Service-users could receive up to 12 weeks of support from a link worker. A mixed methods study was conducted to understand the impact of the support on loneliness, and to identify the facilitators and barriers to service delivery. The study included: (a) analysis of quantitative data collected routinely between May 2017 and December 2019 (n = 10,643) including pre-post analysis of UCLA data (n = 2,250) and matched comparator work to measure changes in loneliness; (b) semi-structured interviews with service-users, link workers and volunteers (n = 60) and (c) a Social Return on Investment Analysis. The majority of the service-users (72.6%, n = 1634/2250) felt less lonely after receiving support. The mean change in UCLA score was -1.84 (95% CI -1.91 to -1.77) of a maximum change of 6.00 (decrease indicates an improvement). Additional benefits included improved wellbeing, increased confidence and life having more purpose. The base case analysis estimated a social return on investment of £3.42 per £1 invested in the service. Having skilled link workers and support tailored to individual needs appeared key. However, challenges included utilising volunteers, meeting some service-users' needs in relation to signposting and sustaining improvements in loneliness. Nonetheless, the service appeared successful in supporting service-users experiencing loneliness.

How do third sector organisations or charities providing health and well-being services in England implement patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)? A qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the facilitators and barriers to implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in third sector organisations (TSOs) delivering health and well-being services. DESIGN: A qualitative interview study. Participants were recruited using purposive, opportunistic and snowballing methods. Framework analysis was used. SETTING: TSOs including charities, community groups and not-for-profit organisations in England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty interviewees including service users, TSO front-line workers and managers, commissioners of TSOs and other stakeholders such as academic researchers. RESULTS: TSOs primarily used PROMs because of pressures arising from the external funding context. However, organisations often struggled to implement PROMs, rarely getting the process right first time. Facilitators for implementation included having an implementation lead committed to making it work, investing resources in data management systems and support staff and taking a collaborative approach to designing the PROMs process. The latter helped to ensure an appropriate PROMs process for the specific TSO including choosing a suitable measure and planning how data would be collected, processed and used. There was a dilemma about whether TSOs should use standardised well-being measures (eg, the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale) or design their own PROM. Not all TSOs sustained the collection and reporting of PROMs over time because this required a change in organisational culture to view PROMs as beneficial for the TSO and PROMs becoming part of front-line workers' job specifications. CONCLUSIONS: TSOs are trying to use PROMs because they feel they have no choice but often struggle with implementation. Having an implementation lead, designing an appropriate process, investing resources, training staff and taking mitigating action to address potential barriers can facilitate implementation. Some of the findings are consistent with the experiences of more clinical services so appear relevant to the implementation of PROMs irrespective of the specific context.

Connecting communities: A qualitative investigation of the challenges in delivering a national social prescribing service to reduce loneliness.

Loneliness is a global public health concern linked to a range of negative health outcomes (Cacioppo & Cacioppo, 2018. The Lancet. 391(10119), 426). Internationally, this has led to the development of a number of interventions, but these are rarely implemented or evaluated on a large scale. This paper is one of the first of its kind to describe elements of an evaluation of a large-scale national social prescribing scheme to reduce loneliness, deploying individual link workers to signpost people to community activities. Reporting on findings from interviews with staff (n = 25 of which 6 were repeat interviews) and volunteers (n = 9) between October 2017 and December 2018 in localities across the United Kingdom. We reflect on the complexities of the link worker role, the challenges of service delivery and the importance of community infrastructure. There was evidence that highly skilled link workers who had developed positive relationships with providers and service-users were key to the success of the intervention. As well as providing an effective liaison and signposting function, successful link workers tailored the national programme to local need to proactively address specific gaps in existing service provision. For social prescribing services to be successful and sustainable, commissioners must consider additional funding of community infrastructure.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Journeying through Dementia (JtD) intervention compared to usual care.

INTRODUCTION: Services are being encouraged to provide postdiagnostic treatment to those with dementia but the availability of evidence-based interventions following diagnosis has not kept pace with increase in demand. To address this need, the Journeying through Dementia (JtD) intervention was created. A randomised controlled trial (RCT), based on a pilot study, is in progress. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The RCT is a pragmatic, two-arm, parallel group trial designed to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of JtD compared with usual care. Recruitment will be through NHS services, third sector organisations and Join Dementia Research. The sample size is 486 randomised (243 to usual care and 243 to the intervention usual care). Participants can choose to ask a friend or relative (supporter) to become involved in the study. The primary outcome measure for participants is Dementia-Related Quality of Life (DEMQOL), collected at baseline and at 8 months' postrandomisation. Secondary outcome measures will be collected from participants and supporters at those visits. Participants will also be followed up at 12 months' postrandomisation with a reduced set of measures. A process evaluation will be conducted through qualitative and fidelity substudies. Analyses will compare the two arms of the trial on an intention to treat as allocated basis. The primary analyses will compare the mean DEMQOL scores of the participants at 8 months between the two study arms. A cost-effectiveness analysis will consider the incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years of the intervention compared with usual care. Qualitative and fidelity substudies will be analysed through framework analysis and fidelity assessment tools respectively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: REC and HRA approval were obtained. A Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee has been constituted. Dissemination will be via publications, conferences and social media. Intervention materials will be made open access. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17993825.

The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) within organisations delivering health related services. However, organisations have had mixed success in implementing PROMs and there is little understanding about why this may be. Thus, the purpose of this study was to identify the facilitators and barriers to implementing PROMs in organisations. METHOD: A systematic review of reviews was undertaken. Searches were conducted of five electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, during the week of the 20th February 2017. Additional search methods included website searching and reference checking. To be included, a publication had to be a review of the literature, describe its methods and include information related to implementing PROMs. The reviews were extracted using a standardised form and assessed for their risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool. The findings were synthesised using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (PROSPERO) (CRD42017057491). RESULTS: Initially 2047 records were identified. After assessing eligibility, six reviews were included. These reviews varied in their review type and focus. Different issues arose at distinct stages of the implementation process. Organisations needed to invest time and resources in two key stages early in the implementation process: 'designing' the processes for using PROMs within an organisation; and 'preparing' an organisation and its staff. The 'designing' stage involved organisations planning not just which PROMs to use and how to administer them, but also how the data would be used for clinical purposes. The 'preparing' stage involved getting an organisation and its staff ready to use PROMs, particularly persuading clinicians of the validity and value of PROMs, delivering training, and developing electronic systems. Having an implementation lead overseeing the process and developing the process based on feedback were also identified as facilitating implementation. CONCLUSION: Organisations implementing PROMs need to invest time and resources in 'designing' the PROMs strategy and 'preparing' the organisation to use PROMs. Focusing on these earlier stages may prevent problems arising when PROMs are used in practice.

The Contribution of Therapist Effects to Patient Dropout and Deterioration in the Psychological Therapies.

BACKGROUND: In the psychological therapies, patient outcomes are not always positive. Some patients leave therapy prematurely (dropout), while others experience deterioration in their psychological well-being. METHODS: The sample for dropout comprised patients (n = 10 521) seen by 85 therapists, who attended at least the initial session of one-to-one therapy and completed a Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) at pre-treatment. The subsample for patient deterioration comprised patients (n = 6405) seen by the same 85 therapists but who attended two or more sessions, completed therapy and returned a CORE-OM at pre-treatment and post-treatment. Multilevel modelling was used to estimate the extent of therapist effects for both outcomes after controlling for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Therapist effects accounted for 12.6% of dropout variance and 10.1% of deterioration variance. Dropout rates for therapists ranged from 1.2% to 73.2%, while rates of deterioration ranged from 0% to 15.4%. There was no significant correlation between therapist dropout rate and deterioration rate (Spearman's rho = 0.07, p = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: The methods provide a reliable means for identifying therapists who return consistently poorer rates of patient dropout and deterioration compared with their peers. The variability between therapists and the identification of patient risk factors as significant predictors has implications for the delivery of safe psychological therapy services. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. KEY PRACTITIONER MESSAGE: Therapists play an important role in contributing to patient dropout and deterioration, irrespective of case mix. Therapist effects on patient dropout and deterioration appear to act independently. Being unemployed as a patient was the strongest predictor of both dropout and deterioration. Patient risk to self or others was also an important predictor.

Cost-effectiveness of telehealth for patients with depression: evidence from the Healthlines randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a prevalent long-term condition that is associated with substantial resource use. Telehealth may offer a cost-effective means of supporting the management of people with depression. AIMS: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of a telehealth intervention ('Healthlines') for patients with depression. METHOD: A prospective patient-level economic evaluation conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial. Patients were recruited through primary care, and the intervention was delivered via a telehealth service. Participants with a confirmed diagnosis of depression and PHQ-9 score ≥10 were recruited from 43 English general practices. A series of up to 10 scripted, theory-led, telephone encounters with health information advisers supported participants to effect a behaviour change, use online resources, optimise medication and improve adherence. The intervention was delivered alongside usual care and was designed to support rather than duplicate primary care. Cost-effectiveness from a combined health and social care perspective was measured by net monetary benefit at the end of 12 months of follow-up, calculated from incremental cost and incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-consequence analysis included cost of lost productivity, participant out-of-pocket expenditure and the clinical outcome. RESULTS: A total of 609 participants were randomised - 307 to receive the Healthlines intervention plus usual care and 302 to receive usual care alone. Forty-five per cent of participants had missing quality of life data, 41% had missing cost data and 51% of participants had missing data on either cost or utility, or both. Multiple imputation was used for the base-case analysis. The intervention was associated with incremental mean per-patient National Health Service/personal social services cost of £168 (95% CI £43 to £294) and an incremental QALY gain of 0.001 (95% CI -0.023 to 0.026). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £132 630. Net monetary benefit at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 was -£143 (95% CI -£164 to -£122) and the probability of the intervention being cost-effective at this threshold value was 0.30. Productivity costs were higher in the intervention arm, but out-of-pocket expenses were lower. CONCLUSIONS: The Healthlines service was acceptable to patients as a means of condition management, and response to treatment after 4 months was higher for participants randomised to the intervention. However, the positive average intervention effect size was modest, and incremental costs were high relative to a small incremental QALY gain at 12 months. The intervention is not likely to be cost-effective in its current form. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None. COPYRIGHT AND USAGE: © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2016. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence.

Cost-effectiveness modelling of telehealth for patients with raised cardiovascular disease risk: evidence from a cohort simulation conducted alongside the Healthlines randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the long-term cost-effectiveness (measured as the ratio of incremental NHS cost to incremental quality-adjusted life years) of a telehealth intervention for patients with raised cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. DESIGN: A cohort simulation model developed as part of the economic evaluation conducted alongside the Healthlines randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Patients recruited through primary care, and intervention delivered via telehealth service. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with a 10-year CVD risk ≥20%, as measured by the QRISK2 algorithm, and with at least 1 modifiable risk factor, individually randomised from 42 general practices in England. INTERVENTION: A telehealth service delivered over a 12-month period. The intervention involved a series of responsive, theory-led encounters between patients and trained health information advisors who provided access to information resources and supported medication adherence and coordination of care. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness measured by net monetary benefit over the simulated lifetime of trial participants from a UK National Health Service perspective. RESULTS: The probability that the intervention was cost-effective depended on the duration of the effect of the intervention. The intervention was cost-effective with high probability if effects persisted over the lifetime of intervention recipients. The probability of cost-effectiveness was lower for shorter durations of effect. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was likely to be cost-effective under a lifetime perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN27508731; Results.

Cost-effectiveness of telehealth for patients with raised cardiovascular disease risk: evidence from the Healthlines randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of a telehealth intervention for primary care patients with raised cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. DESIGN: A prospective within-trial patient-level economic evaluation conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Patients recruited through primary care, and intervention delivered via telehealth service. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with a 10-year CVD risk ≥20%, as measured by the QRISK2 algorithm, with at least 1 modifiable risk factor. INTERVENTION: A series of up to 13 scripted, theory-led telehealth encounters with healthcare advisors, who supported participants to make behaviour change, use online resources, optimise medication and improve adherence. Participants in the control arm received usual care. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness measured by net monetary benefit at the end of 12 months of follow-up, calculated from incremental cost and incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Productivity impacts, participant out-of-pocket expenditure and the clinical outcome were presented in a cost-consequences framework. RESULTS: 641 participants were randomised-325 to receive the telehealth intervention in addition to usual care and 316 to receive only usual care. 18% of participants had missing data on either costs, utilities or both. Multiple imputation was used for the base case results. The intervention was associated with incremental mean per-patient National Health Service (NHS) costs of £138 (95% CI 66 to 211) and an incremental QALY gain of 0.012 (95% CI -0.001 to 0.026). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £10 859. Net monetary benefit at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY was £116 (95% CI -58 to 291), and the probability that the intervention was cost-effective at this threshold value was 0.77. Similar results were obtained from a complete case analysis. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to suggest that the Healthlines telehealth intervention was likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN27508731; Results. Prospectively registered 05 July 2012.

Being Human: A Qualitative Interview Study Exploring Why a Telehealth Intervention for Management of Chronic Conditions Had a Modest Effect.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of benefit for telehealth for chronic conditions is mixed. Two linked randomized controlled trials tested the Healthlines Service for 2 chronic conditions: depression and high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This new telehealth service consisted of regular telephone calls from nonclinical, trained health advisers who followed standardized scripts generated by interactive software. Advisors facilitated self-management by supporting participants to use Web-based resources and helped to optimize medication, improve treatment adherence, and encourage healthier lifestyles. Participants were recruited from primary care. The trials identified moderate (for depression) or partial (for CVD risk) effectiveness of the Healthlines Service. OBJECTIVE: An embedded qualitative study was undertaken to help explain the results of the 2 trials by exploring mechanisms of action, context, and implementation of the intervention. METHODS: Qualitative interview study of 21 staff providing usual health care or involved in the intervention and 24 patients receiving the intervention. RESULTS: Interviewees described improved outcomes in some patients, which they attributed to the intervention, describing how components of the model on which the intervention was based helped to achieve benefits. Implementation of the intervention occurred largely as planned. However, contextual issues in patients' lives and some problems with implementation may have reduced the size of effect of the intervention. For depression, patients' lives and preferences affected engagement with the intervention: these largely working-age patients had busy and complex lives, which affected their ability to engage, and some patients preferred a therapist-based approach to the cognitive behavioral therapy on offer. For CVD risk, patients' motivations adversely affected the intervention whereby some patients joined the trial for general health improvement or from altruism, rather than motivation to make lifestyle changes to address their specific risk factors. Implementation was not optimal in the early part of the CVD risk trial owing to technical difficulties and the need to adapt the intervention for use in practice. For both conditions, enthusiastic and motivated staff offering continuity of intervention delivery tailored to individual patients' needs were identified as important for patient engagement with telehealth; this was not delivered consistently, particularly in the early stages of the trials. Finally, there was a lack of active engagement from primary care. CONCLUSIONS: The conceptual model was supported and could be used to develop further telehealth interventions for chronic conditions. It may be possible to increase the effectiveness of this, and similar interventions, by attending to the human as well as the technical aspects of telehealth: offering it to patients actively wanting the intervention, ensuring continuity of delivery by enthusiastic and motivated staff, and encouraging active engagement from primary care staff.

Telehealth for patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease: pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE:  To assess whether non-clinical staff can effectively manage people at high risk of cardiovascular disease using digital health technologies. DESIGN:  Pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING:  42 general practices in three areas of England. PARTICIPANTS:  Between 3 December 2012 and 23 July 2013 we recruited 641 adults aged 40 to 74 years with a 10 year cardiovascular disease risk of 20% or more, no previous cardiovascular event, at least one modifiable risk factor (systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg, body mass index ≥30, current smoker), and access to a telephone, the internet, and email. Participants were individually allocated to intervention (n=325) or control (n=316) groups using automated randomisation stratified by site, minimised by practice and baseline risk score. INTERVENTIONS:  Intervention was the Healthlines service (alongside usual care), comprising regular telephone calls from trained lay health advisors following scripts generated by interactive software. Advisors facilitated self management by supporting participants to use online resources to reduce risk factors, and sought to optimise drug use, improve treatment adherence, and encourage healthier lifestyles. The control group comprised usual care alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:  The primary outcome was the proportion of participants responding to treatment, defined as maintaining or reducing their cardiovascular risk after 12 months. Outcomes were collected six and 12 months after randomisation and analysed masked. Participants were not masked. RESULTS:  50% (148/295) of participants in the intervention group responded to treatment compared with 43% (124/291) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 1.9; number needed to treat=13); a difference possibly due to chance (P=0.08). The intervention was associated with reductions in blood pressure (difference in mean systolic -2.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval -4.7 to -0.6 mm Hg), mean diastolic -2.8 (-4.0 to -1.6 mm Hg); weight -1.0 kg (-1.8 to -0.3 kg), and body mass index -0.4 ( -0.6 to -0.1) but not cholesterol -0.1 (-0.2 to 0.0), smoking status (adjusted odds ratio 0.4, 0.2 to 1.0), or overall cardiovascular risk as a continuous measure (-0.4, -1.2 to 0.3)). The intervention was associated with improvements in diet, physical activity, drug adherence, and satisfaction with access to care, treatment received, and care coordination. One serious related adverse event occurred, when a participant was admitted to hospital with low blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS:  This evidence based telehealth approach was associated with small clinical benefits for a minority of people with high cardiovascular risk, and there was no overall improvement in average risk. The Healthlines service was, however, associated with improvements in some risk behaviours, and in perceptions of support and access to care.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 27508731.

Effectiveness of an integrated telehealth service for patients with depression: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention.

BACKGROUND: Many countries are exploring the potential of telehealth interventions to manage the rising number of people with chronic disorders. However, evidence of the effectiveness of telehealth is ambiguous. Based on an evidence-based conceptual framework, we developed an integrated telehealth service (the Healthlines Service) for chronic disorders and assessed its effectiveness in patients with depression. We aimed to compare the Healthlines Depression Service plus usual care with usual care alone. METHODS: This study was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with participants recruited from 43 general practices in three areas of England. To be eligible, participants needed to have access to the internet and email, a Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) score of at least 10, and a confirmed diagnosis of depression. Participants were individually assigned (1:1) to either the Healthlines Depression Service plus usual care or usual care alone. Random assignment was done by use of a web-based automated randomisation system, stratified by site and minimised by practice and PHQ-9 score. Participants were aware of their allocation, but outcomes were analysed masked. The Healthlines Service consisted of regular telephone calls from non-clinical, trained health advisers who followed standardised scripts generated by interactive software. After an initial assessment and goal-setting telephone call, the advisers called each participant on six occasions over 4 months, and then made up to three more calls at intervals of roughly 2 months to provide reinforcement and to detect relapse. Advisers supported participants in the use of online resources (including computerised cognitive behavioural therapy) and sought to encourage healthier lifestyles, optimise medication, and improve treatment adherence. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants responding to the intervention (defined as PHQ-9 <10 and reduction in PHQ-9 of ≥5 points) at 4 months after randomisation. The primary analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle without imputation and all serious adverse events were investigated. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN 14172341. FINDINGS: Between July 24, 2012, and July 31, 2013, we recruited 609 participants, randomly assigning 307 to the Healthlines Service plus usual care and 302 to usual care. Primary outcome data were available for 525 (86%) participants. At 4 months, 68 (27%) of 255 individuals in the intervention group had a treatment response compared with 50 (19%) of 270 individuals in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·7, 95% CI 1·1-2·5, p=0·019). Compared with usual care alone, intervention participants reported improvements in anxiety, better access to support and advice, greater satisfaction with the support they received, and improvements in self-management and health literacy. During the trial, 70 adverse events were reported by participants, one of which was related to the intervention (increased anxiety from discussing depression) and was not serious. INTERPRETATION: This telehealth service based on non-clinically trained health advisers supporting patients in use of internet resources was both acceptable and effective compared with usual care. Our results provide support for the development and assessment of similar interventions in other chronic disorders to expand care provision. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

Increasing follow-up questionnaire response rates in a randomized controlled trial of telehealth for depression: three embedded controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: Attrition is problematic in trials, and may be exacerbated in longer studies, telehealth trials and participants with depression - three features of The Healthlines Study. Advance notification, including a photograph and using action-oriented email subject lines might increase response rates, but require further investigation. We examined the effectiveness of these interventions in three embedded Healthlines studies. METHODS: Based in different trial sites, participants with depression were alternately allocated to be pre-called or not ahead of the 8-month follow-up questionnaire (Study 1), randomized to receive a research team photograph or not with their 12-month questionnaire (Study 2), and randomized to receive an action-oriented ('ACTION REQUIRED') or standard ('Questionnaire reminder') 12-month email reminder (Study 3). Participants could complete online or postal questionnaires, and received up to five questionnaire reminders. The primary outcome was completion of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Secondary outcome measures were the number of reminders and time to questionnaire completion. RESULTS: Of a total of 609 Healthlines depression participants, 190, 251 and 231 participants were included in Studies 1-3 (intervention: 95, 126 and 115), respectively. Outcome completion was ≥90 % across studies, with no differences between trial arms (Study 1: OR 0.38, 95 % CI 0.07-2.10; Study 2: OR 0.84, 95 % CI 0.26-2.66; Study 3: OR 0.53 95 % CI 0.19-1.49). Pre-called participants were less likely to require a reminder (48.4 % vs 62.1 %, OR 0.41, 95 % CI 0.21-0.78), required fewer reminders (adjusted difference in means -0.67, 95 % CI -1.13 to -0.20), and completed follow-up quicker (median 8 vs 15 days, HR 1.35, 95 % CI 1.00-1.82) than control subjects. There were no significant between-group differences in Studies 2 or 3. CONCLUSIONS: Eventual response rates in this trial were high, with no further improvement from these interventions. While the photograph and email interventions were ineffective, pre-calling participants reduced time to completion. This strategy might be helpful when the timing of study completion is important. Researchers perceived a substantial benefit from the reduction in reminders with pre-calling, despite no overall decrease in net effort after accounting for pre-notification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Clinical Trials ISRCTN14172341.

The self-management of longer-term depression: learning from the patient, a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common mental health condition now viewed as chronic or long-term. More than 50 % of people will have at least one further episode of depression after their first, and therefore it requires long-term management. However, little is known about the effectiveness of self-management in depression, in particular from the patients' perspective. This study aimed to understand how people with longer-term depression manage the condition, how services can best support self-management and whether the principles and concepts of the recovery approach would be advantageous. METHODS: Semi-structured in depth interviews were carried out with 21 participants, recruited from a range of sources using maximum variation sampling. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis was used by a diverse team comprised of service users, practitioners and academics. RESULTS: Four super-ordinate themes were found: experience of depression, the self, the wider environment, self-management strategies. Within these, several prominent sub-themes emerged of importance to the participants. These included how aspects of themselves such as hope, confidence and motivation could be powerful agents; and how engaging in a wide range of chosen activities could contribute to their emotional, mental, physical, social, spiritual and creative wellbeing. CONCLUSIONS: Services in general were not perceived to be useful in specifically facilitating self-management. Increased choice and control were needed and a greater emphasis on an individualised holistic model. Improved information was needed about how to develop strategies and locate resources, especially during the first episode of depression. These concepts echoed those of the recovery approach, which could therefore be seen as valuable in aiding the self-management of depression.

Who does not participate in telehealth trials and why? A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth interventions use information and communication technology to provide clinical support. Some randomised controlled trials of telehealth report high patient decline rates. A large study was undertaken to determine which patients decline to participate in telehealth trials and their reasons for doing so. METHODS: Two linked randomised controlled trials were undertaken, one for patients with depression and one for patients with raised cardiovascular disease risk (the Healthlines Study). The trials compared usual care with additional support delivered by the telephone and internet. Patients were recruited via their general practice and could return a form about why they were not participating. RESULTS: Of the patients invited, 82.9% (20,021/24,152) did not accept the study invite, either by returning a decline form (n = 7134) or by not responding (n = 12,887). In both trials patients registered at deprived general practices were less likely to accept the study invite. Decline forms were received from 29.5% (7134/24,152) of patients invited. There were four frequently reported types of reasons for declining. The most common was telehealth-related: 54.7% (3889/,7115) of decliners said they did not have access or the skills to use the internet and/or computers. This was more prevalent amongst older patients and patients registered at deprived general practices. The second was health need-related: 40.1% (n = 2852) of decliners reported that they did not need additional support for their health condition. The third was related to life circumstances: 27.2% (n = 1932) of decliners reported being too busy. The fourth was research-related: 15.3% (n = 1092) of decliners were not interested in the research. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of patients declining participation in these telehealth trials did so because they were unable to engage with telehealth or did not perceive a need for it. This has implications for engagement with telehealth in routine practice, as well as for trials, with a need to offer technological support to increase patients' engagement with telehealth. More generally, triallists should assess why people decline to participate in their studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Healthlines Study has the following trial registrations: depression trial: ISRCTN14172341 (registered 26 June 2012) and CVD risk trial: ISRCTN27508731 (registered 05 July 2012).