Randomised pilot and feasibility trial of a group intervention for men who perpetrate intimate partner violence against women.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for robust evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of domestic abuse perpetrator programmes in reducing abusive behaviour and improving wellbeing for victim/survivors. While any randomised controlled trial can present difficulties in terms of recruitment and retention, conducting such a trial with domestic abuse perpetrators is particularly challenging. This paper reports the pilot and feasibility trial of a voluntary domestic abuse perpetrator group programme in the United Kingdom. METHODS: This was a pragmatic individually randomised pilot and feasibility trial with an integrated qualitative study in one site (covering three local-authority areas) in England. Male perpetrators were randomised to either the intervention or usual care. The intervention was a 23-week group programme for male perpetrators in heterosexual relationships, with an average of three one-to-one sessions, and one-to-one support for female current- or ex-partners delivered by third sector organisations. There was no active control treatment for men, and partners of control men were signposted towards domestic abuse support services. Data were collected at three-monthly intervals for nine months from male and female participants. The main objectives assessed were recruitment, randomisation, retention, data completeness, fidelity to the intervention model, and acceptability of the trial design. RESULTS: This study recruited 36 men (22 randomly allocated to attend the intervention group programme, 14 to usual care), and 15 current- or ex-partners (39% of eligible partners). Retention and completeness of data were high: 67% of male (24/36), and 80% (12/15) of female participants completed the self-reported questionnaire at nine months. A framework for assessing fidelity to the intervention was developed. In interviews, men who completed all or most of the intervention gave positive feedback and reported changes in their own behaviour. Partners were also largely supportive of the trial and were positive about the intervention. Participants who were not allocated to the intervention group reported feeling disappointed but understood the rationale for the trial. CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible to recruit, randomise and retain male perpetrators and female victim/survivors of abuse and collect self-reported outcome data. Participants were engaged in the intervention and reported positive benefits. The trial design was seen as acceptable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN71797549, submitted 03/08/2017, retrospectively registered 27/05/2022.

Graded exercise therapy compared to activity management for paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

The MAGENTA pragmatic parallel groups randomized controlled trial compared graded exercise therapy (GET) with activity management (AM) in treating paediatric myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Children aged 8-17 years with mild/moderate ME/CFS and presenting to NHS specialist paediatric services were allocated at random to either individualised flexible treatment focussing on physical activity (GET, 123 participants) or on managing cognitive, school and social activity (AM, 118 participants) delivered by NHS therapists. The primary outcome was the self-reported short-form 36 physical function subscale (SF-36-PFS) after 6 months, with higher scores indicating better functioning. After 6 months, data were available for 201 (83%) participants who received a mean of 3.9 (GET) or 4.6 (AM) treatment sessions. Comparing participants with measured outcomes in their allocated groups, the mean SF-36-PFS score changed from 54.8 (standard deviation 23.7) to 55.7 (23.3) for GET and from 55.5 (23.1) to 57.7 (26.0) for AM giving an adjusted difference in means of -2.02 (95% confidence interval -7.75, 2.70). One hundred thirty-five participants completed the mean SF-36-PFS at 12 months, and whilst further improvement was observed, the difference between the study groups remained consistent with chance. The two study groups showed similar changes on most of the secondary outcome measures: Chalder Fatigue, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression, proportion of full-time school attended, a visual analogue pain scale, participant-rated change and accelerometer measured physical activity, whether at the 6-month or 12-month assessment. There was an isolated finding of some evidence of an improvement in anxiety in those allocated to GET, as measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 6 months, with the 12-month assessment, and the Spence Children's Anxiety scale being aligned with that finding. There was weak evidence of a greater risk of deterioration with GET (27%) than with AM (17%; p = 0.069). At conventional UK cost per QALY thresholds, the probability that GET is more cost-effective than AM ranged from 18 to 21%. Whilst completion of the SF-36-PFS, Chalder Fatigue Scale and EQ-5D-Y was good at the 6-month assessment point, it was less satisfactory for other measures, and for all measures at the 12-month assessment.  Conclusion: There was no evidence that GET was more effective or cost-effective than AM in this setting, with very limited improvement in either study group evident by the 6-month or 12-month assessment points.  Trial registration: The study protocol was registered at www.isrctn.com (3rd September 2015; ISRCTN 23962803) before the start of enrolment to the initial feasibility phase.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group domestic abuse perpetrator programme: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to evidence for interventions supporting victim/survivors of domestic violence and abuse (DVA), the effectiveness of perpetrator programmes for reduction of abuse is uncertain. This study aims to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a perpetrator programme for men. METHODS: Pragmatic two-group individually randomised controlled trial (RCT) with embedded process and economic evaluation. Five centres in southwest England and South Wales aim to recruit 316 (reduced from original target of 366) male domestic abuse perpetrators. These will be randomised 2:1 to a community-based domestic abuse perpetrator programme (DAPP) or usual care comparator with 12-month follow-up. Female partners/ex-partners will be invited to join the study. The intervention for men comprises 23 weekly sessions of a group programme delivered in voluntary sector domestic abuse services. The intervention for female partners/ex-partners is one-to-one support from a safety worker. Men allocated to usual care receive no intervention; however, they are free to access other services. Their partners/ex-partners will be signposted to support services. Data is collected at baseline, and 4, 8 and 12 months' follow-up. The primary outcome is men's self-reported abusive behaviour measured by the Abusive Behaviour Inventory (ABI-29) at 12 months. Secondary measures include physical and mental health status and resource use alongside the abuse measure ABI (ABI-R) for partners/ex-partners and criminal justice contact for men. A mixed methods process evaluation and qualitative study will explore mechanisms of effectiveness, judge fidelity to the intervention model using interviews and group observations. The economic evaluation, over a 1-year time horizon from three perspectives (health and social care, public sector and society), will employ a cost-consequences framework reporting costs alongside economic outcomes (Quality-Adjusted Life Years derived from EQ-5D-5L, SF-12 and CHU-9D, and ICECAP-A) as well as the primary and other secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence of the (cost)effectiveness of a DAPP. The embedded process evaluation will further insights in the experiences and contexts of participants and their journey through a perpetrator programme, and the study will seek to address the omission in other studies of economic evaluations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15804282, April 1, 2019.

Participant retention in paediatric randomised controlled trials published in six major journals 2015-2019: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The factors which influence participant retention in paediatric randomised controlled trials are under-researched. Retention may be more challenging due to child developmental stages, involving additional participants, and proxy-reporting of outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis explores the factors which may influence retention in paediatric trials. METHODS: Using the MEDLINE database, paediatric randomised controlled trials published between 2015 and 2019 were identified from six general and specialist high-impact factor medical journals. The review outcome was participant retention for each reviewed trial's primary outcome. Context (e.g. population, disease) and design (e.g. length of trial) factors were extracted. Retention was examined for each context and design factor in turn, with evidence for an association being determined by a univariate random-effects meta-regression analysis. RESULTS: Ninety-four trials were included, and the median total retention was 0.92 (inter-quartile range 0.83 to 0.98). Higher estimates of retention were seen for trials with five or more follow-up assessments before the primary outcome, those less than 6 months between randomisation and primary outcome, and those that used an inactive data collection method. Trials involving children aged 11 and over had the higher estimated retention compared with those involving younger children. Those trials which did not involve other participants also had higher retention, than those where they were involved. There was also evidence that a trial which used an active or placebo control treatment had higher estimated retention, than treatment-as-usual. Retention increased if at least one engagement method was used. Unlike reviews of trials including all ages of participants, we did not find any association between retention and the number of treatment groups, size of trial, or type of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Published paediatric RCTs rarely report the use of specific modifiable factors that improve retention. Including multiple, regular follow-ups with participants before the primary outcome may reduce attrition. Retention may be highest when the primary outcome is collected up to 6 months after a participant is recruited. Our findings suggest that qualitative research into improving retention when trials involve multiple participants such as young people, and their caregivers or teachers would be worthwhile. Those designing paediatric trials also need to consider the use of appropriate engagement methods. RESEARCH ON RESEARCH (ROR) REGISTRY: https://ror-hub.org/study/2561.

Informed consent in randomised controlled trials: further development and evaluation of the participatory and informed consent (PIC) measure.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent is an accepted ethical and legal prerequisite for trial participation, yet there is no standardised method of assessing patient understanding for informed consent. The participatory and informed consent (PIC) measure was developed for application to recruitment discussions to evaluate recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding. Preliminary evaluation of the PIC indicated the need to improve inter-rater and intra-rater reliability ratings and conduct further psychometric evaluation. This paper describes the assessment, revision and evaluation of the PIC within the context of OPTiMISE, a pragmatic primary care-based trial. METHODS: This study used multiple methods across two phases. In phase one, one researcher applied the existing PIC measure to 18 audio-recorded recruitment discussions from the OPTiMISE study and made detailed observational notes about any uncertainties in application. Appointments were sampled to be maximally diverse for patient gender, study centre, recruiter and before and after an intervention to optimise information provision. Application uncertainties were reviewed by the study team, revisions made and a coding manual developed and agreed. In phase two, the coding manual was used to develop tailored guidelines for applying the PIC to appointments within the OPTiMISE trial. Two researchers then assessed 27 further appointments, purposively sampled as above, to evaluate inter-rater and intra-rater reliability, content validity and feasibility. RESULTS: Application of the PIC to 18 audio-recorded OPTiMISE recruitment discussions resulted in harmonisation of the scales rating recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding, minor amendments to clarify wording and the development of detailed generic coding guidelines for applying the measure within any trial. Application of the revised measure using these guidelines to 27 further recruitment discussions showed good feasibility (time to complete), content validity (completion rate) and reliability (inter- and intra-rater) of the measure. CONCLUSION: The PIC provides a means to evaluate the content of information provided by recruiters, patient participation in recruitment discussions and, to some extent, evidence of patient understanding. Future work will use the measure to evaluate recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding both across and within trials.

Using a checklist within simulation improves trainees' confidence on ward rounds.

Ward rounds are integral to maintaining patient safety in everyday clinical care. Junior doctors are often expected to conduct independent rounds on graduation, but many feel ill-equipped to do so. We developed a safety checklist and simulation sessions to improve junior-led ward round practice at one district general hospital. We found that embedding a checklist within simulation is an effective way to teach ward round skills and increase confidence among undergraduate and postgraduate medical trainees.

Developing an online, searchable database to systematically map and organise current literature on retention research (ORRCA2).

BACKGROUND: Addressing recruitment and retention challenges in trials is a key priority for methods research, but navigating the literature is difficult and time-consuming. In 2016, ORRCA (www.orrca.org.uk) launched a free, searchable database of recruitment research that has been widely accessed and used to support the update of systematic reviews and the selection of recruitment strategies for clinical trials. ORRCA2 aims to create a similar database to map the growing volume and importance of retention research. METHODS: Searches of Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and the Cochrane Library, restricted to English language and publications up to the end of 2017. Hand searches of key systematic reviews were undertaken and randomised evaluations of recruitment interventions within the ORRCA database on 1 October 2020 were also reviewed for any secondary retention outcomes. Records were screened by title and abstract before obtaining the full text of potentially relevant articles. Studies reporting or evaluating strategies, methods and study designs to improve retention within healthcare research were eligible. Case reports describing retention challenges or successes and studies evaluating participant reported reasons for withdrawal or losses were also included. Studies assessing adherence to treatments, attendance at appointments outside of research and statistical analysis methods for missing data were excluded. Eligible articles were categorised into one of the following evidence types: randomised evaluations, non-randomised evaluations, application of retention strategies without evaluation and observations of factors affecting retention. Articles were also mapped against a retention domain framework. Additional data were extracted on research outcomes, methods and host study context. RESULTS: Of the 72,904 abstracts screened, 4,364 full texts were obtained, and 1,167 articles were eligible. Of these, 165 (14%) were randomised evaluations, 99 (8%) non-randomised evaluations, 319 (27%) strategies without evaluation and 584 (50%) observations of factors affecting retention. Eighty-four percent (n = 979) of studies assessed the numbers of participants retained, 27% (n = 317) assessed demographic differences between retained and lost participants, while only 4% (n = 44) assessed the cost of retention strategies. The most frequently reported domains within the 165 studies categorised as 'randomised evaluations of retention strategies' were participant monetary incentives (32%), participant reminders and prompts (30%), questionnaire design (30%) and data collection location and method (26%). CONCLUSION: ORRCA2 builds on the success of ORRCA extending the database to organise the growing volume of retention research. Less than 15% of articles were randomised evaluations of retention strategies. Mapping of the literature highlights several areas for future research such as the role of research sites, clinical staff and study design in enhancing retention. Future studies should also include cost-benefit analysis of retention strategies.

The impact of vaso-occlusive crises and disease severity on quality of life and productivity among patients with sickle cell disease in the US.

AIM: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a lifelong blood disorder affecting approximately 100,000 individuals in the United States (US). A number of new treatments have recently become available to improve SCD clinical outcomes, but it is unclear how treatment innovations that reduce disease severity could affect patients' humanistic and economic outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: To answer this question, an online survey of US adult residents with a self-reported SCD diagnosis was conducted. Humanistic outcomes based on health-related quality of life (HRQoL)) were assessed during and outside of vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs). Economic outcomes were measured by annual household income and whether the respondent received disability insurance. RESULTS: Among the 301 respondents completing the survey, average age was 34.4 years and 73.4% were female. Average HRQoL, measured using health utilities, were 0.311 (95% CI: 0.286, 0.337) during a VOC and 0.738 (0.720, 0.756) not during a VOC. The likelihood of claiming disability insurance was correlated with more frequent VOCs (0 VOCs: 12% vs. ≥4 VOCs: 47%, p = .002) and disease severity (Severity Class II: 16% vs. Severity Class III: 39%, p = .03). There was a weak relationship between VOC frequency and household income (0 VOCs: $47,488 vs. ≥4 VOCs: $34,569, p = .06) and no evidence of a relationship between disease severity class and income (Severity Class II: $42,443 vs. Severity Class III: $36,842, p = .29). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, disease severity, strongly predicted worse self-reported HRQoL, moderately predicted increased likelihood of collecting disability insurance, and weakly predicted lower household income levels.

The Association Between Frailty and Parkinson's Disease in the ReSPOnD Trial.

BACKGROUND: Frailty and Parkinson's disease (PD) are both highly prevalent in older people, but few studies have studied frailty in people with Parkinson's. Identifying frailty in this population is vital, to target new interventions to those who would most benefit. METHODS: Data were collected as part of the double-blind randomised controlled rivastigmine to stabilise gait ReSPonD trial in 130 people with Hoehn and Yahr 2-3, idiopathic PD who had fallen in the year prior to enrolment. Individuals were assessed at baseline and followed up at eight months, including determination of frailty status. RESULTS: 120 patients attended for follow-up. At follow-up, the mean (SD) age was 70.2 years (8.0), MDS-UPDRS total score 91.5 (29.1), and MDS-UPDRS motor score (Part III) 42.7 (14.8). Median disease duration was 9.2 years (IQR 4.6 to 13.1), Geriatric Depression Score 4 (IQR 2 to 6). Using the Fried frailty criteria, 31 (26%) were frail and 70 (58%) pre-frail. In univariable analysis, being female, higher depression score, and MDS-UPDRS score were associated with greater frailty. Using ordinal regression, in the multivariable model, being female (odds ratio [OR] 3.10, 95%CI 1.53 to 6.26, p=.002), higher total MDS-UPDRS score (OR 2.02, 95%CI 1.42 to 2.87, p<.0001) and higher depression (OR 1.47, 95%CI 1.05 to 2.06, p=.03) were associated with higher number of frailty markers. CONCLUSION: There was a high prevalence (84%) of pre-frail and frail individuals in patients participating in this RCT. Future research should determine the optimum tool to assess frailty in this at-risk population, and delineate the association between Parkinson's, frailty, and health outcomes.

The feasibility of low-intensity psychological therapy for depression co-occurring with autism in adults: The Autism Depression Trial (ADEPT) - a pilot randomised controlled trial.

Low-intensity cognitive behaviour therapy including behavioural activation is an evidence-based treatment for depression, a condition frequently co-occurring with autism. The feasibility of adapting low-intensity cognitive behaviour therapy for depression to meet the needs of autistic adults via a randomised controlled trial was investigated. The adapted intervention (guided self-help) comprised materials for nine individual sessions with a low-intensity psychological therapist. Autistic adults (n = 70) with depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score ⩾10) recruited from National Health Service adult autism services and research cohorts were randomly allocated to guided self-help or treatment as usual. Outcomes at 10-, 16- and 24-weeks post-randomisation were blind to treatment group. Rates of retention in the study differed by treatment group with more participants attending follow-up in the guided self-help group than treatment as usual. The adapted intervention was well-received, 86% (n = 30/35) of participants attended the pre-defined 'dose' of five sessions of treatment and 71% (25/35) attended all treatment sessions. The findings of this pilot randomised controlled trial indicate that low-intensity cognitive behaviour therapy informed by behavioural activation can be successfully adapted to meet the needs of autistic people. Evaluation of the effectiveness of this intervention in a full scale randomised controlled trial is now warranted.

Frailty in Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease (PD) and frailty are two conditions that are increasingly common with advancing age, yet little is known about their relationship. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the co-occurrence of frailty in people with PD; to describe the measures used to assess frailty in PD, and assess the prevalence of frailty in subjects with PD. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of Pubmed and Embase in April 2018. Studies that assessed frailty in subjects with PD were included in the review and data was extracted on the prevalence of frailty in subjects with PD. Due to heterogeneity of studies a meta-analysis was not performed. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the review, of which 7 were cross-sectional and 1 a prospective cohort study. Mean age of participants with PD in the studies ranged from 66 to 85 years. The majority (6/8) used the 5-item, Fried criteria to measure frailty, with the remainder using index-based measures. 5 studies provided data on the prevalence of frailty in PD, which ranged from 29% to 67%. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have quantified the prevalence of frailty in PD, but those that have suggest a high concurrence of these two conditions.

The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for a falls intervention in Parkinson's: A delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Falls are common in Parkinson's disease so any intervention that reduced falls risk would be of value. One potential intervention is the use of cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEi) drugs. OBJECTIVE: To establish the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for fall rates to inform the effect estimate for sample size calculations of future clinical trials. METHODS: We performed a Delphi study assembling a panel of experts in Parkinson's disease from academic and clinical medicine in order to reach a consensus of opinion. Responses from a panel were summarised and resent to the group, until consensus was reached. RESULTS: 780 clinicians, who had been caring for people with Parkinson's for an average of 14 years, were contacted via three routes. The median (Interquartile range (IQR)) MCID after round 1 was 25% (IQR 20-30%) which equates to the prevention of 5 (IQR 4-6) falls per year. Increasing consensus after round two confirmed the MCID of 25%, narrowing the (IQ) range to 20%-25%. This was unchanged when the panel were shown the number of participants that would need to be recruited to a clinical trial in order to achieve this difference. CONCLUSIONS: We have established that an expert panel of PD specialists consider that an intervention that demonstrated a 25% (IQR 20-25%) relative reduction in falls rate would be clinically meaningful. This estimate can be used to help determine the sample size for any future clinical trial.

Management of multimorbidity using a patient-centred care model: a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial of the 3D approach.

BACKGROUND: The management of people with multiple chronic conditions challenges health-care systems designed around single conditions. There is international consensus that care for multimorbidity should be patient-centred, focus on quality of life, and promote self-management towards agreed goals. However, there is little evidence about the effectiveness of this approach. Our hypothesis was that the patient-centred, so-called 3D approach (based on dimensions of health, depression, and drugs) for patients with multimorbidity would improve their health-related quality of life, which is the ultimate aim of the 3D intervention. METHODS: We did this pragmatic cluster-randomised trial in general practices in England and Scotland. Practices were randomly allocated to continue usual care (17 practices) or to provide 6-monthly comprehensive 3D reviews, incorporating patient-centred strategies that reflected international consensus on best care (16 practices). Randomisation was computer-generated, stratified by area, and minimised by practice deprivation and list size. Adults with three or more chronic conditions were recruited. The primary outcome was quality of life (assessed with EQ-5D-5L) after 15 months' follow-up. Participants were not masked to group assignment, but analysis of outcomes was blinded. We analysed the primary outcome in the intention-to-treat population, with missing data being multiply imputed. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN06180958. FINDINGS: Between May 20, 2015, and Dec 31, 2015, we recruited 1546 patients from 33 practices and randomly assigned them to receive the intervention (n=797) or usual care (n=749). In our intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between trial groups in the primary outcome of quality of life (adjusted difference in mean EQ-5D-5L 0·00, 95% CI -0·02 to 0·02; p=0·93). 78 patients died, and the deaths were not considered as related to the intervention. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this trial is the largest investigation of the international consensus about optimal management of multimorbidity. The 3D intervention did not improve patients' quality of life. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Lightning Process in addition to specialist medical care for paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Lightning Process (LP) in addition to specialist medical care (SMC) compared with SMC alone, for children with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)/myalgic encephalitis (ME). DESIGN: Pragmatic randomised controlled open trial. Participants were randomly assigned to SMC or SMC+LP. Randomisation was minimised by age and gender. SETTING: Specialist paediatric CFS/ME service. PATIENTS: 12-18 year olds with mild/moderate CFS/ME. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Function Subscale (SF-36-PFS) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included pain, anxiety, depression, school attendance and cost-effectiveness from a health service perspective at 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: We recruited 100 participants, of whom 51 were randomised to SMC+LP. Data from 81 participants were analysed at 6 months. Physical function (SF-36-PFS) was better in those allocated SMC+LP (adjusted difference in means 12.5(95% CI 4.5 to 20.5), p=0.003) and this improved further at 12 months (15.1 (5.8 to 24.4), p=0.002). At 6 months, fatigue and anxiety were reduced, and at 12 months, fatigue, anxiety, depression and school attendance had improved in the SMC+LP arm. Results were similar following multiple imputation. SMC+LP was probably more cost-effective in the multiple imputation dataset (difference in means in net monetary benefit at 12 months £1474(95% CI £111 to £2836), p=0.034) but not for complete cases. CONCLUSION: The LP is effective and is probably cost-effective when provided in addition to SMC for mild/moderately affected adolescents with CFS/ME. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN81456207.

Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of childhood eczema in primary care: cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The majority of children with eczema in the UK are looked after in primary care yet we know little about their care in this setting. AIM: To compare the diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of eczema in primary care with published diagnostic criteria and management guidelines. DESIGN & SETTING: Cross-sectional study using data from a randomised controlled feasibility study. General practices, UK. METHOD: Baseline data from children aged 1 month to 5 years recruited 'in-consultation' for the Choice of Moisturiser in Eczema Treatment (COMET) feasibility study was used. These included clinician diagnosis and global severity assessment; the parent-completed Patient Orientated Eczema Measure (POEM); a questionnaire about eczema treatments, including use of topical corticosteroid (TCS); and, the Eczema Area Severity Index (EASI) carried out by trained researchers. Descriptive analyses were undertaken to compare diagnoses with UK diagnostic criteria, severity assessments, and treatment with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellent (NICE) guidance. RESULTS: Data were available for 90 participants. Only 46% of participants labelled as having eczema met the UK diagnostic criteria. Agreement between the global severity assessment by a healthcare practitioner with the EASI and POEM measures of eczema severity were 44% and 48% respectively. Emollients and TCSs were underused with 44% of participants not using any emollient and 46% using one or more TCSs. The 'match' between eczema severity and TCSs potency was poor. CONCLUSION: Discrepancies were found between the diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of children with eczema in primary care, and UK diagnostic criteria and guidelines. Further investigation to explore the reasons for this discordance, and whether it matters, is needed.

Choice of Moisturiser for Eczema Treatment (COMET): feasibility study of a randomised controlled parallel group trial in children recruited from primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of 'leave on' emollients for children with eczema. DESIGN: Single-centre, pragmatic, 4-arm, observer-blinded, parallel, randomised feasibility trial. SETTING: General practices in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Children with eczema aged 1 month to <5 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome-proportion of parents who reported use of the allocated study emollient every day for the duration of follow-up (12 weeks). Other feasibility outcomes-participant recruitment and retention, data collection and completeness and blinding of observers to allocation. INTERVENTIONS: Aveeno lotion, Diprobase cream, Doublebase gel, Hydromol ointment. RESULTS: 197 children were recruited-107 by self-referral (mainly via practice mail-outs) and 90 by inconsultation (clinician consenting and randomising) pathways. Participants recruited inconsultation were younger, had more severe Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores and were more likely to withdraw than self-referrals. Parents of 20 (10%) of all the randomised participants reported using the allocated emollient daily for 84 days. The use of other non-study emollients was common. Completeness of data collected by parent-held daily diaries and at monthly study visits was good. Daily diaries were liked (81%) but mainly completed on paper rather than via electronic ('app') form. Major costs drivers were general practitioner consultations and eczema-related prescriptions. Observer unblinding was infrequent, and occurred at the baseline or first follow-up visit through accidental disclosure. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible in a primary care setting to recruit and randomise young children with eczema to emollients, follow them up and collect relevant trial data, while keeping observers blinded to their allocation. However, reported use of emollients (study and others) has design implications for future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN21828118/EudraCT2013-003001-26.

Exceeding the recruitment target in a primary care paediatric trial: an evaluation of the Choice of Moisturiser for Eczema Treatment (COMET) feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting to target in randomised controlled trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) in primary care and paediatric populations is notoriously difficult. More evidence is needed for effective recruitment strategies in these settings. We report on the impact of different recruitment strategies used in the Choice of Moisturiser in Eczema Treatment (COMET) study - a feasibility trial comparing the effectiveness of four emollients for the treatment of childhood eczema - recruiting via general practitioner (GP) surgeries. METHODS: Initially, 16 GP practices invited potentially eligible children to take part in the trial by sending an invitation letter (self-referral pathway) or by consenting and randomising them into the study during a visit to the practice (in-consultation referral). Measures implemented during the study to maximise accrual included signing up six additional GP practices, increasing the upper age limit eligibility criterion from 3 to 5 years, and permitting healthcare professionals other than doctors to confirm participant eligibility. We used descriptive statistics and univariate linear regression models to explore associations with practice recruitment rates. RESULTS: A total of 197 participants were recruited, exceeding the target of 160. Of these, 107 children entered via self-referral and 90 by in-consultation pathways. Of the recruited population, 12.6 % were aged between 3 and 5 years (the raised upper age limit). The six additional practices contributed 37.4 % (40 of 107) of participants recruited by self-referral. Only almost one-third (18 of 56 [32.1 %]) of potential recruiting clinicians recruited one or more participants in-consultation, which was a more problematic pathway because of data verification issues. Three research nurses and a pharmacist from four practices recruited 48.9 % (44 of 90) of participants via this pathway. Univariate linear regression models showed no evidence of association between the number of children recruited via the self-referral pathway by practice and practice list size (p = 0.092) or practice deprivation decile (p = 0.270), but practice deprivation was associated with a higher number of children recruited in-consultation (p = 0.020) by practice. CONCLUSIONS: Self-referral and in-consultation recruitment yielded similar numbers, but the in-consultation pathway was more problematic. Future trials of this type should consider the condition, normal care pathway and number of potentially eligible children and be prepared to use multiple recruitment strategies to achieve recruitment targets. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN21828118 . Registered on 1 May 2014. EudraCT2013-003001-26. Registered on 23 Dec 2013.

Comparison of Test Your Memory and Montreal Cognitive Assessment Measures in Parkinson's Disease.

Background. MoCA is widely used in Parkinson's disease (PD) to assess cognition. The Test Your Memory (TYM) test is a cognitive screening tool that is self-administered. Objectives. We sought to determine (a) the optimal value of TYM to discriminate between PD patients with and without cognitive deficits on MoCA testing, (b) equivalent MoCA and TYM scores, and (c) interrater reliability in TYM testing. Methods. We assessed the discriminant ability of TYM and the equivalence between TYM and MoCA scores and measured the interrater reliability between three raters. Results. Of the 135 subjects that completed both tests, 55% had cognitive impairment according to MoCA. A MoCA score of 25 was equivalent to a TYM score of 43-44. The area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve for TYM to differentiate between PD-normal and PD-cognitive impairment was 0.82 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.89). The optimal cutoff to distinguish PD-cognitive impairment from PD-normal was ≤45 (sensitivity 90.5%, specificity 59%) thereby correctly classifying 76.3% of patients with PD-cognitive impairment. Interrater agreement was high (0.97) and TYM was completed in under 7 minutes (interquartile range 5.33 to 8.52 minutes). Conclusions. The TYM test is a useful and less resource intensive screening test for cognitive deficits in PD.

Rivastigmine for gait stability in patients with Parkinson's disease (ReSPonD): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Falls are a frequent and serious complication of Parkinson's disease and are related partly to an underlying cholinergic deficit that contributes to gait and cognitive dysfunction in these patients. Gait dysfunction can lead to an increased variability of gait from one step to another, raising the likelihood of falls. In the ReSPonD trial we aimed to assess whether ameliorating this cholinergic deficit with the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor rivastigmine would reduce gait variability. METHODS: We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial at the North Bristol NHS Trust Hospital, Bristol, UK, in patients with Parkinson's disease recruited from community and hospital settings in the UK. We included patients who had fallen at least once in the year before enrolment, were able to walk 18 m without an aid, had no previous exposure to an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, and did not have dementia. Our clinical trials unit randomly assigned (1:1) patients to oral rivastigmine or placebo capsules (both taken twice a day) using a computer-generated randomisation sequence and web-based allocation. Rivastigmine was uptitrated from 3 mg per day to the target dose of 12 mg per day over 12 weeks. Both the trial team and patients were masked to treatment allocation. Masking was achieved with matched placebo capsules and a dummy uptitration schedule. The primary endpoint was difference in step time variability between the two groups at 32 weeks, adjusted for baseline age, cognition, step time variability, and number of falls in the previous year. We measured step time variability with a triaxial accelerometer during an 18 m walking task in three conditions: normal walking, simple dual task with phonemic verbal fluency (walking while naming words beginning with a single letter), and complex dual task switching with phonemic verbal fluency (walking while naming words, alternating between two letters of the alphabet). Analysis was by modified intention to treat; we excluded from the primary analysis patients who withdrew, died, or did not attend the 32 week assessment. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 19880883. FINDINGS: Between Oct 4, 2012 and March 28, 2013, we enrolled 130 patients and randomly assigned 65 to the rivastigmine group and 65 to the placebo group. At week 32, compared with patients assigned to placebo (59 assessed), those assigned to rivastigmine (55 assessed) had improved step time variability for normal walking (ratio of geometric means 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.88; p=0.002) and the simple dual task (0.79; 0.62-0.99; p=0.045). Improvements in step time variability for the complex dual task did not differ between groups (0.81, 0.60-1.09; p=0.17). Gastrointestinal side-effects were more common in the rivastigmine group than in the placebo group (p<0.0001); 20 (31%) patients in the rivastigmine group versus three (5%) in the placebo group had nausea and 15 (17%) versus three (5%) had vomiting. INTERPRETATION: Rivastigmine can improve gait stability and might reduce the frequency of falls. A phase 3 study is needed to confirm these findings and show cost-effectiveness of rivastigmine treatment. FUNDING: Parkinson's UK.