Evaluation of different models of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a mixed-methods realist evaluation.

Background: Emergency healthcare services are under intense pressure to meet increasing patient demands. Many patients presenting to emergency departments could be managed by general practitioners in general practitioner-emergency department service models. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, patient experience and system implications of the different general practitioner-emergency department models. Design: Mixed-methods realist evaluation. Methods: Phase 1 (2017-8), to understand current practice: rapid realist literature review, national survey and follow-up key informant interviews, national stakeholder event and safety data analysis. Phase 2 (2018-21), to collect and analyse qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analysis); cost-consequences analysis of routine data; and case site data for 'marker condition' analysis from a purposive sample of 13 case sites in England and Wales. Phase 3 (2021-2), to conduct mixed-methods analysis for programme theory and toolkit development. Results: General practitioners commonly work in emergency departments, but delivery models vary widely in terms of the scope of the general practitioner role and the scale of the general practitioner service. We developed a taxonomy to describe general practitioner-emergency department service models (Integrated with the emergency department service, Parallel within the emergency department, Outside the emergency department on the hospital site) and present a programme theory as principal output of the study to describe how these service models were observed to operate. Routine data were of variable quality, limiting our analysis. Time series analysis demonstrated trends across intervention sites for: increased time spent in the emergency department; increased emergency department attendances and reattendances; and mixed results for hospital admissions. Evidence on patient experience was limited but broadly supportive; we identified department-level processes to optimise the safety of general practitioner-emergency department models. Limitations: The quality, heterogeneity and extent of routine emergency department data collection during the study period limited the conclusions. Recruitment was limited by criteria for case sites (time series requirements) and individual patients (with 'marker conditions'). Pandemic and other pressures limited data collection for marker condition analysis. Data collected and analysed were pre pandemic; new approaches such as 'telephone first' and their relevance to our findings remains unexplored. Conclusion: Findings suggest that general practitioner-emergency department service models do not meet the aim of reducing the overall emergency department waiting times and improving patient flow with limited evidence of cost savings. Qualitative data indicated that general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We have developed a toolkit, based on our findings, to provide guidance for implementing and delivering general practitioner-emergency department services. Future work: The emergency care data set has since been introduced across England to help standardise data collection to facilitate further research. We would advocate the systematic capture of patient experience measures and patient-reported outcome measures as part of routine care. More could be done to support the development of the general practitioner in emergency department role, including a core set of competencies and governance structure, to reflect the different general practitioner-emergency department models and to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness to guide future policy. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017069741. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/145/04) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Hospital emergency departments are under huge pressure. Patients are waiting many hours to be seen, some with problems that general practitioners could deal with. To reduce waiting times and improve patient care, arrangements have been put in place for general practitioners to work in or alongside emergency departments (general practitioner­emergency department models). We studied the different ways of working to find out what works well, how and for whom. We brought together a lot of information. We reviewed existing evidence, sent out surveys to 184 emergency departments, spent time in the emergency departments observing how they operated and interviewing 106 staff in 13 hospitals and 24 patients who visited those emergency departments. We also looked at statistical information recorded by hospitals. Two public contributors were involved from the beginning, and we held two stakeholder events to ensure the relevance of our research to professionals and patients. Getting reliable figures to compare the various general practitioner­emergency department set-ups (inside, parallel to or outside the emergency department) was difficult. Our findings suggest that over time more people are coming to emergency departments and overall waiting times did not generally improve due to general practitioner­emergency department models. Evidence that general practitioners might admit fewer patients to hospital was mixed, with limited findings of cost savings. Patients were generally supportive of the care they received, although we could not speak to as many patients as we planned. The skills and experience of general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We identified how the care provided was kept safe with: strong leaders, good communication between different types of staff, highly trained and experienced nurses responsible for streaming and specific training for general practitioners on how they were expected to work. We have produced a guide to help professionals develop and improve general practitioner­emergency department services and we have written easy-to-read summaries of all the articles we published.

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.

Pragmatic randomised controlled trial of guided self-help versus individual cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus for post-traumatic stress disorder (RAPID).

Background: Guided self-help has been shown to be effective for other mental conditions and, if effective for post-traumatic stress disorder, would offer a time-efficient and accessible treatment option, with the potential to reduce waiting times and costs. Objective: To determine if trauma-focused guided self-help is non-inferior to individual, face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event. Design: Multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with economic evaluation to determine cost-effectiveness and nested process evaluation to assess fidelity and adherence, dose and factors that influence outcome (including context, acceptability, facilitators and barriers, measured qualitatively). Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary analysis was intention to treat using multilevel analysis of covariance. Setting: Primary and secondary mental health settings across the United Kingdom's National Health Service. Participants: One hundred and ninety-six adults with a primary diagnosis of mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder were randomised with 82% retention at 16 weeks and 71% at 52 weeks. Nineteen participants and ten therapists were interviewed for the process evaluation. Interventions: Up to 12 face-to-face, manualised, individual cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus sessions, each lasting 60-90 minutes, or to guided self-help using Spring, an eight-step online guided self-help programme based on cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus, with up to five face-to-face meetings of up to 3 hours in total and four brief telephone calls or e-mail contacts between sessions. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes: included severity of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms at 52 weeks, and functioning, symptoms of depression, symptoms of anxiety, alcohol use and perceived social support at both 16 and 52 weeks post-randomisation. Those assessing outcomes were blinded to group assignment. Results: Non-inferiority was demonstrated at the primary end point of 16 weeks on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition [mean difference 1.01 (one-sided 95% CI -∞ to 3.90, non-inferiority p = 0.012)]. Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, score improvements of over 60% in both groups were maintained at 52 weeks but the non-inferiority results were inconclusive in favour of cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus at this timepoint [mean difference 3.20 (one-sided 95% confidence interval -∞ to 6.00, non-inferiority p = 0.15)]. Guided self-help using Spring was not shown to be more cost-effective than face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus although there was no significant difference in accruing quality-adjusted life-years, incremental quality-adjusted life-years -0.04 (95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.01) and guided self-help using Spring was significantly cheaper to deliver [£277 (95% confidence interval £253 to £301) vs. £729 (95% CI £671 to £788)]. Guided self-help using Spring appeared to be acceptable and well tolerated by participants. No important adverse events or side effects were identified. Limitations: The results are not generalisable to people with post-traumatic stress disorder to more than one traumatic event. Conclusions: Guided self-help using Spring for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event appears to be non-inferior to individual face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus and the results suggest it should be considered a first-line treatment for people with this condition. Future work: Work is now needed to determine how best to effectively disseminate and implement guided self-help using Spring at scale. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN13697710. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/192/97) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 26. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Post-traumatic stress disorder is a common, disabling condition that can occur following major traumatic events. Typical symptoms include distressing reliving, avoidance of reminders and feeling a current sense of threat. First-choice treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder are individual, face-to-face talking treatments, of 12­16 hours duration, including cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus. If equally effective treatments could be developed that take less time and can be largely undertaken in a flexible manner at home, this would improve accessibility, reduce waiting times and hence the burden of disease. RAPID was a randomised controlled trial using a web-based programme called Spring. The aim was to determine if trauma-focused guided self-help provided a faster and cheaper treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder than first-choice face-to-face therapy, while being equally effective. Guided self-help using Spring is delivered through eight steps. A therapist provides a 1-hour introductory meeting followed by four further, fortnightly sessions of 30 minutes each and four brief (around 5 minutes) telephone calls or e-mail contacts between sessions. At each session, the therapist reviews progress and guides the client through the programme, offering continued support, monitoring, motivation and problem-solving. One hundred and ninety-six people with post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event took part in the study. Guided self-help using Spring was found to be equally effective to first-choice face-to-face therapy at reducing post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms at 16 weeks. Very noticeable improvements were maintained at 52 weeks post-randomisation in both groups, when most results were inconclusive but in favour of face-to-face therapy. Guided self-help using Spring was significantly cheaper to deliver and appeared to be well-tolerated. It is noteworthy that not everyone benefitted from guided self-help using Spring, highlighting the importance of considering it on a person-by-person basis, and personalising interventions. But, the RAPID trial has demonstrated that guided self-help using Spring provides a low-intensity treatment option for people with post-traumatic stress disorder that is ready to be implemented in the National Health Service.

Social and economic costs of gambling problems and related harm among UK military veterans.

INTRODUCTION: Military veterans are at heightened risk of problem gambling. Little is known about the costs of problem gambling and related harm among United Kingdom (UK) Armed Forces (AF) veterans. We investigated the social and economic costs of gambling among a large sample of veterans through differences in healthcare and social service resource use compared with age-matched and gender-matched non-veterans from the UK AF Veterans' Health and Gambling Study. METHODS: An online survey measured sociodemographic characteristics, gambling experience and problem severity, mental health and healthcare resource utilisation. Healthcare provider, personal social service and societal costs were estimated as total adjusted mean costs and utility, with cost-consequence analysis of a single timepoint. RESULTS: Veterans in our sample had higher healthcare, social service and societal costs and lower utility. Veterans had greater contacts with the criminal justice system, received more social service benefits, had more lost work hours and greater accrued debt. A cost difference of £590 (95% CI -£1016 to -£163) was evident between veterans with scores indicating problem gambling and those reporting no problems. Costs varied by problem gambling status. CONCLUSIONS: Our sample of UK AF veterans has higher healthcare, social service and societal costs than non-veterans. Veterans experiencing problem gambling are more costly but have no reduction in quality of life.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of single stage compared with two stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM): pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patient reported outcomes improve after single stage versus two stage revision surgery for prosthetic joint infection of the hip, and to determine the cost effectiveness of these procedures. DESIGN: Pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: High volume tertiary referral centres or orthopaedic units in the UK (n=12) and in Sweden (n=3), recruiting from 1 March 2015 to 19 December 2018. PARTICIPANTS: 140 adults (aged ≥18 years) with a prosthetic joint infection of the hip who required revision (65 randomly assigned to single stage and 75 to two stage revision). INTERVENTIONS: A computer generated 1:1 randomisation list stratified by hospital was used to allocate participants with prosthetic joint infection of the hip to a single stage or a two stage revision procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary intention-to-treat outcome was pain, stiffness, and functional limitations 18 months after randomisation, measured by the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score. Secondary outcomes included surgical complications and joint infection. The economic evaluation (only assessed in UK participants) compared quality adjusted life years and costs between the randomised groups. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 71 years (standard deviation 9) and 51 (36%) were women. WOMAC scores did not differ between groups at 18 months (mean difference 0.13 (95% confidence interval -8.20 to 8.46), P=0.98); however, the single stage procedure was better at three months (11.53 (3.89 to 19.17), P=0.003), but not from six months onwards. Intraoperative events occurred in five (8%) participants in the single stage group and 20 (27%) in the two stage group (P=0.01). At 18 months, nine (14%) participants in the single stage group and eight (11%) in the two stage group had at least one marker of possible ongoing infection (P=0.62). From the perspective of healthcare providers and personal social services, single stage revision was cost effective with an incremental net monetary benefit of £11 167 (95% confidence interval £638 to £21 696) at a £20 000 per quality adjusted life years threshold (£1.0; $1.1; €1.4). CONCLUSIONS: At 18 months, single stage revision compared with two stage revision for prosthetic joint infection of the hip showed no superiority by patient reported outcome. Single stage revision had a better outcome at three months, fewer intraoperative complications, and was cost effective. Patients prefer early restoration of function, therefore, when deciding treatment, surgeons should consider patient preferences and the cost effectiveness of single stage surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN10956306.

Guided, internet based, cognitive behavioural therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder: pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (RAPID).

OBJECTIVE: To determine if guided internet based cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus (CBT-TF) is non-inferior to individual face-to-face CBT-TF for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to one traumatic event. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (RAPID). SETTING: Primary and secondary mental health settings across the UK's NHS. PARTICIPANTS: 196 adults with a primary diagnosis of mild to moderate PTSD were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to one of two interventions, with 82% retention at 16 weeks and 71% retention at 52 weeks. 19 participants and 10 therapists were purposively sampled and interviewed for evaluation of the process. INTERVENTIONS: Up to 12 face-to-face, manual based, individual CBT-TF sessions, each lasting 60-90 minutes; or guided internet based CBT-TF with an eight step online programme, with up to three hours of contact with a therapist and four brief telephone calls or email contacts between sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) at 16 weeks after randomisation (diagnosis of PTSD based on the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, DSM-5). Secondary outcomes included severity of PTSD symptoms at 52 weeks, and functioning, symptoms of depression and anxiety, use of alcohol, and perceived social support at 16 and 52 weeks after randomisation. RESULTS: Non-inferiority was found at the primary endpoint of 16 weeks on the CAPS-5 (mean difference 1.01, one sided 95% confidence interval -∞ to 3.90, non-inferiority P=0.012). Improvements in CAPS-5 score of more than 60% in the two groups were maintained at 52 weeks, but the non-inferiority results were inconclusive in favour of face-to-face CBT-TF at this time point (3.20, -∞ to 6.00, P=0.15). Guided internet based CBT-TF was significantly (P<0.001) cheaper than face-to-face CBT-TF and seemed to be acceptable and well tolerated by participants. The main themes of the qualitative analysis were facilitators and barriers to engagement with guided internet based CBT-TF, treatment outcomes, and considerations for its future implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Guided internet based CBT-TF for mild to moderate PTSD to one traumatic event was non-inferior to individual face-to-face CBT-TF and should be considered a first line treatment for people with this condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13697710.

Early exercise in blunt chest wall trauma: protocol for a mixed-methods, multicentre, parallel randomised controlled trial (ELECT2 trial).

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain and disability are now well-recognised long-term complications of blunt chest wall trauma. Limited research exists regarding therapeutic interventions that can be used to address these complications. A recent feasibility study was completed testing the methods of a definitive trial. This protocol describes the proposed definitive trial, the aim of which is to investigate the impact of an early exercise programme on chronic pain and disability in patients with blunt chest wall trauma. METHODS/ANALYSIS: This mixed-methods, multicentre, parallel randomised controlled trial will run in four hospitals in Wales and one in England over 12-month recruitment period. Patients will be randomised to either the control group (routine physiotherapy input) or the intervention group (routine physiotherapy input plus a simple exercise programme completed individually by the patient). Baseline measurements including completion of two surveys (Brief Pain Inventory and EuroQol 5-dimensions, 5-Levels) will be obtained on initial assessment. These measures and a client services receipt inventory will be repeated at 3-month postinjury. Analysis of outcomes will focus on rate and severity of chronic pain and disability, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of the programme by patients and clinicians. Qualitative feedback regarding acceptability will be obtained through patient and clinician focus groups. ETHICS/DISSEMINATION: London Riverside Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 21/LO/0782) and the Health Research Authority granted approval for the trial in December 2021. Patient recruitment will commence in February 2022. Planned dissemination is through publication in a peer-reviewed Emergency Medicine Journal, presentation at appropriate conferences and to stakeholders at professional meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN65829737; Pre-results.

The STAR care pathway for patients with pain at 3 months after total knee replacement: a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of people experience chronic pain after total knee replacement, but effective treatments are not available. We aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a new care pathway for chronic pain after total knee replacement. METHODS: We did an unmasked, parallel group, pragmatic, superiority, randomised, controlled trial at eight UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. People with chronic pain at 3 months after total knee replacement surgery were randomly assigned (2:1) to the Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) care pathway plus usual care, or to usual care alone. The STAR intervention aimed to identify underlying causes of chronic pain and enable onward referrals for targeted treatment through a 3-month post-surgery assessment with an extended scope practitioner and telephone follow-up over 12 months. Co-primary outcomes were self-reported pain severity and pain interference in the replaced knee, assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity and interference scales at 12 months (scored 0-10, best to worst) and analysed on an as-randomised basis. Resource use, collected from electronic hospital records and participants, was valued with UK reference costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from EQ-5D-5L responses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN92545361. FINDINGS: Between Sept 6, 2016, and May 31, 2019, 363 participants were randomly assigned to receive the intervention plus usual care (n=242) or to receive usual care alone (n=121). Participants had a median age of 67 years (IQR 61 to 73), 217 (60%) of 363 were female, and 335 (92%) were White. 313 (86%) patients provided follow-up data at 12 months after randomisation (213 assigned to the intervention plus usual care and 100 assigned to usual care alone). At 12 months, the mean between-group difference in the BPI severity score was -0·65 (95% CI -1·17 to -0·13; p=0·014) and the mean between-group difference in the BPI interference score was -0·68 (-1·29 to -0·08; p=0·026), both favouring the intervention. From an NHS and personal social services perspective, the intervention was cost-effective (greater improvement with lower cost), with an incremental net monetary benefit of £1256 (95% CI 164 to 2348) at £20 000 per QALY threshold. One adverse reaction of participant distress was reported in the intervention group. INTERPRETATION: STAR is a clinically effective and cost-effective intervention to improve pain outcomes over 1 year for people with chronic pain at 3 months after total knee replacement surgery. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Group cognitive rehabilitation to reduce the psychological impact of multiple sclerosis on quality of life: the CRAMMS RCT.

BACKGROUND: People with multiple sclerosis have problems with memory and attention. The effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation has not been established. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a cognitive rehabilitation programme for people with multiple sclerosis. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in which participants were randomised in a ratio of 6 : 5 to receive cognitive rehabilitation plus usual care or usual care alone. Participants were assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. SETTING: The trial was set in hospital neurology clinics and community services. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were people with multiple sclerosis who had cognitive problems, were aged 18-69 years, could travel to attend group sessions and gave informed consent. INTERVENTION: The intervention was a group cognitive rehabilitation programme delivered weekly by an assistant psychologist to between four and six participants for 10 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included results from the Everyday Memory Questionnaire, the 30-Item General Health Questionnaire, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version and a service use questionnaire from participants, and the Everyday Memory Questionnaire - relative version and the Modified Carer Strain Index from a relative or friend of the participant. RESULTS: Of the 449 participants randomised, 245 were allocated to cognitive rehabilitation (intervention group) and 204 were allocated to usual care (control group). Of these, 214 in the intervention group and 173 in the control group were included in the primary analysis. There was no clinically important difference in the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale score between the two groups at the 12-month follow-up (adjusted difference in means -0.6, 95% confidence interval -1.5 to 0.3; p = 0.20). There were no important differences between the groups in relation to cognitive abilities, fatigue, employment, or carer strain at follow-up. However, there were differences, although small, between the groups in the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale score at 6 months (adjusted difference in means -0.9, 95% confidence interval -1.7 to -0.1; p = 0.03) and in everyday memory on the Everyday Memory Questionnaire as reported by participants at 6 (adjusted difference in means -5.3, 95% confidence interval -8.7 to -1.9) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -4.4, 95% confidence interval -7.8 to -0.9) and by relatives at 6 (adjusted difference in means -5.4, 95% confidence interval -9.1 to -1.7) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -5.5, 95% confidence interval -9.6 to -1.5) in favour of the cognitive rehabilitation group. There were also differences in mood on the 30-Item General Health Questionnaire at 6 (adjusted difference in means -3.4, 95% confidence interval -5.9 to -0.8) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -3.4, 95% confidence interval -6.2 to -0.6) in favour of the cognitive rehabilitation group. A qualitative analysis indicated perceived benefits of the intervention. There was no evidence of a difference in costs (adjusted difference in means -£574.93, 95% confidence interval -£1878.93 to £729.07) or quality-adjusted life-year gain (adjusted difference in means 0.00, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.02). No safety concerns were raised and no deaths were reported. LIMITATIONS: The trial included a sample of participants who had relatively severe cognitive problems in daily life. The trial was not powered to perform subgroup analyses. Participants could not be blinded to treatment allocation. CONCLUSIONS: This cognitive rehabilitation programme had no long-term benefits on quality of life for people with multiple sclerosis. FUTURE WORK: Future research should evaluate the selection of those who may benefit from cognitive rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09697576. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 4. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Cognitive (or mental processing) problems, particularly those affecting memory and attention, are common in people with multiple sclerosis. Multiple sclerosis is a condition that affects the brain and causes nerve damage. Cognitive rehabilitation can involve: retraining cognitive skills, which are the core skills your brain uses to think, read, learn, remember, reason and concentrateteaching strategies to cope in daily life. Cognitive rehabilitation is rarely provided for people with multiple sclerosis. A trial was carried out to determine whether or not providing a group cognitive rehabilitation programme improved quality of life more than usual clinical care, which did not involve any cognitive rehabilitation. The effects on daily memory problems, mood, fatigue and employment were examined and also the cost-effectiveness of the treatment. A total of 449 people with multiple sclerosis took part in the trial. They all agreed to be part of the research trial, had cognitive problems, were aged 18­69 years and could travel to attend group sessions. Participants were then allocated to receive cognitive rehabilitation or not, on the basis of chance (i.e. randomly). All participants were followed up for 1 year. Although both groups showed no differences in quality of life after 1 year, those who received cognitive rehabilitation had fewer memory problems in daily life and reported better mood than those who received only their usual clinical care. There were no differences in their levels of fatigue or disability, or in employment status. The qualitative results indicated that participants found the intervention useful. Treatment cost slightly less than usual care but had modest benefits. Overall, the results suggest that there may be modest short-term benefits of cognitive rehabilitation, and future studies will consider how such benefits can be maintained and whether or not some people benefit more than others.

Cognitive rehabilitation for attention and memory in people with multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial (CRAMMS).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation for attention and memory problems in people with multiple sclerosis. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: People with multiple sclerosis aged 18-69 years, who reported cognitive problems in daily life and had cognitive problems on standardized assessment. INTERVENTIONS: A group cognitive rehabilitation programme delivered in 10 weekly sessions in comparison with usual care. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Psychological subscale at 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes included measures of everyday memory problems, mood, fatigue, cognitive abilities and employment at 6 and 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: In all, 245 participants were allocated to cognitive rehabilitation and 204 to usual care. Mean Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Psychological at 12 months was 22.2 (SD = 6.1) for cognitive rehabilitation and 23.4 (SD = 6.0) for usual care group; adjusted difference -0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.5 to 0.3, P = 0.20. No differences were observed in cognitive abilities, fatigue or employment. There were small differences in favour of cognitive rehabilitation for the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Psychological at 6 months and everyday memory and mood at 6 and 12 months. There was no evidence of an effect on costs (-£808; 95% CI = -£2248 to £632) or on quality-adjusted life year gain (0.00; 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.02). CONCLUSION: This rehabilitation programme had no long-term benefits on the impact of multiple sclerosis on quality of life, but there was some evidence of an effect on everyday memory problems and mood.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of a group-based memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injury. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial in England. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: People with memory problems following traumatic brain injury, aged 18-69 years, able to travel to group sessions, communicate in English, and give consent. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 10 weekly group sessions of manualized memory rehabilitation plus usual care (intervention) vs. usual care alone (control). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the patient-reported Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ-p) at six months post randomization. Secondary outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months post randomization. RESULTS: We randomized 328 participants. There were no clinically important differences in the primary outcome between arms at six-month follow-up (mean EMQ-p score: 38.8 (SD 26.1) in intervention and 44.1 (SD 24.6) in control arms, adjusted difference in means: -2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): -6.7 to 2.5, p = 0.37) or 12-month follow-up. Objectively assessed memory ability favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at the 6-month, but not at the 12-month outcome. There were no between-arm differences in mood, experience of brain injury, or relative/friend assessment of patient's everyday memory outcomes, but goal attainment scores favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at both outcome time points. Health economic analyses suggested that the intervention was unlikely to be cost effective. No safety concerns were raised. CONCLUSION: This memory rehabilitation programme did not lead to reduced forgetting in daily life for a heterogeneous sample of people with traumatic brain injury. Further research will need to examine who benefits most from such interventions.

A group memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injuries: the ReMemBrIn RCT.

BACKGROUND: People with traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) commonly report memory impairments. These are persistent, debilitating and reduce quality of life, but patients do not routinely receive memory rehabilitation after discharge from hospital. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group memory rehabilitation programme for people with TBI. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Qualitative and health economic evaluations were also undertaken. SETTING: Community settings in nine sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were aged 18-69 years, had undergone a TBI > 3 months prior to recruitment, reported memory problems, were able to travel to a site to attend group sessions, could communicate in English and gave informed consent. RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING: Clusters of four to six participants were randomised to the memory rehabilitation arm or the usual-care arm on a 1 : 1 ratio. Randomisation was based on a computer-generated pseudo-random code using random permuted blocks of randomly varying size, stratified by study site. Participants and therapists were aware of the treatment allocation whereas outcome assessors were blinded. INTERVENTIONS: In the memory rehabilitation arm 10 weekly sessions of a manualised memory rehabilitation programme were provided in addition to usual care. Participants were taught restitution strategies to retrain impaired memory functions and compensation strategies to enable them to cope with memory problems. The usual-care arm received usual care only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Primary outcome: patient-completed Everyday Memory Questionnaire - patient version (EMQ-p) at 6 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes: Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test - third edition (RBMT-3), General Health Questionnaire 30-item version, European Brain Injury Questionnaire, Everyday Memory Questionnaire - relative version and individual goal attainment. Costs (based on a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective) were collected using a service use questionnaire, with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, used to derive quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A Markov model was developed to explore cost-effectiveness at 5 and 10 years, with a 3.5% discount applied. RESULTS: We randomised 328 participants (memory rehabilitation, n = 171; usual care, n = 157), with 129 in the memory rehabilitation arm and 122 in the usual-care arm included in the primary analysis. We found no clinically important difference on the EMQ-p between the two arms at 6 months' follow-up (adjusted difference in mean scores -2.1, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 2.5; p = 0.37). For secondary outcomes, differences favouring the memory rehabilitation arm were observed at 6 months' follow-up for the RBMT-3 and goal attainment, but remained only for goal attainment at 12 months' follow-up. There were no differences between arms in mood or quality of life. The qualitative results suggested positive experiences of participating in the trial and of attending the groups. Participants reported that memory rehabilitation was not routinely accessible in usual care. The primary health economics outcome at 12 months found memory rehabilitation to be £26.89 cheaper than usual care but less effective, with an incremental QALY loss of 0.007. Differences in costs and effects were not statistically significant and non-parametric bootstrapping demonstrated considerable uncertainty in these findings. No safety concerns were raised and no deaths were reported. LIMITATIONS: As a pragmatic trial, we had broad inclusion criteria and, therefore, there was considerable heterogeneity within the sample. The study was not powered to perform further subgroup analyses. Participants and therapists could not be blinded to treatment allocation. CONCLUSIONS: The group memory rehabilitation delivered in this trial is very unlikely to lead to clinical benefits or to be a cost-effective treatment for people with TBI in the community. Future studies should examine the selection of participants who may benefit most from memory rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN65792154. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People with brain injuries often report memory problems. These difficulties can continue long after the injury, causing complications in daily life. Many people do not receive specific help for these memory problems after leaving hospital. Our study explored whether receiving 'memory rehabilitation' (a group treatment to help people deal with memory difficulties) was better than the treatment that people usually receive to help reduce the frequency of forgetting in daily life. We recruited 328 people who had memory problems following brain injury. About half were allocated at random to receive memory rehabilitation and half did not have any extra memory treatments, but everyone continued to receive their usual care. Those who had memory rehabilitation were offered 10 group sessions at which strategies were taught to help them cope with memory problems. We asked all participants to complete memory tests and questionnaires at the start of the study and again 6 and 12 months afterwards to find out whether the memory rehabilitation had any effect. Some participants were also interviewed about the study. At the 6- and 12-month assessments, there were no differences between those who received memory rehabilitation and those who did not in terms of how often participants reported memory problems in their daily lives or how well they performed on memory tests. We also did not find any differences in participants' mood or quality of life. However, individual goals set by the participants at the start of the study were a little better met by those who received memory rehabilitation than by those who did not. The memory rehabilitation did not represent value for money. In interviews, participants reported positive experiences of taking part in the study and of attending the group sessions. This group memory rehabilitation programme is unlikely to help people with memory problems following a brain injury more than the usual treatment that people receive. Some people may benefit more from memory rehabilitation than others, but this needs further investigation.

Debt Counselling for Depression in Primary Care: an adaptive randomised controlled pilot trial (DeCoDer study).

BACKGROUND: Depression and debt are common in the UK. Debt Counselling for Depression in Primary Care: an adaptive randomised controlled pilot trial (DeCoDer) aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the addition of a primary care debt counselling advice service to usual care for patients with depression and debt. However, the study was terminated early during the internal pilot trial phase because of recruitment delays. This report describes the rationale, methods and findings of the pilot study, and implications for future research. OBJECTIVES: The overarching aim of the internal pilot was to identify and resolve problems, thereby assessing the feasibility of the main trial. The specific objectives were to confirm methods for practice recruitment and the ability to recruit patients via the proposed approaches; to determine the acceptability of the study interventions and outcome measures; to assess contamination; to confirm the randomisation method for main trial and the level of participant attrition; and to check the robustness of data collection systems. DESIGN: An adaptive, parallel, two-group multicentre randomised controlled pilot trial with a nested mixed-methods process and economic evaluation. Both individual- and cluster (general practice)-level were was used in the pilot phase to assign participants to intervention or control groups. SETTING: General practices in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals were included who were aged ≥ 18 years, scored ≥ 14 on the Beck Depression Inventory II and self-identified as having debt worries. The main exclusion criteria were being actively suicidal or psychotic and/or severely depressed and unresponsive to treatment; having a severe addiction to alcohol/illicit drugs; being unable/unwilling to give written informed consent; currently participating in other research including follow-up phases; having received Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) debt advice in the past year; and not wanting debt advice via a general practice. INTERVENTIONS: The participants in the intervention group were given debt advice provided by the CAB and shared biopsychosocial assessment, in addition to treatment as usual (TAU) and two debt advice leaflets. The participants in the control group were given advice leaflets provided by the general practitioner and TAU only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Outcomes of the pilot trial - the proportion of eligible patients who consented, the number of participants recruited compared with target, assessment of contamination, and assessment of patient satisfaction with intervention and outcome measures. (2) Participant outcomes - primary - Beck Depression Inventory II; secondary - psychological well-being, health and social care utilisation, service satisfaction, substance misuse, record of priority/non-priority debts, life events and difficulties, and explanatory measures. Outcomes were assessed at baseline (pre-randomisation) and at 4 months post randomisation. Other data sources - qualitative interviews were conducted with participants, clinicians and CAB advisors. RESULTS: Of the 238 expressions of interest screened, 61 participants (26%) were recruited and randomised (32 in the intervention group and 29 in the control group). All participants provided baseline outcomes and 52 provided the primary outcome at 4 months' follow-up (14.7% dropout). Seventeen participants allocated to the intervention saw a CAB advisor. Descriptive statistics are reported for participants with complete outcomes at baseline and 4 months' follow-up. Our qualitative findings suggest that the relationship between debt and depression is complex, and the impact of each on the other is compounded by other psychological, social and contextual influences. CONCLUSIONS: As a result of low recruitment, this trial was terminated at the internal pilot phase and was too small for inferential statistical analysis. We recommend ways to reduce this risk when conducting complex trials among vulnerable populations recruited in community settings. These cover trial design, the design and delivery of interventions, recruitment strategies and support for sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN79705874. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 35. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Mark Gabbay and Adele Ring are part-funded by NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) North West Coast and Richard Byng and Rod S Taylor, Vashti Berry and Elizabeth Shaw part-funded by NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula.

Investigating the feasibility of an enhanced contact intervention in self-harm and suicidal behaviour: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial delivering a Social support and Wellbeing Intervention following Self Harm (SWISH).

INTRODUCTION: Self-harm is a strong predictor for suicide. Risks for repeat behaviour are heightened in the aftermath of an index episode. There is no consensus on the most effective type of intervention to reduce repetition. Treatment options for patients who do not require secondary mental health services include no support, discharge to general practitioner or referral to primary care mental health support services. The aim of this study is to assess whether it is feasible to deliver a brief intervention after an episode and whether this can reduce depressive symptoms and increase the sense of well-being for patients who self-harm. METHODS: This is a non-blinded parallel group randomised clinical trial. 120 patients presenting with self-harm and/or suicidal ideation to mental health services over a 12-month period who are not referred to secondary services will be randomised to either intervention plus treatment as usual (TAU), or control (TAU only). Patients are assessed at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks with standardised measures to collect data on depression, well-being and service use. Primary outcome is depression scores and secondary outcomes are well-being scores and use of services. The findings will indicate whether a rapid response brief intervention is feasible and can reduce depression and increase well-being among patients who self-harm and do not require secondary services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the UK National Health Service (NHS) Ethics Committee process (REC 6: 14/WA/0074). The findings of the trial will be disseminated through presentations to the participating Health Board and partners, peer-reviewed journals and national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN76914248; Pre-results.

Unloading knee brace is a cost-effective method to bridge and delay surgery in unicompartmental knee arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Unloading knee braces can provide good short-term pain relief for some patients with unicompartmental osteoarthritis (UOA). Their cost is relatively small compared with surgical interventions. However, no previous studies have reported their use over a duration of 5 years or more. METHODS: Up to 8 years of prospective data were collected from 63 patients who presented with UOA. After conservative management with analgesia and physiotherapy, patients were offered an unloading brace. EQ-5D (EuroQol five dimensions) questionnaires were collected at baseline and after wearing the brace. Cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were compared with a total knee replacement (TKR) with an 8-month waiting duration and 8 years of results. RESULTS: Patients experienced a mean increase in EQ-5D of 0.42 with an average duration of wear of 26.1 months resulting in an increase of 0.44 in QALYs with a mean cost of £625. The adoption of an unloader knee brace was found to be a short-term cost-effective treatment option with an 8-month incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £9599. Compared with no treatment, the unloader knee brace can be considered cost effective at 4 months or more. At 8 years follow-up, the unloader knee brace demonstrated QALYs gain of 0.43 and with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -£6467 compared with TKR. CONCLUSION: Unloading knee braces are cost effective for the management of UOA. These findings strongly support the undertaking of further research into the long-term impact of unloading knee brace. The unloader knee brace has benefits to the National Health Service for capacity, budget, waiting list duration, frequency of surgery and reducing the required severity of surgical intervention.

Salt at concentrations relevant to meat processing enhances Shiga toxin 2 production in Escherichia coli O157:H7.

Escherichia coli (E. coli) O157:H7 remains a major food safety concern associated with meat, especially beef products. Shiga toxins (Stx) are key virulence factors produced by E. coli O157:H7 that are responsible for hemorrhagic colitis and Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome. Stx are heat stable and can be absorbed after oral ingestion. Despite the extensive study of E. coli O157:H7 survival during meat processing, little attention is paid to the production of Stx during meat processing. The objective of this study was to elucidate the effect of salt, an essential additive to processed meat, at concentrations relevant to meat processing (0%, 1%, 2%, 3%, W/V) on Stx2 production and Stx2 prophage induction by E. coli O157:H7 strains. For both E. coli O157:H7 86-24 and EDL933 strains, including 2% salt in LB broth decreased (P<0.05) E. coli O157:H7 population, but increased (P<0.05) Stx2 production (as measured relative to Log(10)CFU) compared to that of the control (1% salt). Supplementing 3% salt decreased (P<0.05) both E. coli O157:H7 number and Stx2 production. Quantitative RT-PCR indicated that stx2 mRNA expression in culture media containing 2% salt was greatly increased (P<0.05) compared to other salt concentrations. Consistent with enhanced Stx2 production and stx2 expression, the 2% salt group had highest lambdoid phage titer and stx2 prophage induction among all salt treatments. RecA is a key mediator of bacterial response to stress, which mediates prophage activation. Quantitative RT-PCR further indicated that recA mRNA expression was higher in both 2% and 3% salt than that of 0% and 1% salt treatments, indicating that stress was involved in enhanced Stx2 production. In conclusion, salt at the concentration used for meat processing enhances Stx production, a process linked to bacterial stress response and lambdoid prophage induction.