Pharmacist and Homeless Outreach Engagement and Non-medical Independent prescribing Rx (PHOENIx): a study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The number of people experiencing homelessness (PEH) is increasing worldwide. Systematic reviews show high levels of multimorbidity and mortality. Integrated health and social care outreach interventions may improve outcomes. No previous studies have targeted PEH with recent drug overdose despite high levels of drug-related deaths and few data describe their health/social care problems. Feasibility work suggests a collaborative health and social care intervention (Pharmacist and Homeless Outreach Engagement and Non-medical Independent prescribing Rx, PHOENIx) is potentially beneficial. We describe the methods of a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) with parallel process and economic evaluation of PEH with recent overdose. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Detailed health and social care information will be collected before randomisation to care-as-usual plus visits from a pharmacist and a homeless outreach worker (PHOENIx) for 6-9 months or to care-as-usual. The outcomes are the rates of presentations to emergency department for overdose or other causes and whether to progress to a definitive RCT: recruitment of ≥100 participants within 4 months, ≥60% of patients remaining in the study at 6 and 9 months, ≥60% of patients receiving the intervention, and ≥80% of patients with data collected. The secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life, hospitalisations, treatment uptake and patient-reported measures. Semistructured interviews will explore the future implementation of PHOENIx, the reasons for overdose and protective factors. We will assess the feasibility of conducting a cost-effectiveness analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by South East Scotland National Health Service Research Ethics Committee 01. Results will be made available to PEH, the study funders and other researchers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10585019.

Implementing participation-focused services: A study to develop the Method for using Audit and Feedback in Participation Implementation (MAPi).

BACKGROUND: It is widely agreed that children's services should use participation-focused practice, but that implementation is challenging. This paper describes a method for using audit and feedback, an evidence-based knowledge translation strategy, to support implementation of participation-focused practice in front-line services, to identify barriers to implementation, and to enable international benchmarking of implementation and barriers. METHOD: Best-practice guidelines for using audit and feedback were followed. For audit, participation-focused practice was specified as clinicians' three observable behaviours: (a) targets participation outcomes; (b) involves child/parent in setting participation outcomes; and (c) measures progress towards participation outcomes. For barrier identification, the Theoretical Domains Framework Questionnaire (TDFQ) of known implementation barriers was used. A cycle of audit and barrier identification was piloted in three services (n = 25 clinicians) in a large U.K. healthcare trust. From each clinician, up to five randomly sampled case note sets were audited (total n = 122), and the clinicians were invited to complete the TDFQ. For feedback, data on the behaviours and barriers were shared visually and verbally with managers and clinicians to inform action planning. RESULTS: A Method for using Audit and feedback for Participation implementation (MAPi) was developed. The MAPi audit template captured clinicians' practices: Clinicians targeted participation in 37/122 (30.3%) of the sampled cases; involved child/parent in 16/122 (13.1%); and measured progress in 24/122 (19.7%). Barriers identified from the TDFQ and fed back to managers and clinicians included clinicians' skills in participation-focused behaviours (median = 3.00-5.00, interquartile range [IQR] = 2.25-6.00), social processes (median = 4.00, IQR = 3.00-5.00), and behavioural regulation (median = 4.00-5.00, IQR = 3.00-6.00). CONCLUSIONS: MAPi provides a practical, off-the-shelf method for front-line services to investigate and support their implementation of participation-focused practice. Furthermore, as a shared, consistent template, MAPi provides a method for generating cumulative and comparable, across-services evidence about levels and trends of implementation and about enduring barriers to implementation, to inform future implementation strategies.

Views of Young People With Chronic Conditions on Transition From Pediatric to Adult Health Services.

PURPOSE: This study sought to identify and describe the views of young people with chronic conditions about the transition from pediatric to adult services. METHODS: Q methodology was used to identify young people's views on transition. A set of 39 statements about transition was developed from an existing literature review and refined in consultation with local groups of young people. Statements were printed onto cards and a purposive sample of 44 young people with chronic health conditions was recruited, 41 remaining in the study. The young people were asked to sort the statement cards onto a Q-sort grid, according to their opinions from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Factor analysis was used to identify shared points of view (patterns of similarity between individual's Q-sorts). RESULTS: Four distinct views on transition were identified from young people: (1) "a laid-back view of transition;" (2) "anxiety about transition;" (3) "wanting independence and autonomy during transition;" and (4) "valuing social interaction with family, peers, and professionals to assist transition." CONCLUSIONS: Successful transition is likely to be influenced by how young people view the process. Discussing and understanding young people's views and preferences about transition should help clinicians and young people develop personalized planning for transition as a whole, and more specifically the point of transfer, leading to effective and efficient engagement with adult care.

Ablative therapy for people with localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: For people with localised prostate cancer, active treatments are effective but have significant side effects. Minimally invasive treatments that destroy (or ablate) either the entire gland or the part of the prostate with cancer may be as effective and cause less side effects at an acceptable cost. Such therapies include cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and brachytherapy, among others. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies compared with radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and active surveillance (AS) for primary treatment of localised prostate cancer, and compared with RP for salvage treatment of localised prostate cancer which has recurred after initial treatment with EBRT. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1946 to March week 3, 2013), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (29 March 2013), EMBASE (1974 to week 13, 2013), Bioscience Information Service (BIOSIS) (1956 to 1 April 2013), Science Citation Index (1970 to 1 April 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (issue 3, 2013), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (issue 3, 2013), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (inception to March 2013) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (inception to March 2013) databases were searched. Costs were obtained from NHS sources. REVIEW METHODS: Evidence was drawn from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, and from case series for the ablative procedures only, in people with localised prostate cancer. For primary therapy, the ablative therapies were cryotherapy, HIFU, brachytherapy and other ablative therapies. The comparators were AS, RP and EBRT. For salvage therapy, the ablative therapies were cryotherapy and HIFU. The comparator was RP. Outcomes were cancer related, adverse effects (functional and procedural) and quality of life. Two reviewers extracted data and carried out quality assessment. Meta-analysis used a Bayesian indirect mixed-treatment comparison. Data were incorporated into an individual simulation Markov model to estimate cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The searches identified 121 studies for inclusion in the review of patients undergoing primary treatment and nine studies for the review of salvage treatment. Cryotherapy [3995 patients; 14 case series, 1 RCT and 4 non-randomised comparative studies (NRCSs)], HIFU (4000 patients; 20 case series, 1 NRCS) and brachytherapy (26,129 patients; 2 RCTs, 38 NRCSs) studies provided limited data for meta-analyses. All studies were considered at high risk of bias. There was no robust evidence that mortality (4-year survival 93% for cryotherapy, 99% for HIFU, 91% for EBRT) or other cancer-specific outcomes differed between treatments. For functional and quality-of-life outcomes, the paucity of data prevented any definitive conclusions from being made, although data on incontinence rates and erectile dysfunction for all ablative procedures were generally numerically lower than for non-ablative procedures. The safety profiles were comparable with existing treatments. Studies reporting the use of focal cryotherapy suggested that incontinence rates may be better than for whole-gland treatment. Data on AS, salvage treatment and other ablative therapies were too limited. The cost-effectiveness analysis confirmed the uncertainty from the clinical review and that there is no technology which appears superior, on the basis of current evidence, in terms of average cost-effectiveness. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggest that a number of ablative techniques are worthy of further research. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations were the quantity and quality of the data available on cancer-related outcomes and dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that there is insufficient evidence to form any clear recommendations on the use of ablative therapies in order to influence current clinical practice. Research efforts in the use of ablative therapies in the management of prostate cancer should now be concentrated on the performance of RCTs and the generation of standardised outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002461. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Specifying the target difference in the primary outcome for a randomised controlled trial: guidance for researchers.

BACKGROUND: Central to the design of a randomised controlled trial is the calculation of the number of participants needed. This is typically achieved by specifying a target difference and calculating the corresponding sample size, which provides reassurance that the trial will have the required statistical power (at the planned statistical significance level) to identify whether a difference of a particular magnitude exists. Beyond pure statistical or scientific concerns, it is ethically imperative that an appropriate number of participants should be recruited. Despite the critical role of the target difference for the primary outcome in the design of randomised controlled trials, its determination has received surprisingly little attention. This article provides guidance on the specification of the target difference for the primary outcome in a sample size calculation for a two parallel group randomised controlled trial with a superiority question. METHODS: This work was part of the DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) project. Draft guidance was developed by the project steering and advisory groups utilising the results of the systematic review and surveys. Findings were circulated and presented to members of the combined group at a face-to-face meeting, along with a proposed outline of the guidance document structure, containing recommendations and reporting items for a trial protocol and report. The guidance and was subsequently drafted and circulated for further comment before finalisation. RESULTS: Guidance on specification of a target difference in the primary outcome for a two group parallel randomised controlled trial was produced. Additionally, a list of reporting items for protocols and trial reports was generated. CONCLUSIONS: Specification of the target difference for the primary outcome is a key component of a randomized controlled trial sample size calculation. There is a need for better justification of the target difference and reporting of its specification.

Benefits of Incentives for Breastfeeding and Smoking cessation in pregnancy (BIBS): a mixed-methods study to inform trial design.

BACKGROUND: Smoking in pregnancy and/or not breastfeeding have considerable negative health outcomes for mother and baby. AIM: To understand incentive mechanisms of action for smoking cessation in pregnancy and breastfeeding, develop a taxonomy and identify promising, acceptable and feasible interventions to inform trial design. DESIGN: Evidence syntheses, primary qualitative survey, and discrete choice experiment (DCE) research using multidisciplinary, mixed methods. Two mother-and-baby groups in disadvantaged areas collaborated throughout. SETTING: UK. PARTICIPANTS: The qualitative study included 88 pregnant women/recent mothers/partners, 53 service providers, 24 experts/decision-makers and 63 conference attendees. The surveys included 1144 members of the general public and 497 health professionals. The DCE study included 320 women with a history of smoking. METHODS: (1) Evidence syntheses: incentive effectiveness (including meta-analysis and effect size estimates), delivery processes, barriers to and facilitators of smoking cessation in pregnancy and/or breastfeeding, scoping review of incentives for lifestyle behaviours; (2) qualitative research: grounded theory to understand incentive mechanisms of action and a framework approach for trial design; (3) survey: multivariable ordered logit models; (4) DCE: conditional logit regression and the log-likelihood ratio test. RESULTS: Out of 1469 smoking cessation and 5408 breastfeeding multicomponent studies identified, 23 smoking cessation and 19 breastfeeding studies were included in the review. Vouchers contingent on biochemically proven smoking cessation in pregnancy were effective, with a relative risk of 2.58 (95% confidence interval 1.63 to 4.07) compared with non-contingent incentives for participation (four studies, 344 participants). Effects continued until 3 months post partum. Inconclusive effects were found for breastfeeding incentives compared with no/smaller incentives (13 studies) but provider commitment contracts for breastfeeding show promise. Intervention intensity is a possible confounder. The acceptability of seven promising incentives was mixed. Women (for vouchers) and those with a lower level of education (except for breastfeeding incentives) were more likely to disagree. Those aged ≤ 44 years and ethnic minority groups were more likely to agree. Agreement was greatest for a free breast pump and least for vouchers for breastfeeding. Universal incentives were preferred to those targeting low-income women. Initial daily text/telephone support, a quitting pal, vouchers for > £20.00 per month and values up to £80.00 increase the likelihood of smoking cessation. Doctors disagreed with provider incentives. A 'ladder' logic model emerged through data synthesis and had face validity with service users. It combined an incentive typology and behaviour change taxonomy. Autonomy and well-being matter. Personal difficulties, emotions, socialising and attitudes of others are challenges to climbing a metaphorical 'ladder' towards smoking cessation and breastfeeding. Incentive interventions provide opportunity 'rungs' to help, including regular skilled flexible support, a pal, setting goals, monitoring and outcome verification. Individually tailored and non-judgemental continuity of care can bolster women's capabilities to succeed. Rigid, prescriptive interventions placing the onus on women to behave 'healthily' risk them feeling pressurised and failing. To avoid 'losing face', women may disengage. LIMITATIONS: Included studies were heterogeneous and of variable quality, limiting the assessment of incentive effectiveness. No cost-effectiveness data were reported. In surveys, selection bias and confounding are possible. The validity and utility of the ladder logic model requires evaluation with more diverse samples of the target population. CONCLUSIONS: Incentives provided with other tailored components show promise but reach is a concern. Formal evaluation is recommended. Collaborative service-user involvement is important. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012001980. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Unintended consequences of incentive provision for behaviour change and maintenance around childbirth.

Financial (positive or negative) and non-financial incentives or rewards are increasingly used in attempts to influence health behaviours. While unintended consequences of incentive provision are discussed in the literature, evidence syntheses did not identify any primary research with the aim of investigating unintended consequences of incentive interventions for lifestyle behaviour change. Our objective was to investigate perceived positive and negative unintended consequences of incentive provision for a shortlist of seven promising incentive strategies for smoking cessation in pregnancy and breastfeeding. A multi-disciplinary, mixed-methods approach included involving two service-user mother and baby groups from disadvantaged areas with experience of the target behaviours as study co-investigators. Systematic reviews informed the shortlist of incentive strategies. Qualitative semi-structured interviews and a web-based survey of health professionals asked open questions on positive and negative consequences of incentives. The participants from three UK regions were a diverse sample with and without direct experience of incentive interventions: 88 pregnant women/recent mothers/partners/family members; 53 service providers; 24 experts/decision makers and interactive discussions with 63 conference attendees. Maternity and early years health professionals (n = 497) including doctors, midwives, health visitors, public health and related staff participated in the survey. Qualitative analysis identified ethical, political, cultural, social and psychological implications of incentive delivery at population and individual levels. Four key themes emerged: how incentives can address or create inequalities; enhance or diminish intrinsic motivation and wellbeing; have a positive or negative effect on relationships with others within personal networks or health providers; and can impact on health systems and resources by raising awareness and directing service delivery, but may be detrimental to other health care areas. Financial incentives are controversial and generated emotive and oppositional responses. The planning, design and delivery of future incentive interventions should evaluate unexpected consequences to inform the evidence for effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and future implementation.

Methods for specifying the target difference in a randomised controlled trial: the Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA) systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely accepted as the preferred study design for evaluating healthcare interventions. When the sample size is determined, a (target) difference is typically specified that the RCT is designed to detect. This provides reassurance that the study will be informative, i.e., should such a difference exist, it is likely to be detected with the required statistical precision. The aim of this review was to identify potential methods for specifying the target difference in an RCT sample size calculation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A comprehensive systematic review of medical and non-medical literature was carried out for methods that could be used to specify the target difference for an RCT sample size calculation. The databases searched were MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Methodology Register, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, EconLit, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Scopus (for in-press publications); the search period was from 1966 or the earliest date covered, to between November 2010 and January 2011. Additionally, textbooks addressing the methodology of clinical trials and International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) tripartite guidelines for clinical trials were also consulted. A narrative synthesis of methods was produced. Studies that described a method that could be used for specifying an important and/or realistic difference were included. The search identified 11,485 potentially relevant articles from the databases searched. Of these, 1,434 were selected for full-text assessment, and a further nine were identified from other sources. Fifteen clinical trial textbooks and the ICH tripartite guidelines were also reviewed. In total, 777 studies were included, and within them, seven methods were identified-anchor, distribution, health economic, opinion-seeking, pilot study, review of the evidence base, and standardised effect size. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of methods are available that researchers can use for specifying the target difference in an RCT sample size calculation. Appropriate methods may vary depending on the aim (e.g., specifying an important difference versus a realistic difference), context (e.g., research question and availability of data), and underlying framework adopted (e.g., Bayesian versus conventional statistical approach). Guidance on the use of each method is given. No single method provides a perfect solution for all contexts.

Pazopanib for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma : a NICE single technology appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of pazopanib hydrochloride (GlaxoSmithKline) to submit evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug for the first-line treatment of advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group were commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The objective of this paper is to summarize the independent review and critique of the evidence submitted for the consideration of the NICE Appraisal Committee and NICE's subsequently issued guidance. The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based upon the manufacturer's submission to NICE. The ERG also independently searched for relevant evidence and modified the manufacturer's decision analytic model to examine the impact of altering some of the key assumptions. For progression-free survival (PFS), there was a statistically significant longer survival for pazopanib compared with placebo (as assessed by the ERG, based upon the original manufacturer submission with a clinical cut-off date of 23 May 2008) [median 11.1 vs. 2.8 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.40; 95 % CI 0.27, 0.60]. Data from the indirect comparison suggested that pazopanib had a greater survival than interferon alpha (IFN-α) [HR 0.512; 95 % CI 0.326, 0.802] but provided no evidence of any difference compared with sunitinib (HR 0.949; 95 % CI 0.575, 1.568). With regard to overall survival, 64 % (n = 99) of patients in the pazopanib arm and 63 % (n = 49) of patients in the placebo arm had died and a total of 51 % (n = 40) of placebo patients had crossed over to receive pazopanib. Although data were provided on an intention-to-treat basis, crossover between therapies made such data difficult to interpret. There was no evidence of any statistically significant difference between pazopanib and best supportive care (HR 0.501; 95 % CI 0.136, 2.348). In the indirect comparison, there were no statistically significant differences between pazopanib and IFN-α (HR 0.627; 95 % CI 0.173, 2.269) or between pazopanib and sunitinib (HR 0.969; 95 % CI 0.359, 2.608). Based upon the work presented including a 12.5 % discount for pazopanib, sunitinib was extendedly dominated by a combination of pazopanib and IFN-α. As a consequence, the incremental cost per QALY for pazopanib versus IFN-α was £38,925. The results were not greatly altered over the range of univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses conducted by the manufacturer but pair-wise probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that given a threshold value of £30,000, there is a 54 % probability that pazopanib was preferred to sunitinib, 40 % chance against IFN-α and 47 % chance against best supportive care. The Appraisal Committee concluded that pazopanib should be recommended as a first-line treatment option for people with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have not received prior cytokine therapy and have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and if the manufacturer provides pazopanib with a 12.5 % discount on the list price and provides a possible future rebate linked to the outcome of the head-to-head COMPARZ trial, as agreed under the terms of the patient access scheme and to be confirmed when the COMPARZ trial data are made available.