Search

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Additional file 2. Nasal Airway Obstruction Study (NAIROS) Main Informed Consent Form, V3.0 dated 16 Jan 2019.

Supplemental material, EULT_manuals_070220 for Evaluation of the enhanced upper limb therapy programme within the Robot-Assisted Training for the Upper Limb after Stroke trial: descriptive analysis of intervention fidelity, goal selection and goal achievement by Helen Bosomworth, Helen Rodgers, Lisa Shaw, Leanne Smith, Lydia Aird, Denise Howel, Nina Wilson, Natasha Alvarado, Sreeman Andole, David L Cohen, Jesse Dawson, Cristina Fernandez-Garcia, Tracy Finch, Gary A Ford, Richard Francis, Steven Hogg, Niall Hughes, Christopher I Price, Laura Ternent, Duncan L Turner, Luke Vale, Scott Wilkes, Hermano I Krebs and Frederike van Wijck in Clinical Rehabilitation

Additional file 1. Patient Information Sheet, V5.1 dated 27 March 2019.

Additional file 3. SPIRIT 2013 Checklist: Recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents.

Background : Fall-related injuries are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in people with dementia (PWD). There is presently little evidence to guide the management of such injuries, and yet there are potentially substantial benefits to be gained if the outcome of these injuries could be improved. This study aimed to design an appropriate new healthcare intervention for PWD following a fall and to assess the feasibility of its delivery in the UK National Health Service. Objective (s): To determine whether it is possible to design an intervention to improve outcomes of falls in dementia; to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the DIFRID intervention; to investigate the feasibility of a future randomised controlled trial (RCT) and data collection tools needed to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the DIFRID intervention. Design : Mixed-methods feasibility study. Methods : A systematic review (using Cochrane methodology) and realist review (using RAMESES methodology) explored the existing evidence base and developed programme theories. Searches were carried out in Nov 2015 (updated Jan 2018) for effectiveness studies and August 2016 for economic studies. A prospective observational study identified service use via participant diary completion. Qualitative methods (semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and observation) were used to explore: current practice; stakeholder perspectives of the health and social care needs of PWD following a fall; ideas for intervention; and barriers and facilitators to change. Each of these datasets informed intervention development, via Delphi consensus methods. Finally, a single-arm feasibility study with embedded process evaluation was conducted. Setting : Community. Participants : PWD presenting with falls needing healthcare attention in each setting at 3 sites and their carers. Professionals delivering the intervention, responsible for training and supervision and members of the intervention team. Professionals responsible for approaching and recruiting participants. Interventions: A complex multidisciplinary therapy intervention. Physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and support workers delivered up to 22 sessions of tailored activities in the PWD’s home or local area over a period of 12 weeks. Main outcome measures: Assessment of feasibility of study procedures; assessment of the acceptability, feasibility and fidelity of intervention components; assessment of suitability and acceptability of outcome measures for PWD and carers (number of falls; quality of life; fear of falling; activities of daily living; goal setting; health utilisation; carer burden). Results : A multidisciplinary intervention delivered in PWDs’ own homes was designed based on qualitative work, realist review and recommendations of the consensus panel. The intervention was delivered to 11 PWD. The study suggested that the intervention is both feasible and acceptable to stakeholders. A number of modifications was recommended to address some of the issues arising during feasibility testing. Measurement of outcome measures was successful. Limitations : Recruitment to the feasibility study was lower than expected and therefore the intervention needs to be tested with a larger number of PWD. Conclusions : The study has highlighted the feasibility of delivering a creative, tailored, individual approach to intervention for PWD following a fall. Although the intervention required greater investment of time than usual practice, many staff valued the opportunity to work more closely with PWD and carers. Future work : We conclude that further research is now needed to refine this intervention in the context of a pilot randomised controlled trial.

Final DIFRID intervention. A description of the final intervention using the TIDIeR framework. (DOCX 16 kb)

Comprehensive search strategy. Medline literature search strategy for the phase 1 comprehensive search. (DOCX 13 kb)

Delphi survey. Expanded description of rationale and methodology for the Delphi survey. (DOCX 13 kb)

Consensus statements. Full list of statements provided to the consensus panel along with their outcomes. (DOCX 16 kb)

Consensus statements. Full list of statements provided to the consensus panel along with their outcomes. (DOCX 16 kb)

Targeted search strategy. Example Medline literature search strategy for the phase 2 targeted searches. (DOCX 12 kb)

Final DIFRID intervention. A description of the final intervention using the TIDIeR framework. (DOCX 16 kb)

Professional participants. Table showing numbers of participants from various health and social care professions in each stage of the project. (DOCX 12 kb)

Delphi survey. Expanded description of rationale and methodology for the Delphi survey. (DOCX 13 kb)

Topic guides for the Process Evaluation. (DOCX 29 kb)

SPIRIT checklist. (DOC 121 kb)

GLOWING participant information sheets and consent forms for midwives (questionnaire data collection, participating in the intervention training days, focus groups) and pregnant women (baseline data collection, outcome data collection, interviews). (DOCX 218Â kb)

The TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) Checklist* Information to include when describing an intervention and the location of the information. (DOCX 20Â kb)

SPIRIT 2013 Checklist: Recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents*. (DOCX 36Â kb)

Description of the Intervention using TIDIER guidelines. (DOCX 32 kb)

Study manual for professionals. (DOCX 3927 kb)

A pilot study to test the delivery of midwife training sessions on obesity and weight. (DOCX 30Â kb)

SPIRIT Checklist for RATULS protocol paper. (DOC 120 kb)

INTRODUCTION: Drinking has adverse impacts on health, well-being, education and social outcomes for adolescents. Adolescents in England are among the heaviest drinkers in Europe. Recently, the proportion of adolescents who drink alcohol has fallen, although consumption among those who do drink has actually increased. This trial seeks to investigate how effective and efficient an alcohol brief intervention is with 11-15 years olds to encourage lower alcohol consumption. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an individually randomised two-armed trial incorporating a control arm of usual school-based practice and a leaflet on a healthy lifestyle (excl. alcohol), and an intervention arm that combines usual practice with a 30 min brief intervention delivered by school learning mentors and a leaflet on alcohol. At least 30 schools will be recruited from four regions in England (North East, North West, London, Kent and Medway) to follow-up 235 per arm. The primary outcome is total alcohol consumed in the last 28 days, using the 28 day Timeline Follow Back questionnaire measured at the 12-month follow-up. The analysis of the intervention will consider effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. A qualitative study will explore, via 1:1 in-depth interviews with (n=80) parents, young people and school staff, intervention experience, intervention fidelity and acceptability issues, using thematic narrative synthesis to report qualitative data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by Teesside University. Dissemination plans include academic publications, conference presentations, disseminating to local and national education departments and the wider public health community, including via Fuse, and engaging with school staff and young people to comment on whether and how the project can be improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION TRIAL: ISRCTN45691494; Pre-results.

Background Loss of arm function is a common and distressing consequence of stroke. We describe the protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial to determine whether robot-assisted training improves upper limb function following stroke. Methods/design Study design: a pragmatic, three-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial, economic analysis and process evaluation. Setting: NHS stroke services. Participants: adults with acute or chronic first-ever stroke (1 week to 5 years post stroke) causing moderate to severe upper limb functional limitation. Randomisation groups: 1. Robot-assisted training using the InMotion robotic gym system for 45 min, three times/week for 12 weeks 2. Enhanced upper limb therapy for 45 min, three times/week for 12 weeks 3. Usual NHS care in accordance with local clinical practice Randomisation: individual participant randomisation stratified by centre, time since stroke, and severity of upper limb impairment. Primary outcome: upper limb function measured by the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) at 3 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes: upper limb impairment (Fugl-Meyer Test), activities of daily living (Barthel ADL Index), quality of life (Stroke Impact Scale, EQ-5D-5L), resource use, cost per quality-adjusted life year and adverse events, at 3 and 6 months. Blinding: outcomes are undertaken by blinded assessors. Economic analysis: micro-costing and economic evaluation of interventions compared to usual NHS care. A within-trial analysis, with an economic model will be used to extrapolate longer-term costs and outcomes. Process evaluation: semi-structured interviews with participants and professionals to seek their views and experiences of the rehabilitation that they have received or provided, and factors affecting the implementation of the trial. Sample size: allowing for 10% attrition, 720 participants provide 80% power to detect a 15% difference in successful outcome between each of the treatment pairs. Successful outcome definition: baseline ARAT 0–7 must improve by 3 or more points; baseline ARAT 8–13 improve by 4 or more points; baseline ARAT 14–19 improve by 5 or more points; baseline ARAT 20–39 improve by 6 or more points. Discussion The results from this trial will determine whether robot-assisted training improves upper limb function post stroke. Trial registration ISRCTN, identifier: ISRCTN69371850. Registered 4 October 2013. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2083-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Referral letters for evaluation of screening processes. (DOC 104Â kb)

Score sheet used in vignette-based study of screening processes. (DOC 86Â kb)

Letter of invitation to take part and instructions for screeners. (DOC 28Â kb)

Background\ud The position of invasive urodynamic testing (IUT) in diagnostic pathways for urinary incontinence is unclear, and systematic reviews have called for further trials evaluating clinical utility. The objective of this study was to inform the decision whether to proceed to a definitive randomised trial of IUT compared to clinical assessment with non-invasive tests, prior to surgery in women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (MUI).\ud \ud Methods\ud A mixed methods study comprising a pragmatic multicentre randomised pilot trial, a qualitative face-to face interview study with patients eligible for the trial, an exploratory economic evaluation including value of information study, a survey of clinicians’ views about IUT, and qualitative telephone interviews with purposively sampled survey respondents. Only the first and second of these elements are reported here.\ud \ud Trial participants were randomised to either clinical assessment with non-invasive tests (control arm) or clinical assessment with non-invasive tests plus IUT (intervention arm).\ud \ud The main outcome measures of these feasibility studies were confirmation that units can identify and recruit eligible women, acceptability of investigation strategies and data collection tools, and acquisition of outcome data to determine the sample size for a definitive trial. The primary outcome proposed for a definitive trial was ICIQ-FLUTS (total score) 6 months after surgery or the start of nonsurgical treatment.\ud \ud Results\ud Of 284 eligible women, 222 (78 %) were recruited, 165/219 (75 %) returned questionnaires at baseline, and 125/200 returned them (63 %) at follow-up. Most women underwent surgery; management plans were changed in 19 (19 %) participants following IUT.\ud \ud Participants interviewed were positive about the trial and the associated documentation.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud All elements of a definitive trial were rehearsed. Such a trial would require between 232 and 922 participants, depending on the target difference in the primary outcome. We identified possible modifications to our protocol for application in a definitive trial including clarity over inclusion/exclusions, screening processes, reduction in secondary outcomes, and modification to patient questionnaire booklets and bladder diaries. A definitive trial of IUT versus clinical assessment prior to surgery for SUI or stress predominant MUI is feasible and remains relevant.\ud \ud Trial registration\ud Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN71327395, registered 7 June 2010.

Background\ud There are major socio-economic gradients in health that could be influenced by increasing personal resources. Welfare rights advice can enhance resources but has not been rigorously evaluated for health-related impacts.\ud \ud Methods\ud Randomised, wait-list controlled trial with individual allocation, stratified by general practice, of welfare rights advice and assistance with benefit entitlements, delivered in participants’ homes by trained advisors. Control was usual care. Participants were volunteers sampled from among all those aged ≥60 years registered with general practices in socio-economically deprived areas of north east England. Outcomes at 24 months were: CASP-19 score (primary), a measure of health-related quality of life; changes in income, social and physical function, and cost-effectiveness (secondary). Intention to treat analysis compared outcomes using multiple regression, with adjustment for stratification and key covariates. Qualitative interviews with purposive samples from both trial arms were thematically analysed.\ud \ud Findings\ud Of 3912 individuals approached, 755 consented and were randomised (381 Intervention, 374 Control). Results refer to outcomes at 24 months, with data available on 562 (74.4%) participants. Intervention was received as intended by 335 (88%), with 84 (22%) awarded additional benefit entitlements; 46 did not receive any welfare rights advice, and none of these were awarded additional benefits. Mean CASP-19 scores were 42.9 (Intervention) and 42.4 (Control) (adjusted mean difference 0.3 [95%CI -0.8, 1.5]). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes except Intervention participants reported receiving more care at home at 24m (53.7 (Intervention) vs 42.0 (Control) hours/week (adjusted mean difference 26.3 [95%CIs 0.8, 56.1]). Exploratory analyses did not support an intervention effect and economic evaluation suggested the intervention was unlikely to be cost-effective. Qualitative data from 50 interviews suggested there were improvements in quality of life among those receiving additional benefits.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud We found no effects on health outcomes; fewer participants than anticipated received additional benefit entitlements, and participants were more affluent than expected. Our findings do not support delivery of domiciliary welfare rights advice to achieve the health outcomes assessed in this population. However, better intervention targeting may reveal worthwhile health impacts.