Search

Background: Although age is the biggest known risk factor for dementia, there remains uncertainty about other factors over the life course that contribute to a person's risk for cognitive decline later in life. Furthermore, the pathological processes leading to dementia are not fully understood. The main goals of Insight 46—a multi-phase longitudinal observational study—are to collect detailed cognitive, neurological, physical, cardiovascular, and sensory data; to combine those data with genetic and life-course information collected from the MRC National Survey of Health and Development (NSHD; 1946 British birth cohort); and thereby contribute to a better understanding of healthy ageing and dementia. Methods/Design: Phase 1 of Insight 46 (2015–2018) involved the recruitment of 502 members of the NSHD (median age = 70.7 years; 49% female) and has been described in detail by Lane and Parker et al. 2017. The present paper describes phase 2 (2018–2021) and phase 3 (2021–ongoing). Of the 502 phase 1 study members who were invited to a phase 2 research visit, 413 were willing to return for a clinic visit in London and 29 participated in a remote research assessment due to COVID-19 restrictions. Phase 3 aims to recruit 250 study members who previously participated in both phases 1 and 2 of Insight 46 (providing a third data time point) and 500 additional members of the NSHD who have not previously participated in Insight 46. Discussion: The NSHD is the oldest and longest continuously running British birth cohort. Members of the NSHD are now at a critical point in their lives for us to investigate successful ageing and key age-related brain morbidities. Data collected from Insight 46 have the potential to greatly contribute to and impact the field of healthy ageing and dementia by combining unique life course data with longitudinal multiparametric clinical, imaging, and biomarker measurements. Further protocol enhancements are planned, including in-home sleep measurements and the engagement of participants through remote online cognitive testing. Data collected are and will continue to be made available to the scientific community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Chronic Headache Education and Self-Management Study (CHESS) multicentre randomised trial evaluated the impact a group education and self-management support intervention with a best usual care plus relaxation control for people living with chronic headache disorders (tension type headaches or chronic migraine, with or without medication overuse headache). Here we report the process evaluation exploring potential explanations for the lack of positive effects from the CHESS intervention. Methods: The CHESS trial included 736 (380 intervention: 356 control) people across the Midlands and London UK. We used a mixed methods approach. Our extensive process evaluation looked at context, reach, recruitment, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity and experiences of participating in the trial, and included participants and trial staff. We also looked for evidence in our qualitative data to investigate whether the original causal assumptions underpinning the intervention were realised. Results: The CHESS trial reached out to a large diverse population and recruited a representative sample. Few people with chronic tension type headaches without migraine were identified and recruited. The expected 'dose'of the intervention was delivered to participants and intervention fidelity was high. Attendance ("dose received") fell below expectation, although 261/380 (69%) received at least at least the pre-identified minimum dose. Intervention participants generally enjoyed being in the groups but there was little evidence to support the causal assumptions underpinning the intervention were realised. Conclusions: From a process evaluation perspective despite our extensive data collection and analysis, we do not have a clear understanding of why the trial outcome was negative as the intervention was delivered as planned. However, the lack of evidence that the intervention causal assumptions brought about the planned behaviour change may provide some insight. Our data suggests only modest changes in managing headache behaviours and some disparity in how participants engaged with components of the intervention within the timeframe of the study. Moving forwards, we need a better understanding of how those who live with chronic headache can be helped to manage this disabling condition more effectively over time. Trial registration: ISRCTN79708100. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]