Search

Introduction Recurrent patellar dislocation is a debilitating musculoskeletal condition, affecting mainly adolescents and adults under the age of 30. It can persist for many decades, causing pain and cartilage and soft-tissue damage, potentially leading to osteoarthritis. Recurrent patellar dislocation can be managed with physiotherapy or surgery. However, it is not known which treatment is most effective.Methods and analysis Recurrent Patellar Dislocation: Personalised Therapy or Operative Treatment (REPPORT) is a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, superiority, randomised controlled trial. It will compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an initial management strategy of personalised, phased and progressive rehabilitation, termed personalised knee therapy versus surgery for recurrent patellar dislocation.The trial’s target sample size is 276 participants who will be recruited from approximately 20 sites across the UK. Participants will be randomly allocated to the two treatment groups via a central computer-based minimisation system. Treatment allocation will be in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by age, presence of patella alta and recruitment site.The primary outcome is participant-reported function using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome 4-domain score at 18 months post randomisation. Health economic evaluation will be conducted from a healthcare system and personal social services perspective. Secondary outcome data including patellar instability, health utility, work/education status, satisfaction with social roles and treatment, health resource use and adverse events will be collected at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis and reported in-line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement.Ethics and dissemination The trial was approved by the East Midlands—Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee on 30 March 2023.Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, presentations at national and international conferences, in lay summaries, and using the REPPORT website and social media channels.Trial registration number ISRCTN17972668.

Introduction Pain and disability after meniscectomy can be a substantial lifelong problem. There are few treatment options, especially for young people. Non-surgical management (rehabilitation) is an option but increasingly surgeons are performing meniscal allograft transplants (MATs) for these individuals. However, this is still an uncommon procedure, and availability and usage of MAT vary widely both in the UK and internationally. It is not known which treatment option is the most effective and cost-effective.Methods and analysis The Meniscal Transplant surgery or Optimised Rehabilitation trial is an international, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The aim is to compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of MAT versus an optimised package of individualised, progressive, rehabilitation that we have called personalised knee therapy (PKT).Participants will be recruited from sites across the UK, Australia, Canada and Belgium. The planned 144 participants provide at least 90% power to detect a 10-point difference in the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) at 24-months post randomisation (primary outcome). A prospectively planned economic evaluation will be conducted from a healthcare system and personal social services perspective. Secondary outcome data including health utility, occupational status, sports participation, mental well-being, further treatment, and adverse events will be collected at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis and reported in-line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement.Ethics and dissemination The trial was approved by the London—Bloomsbury Research Ethics Committee on 19 August 2022 (22/LO/0327) and Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee, NSW, Australia on the 13 March 2023 (2022/ETH01890).Trial results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, presentations at international conferences, in lay summaries and using social media as appropriate.This protocol adheres to the recommended Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist.Trial registration number ISRCTN87336549.

Background The extra benefit of a programme of physiotherapy in addition to advice alone, following first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation, is uncertain. We compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a single session of advice with a single session of advice and a programme of physiotherapy. Objective The primary objective was to quantify and draw inferences about observed differences in the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score between the trial treatment groups 6 months post randomisation, in adults with a first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation. Design A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study. Setting Forty-one hospitals in the UK NHS. Participants Adults with a radiologically confirmed first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation, being managed non-operatively. People with neurovascular complications or bilateral dislocations, and those unable to adhere to trial procedures or unable to attend physiotherapy within 6 weeks of injury, or who had previously been randomised, were excluded. Interventions All participants received the same initial shoulder examination followed by advice to aid self-management, lasting up to 1 hour and administered by a physiotherapist (control). Participants randomised to receive an additional programme of physiotherapy were offered sessions lasting for up to 30 minutes, over a maximum duration of 4 months from the date of randomisation (intervention). Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score. This is a self-completed outcome measure containing 12 questions (0–4 points each), with possible scores from 0 (worst function) to 48 (best function). Measurements were collected at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months by postal questionnaire; 6 months was the primary outcome time point. The primary health outcome for economic evaluation was the quality-adjusted life-year, in accordance with National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Results Between 14 November 2018 and 14 March 2022, 482 participants were randomised to advice (n = 240) or advice and a programme of physiotherapy (n = 242). Participants were 34% female, with a mean age of 45 years, and treatment arms were balanced at baseline. There was not a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome between advice only and advice plus a programme of physiotherapy at 6 months for the primary intention-to-treat adjusted analysis (favours physiotherapy: 1.5, 95% confidence interval −0.3 to 3.5) or at earlier 3-month and 6-week time points on the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (0–48; higher scores indicate better function). The probability of physiotherapy being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 0.95. Conclusions We found little difference in the primary outcome or other secondary outcomes. Advice with additional physiotherapy sessions was found likely to be cost-effective. However, small imprecise incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years raise questions on whether it is the best use of scarce physiotherapy resources given current service demands. Limitations Loss to follow-up was 27%; however, the observed standard deviation was much smaller than anticipated. These changes in parameters reduced the number of participants required to observe the planned target difference of four points. Our post hoc sensitivity analysis, accounting for missing data, gives similar results. Future work Further research should be directed towards optimising self-management strategies. Study registration This study is registered as ISRCTN63184243. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/167/56) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary The shoulder dislocates (comes out of its socket joint) when the upper end of the arm bone is forced out during an injury. This common problem occurs mostly in men in their 20s and women aged over 80. After the bone is put back in its socket, most people are managed with physiotherapy. In the United Kingdom, once the bone is back in its socket, there is a range of physiotherapy provision: some hospitals offer advice, and some offer advice and a course of additional physiotherapy sessions. We compared advice alone to advice and physiotherapy for people who had a shoulder that had come out of its joint for the first time. Physiotherapy advice and additional sessions included education about the injury and exercises to move and strengthen the shoulder. When we started this project, this was the first time these two treatments had been compared. Our aim was to compare what activities the two groups could do 6 months after injury via a questionnaire. We also compared quality of life and the cost of rehabilitation at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after injury. Adults with a shoulder out of its joint and who were not having surgery were asked to take part. All adults who were eligible and consented to take part were assigned, by chance, to either a single session of advice or the same session followed by physiotherapy. Between 14 November 2018 and 14 March 2022 we collected data on 482 people, from 41 NHS sites across the UK. We found at 6 months there was little evidence that additional physiotherapy was better, when compared to advice alone. Cost-effectiveness analysis (comparing changes in costs and quality of life) suggests additional physiotherapy might provide value for money. However, the changes involved are small and uncertain. Scientific summary Background The shoulder is the most frequently dislocated joint; dislocation occurs in 8.2–23.9 per 100,000 people per year, and 95% of these are anterior dislocations [Brownson P, Donaldson O, Fox M, Rees JL, Rangan A, Jaggi A, et al. BESS/BOA Patient Care Pathways: Traumatic anterior shoulder instability. Shoulder Elbow 2015;7(3):214–26]. They occur when excessive forces during a traumatic event displace the humeral head frontwards, out of the shoulder socket (glenoid fossa), resulting in the joint surfaces completely losing contact [Brownson et al. 2015; Hanchard NC, Goodchild LM, Kottam L. Conservative management following closed reduction of traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;(4):CD004962; Berendes TD, Pilot P, Nagels J, Vochteloo AJ, Nelissen RG. Survey on the management of acute first-time anterior shoulder dislocation amongst Dutch public hospitals. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2015;135(4):447–54]. People with a traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation (TASD) may have ongoing pain, disability and substantial morbidity linked to high recurrence rates and subsequent need for repeated episodes of management (Brownson et al. 2015; Hanchard et al. 2014; Berendes et al. 2015). Re-dislocation following a first-time traumatic event typically occurs within 12 months of the index dislocation [Zacchilli MA, Owens BD. Epidemiology of shoulder dislocations presenting to emergency departments in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92(3):542–9]. Rehabilitation may reduce ongoing re-dislocations and restore a functional, painless and stable shoulder through early restoration of joint movement and promotion of exercises to retrain muscles to maintain stability (Hanchard et al. 2014). However, a 2014 Cochrane review did not find an evidence base to support this (Hanchard et al. 2014). Dutch national guidelines explicitly state no referral to physiotherapy should be made, and UK guidelines cite referral ‘may be helpful’ (Brownson et al. 2015; Berendes et al. 2015). Consequently, the nature and extent of physiotherapy required for the management of patients following TASD are unclear. A typical course of six physiotherapy sessions costs around £378; a single assessment and advice session costs £63 (NHS Reference cost). In addition to the cost of providing a physiotherapy service, there was a clear message from our patient workshop that attending a typical course of six sessions of physiotherapy is burdensome. Younger people may need to take time from work or arrange care for dependents, while older people may find travel challenging, particularly if unable to drive following the dislocation. For both groups, this can be time-consuming and costly. If a single advice session were all that is required, it would have a positive impact on patient experience after TASD, lessening the burden on patients and their friends and families. Consequently, a course of supervised, tailored physiotherapy needs to be of clear additional benefit, when compared to a single session of advice, if it is to be implemented as standard care in the NHS. There is no clinical consensus or high-quality evidence on how best to manage TASDs (Brownson et al. 2015). Objective The primary objective was to test a single session of advice and physiotherapy versus a single session of advice only, for adults with first-time TASD managed non-operatively at 6 months using the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSIS). Methods Design A UK multicentre, two-arm, parallel group, superiority, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 1 : 1 treatment allocation, across 41 NHS sites, with embedded qualitative study. A protocol paper has been previously published [Kearney RS, Dhanjal G, Parsons N, Ellard D, Parsons H, Haque A, et al. Acute Rehabilitation following Traumatic anterior shoulder dISlocAtioN (ARTISAN): protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2020;10(11):e040623]. The final protocol, statistical analysis plan and health economic analysis plan are publicly available. Participants People were eligible to be included in the trial if they were adults (≥ 18 years) with a first-time TASD confirmed radiologically. People were excluded if they had neurovascular complications or bilateral dislocations, were unable to adhere to trial procedures or unable to attend physiotherapy within 6 weeks of injury, or had been previously included in the trial. After potential participants were assessed, informed written consent was obtained by a site-based researcher trained in good clinical practice. Intervention All participating centres received an initial training session from an Acute Rehabilitation following Traumatic anterior shoulder dISlocAtioN (ARTISAN) trial research physiotherapist. Following this, a lead physiotherapist at each site was identified to complete subsequent training of additional physiotherapists. This training was supported with web-based materials and a trial intervention manual. A quality control programme ensured intervention fidelity. Fidelity was monitored by: (a) direct observations by a member of the trial team; (b) audio recordings, used to assess the success or failure of the therapist to introduce the aims/rationale of each component and consolidate participant learning at the end of each component; and (c) a therapist self-report form completed for every trial participant. Points (a) and (b) were evaluated twice annually for the duration of recruitment and intervention delivery. Any issues identified were discussed on a case-by-case basis by the trial management group, who were responsible for recommending appropriate action. If issues with individual sites were not resolved following the recommendations, they were escalated to the trial steering committee. All participants had an initial period where the injured arm was supported in a sling, and then received an appointment for a physiotherapy advice session within 6 weeks of their injury. At the first appointment, all participants received the same initial shoulder examination followed by advice to aid self-management, lasting up to 1 hour and administered by an ARTISAN-trained physiotherapist. This included core components on education, progressive exercises, and exercise planning to enhance self-management behaviours. These core components were available after the advice session via a password-protected website or via paper-based alternatives at the participants’ preference. Details of the intervention development were first published in December 2021 [Liew Z, Mazuquin B, Ellard DR, Karasouli E, Drew S, Modi C, et al. Development of a single-session physiotherapy and self-management intervention for the treatment of primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation for the ‘Acute Rehabilitation following Traumatic anterior shoulder dISlocAtioN (ARTISAN)’ multicentre RCT. Physiotherapy 2021;113:80–7]. Following completion of the advice appointment, the participant was randomised, allocating them to this advice session alone or to this advice session plus the offer of additional physiotherapy. We defined the offer of additional physiotherapy to be the intervention. Participants randomised to advice only were provided with a contact point to self-refer back to the clinical team if recovery did not occur. Participants who self-referred back to the clinical team were considered to be per protocol. Participants randomised to receive additional physiotherapy were offered additional physiotherapy sessions. Each additional session lasted for up to 30 minutes, over a maximum duration of 4 months from the date of randomisation. The course of physiotherapy involved teaching and supervising the ‘core set’ of progressive exercises offered to the control arm in addition to being able to tailor treatment according to usual practice. Outcome measures Primary outcome measure The primary outcome measure was the OSIS. The OSIS is a self-completed outcome measure containing 12 questions (0–4 points each), with possible scores from 0 (worst function) to 48 (best function) [Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. The assessment of shoulder instability. The development and validation of a questionnaire. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999;81(3):420–6; Dawson J, Rogers K, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. The Oxford shoulder score revisited. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009;129(1):119–23]. These questions relate to activities of daily living particularly relevant to patients exhibiting shoulder instability. Secondary outcome measures The secondary outcome measures were as follows. QuickDASH: The QuickDASH is a self-completed shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. Instead of 30 items, the QuickDASH uses 11 items to measure physical function and symptoms in people with any or multiple musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb. The questionnaire was designed to help describe the disability experienced by people with upper-limb disorders and also to monitor changes in symptoms and function over time [Gummesson C, Ward MM, Atroshi I. The shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH): validity and reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2006;7:44]. EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L): EQ-5D-5L is a well-validated, generic health-related quality of life measure consisting of five dimensions, each with five levels of response. Each combination of answers can be converted into a health utility score. It has good test–retest reliability, is simple for participants to use, and gives a single preference-based index value for health status that can be used for broader cost-effectiveness comparative purposes [Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20(10):1727–36]. Complications: Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported through the following mechanisms: (a) participant reported during routine collection of follow-up data; (b) local research teams reported any additional investigations or treatment of participants; (c) local physiotherapists delivering the trial interventions reported any events occurring during treatment sessions; and (d) medical records of non-responding participants were retrieved by local research teams at site. Serious adverse events not related to the intervention or TASD event were recorded on the SAE form but were not formally analysed or reported. SAEs that were predefined complications directly related to the trial interventions or directly caused by the primary TASD event were recorded as complications and were formally analysed and reported. Resource use questionnaires: The primary health economic analysis concentrated on direct intervention and healthcare/personal social services costs, while wider impact (societal) costs were included within the sensitivity analyses. Participants completed resource use questionnaires at all follow-up points to collect resource use data associated with the interventions under examination. We used techniques common in long-term studies to ensure minimum loss to follow-up, such as collection of multiple contact addresses and telephone numbers, mobile telephone numbers and e-mail addresses. All outcome measures were collected at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3, 6 and 12 months following randomisation. Qualitative interviews: One of the secondary objectives for ARTISAN was to qualitatively explore the participant experiences of receiving the trial treatments and facilitators and obstacles to adhering to them. Soon after the return of the 12-month follow-up questionnaire, a purposive sample (informed by treatment allocation, gender, age and outcome) of up to 50 participants were invited for one-off face-to-face interviews [by telephone or via Microsoft Teams® (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA)]. The aim was to explore the participant experience of receiving the trial treatments, and facilitators and obstacles to adhering to them. Results Between 14 November 2018 and 14 March 2022 we recruited from 41 NHS Trusts, who screened 1551 adults with a traumatic shoulder dislocation, from whom 1069 were not randomised. Forty of the 41 NHS Trust teams randomised the remaining 482 to advice only (n = 240) or advice and a programme of physiotherapy (n = 242). Ten participants withdrew prior to the primary outcome point of 6 months; 354 participants completed the primary outcome OSIS (73%) and were included in the final analysis. Across the groups there were high levels of adherence. Ninety-six physiotherapists delivered the interventions across the 41 sites. Two participants in the advice-only group (n = 240) crossed over to receive a programme of physiotherapy because in the opinion of the treating clinician a programme of further physiotherapy was needed. A further 42 participants self-referred to receive a programme of physiotherapy. A total of 194 participants received advice only, and there were missing data on two participants. In the group randomised to advice and further physiotherapy, 24 participants did not attend any additional appointments, 30 participants did not attend after one appointment, 167 had a complete programme of physiotherapy and 18 were receiving ongoing management after the 4-month period. There were three participants with missing data. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in OSIS between advice only and advice plus a programme of physiotherapy in the 6-month primary outcome, for the primary intention-to-treat adjusted analysis [favours physiotherapy: 1.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.30 to 3.5] or at earlier 3-month and 6-week time points. At each time point the direction of change favoured a programme of physiotherapy; however, the 95% CI at each time point excluded our target four-point difference on the OSIS. There were no statistically significant differences in the QuickDASH or consistent differences in the EQ-5D-5L secondary outcomes. Secondary unadjusted and per-protocol analyses, and a sensitivity analysis accounting for missingness, were not materially different. Predefined subgroup analyses were undertaken to assess whether there was evidence that the intervention effect differed between age group (≤ 39 years old and ≥ 40 years old) and arm dominance. Our predefined subgroup analyses showed no evidence of clinically relevant effects from either age or arm dominance. Predefined complications profiles were similar across the two groups. In the advice group, there were reports of 7 shoulder re-dislocations, 3 frozen shoulders, 8 compression fractures of the shoulder, 22 rotator cuff tears and 1 report of nerve damage. In the additional physiotherapy group, there were 3 shoulder re-dislocations, 7 frozen shoulders, 21 rotator cuff tears and 4 compression fractures of the shoulder. Participants randomised to a programme of physiotherapy had non-significant increase in quality of life of 0.019 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% CI −0.0005 to 0.0375) at a small, non-significant increased cost of £64 (95% CI −61 to 191) over the follow-up period. The probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 0.946. Sensitivity analyses, including complete cases only and including broader societal costs, provided similar findings. Thirty-one participants were interviewed from both arms of the trial: ARTISAN [n = 16, 8 male and 8 female, mean age 49 years (standard deviation 21 years)] and ARTISAN Plus [n = 15, 11 male and 4 female, mean age 59 years (standard deviation 17 years)]. Four interlinked themes emerged from the data: (1) feelings about their shoulder rehabilitation outcome; (2) judgement of ARTISAN rehabilitation materials; (3) assessment of shoulder rehabilitation services provision; and (4) experiences of involvement in ARTISAN. The data reveal that generally across both arms of the trial, participants’ experiences were good. There are a number of areas where there are differences related to age and participants’ requirements to return to sporting activities. In terms of recovery following their rehabilitation journey, there is a trend towards a more positive outcome reported by those in the ARTISAN Plus arm of the trial. Conclusions We found little difference in the primary outcome (OSIS) or other secondary outcomes. Advice with additional physiotherapy sessions is cost-effective at a £30,000/QALY threshold. However, the small imprecise health gains raise questions on whether it is the best use of scarce physiotherapy resources given current service demands. The ARTISAN trial is the largest RCT for the common shoulder dislocation. The study recruited 482 participants, across 41 NHS Trusts and using 96 ARTISAN-trained physiotherapists, making the sample representative of NHS patients. Adherence to trial groups was high, with 99% in the advice group being offered advice only and 100% in the additional physiotherapy group being offered additional physiotherapy. The advice-only intervention was delivered by physiotherapists and crucially did not prohibit patients from self-referring back to the service if recovery did not meet their expectations. With this mechanism in place, 18% (42/240) self-referred back to the service. Empowering people to make their own treatment decisions was acceptable to clinicians (99% adherence) and allows flexibility for patients to decide when additional supervised treatment is required. It is acknowledged that there will be circumstances where additional supervised physiotherapy is appropriate; however, as a default referral pathway, it is not clinically superior to an advice-only intervention. The ARTISAN trial found evidence that there is little difference between referring people to a programme of physiotherapy or to a single session of advice with a physiotherapist. However, people who are not experiencing recovery as expected could self-refer for a supervised programme of physiotherapy. This will provide a balance between best use of NHS resources, empowering patients, and reducing unnecessary appointments for those who can self-manage. Further research should be directed towards optimising self-management strategies. Study registration This study is registered as ISRCTN63184243. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/167/56) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Abstract Introduction Critical access hospitals (CAHs) provide an opportunity to meet the needs of individuals with cancer in rural areas. Two common innovative care delivery methods include the use of traveling oncologists and teleoncology. It is important to understand the availability and organization of cancer care services in CAHs due to the growing population with cancer and expected declines in oncology workforce in rural areas. Methods Stratified random sampling was used to generate a sample of 50 CAHs from each of the four U.S. Census Bureau‐designated regions resulting in a total sample of 200 facilities. Analyses were conducted from 135 CAH respondents to understand the availability of cancer care services and organization of cancer care across CAHs. Results Almost all CAHs (95%) provided at least one cancer screening or diagnostic service. Forty‐six percent of CAHs reported providing at least one component of cancer treatment (chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery) at their facility. CAHs that offered cancer treatment reported a wide range of health care staff involvement, including 34% of respondents reporting involvement of a local oncologist, 38% reporting involvement of a visiting oncologist, and 28% reporting involvement of a non‐local oncologist using telemedicine. Conclusion Growing disparities within rural areas emphasize the importance of ensuring access to timely screening and guideline‐recommended treatment for cancer in rural communities. These data demonstrated that CAHs are addressing the growing need through a variety of approaches including the use of innovative models that utilize non‐local providers and telemedicine to expand access to crucial services for rural residents with cancer.

Introduction The number of robotic-assisted hip replacement procedures has expanded globally with the intended aim of improving outcomes. Intraoperative robotic-arm systems add additional costs to total hip replacement (THR) surgery but may improve surgical precision and could contribute to diminished pain and improved function. Additionally, these systems may reduce the need for expensive revision surgery. Surgery with conventional instruments may be just as successful, quick and affordable. There is timely demand for a robust evaluation of this technology.Methods and analysis The Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial for Hips (RACER-Hip) is a multicentre (minimum of six UK sites), participant–assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial. 378 participants with hip osteoarthritis requiring THR will be randomised (1:1) to receive robotic-assisted THR, or THR using conventional surgical instruments. The primary outcome is the Forgotten Joint Score at 12 months post-randomisation; a patient-reported outcome measure assessing participants’ awareness of their joint when undertaking daily activities. Secondary outcomes will be collected post-operatively (pain, blood loss and opioid usage) and at 3, 6, 12, 24 months, then 5 and 10 years postrandomisation (including function, pain, health-related quality of life, reoperations and satisfaction). Allocation concealment will be accomplished using a computer-based randomisation procedure on the day of surgery. Blinding methods include the use of sham incisions for marker clusters and blinded operation notes. The primary analysis will adhere to the intention-to-treat principle. Results will adhere to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statements.Ethics and dissemination The trial was approved by an ethics committee (Solihull Research Ethics Committee, 30 June 2021, IRAS: 295831). Participants will provide informed consent before agreeing to participate. Results will be disseminated using peer-reviewed journal publications, presentations at international conferences and through the use of social media. We will develop plans to disseminate to patients and public with our patient partners.Trial registration number ISRCTN13374625.

Abstract Background Assessing the long term effects of many surgical interventions tested in pragmatic RCTs may require extended periods of participant follow-up to assess effectiveness and use patient-reported outcomes that require large sample sizes. Consequently the RCTs are often perceived as being expensive and time-consuming, particularly if the results show the test intervention is not effective. Adaptive, and particularly group sequential, designs have great potential to improve the efficiency and cost of testing new and existing surgical interventions. As a means to assess the potential utility of group sequential designs, we re-analyse data from a number of recent high-profile RCTs and assess whether using such a design would have caused the trial to stop early. Methods Many pragmatic RCTs monitor participants at a number of occasions (e.g. at 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery) during follow-up as a means to assess recovery and also to keep participants engaged with the trial process. Conventionally one of the outcomes is selected as the primary (final) outcome, for clinical reasons, with others designated as either early or late outcomes. In such settings, novel group sequential designs that use data from not only the final outcome but also from early outcomes at interim analyses can be used to inform stopping decisions. We describe data from seven recent surgical RCTs (WAT, DRAFFT, WOLLF, FASHION, CSAW, FIXDT, TOPKAT), and outline possible group sequential designs that could plausibly have been proposed at the design stage. We then simulate how these group sequential designs could have proceeded, by using the observed data and dates to replicate how information could have accumulated and decisions been made for each RCT. Results The results of the simulated group sequential designs showed that for two of the RCTs it was highly likely that they would have stopped for futility at interim analyses, potentially saving considerable time (15 and 23 months) and costs and avoiding patients being exposed to interventions that were either ineffective or no better than standard care. We discuss the characteristics of RCTs that are important in order to use the methodology we describe, particularly the value of early outcomes and the window of opportunity when early stopping decisions can be made and how it is related to the length of recruitment period and follow-up. Conclusions The results for five of the RCTs tested showed that group sequential designs using early outcome data would have been feasible and likely to provide designs that were at least as efficient, and possibly more efficient, than the original fixed sample size designs. In general, the amount of information provided by the early outcomes was surprisingly large, due to the strength of correlations with the primary outcome. This suggests that the methods described here are likely to provide benefits more generally across the range of surgical trials and more widely in other application areas where trial designs, outcomes and follow-up patterns are structured and behave similarly.

Abstract Aims Debate continues as to the optimal orientation of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and how to reliably achieve this. The primary objective of this study was to compare functional CT-based planning and patient-specific instruments with conventional THA using 2D templating. Methods A pragmatic single-center, patient-assessor blinded, randomized control trial of patients undergoing THA was performed. 54 patients (aged 18–70) were recruited to either Corin Optimized Positioning System (OPS) or conventional THA. All patients received a cementless acetabular component. All patients underwent pre- and postoperative CT scans, and four functional X-rays. Patients in the OPS group had a 3D surgical plan and bespoke guides made. Patients in the conventional group had a surgical plan based on 2D templating X-rays. The primary outcome measure was the mean error in acetabular anteversion as determined by postoperative CT scan. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the mean error in angle of acetabular anteversion when comparing OPS and conventional THA. In the OPS group, the achieved acetabular anteversion was within 10° of the planned anteversion in 96% of cases, compared with only 76% in the conventional group. The clinical outcomes were comparable between the groups. Conclusion Large errors in acetabular orientation appear to be reduced when CT-based planning and patient-specific instruments are used compared to the standard technique but no significant differences were seen in the mean error.

Introduction Robotic-assisted knee replacement systems have been introduced to healthcare services worldwide in an effort to improve clinical outcomes for people, although high-quality evidence that they are clinically, or cost-effective remains sparse. Robotic-arm systems may improve surgical accuracy and could contribute to reduced pain, improved function and lower overall cost of total knee replacement (TKR) surgery. However, TKR with conventional instruments may be just as effective and may be quicker and cheaper. There is a need for a robust evaluation of this technology, including cost-effectiveness analyses using both within-trial and modelling approaches. This trial will compare robotic-assisted against conventional TKR to provide high-quality evidence on whether robotic-assisted knee replacement is beneficial to patients and cost-effective for healthcare systems.Methods and analysis The Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial-Knee is a multicentre, participant-assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted TKR compared with TKR using conventional instruments. A total of 332 participants will be randomised (1:1) to provide 90% power for a 12-point difference in the primary outcome measure; the Forgotten Joint Score at 12 months postrandomisation. Allocation concealment will be achieved using computer-based randomisation performed on the day of surgery and methods for blinding will include sham incisions for marker clusters and blinded operation notes. The primary analysis will adhere to the intention-to-treat principle. Results will be reported in line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. A parallel study will collect data on the learning effects associated with robotic-arm systems.Ethics and dissemination The trial has been approved by an ethics committee for patient participation (East Midlands—Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee, 29 July 2020. NRES number: 20/EM/0159). All results from the study will be disseminated using peer-reviewed publications, presentations at international conferences, lay summaries and social media as appropriate.Trial registration number ISRCTN27624068.

Aims: To compare the cost-utility of removable brace compared with cast in the management of adult patients with ankle fracture. Methods: A within-trial economic evaluation conducted from the UK NHS and personnel social services (PSS) perspective. Health resources and quality-of-life data were collected as part of the Ankle Injury Rehabilitation (AIR) multicentre, randomized controlled trial over a 12-month period using trial case report forms and patient-completed questionnaires. Cost-utility analysis was estimated in terms of the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Estimate uncertainty was explored by bootstrapping, visualized on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio plane. Net monetary benefit and probability of cost-effectiveness were evaluated at a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds and visualized graphically. Results: The incremental cost and QALYs of using brace over a 12-month period were £46.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) £-9 to £147) and 0.0141 (95% CI -0.005 to 0.033), respectively. The cost per QALY gained was £3,318. The probability of brace being cost-effective at a £30,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold was 88%. The results remained robust to a range of sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: This within-trial economic evaluation found that it is probable that using a removable brace provides good value to the NHS when compared to cast, in the management of adults with ankle fracture. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(6):455–462.

Background: Current measures of health-related quality of life are neither sufficiently sensitive or specific to capture the complex and heterogenous nature of the recovery and survivorship associated with cardiac arrest. To address this critical practice gap, we plan a mixed-methods study to co-produce and evaluate a new cardiac arrest-specific patient/survivor-reported outcome measure (PROM). Methods: International guidelines have informed a two-stage, iterative, and interactive process.Stage one will establish what is important to measure following cardiac arrest. A meta-ethnography of published qualitative research and a qualitative exploration of the experiences of survivors and their key supporters will inform the development of a measurement framework. This will be supplemented by existing, extensive reviews describing concepts that have previously been measured in this population. Focus groups with survivors, key supporters, and healthcare professionals, followed by further interviews with survivors and key supporters, will inform the iterative refinement of the framework, candidate items, and PROM structure.Stage two will involve a psychometric evaluation following completion by a large cohort of survivors. Measurement theory will inform: the identification of items that best measure important outcomes; item reduction; and provide robust evidence of measurement and practical properties. Discussion: An international, collaborative approach to PROM development will engage survivors, key supporters, researchers, and health professionals from study commencement. Successful co-production of the cardiac arrest survivorship and health-related quality of life (CASHQoL) measure will provide a robust, relevant, and internationally applicable measure, suitable for completion by adult survivors, and integration into research, registries, and routine care settings.Ethical approval: University of Warwick Biomedical & Scientific Research Ethics Committee (BSREC 22/20-21 granted 10/11/20).

Abstract Background There is widespread concern across the clinical and research communities that clinical trials, powered for patient-reported outcomes, testing new surgical procedures are often expensive and time-consuming, particularly when the new intervention is shown to be no better than the standard. Conventional (non-adaptive) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are perceived as being particularly inefficient in this setting. Therefore, we have developed an adaptive group sequential design that allows early endpoints to inform decision making and show, through simulations and a worked example, that these designs are feasible and often preferable to conventional non-adaptive designs. The methodology is motivated by an ongoing clinical trial investigating a saline-filled balloon, inserted above the main joint of the shoulder at the end of arthroscopic debridement, for treatment of tears of rotor cuff tendons. This research question and setting is typical of many studies undertaken to assess new surgical procedures. Methods Test statistics are presented based on the setting of two early outcomes, and methods for estimation of sequential stopping boundaries are described. A framework for the implementation of simulations to evaluate design characteristics is also described. Results Simulations show that designs with one, two and three early looks are feasible and, with appropriately chosen futility stopping boundaries, have appealing design characteristics. A number of possible design options are described that have good power and a high probability of stopping for futility if there is no evidence of a treatment effect at early looks. A worked example, with code in R, provides a practical demonstration of how the design might work in a real study. Conclusions In summary, we show that adaptive designs are feasible and could work in practice. We describe the operating characteristics of the designs and provide guidelines for appropriate values for the stopping boundaries for the START:REACTS (Sub-acromial spacer for Tears Affecting Rotator cuff Tendons: a Randomised, Efficient, Adaptive Clinical Trial in Surgery) study. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN17825590. Registered on 5 March 2018.

Abstract Background To systematically review studies quantifying the association between primary chronic headaches and persistent low back pain (LBP). Main text We searched five electronic databases. We included case-control, cross-sectional and cohort studies that included a headache and back pain free group, reporting on any association between persistent LBP and primary headache disorders. Methodological quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Our primary outcome was the association between primary headache disorders and persistent LBP. Our secondary outcomes were any associations between severity of LBP and severity of headache, and the relationship between specific headache sub-types classified as per International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria and persistent LBP. We included 14 studies. The sizes of the studies ranged from 88 participants to a large international study with 404, 206 participants. Odds ratios for the association were between 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13–2.11) and 8.00 (95% CI 5.3–12.1). Study heterogeneity meant statistical pooling was not possible. Only two studies presented data investigating persistent LBP and chronic headache disorders in accordance with ICDH criteria. Conclusions We identified a positive association between persistent LBP and primary headache disorders. The quality of the review findings is limited by diversity of populations, study designs and uncertainly about headache and LBP definitions. Trial registration PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018086557.

Introduction Tourniquets are routinely used during total knee replacement (TKR) surgery. They could increase the risk of thromboembolic events including cerebral emboli, cognitive decline, pain and other adverse events (AEs). A randomised controlled trial to assess whether tourniquet use might safely be avoided is therefore warranted but it is unclear whether such a trial would be feasible.Methods In a single-site feasibility study and pilot randomised controlled trial, adults having a TKR were randomised to surgery with an inflated tourniquet versus a non-inflated tourniquet. Participants underwent brain MRI preoperatively and within 2 days postoperatively. We assessed cognition using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) and thigh pain using a Visual Analogue Scale at baseline and days 1 and 2, and 1 week postsurgery. AEs related to surgery were recorded up to 12 months.Results We randomised 53 participants (27 tourniquet inflated and 26 tourniquet not inflated). Fifty-one participants received care per-protocol (96%) and 48 (91%) were followed up at 12 months. One new ischaemic brain lesion was detected. Of the cognitive tests, MoCA was easy to summarise, sensitive to change with lower ceiling effects compared with OCS and MMSE. There was a trend towards more thigh pain (mean 49.6 SD 30.4 vs 36.2 SD 28 at day 1) and more AEs related to surgery (21 vs 9) in participants with an inflated tourniquet compared with those with a tourniquet not inflated.Conclusion A full trial is feasible, but using MRI as a primary outcome is unlikely to be appropriate or feasible. Suitable primary outcomes would be cognition measured using MoCA, pain and AEs, all of which warrant investigation in a large multicentre trial.Trial registration number ISRCTN20873088.

Introduction First-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation (TASD) is predominantly managed non-operatively. People sustaining TASD have ongoing pain, disability and future risk of redislocation. There are no published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different non-operative rehabilitation strategies to ascertain the optimum clinically effective approach after TASD.Methods and analysis In this multicentre adaptive RCT, with internal pilot, adults with a radiologically confirmed first time TASD treated non-surgically will be screened at a minimum of 30 sites. People with neurovascular complications, bilateral dislocations or are unable to attend physiotherapy will be excluded.Randomisation will be on a 1:1 treatment allocation, stratified by age, hand dominance and site. Participants will receive a single session of advice; or a single session of advice plus offer of further physiotherapy (maximum 4 months). The primary analysis will be the difference in Oxford Shoulder Instability Score at 6 months. A sample size of a minimum of 478 participants will allow us to show a four point difference with 90% power.An embedded qualitative study will explore the participants’ experiences of the trial interventions.Ethics, registration and dissemination Funded by NIHR HTA (16/167/56), 1 June 2018; National Research Ethic Committee approved (18/WA/0236), 26 July 2018. First site opened 5 November 2018 and final results will be updated on trial registries and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and will inform rehabilitation strategies after a TASD. Study Within A Trial (SWAT) funded by MRC (MR/R013748/1), 1 May 2019; registered on the MRC-HTMR All-Ireland Hub (reference number SWAT 121).Trial registration number ISRCTN63184243. (Trial stage: Pre-results)

Introduction Shoulder pain due to irreparable rotator cuff tears can cause substantial disability, but treatment options are limited. A balloon spacer is a relatively simple addition to a standard arthroscopic debridement procedure, but it is costly and there is no current randomised trial evidence to support its use. This trial will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a subacromial balloon spacer for individuals undergoing arthroscopic debridement for irreparable rotator cuff tears.New surgical procedures can provide substantial benefit to patients. Good quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are needed, but trials in surgery are typically long and expensive, exposing patients to risk and the healthcare system to substantial costs. One way to improve the efficiency of trials is with an adaptive sample size. Such methods are well established in drug trials but have rarely, if ever, been used in surgical trials.Methods and analysis Subacromial spacer for Tears Affecting Rotator cuff Tendons: a Randomised, Efficient, Adaptive Clinical Trial in Surgery (START:REACTS) is a participant and assessor blinded, adaptive, multicentre RCT comparing arthroscopic debridement with the InSpace balloon (Stryker, USA) to arthroscopic debridement alone for people with a symptomatic irreparable rotator cuff tear. It uses a group sequential adaptive design where interim analyses are performed using all of the 3, 6 and 12-month data that are available at each time point. A maximum of 221 participants will be randomised (1:1 ratio), this will provide 90% power (at the 5% level) for a 6 point difference in the primary outcome; the Oxford Shoulder Score at 12 months. A substudy will use deltoid-active MRI scans in 56 participants to assess the function of the balloon. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis and reported according to principles established in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement.Ethics and dissemination NRES number 18/WM/0025. The results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, presentations at conferences, lay summaries and social media.Trial registration number ISRCTN17825590

ObjectivesTo test the feasibility of implementing a brief but intensive hybrid cognitive behavioural therapy (Hybrid CBT) for pain-related insomnia.DesignMixed-methods, with qualitative process evaluation on a two-arm randomised controlled feasibility trial.SettingPrimary care.ParticipantsTwenty-five adult patients with chronic pain and insomnia.InterventionHybrid CBT or self-help control intervention.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcomes measures were the Insomnia Severity Index and interference scale of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Secondary outcomes measures were the present pain intensity rating from the BPI, Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and EQ-5D-5L.ResultsFourteen participants were randomised to receive Hybrid CBT, 11 to receive the self-help control treatment. Of the 14 in the Hybrid CBT group, 9 (64%) completed all four treatment sessions (4 discontinued due to poor health; 1 due to time constraints). Adherence to the self-help control treatment was not monitored. The total number of participants completing the 12-week and 24-week follow-ups were 12 (6 in each group; Hybrid CBT: 43%; self-help: 55%) and 10 (5 in each group; Hybrid CBT: 36%; self-help: 45%). Based on the data available, candidate outcome measures appeared to be sensitive to changes associated with interventions. Thematic analysis of pre-postintervention interview data revealed satisfaction with treatment content among those who completed the Hybrid CBT, whereas those in the self-help control treatment wanted more contact hours and therapist guidance. Other practical suggestions for improvement included shortening the duration of each treatment session, reducing the amount of assessment paperwork, and minimising the burden of sleep and pain monitoring.ConclusionImportant lessons were learnt with regard to the infrastructure required to achieve better patient adherence and retention. Based on the qualitative feedback provided by a subset of treatment completers, future trials should also consider lowering the intensity of treatment and streamlining the data collection procedure.Trial registration numberISRCTN17294365.

Background: Community treatment orders are widely used in England. It is unclear whether their use varies between patients, places and services, or if they are associated with better patient outcomes. Objectives: To examine variation in the use of community treatment orders and their associations with patient outcomes and health-care costs. Design: Secondary analysis using multilevel statistical modelling. Setting: England, including 61 NHS mental health provider trusts. Participants: A total of 69,832 patients eligible to be subject to a community treatment order. Main outcome measures: Use of community treatment orders and time subject to community treatment order; re-admission and total time in hospital after the start of a community treatment order; and mortality. Data sources: The primary data source was the Mental Health Services Data Set. Mental Health Services Data Set data were linked to mortality records and local area deprivation statistics for England. Results: There was significant variation in community treatment order use between patients, provider trusts and local areas. Most variation arose from substantially different practice in a small number of providers. Community treatment order patients were more likely to be in the ‘severe psychotic’ care cluster grouping, male or black. There was also significant variation between service providers and local areas in the time patients remained on community treatment orders. Although slightly more community treatment order patients were re-admitted than non-community treatment order patients during the study period (36.9% vs. 35.6%), there was no significant difference in time to first re-admission (around 32 months on average for both). There was some evidence that the rate of re-admission differed between community treatment order and non-community treatment order patients according to care cluster grouping. Community treatment order patients spent 7.5 days longer, on average, in admission than non-community treatment order patients over the study period. This difference remained when other patient and local area characteristics were taken into account. There was no evidence of significant variation between service providers in the effect of community treatment order on total time in admission. Community treatment order patients were less likely to die than non-community treatment order patients, after taking account of other patient and local area characteristics (odds ratio 0.69, 95% credible interval 0.60 to 0.81). Limitations: Confounding by indication and potential bias arising from missing data within the Mental Health Services Data Set. Data quality issues precluded inclusion of patients who were subject to community treatment orders more than once. Conclusions: Community treatment order use varied between patients, provider trusts and local areas. Community treatment order use was not associated with shorter time to re-admission or reduced time in hospital to a statistically significant degree. We found no evidence that the effectiveness of community treatment orders varied to a significant degree between provider trusts, nor that community treatment orders were associated with reduced mental health treatment costs. Our findings support the view that community treatment orders in England are not effective in reducing future admissions or time spent in hospital. We provide preliminary evidence of an association between community treatment order use and reduced rate of death. Future work: These findings need to be replicated among patients who are subject to community treatment order more than once. The association between community treatment order use and reduced mortality requires further investigation. Study registration: The study was approved by the University of Warwick’s Biomedical and Scientific Research Ethics Committee (REGO-2015-1623). Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

IntroductionCancer care is significantly impacted by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Our objective was to evaluate the early effects of the pandemic on the emotional well-being of oncology providers across the United States and explore factors associated with anxiety and depression symptoms.Materials and methodsA cross-sectional survey was administered to United States cancer-care physicians recruited over a two-week period (3/27/2020-4/10/2020) using snowball-convenience sampling through social media. Symptoms of anxiety and depression were measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4).ResultsOf 486 participants, 374 (77.0%) completed the PHQ-4: median age was 43 years; 63.2% female; all oncologic specialties were represented. The rates of anxiety and depression symptoms were 62.0% and 23.5%, respectively. Demographic factors associated with anxiety included female sex, younger age, and less time in clinical practice. Perception of inadequate personal protective equipment (68.6% vs. 57.4%, p = 0.03) and practicing in a state with more COVID-19 cases (65.8% vs. 51.1%, p = 0.01) were associated with anxiety symptoms. Factors significantly associated with both anxiety and depression included the degree to which COVID-19 has interfered with the ability to provide treatment to cancer patients and concern that patients will not receive the level of care needed for non-COVID-19 illness (all p-values ConclusionThe perceived degree of interference with clinical practice along with personal concerns about COVID-19 were significantly associated with both anxiety and depression among oncology physicians in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings highlight factors associated with and sources of psychological distress to be addressed to protect the well-being of oncology physicians.

IntroductionThe immunosuppressive nature of some cancers and many cancer-directed treatments may increase the risk of infection with and severe sequelae from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The objective of this study was to compare concerns about COVID-19 among individuals undergoing cancer treatment to those with a history of cancer not currently receiving therapy and to those without a cancer history.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional anonymous online survey study of adults currently residing in the United States. Participants were recruited over a one-week period (April 3-11, 2020) using promoted advertisements on Facebook and Twitter. Groups were compared using chi-squared tests, Fisher's exact tests, and t-tests.Results543 respondents from 47 states provided information on their cancer history and were included in analyses. Participants receiving active treatment reported greater concern about infection from the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (pConclusionsPatients undergoing active treatment for cancer were most concerned about the short-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the logistics as well as potential efficacy of ongoing cancer treatment, longer term effects, and overarching societal concerns that the population at large is not as concerned about the public health implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Abstract Background The prevalence of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is estimated between 0.15 and 1.2%, with many of those patients experiencing severe fatigue. Current axSpA assessment guidance recommends use of a single-item visual analogue scale for fatigue severity. However, concerns have been raised about the ability of such a limited assessment to identify patients with major fatigue, to detect important change in fatigue or to reflect the multi-dimensional nature of fatigue. The proposed systematic review will identify and evaluate the quality and acceptability of single- and multi-item patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess fatigue in axSpA, seeking to make recommendations for the ‘best’ measures for research and/or clinical practice. Methods/design The review will seek to include published studies which report evidence of the development and/or measurement and/or practical properties of clearly defined and reproducible measures of fatigue following completion by patients with axSpA. Five major databases will be searched from 1980 to August 2017: MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), World of Science and CINAHL. Study methodological quality will be assessed against the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. The measurement and/or practical properties of reviewed measures will be assessed against current international standards. A short list of the ‘best’-quality PROMs will be produced. The review will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Discussion This study will provide the first robust and transparent evaluation of patient-reported measures of fatigue used in the axSpA population, synthesising evidence of quality, relevance and acceptability. The review will benefit patients, clinicians, health professionals and researchers wishing to enhance axSpA-fatigue assessment in routine practice, service evaluation and research. The findings will impact future research which seeks to better understand the nature of axSpA fatigue and evaluate the relative benefit of fatigue-management strategies. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016042271

Background: Intensive care treatment can be life-saving, but it is invasive and distressing for patients receiving it and it is not always successful. Deciding whether or not a patient will benefit from intensive care is a difficult clinical and ethical challenge. Objectives: To explore the decision-making process for referral and admission to the intensive care unit and to develop and test an intervention to improve it. Methods: A mixed-methods study comprising (1) two systematic reviews investigating the factors associated with decisions to admit patients to the intensive care unit and the experiences of clinicians, patients and families; (2) observation of decisions and interviews with intensive care unit doctors, referring doctors, and patients and families in six NHS trusts in the Midlands, UK; (3) a choice experiment survey distributed to UK intensive care unit consultants and critical care outreach nurses, eliciting their preferences for factors used in decision-making for intensive care unit admission; (4) development of a decision-support intervention informed by the previous work streams, including an ethical framework for decision-making and supporting referral and decision-support forms and patient and family information leaflets. Implementation feasibility was tested in three NHS trusts; (5) development and testing of a tool to evaluate the ethical quality of decision-making related to intensive care unit admission, based on the assessment of patient records. The tool was tested for inter-rater and intersite reliability in 120 patient records. Results: Influences on decision-making identified in the systematic review and ethnographic study included age, presence of chronic illness, functional status, presence of a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation order, referring specialty, referrer seniority and intensive care unit bed availability. Intensive care unit doctors used a gestalt assessment of the patient when making decisions. The choice experiment showed that age was the most important factor in consultants’ and critical care outreach nurses’ preferences for admission. The ethnographic study illuminated the complexity of the decision-making process, and the importance of interprofessional relationships and good communication between teams and with patients and families. Doctors found it difficult to articulate and balance the benefits and burdens of intensive care unit treatment for a patient. There was low uptake of the decision-support intervention, although doctors who used it noted that it improved articulation of reasons for decisions and communication with patients. Limitations: Limitations existed in each of the component studies; for example, we had difficulty recruiting patients and families in our qualitative work. However, the project benefited from a mixed-method approach that mitigated the potential limitations of the component studies. Conclusions: Decision-making surrounding referral and admission to the intensive care unit is complex. This study has provided evidence and resources to help clinicians and organisations aiming to improve the decision-making for and, ultimately, the care of critically ill patients. Future work: Further research is needed into decision-making practices, particularly in how best to engage with patients and families during the decision process. The development and evaluation of training for clinicians involved in these decisions should be a priority for future work. Study registration: The systematic reviews of this study are registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039054, CRD42015019711 and CRD42015019714. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme. The University of Aberdeen and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates fund the Health Economics Research Unit.

Abstract Background In 2008, the Mental Health Act (MHA) 2007 amendments to the MHA 1983 were implemented in England and Wales. The amendments were intended to remove perceived obstacles to the detention of high risk patients with personality disorders (PDs), sexual deviance and learning disabilities (LDs). The AMEND study aimed to test the hypothesis that the implementation of these changes would lead to an increase in numbers or proportions of patients with these conditions who would be assessed and detained under the MHA 2007. Method A prospective, quantitative study of MHA assessments undertaken between July–October 2008–11 at three English sites. Data were collected from local forms used for MHA assessment documentation and patient electronic databases. Results The total number of assessments in each four month period of data collection varied: 1034 in 2008, 1042 in 2009, 1242 in 2010 and 1010 in 2011 (n = 4415). Of the assessments 65.6% resulted in detention in 2008, 71.3% in 2009, 64.7% in 2010 and 63.5% in 2011. There was no significant change in the odds ratio of detention when comparing the 2008 assessments against the combined 2009, 2010 and 2011 data (OR = 1.025, Fisher‘s exact Χ 2 p = 0.735). Only patients with LD and ‘any other disorder or disability of the mind’ were significantly more likely to be assessed under the MHA post implementation (Χ2 = 5.485, P = 0.018; Χ2 = 24.962, P > 0.001 respectively). There was no significant change post implementation in terms of the diagnostic category of detained patients. Conclusions In the first three years post implementation, the 2007 Act did not facilitate the compulsory care of patients with PDs, sexual deviance and LDs.

Background: Rates of compulsory admission have increased in England in recent decades, and this trend is accelerating. Studying variation in rates between people and places can help identify modifiable causes. Objectives: To quantify and model variances in the rate of compulsory admission in England at different spatial levels and to assess the extent to which this was explained by characteristics of people and places. Design: Cross-sectional analysis using multilevel statistical modelling. Setting: England, including 98% of Census lower layer super output areas (LSOAs), 95% of primary care trusts (PCTs), 93% of general practices and all 69 NHS providers of specialist mental health services. Participants: 1,287,730 patients. Main outcome measure: The study outcome was compulsory admission, defined as time spent in an inpatient mental illness bed subject to the Mental Health Act (2007) in 2010/11. We excluded patients detained under sections applying to emergency assessment only (including those in places of safety), guardianship or supervision of community treatment. The control group comprised all other users of specialist mental health services during the same period. Data sources: The Mental Health Minimum Data Set (MHMDS). Data on explanatory variables, characterising each of the spatial levels in the data set, were obtained from a wide range of sources, and were linked using MHMDS identifiers. Results: A total of 3.5% of patients had at least one compulsory admission in 2010/11. Of (unexplained) variance in the null model, 84.5% occurred between individuals. Statistically significant variance occurred between LSOAs [6.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.2% to 7.2%] and provider trusts (6.9%, 95% CI 4.3% to 9.5%). Variances at these higher levels remained statistically significant even after adjusting for a large number of explanatory variables, which together explained only 10.2% of variance in the study outcome. The number of provider trusts whose observed rate of compulsory admission differed from the model average to a statistically significant extent fell from 45 in the null model to 20 in the fully adjusted model. We found statistically significant associations between compulsory admission and age, gender, ethnicity, local area deprivation and ethnic density. There was a small but statistically significant association between (higher) bed occupancy and compulsory admission, but this was subsequently confounded by other covariates. Adjusting for PCT investment in mental health services did not improve model fit in the fully adjusted models. Conclusions: This was the largest study of compulsory admissions in England. While 85% of the variance in this outcome occurred between individuals, statistically significant variance (around 7% each) occurred between places (LSOAs) and provider trusts. This higher-level variance in compulsory admission remained largely unchanged even after adjusting for a large number of explanatory variables. We were constrained by data available to us, and therefore our results must be interpreted with caution. We were also unable to consider many hypotheses suggested by the service users, carers and professionals who we consulted. There is an imperative to develop and evaluate interventions to reduce compulsory admission rates. This requires further research to extend our understanding of the reasons why these rates remain so high. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.