Search

Background: A high proportion of patients do not regain outdoor mobility after hip fracture. Rehabilitation explicitly targeting outdoor mobility is needed to enable these older adults to recover activities which they value most. The overarching aim of this study is to determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial which aims to assess the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of an intervention designed to enable recovery of outdoor mobility among older adults after hip fracture (the OUTDOOR intervention). Methods: This is a protocol for a multi-centre pragmatic parallel group (allocation ratio 1:1) randomised controlled assessor-blinded feasibility trial. Adults aged 60 years or more, admitted to hospital from- and planned discharge to- home, with self-reported outdoor mobility in the three-months pre-fracture, surgically treated for hip fracture, and who are able to consent and participate, are eligible. Individuals who require two or more people to support mobility on discharge will be excluded. Screening and consent (or consent to contact) will take place in hospital. Baseline assessment and randomisation will follow discharge from hospital. Participants will then receive usual care (delivered by physiotherapy, occupational therapy, or therapy assistants), or usual care plus the OUTDOOR intervention. The OUTDOOR intervention includes a goal-orientated outdoor mobility programme (supported by up to six in-person visits), therapist-led motivational dialogue (supported by up to four telephone calls), supported by a past-patient led video where recovery experiences are shared, and support to transition to independent ongoing recovery. Therapists delivering the OUTDOOR intervention (distinct from those supporting usual care) will receive training in motivational interviewing and behaviour change techniques. Baseline demographics will be collected. Patient reported outcome measures including health related quality of life, activities of daily living, pain, community mobility, falls related self-efficacy, resource use, readmissions, and mortality will be collected at baseline, 6-weeks, 12-weeks, and 6-months (for those enrolled early in the trial) post-randomisation. Exercise adherence (6- and 12- weeks) and intervention acceptability (12-weeks) will be collected. A subset of 20 participants will also support accelerometery data collection for 10 days at each time point. Dissemination: The trial findings will be disseminated to patients and the public, health professionals and researchers through publications, presentations and social media channels. Trial registration: The trial has been registered at ISRCTN16147125. Protocol version: 3.0. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID‐19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses' moral distress, patient health‐related quality of life and cost‐effectiveness. Design: Parallel two‐arm, cluster‐level randomized controlled trial. Methods: Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID‐19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient‐reported co‐primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention‐to‐treat analyses. Results: We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570–572 (98.1%–98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between‐group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between‐group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co‐primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the 'other' ethnicity subgroup. Conclusion: We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non‐white British patients' experience of care. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required. Impact: Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non‐white British patients' experience of care. Reporting Method: CONSORT and CONSERVE. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID‐19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Approximately 1.5 million adults in the UK have a learning disability. The difference between age at death for this group and the general population is 26 years for females and 22 years for males. The NHS Long Term Plan (January 2019) recognises learning disabilities as a clinical priority area. People with a learning disability are often excluded from research by design or lack of reasonable adjustments, and self-reported health status/health-related quality of life questionnaires such as the EQ-5D are often not appropriate for this population. Here, we systematically examine the EQ-5D-3L (its wording, content, and format) using qualitative methods to inform the adaption of the measure for use with adults with mild to moderate learning disabilities. Methods: Think-aloud interviews with carers/advocates of learning-disabled adults were undertaken to explore the difficulties with completing the EQ-5D-3L. Alternative wording, language, structure, and images were developed using focus groups, stakeholder reference groups, and an expert panel. Data analysis followed a framework method. Results: The dimensions and levels within the EQ-5D-3L were deemed appropriate for adults with mild to moderate learning disabilities. Consensus on wording, structure, and images was reached through an iterative process, and an adapted version of the EQ-5D-3L was finalised. Conclusion: The EQ-5D-3L adapted for adults with mild to moderate intellectual/learning disabilities can facilitate measurement of self-reported health status. Research is underway to assess the potential use of the adaptation for economic evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective, scalable interventions are needed to prevent poor mental health in young people. Although mental health apps can provide scalable prevention, few have been rigorously tested in high-powered trials built on models of healthy emotional functioning or tailored to individual profiles. We aimed to test a personalised emotional competence app versus a cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) self-help app versus a self-monitoring app to prevent an increase in depression symptoms in young people., Methods: This multicentre, parallel, open-label, randomised controlled trial, within a cohort multiple randomised trial (including a parallel trial of wellbeing promotion) was done at four university trial sites in the UK, Germany, Spain, and Belgium. Participants were recruited from schools, universities, and social media from the four respective countries. Eligible participants were aged 16-22 years with increased vulnerability indexed by baseline emotional competence profile, without current or past diagnosis of major depression. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to usual practice plus either the personalised emotional competence self-help app, the generic CBT self-help app, or the self-monitoring app by an independent computerised system, minimised by country, age, and self-reported gender, and followed up for 12 months post-randomisation. Outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was depression symptoms (according to Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]) at 3-month follow-up, analysed in participants who completed the 3-month follow-up assessment. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04148508, and is closed., Findings: Between Oct 15, 2020, and Aug 3, 2021, 1262 participants were enrolled, including 417 to the emotional competence app, 423 to the CBT app, and 422 to the self-monitoring app. Mean age was 18·8 years (SD 2·0). Of 1262 participants self-reporting gender, 984 (78·0%) were female, 253 (20·0%) were male, 15 (1·2%) were neither, and ten (0·8%) were both. 178 participants in the emotional competence app group, 191 in the CBT app group, and 199 in the self-monitoring app group completed the follow-up assessment at 3 months. At 3 months, depression symptoms were lower with the CBT app than the self-monitoring app (mean difference in PHQ-9 -1·18 [95% CI -2·01 to -0·34]; p=0·006), but depression symptoms did not differ between the emotional competence app and the CBT app (0·63 [-0·22 to 1·49]; p=0·15) or the self-monitoring app and emotional competence app (-0·54 [-1·39 to 0·31]; p=0·21). 31 of the 541 participants who completed any of the follow-up assessments received treatment in hospital or were admitted to hospital for mental health-related reasons considered unrelated to interventions (eight in the emotional competence app group, 15 in the CBT app group, and eight in the self-monitoring app group). No deaths occurred., Interpretation: The CBT app delayed increases in depression symptoms in at-risk young people relative to the self-monitoring app, although this benefit faded by 12 months. Against hypotheses, the emotional competence app was not more effective at reducing depression symptoms than the self-monitoring app. CBT self-help apps might be valuable public mental health interventions for young people given their scalability, non-consumable nature, and affordability., Funding: European Commission., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests ERW reports royalties from Guilford Press for a CBT treatment manual he authored and is an expert member of the NICE Guidelines for treatment of adult depression. MFr is a founder and shareholder of Monsenso. BWS is a founder and shareholder of audEERING. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Based on evidence that mental health is more than an absence of mental disorders, there have been calls to find ways to promote flourishing at a population level, especially in young people, which requires effective and scalable interventions. Despite their potential for scalability, few mental wellbeing apps have been rigorously tested in high-powered trials, derived from models of healthy emotional functioning, or tailored to individual profiles. We aimed to test a personalised emotional competence self-help app versus a cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) self-help app versus a self-monitoring app to promote mental wellbeing in healthy young people., Methods: This international, multicentre, parallel, open-label, randomised controlled trial within a cohort multiple randomised trial (including a parallel trial of depression prevention) was done at four university trial sites in four countries (the UK, Germany, Spain, and Belgium). Participants were recruited from schools and universities and via social media from the four respective countries. Eligible participants were aged 16-22 years with well adjusted emotional competence profiles and no current or past diagnosis of major depression. Participants were randomised (1:1:1) to usual practice plus either the emotional competence app, the CBT app or the self-monitoring app, by an independent computerised system, minimised by country, age, and self-reported gender, and followed up for 12 months post-randomisation. The primary outcome was mental wellbeing (indexed by the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well Being Scale [WEMWBS]) at 3-month follow-up, analysed in participants who completed the 3-month follow-up assessment. Outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04148508, and is closed., Findings: Between Oct 15, 2020, and Aug 3, 2021, 2532 participants were enrolled, and 847 were randomly assigned to the emotional competence app, 841 to the CBT app, and 844 to the self-monitoring app. Mean age was 19·2 years (SD 1·8). Of 2532 participants self-reporting gender, 1896 (74·9%) were female, 613 (24·2%) were male, 16 (0·6%) were neither, and seven (0·3%) were both. 425 participants in the emotional competence app group, 443 in the CT app group, and 447 in the self-monitoring app group completed the follow-up assessment at 3 months. There was no difference in mental wellbeing between the groups at 3 months (global p=0·47). The emotional competence app did not differ from the CBT app (mean difference in WEMWBS -0·21 [95% CI -1·08 to 0·66]) or the self-monitoring app (0·32 [-0·54 to 1·19]) and the CBT app did not differ from the self-monitoring app (0·53 [-0·33 to 1·39]). 14 of 1315 participants were admitted to or treated in hospital (or both) for mental health-related reasons, which were considered unrelated to the interventions (five participants in the emotional competence app group, eight in the CBT app group, and one in the self-monitoring app group). No deaths occurred., Interpretation: The emotional competence app and the CBT app provided limited benefit in promoting mental wellbeing in healthy young people. This finding might reflect the low intensity of these interventions and the difficulty improving mental wellbeing via universal digital interventions implemented in low-risk populations., Funding: European Commission., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests ERW receives royalties from Guilford Press for a CBT treatment manual he authored and was an expert member of the NICE Guidelines for treatment of adult depression. MFr is a founder and shareholder of Monsenso. BWS is a founder and shareholder of audEERING. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition which leads to an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer. Risk-reducing surgery is generally recommended to manage the risk of gynaecological cancer once childbearing is completed. The value of gynaecological colonoscopic surveillance as an interim measure or instead of risk-reducing surgery is uncertain. We aimed to determine whether gynaecological surveillance was effective and cost-effective in Lynch syndrome., Methods: We conducted systematic reviews of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome, as well as a systematic review of health utility values relating to cancer and gynaecological risk reduction. Study identification included bibliographic database searching and citation chasing (searches updated 3 August 2021). Screening and assessment of eligibility for inclusion were conducted by independent researchers. Outcomes were prespecified and were informed by clinical experts and patient involvement. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted and results were synthesised narratively. We also developed a whole-disease economic model for Lynch syndrome using discrete event simulation methodology, including natural history components for colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer, and we used this model to conduct a cost-utility analysis of gynaecological risk management strategies, including surveillance, risk-reducing surgery and doing nothing., Results: We found 30 studies in the review of clinical effectiveness, of which 20 were non-comparative (single-arm) studies. There were no high-quality studies providing precise outcome estimates at low risk of bias. There is some evidence that mortality rate is higher for surveillance than for risk-reducing surgery but mortality is also higher for no surveillance than for surveillance. Some asymptomatic cancers were detected through surveillance but some cancers were also missed. There was a wide range of pain experiences, including some individuals feeling no pain and some feeling severe pain. The use of pain relief (e.g. ibuprofen) was common, and some women underwent general anaesthetic for surveillance. Existing economic evaluations clearly found that risk-reducing surgery leads to the best lifetime health (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and is cost-effective, while surveillance is not cost-effective in comparison. Our economic evaluation found that a strategy of surveillance alone or offering surveillance and risk-reducing surgery was cost-effective, except for path_PMS2 Lynch syndrome. Offering only risk-reducing surgery was less effective than offering surveillance with or without surgery., Limitations: Firm conclusions about clinical effectiveness could not be reached because of the lack of high-quality research. We did not assume that women would immediately take up risk-reducing surgery if offered, and it is possible that risk-reducing surgery would be more effective and cost-effective if it was taken up when offered., Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome on clinical grounds, but modelling suggests that surveillance could be cost-effective. Further research is needed but it must be rigorously designed and well reported to be of benefit., Study Registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020171098., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129713) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 28, No. 41. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Introduction: Stroke is a leading cause of disability throughout the world. Unilateral upper limb impairment is common in people who have had a stroke. As a result of impaired upper limb function, people who have had a stroke often employ abnormal 'compensatory' movements. In the short term, these compensatory movements allow the individual to complete tasks, though long-term movement in this manner can lead to limitations. Telerehabilitation offers the provision of rehabilitation services to patients at a remote location using information and communication technologies. 'EvolvRehab' is one such telerehabilitation system, which uses activities to assess and correct compensatory upper body movements, although the feasibility of its use is yet to be determined in National Health Service services. Using EvolvRehab, we aim to assess the feasibility of 6 weeks telerehabilitation in people after a stroke., Methods and Analysis: A multisite feasibility study with embedded design phase. Normally distributed data will be analysed using paired samples t-tests; non-normally distributed data will be analysed using related samples Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Thematic content analysis of interview transcripts will be used to investigate the usability and perceived usefulness of the EvolvRehab kit., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has received ethical approval from Solihull Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 23/WM/0054). Dissemination will be carried out according to the dissemination plan co-written with stroke survivors, including academic publications and presentations; written reports; articles in publications of stakeholder organisations; presentations to and publications for potential customers., Trial Registration Number: NCT05875792., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors receive salary funding for his/her work on a company-led but UK government-funded project supporting the development and evaluation of EvolvRehab for NHS use. HD also receives funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research Exeter Biomedical Research Centre., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)