Search

Abstract Most cancers occur in older people and the burden in this age group is increasing. Over the past two decades the evidence on how best to treat this population has increased rapidly. However, implementation of new best practices has been slow and needs involvement of policymakers. This perspective paper explains why older people with cancer have different needs than the wider population. An overview is given of the recommended approach for older people with cancer and its benefits on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. In older patients, the geriatric assessment (GA) is the gold standard to measure level of fitness and to determine treatment tolerability. The GA, with multiple domains of physical health, functional status, psychological health and socio-environmental factors, prevents initiation of inappropriate oncologic treatment and recommends geriatric interventions to optimize the patient’s general health and thus resilience for receiving treatments. Multiple studies have proven its benefits such as reduced toxicity, better quality of life, better patient-centred communication and lower healthcare use. Although GA might require investment of time and resources, this is relatively small compared to the improved outcomes, possible cost-savings and compared to the large cost of oncologic treatments as a whole.

BackgroundOver 65s are frequent attenders to the Emergency Department (ED) and more than half are admitted for overnight stays. Early assessment and intervention by a dedicated ED-based Health and Social Care Professionals (HSCP) team reduces ED length of stay and the risk of hospital admissions among older adults while improving patient health-related quality-of-life and satisfaction with care. This study aims to evaluate whether augmenting the treatment as usual for older adults admitted to ED is cost-effective.Methods and findingsCost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), conducted alongside the OPTI-MEND randomised controlled trial of 353 patients aged ≥65 with lower urgency complaints compared the effectiveness of early assessment and intervention by a dedicated HSCP team in the ED to treatment as usual (TAU). An economic analysis estimated the average cost per older adults randomised to the HSCP team, and compared to TAU, how contact with HSCP team changed health care use, and associated total costs, and estimated the effect of HSCP on Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Within the OPTI-MEND trial, the average cost of a contact with the HSCP team during ED attendance is estimated to be €801 per patient. Compared to TAU, the incremental QALY of intervention is 0.053 (95% CI: 0.023 to 0.0826, pConclusionsA dedicated HSCP team in the ED significantly improves overall health for lower acuity older adults and, by reducing inpatient length of stay, results in staggering cost savings. This economic evaluation conducted on the OPTI-MEND trial provides convincing evidence that HSCP should be adopted as part of treatment as usual in Irish EDs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03739515; registered on 12th November 2018. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03739515.

Introduction The Core Outcome Measures for Improving Care (COM-IC) project aims to deliver practical recommendations on the selection and implementation of a suite of core outcomes to measure the effectiveness of interventions for dementia care.Methods and analysis COM-IC embeds a participatory action approach to using the Alignment–Harmonisation–Results framework for measuring dementia care in Australia. Using this framework, suitable core outcome measures will be identified, analysed, implemented and audited. The methods for analysing each stage will be codesigned with stakeholders, through the conduit of a Stakeholder Reference Group including people living with dementia, formal and informal carers, aged care industry representatives, researchers, clinicians and policy actors. The codesigned evaluation methods consider two key factors: feasibility and acceptability. These considerations will be tested during a 6-month feasibility study embedded in aged care industry partner organisations.Ethics and dissemination COM-IC has received ethical approval from The University of Queensland (HREC 2021/HE001932). Results will be disseminated through networks established over the project, and in accordance with both the publication schedule and requests from the Stakeholder Reference Group. Full access to publications and reports will be made available through UQ eSpace (https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/), an open access repository hosted by The University of Queensland.

Background Dementia research prioritisation allows for the systematic allocation of investment in dementia research by governments, funding agencies and the private sector. There is currently a lack of information available in Ireland regarding priority areas for dementia research. To address this gap, a dementia research prioritisation exercise was undertaken, consisting of an online survey of professionals in the dementia field and workshops for people living with dementia and family carers. Methods (1) An anonymous online survey of professionals, based on an existing WHO global survey: the global survey was adapted to an Irish context and participants were asked to score 65 thematic research avenues under five criteria; (2) A mixed-methods exercise for people living with dementia and family carers: this involved two facilitated workshops where participants voted on the research themes they felt were important to them and should be addressed through research. Results Eight of the top ten research priorities in the survey of professionals (n=108) were focused on the delivery and quality of care and services for people with dementia and carers. Other research avenues ranked in the top ten focused on themes of timely and accurate diagnosis of dementia in primary health-care practices and diversifying therapeutic approaches in clinical trials. Participants in the workshops (n=13) ranked ‘better drugs and treatment for people with dementia’, ‘dementia prevention/ risk reduction’ and ‘care for people with dementia and carers’ as their top priority areas. Conclusions Findings from this prioritisation exercise will inform and motivate policymakers, funders and researchers to support and conduct dementia-focused research and ensure that the limited resources made available are spent on research that has the most impact for those who will benefit from and use the results of research.

Abstract Background Population ageing is increasing rapidly worldwide. Older adults are frequent users of health care services including the Emergency Department (ED) and experience a number of adverse outcomes following an ED visit. Adverse outcomes include functional decline, unplanned hospital admission and an ED revisit. Given these adverse outcomes a number of interventions have been examined to improve the outcomes of older adults following presentation to the ED. The aim of this umbrella review was to evaluate the effectiveness of ED interventions in reducing adverse outcomes in older adults discharged from the ED. Methods Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials investigating ED interventions for older adults presenting to the ED exploring clinical, patient experience and healthcare utilisation outcomes were included. A comprehensive search strategy was employed in eleven databases and the PROSPERO register up until June 2020. Grey literature was also searched. Quality was assessed using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 tool. Overlap between systematic reviews was assessed using a matrix of evidence table. An algorithm to assign the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess the strength of evidence was applied for all outcomes. Results Nine systematic reviews including 29 randomised controlled trials were included. Interventions comprised of solely ED-based or transitional interventions. The specific interventions delivered were highly variable. There was high overlap and low methodological quality of the trials informing the systematic reviews. There is low quality evidence to support ED interventions in reducing functional decline, improving patient experience and improving quality of life. The quality of evidence of the effectiveness of ED interventions to reduce mortality and ED revisits varied from very low to moderate. Results were presented narratively and summary of evidence tables created. Conclusion Older adults are the most important emerging group in healthcare for several economic, social and political reasons. The existing evidence for the effectiveness of ED interventions for older adults is limited. This umbrella review highlights the challenge of synthesising evidence due to significant heterogeneity in methods, intervention content and reporting of outcomes. Higher quality intervention studies in line with current geriatric medicine research guidelines are recommended, rather than the publication of further systematic reviews. Trial registration UMBRELLA REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ( CRD42020145315 ).

Abstract Background Older adults frequently attend the emergency department (ED) and experience high rates of adverse outcomes following ED presentation including functional decline, ED re-presentation and unplanned hospital admission. The development of effective interventions to prevent such outcomes is a key priority for research and service provision. This paper reports a protocol designed to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a three arm randomised controlled trial (RCT) within the ED setting and in the patient’s home. The interventions are comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), ED PLUS and usual care. Methods The ED PLUS pilot trial is designed as a feasibility RCT conducted in the ED and Acute Medical Assessment Unit of a university teaching hospital in the mid-west region of Ireland. We aim to recruit 30 patients, aged 65 years and over presenting to the ED with undifferentiated medical complaints and discharged within 72 h of index visit. Patients will be randomised by a computer in a ratio of 1:1:1 to deliver usual care, CGA or ED PLUS during a 6-month study period. A randomised algorithm is used to perform randomization. CGA will include a medical assessment, medication review, nursing assessment, falls assessment, assessment of mobility and stairs, transfers, personal care, activities of daily living (ADLs), social supports and baseline cognition. ED PLUS, a physiotherapist led, multidisciplinary intervention, aims to bridge the transition of care between the index visit to the ED and the community by initiating a CGA intervention in the ED and implementing a 6-week follow-up self-management programme in the patient’s own home following discharge from the ED. The outcomes will be parameters of the feasibility of the intervention and trial methods and will be assessed quantitatively and qualitatively. Discussion Rising ED visits and an ageing population with chronic health issues render ED interventions to reduce adverse outcomes in older adults a research priority. This feasibility RCT will generate data and experience to inform the conduct and delivery of a definite RCT. Trial registration The trial was registered in Clinical Trials Protocols and Results System as of 21st July 2021, with registration number NCT049836020 .

Introduction: Older adults frequently attend the emergency department (ED) and experience high rates of adverse outcomes following ED presentation including functional decline, ED re-presentation and unplanned hospital admission. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of a physiotherapy-led integrated care intervention for older adults discharged from the ED (ED-PLUS).Methods: Older adults presenting to the ED with undifferentiated medical complaints and discharged within 72 hours were computer randomised in a ratio of 1:1:1 to deliver usual care, Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) in the ED, or ED-PLUS (trial registration: NCT04983602). ED-PLUS is an evidence-based and stakeholder-informed intervention to bridge the care transition between the ED and community by initiating a CGA in the ED and implementing a 6-week, multi-component, self-management programme in the patient’s own home. Feasibility (recruitment and retention rates) and acceptability of the programme were assessed quantitatively and qualitatively. Functional decline was examined post-intervention using the Barthel Index. All outcomes were assessed by a research nurse blinded to group allocation.Results: Twenty-nine participants were recruited, indicating 97% of our recruitment target; 90% of participants completed the ED-PLUS intervention. All participants expressed positive feedback about the intervention. The incidence of functional decline at 6 weeks was 10% in the ED-PLUS group versus 70%-89% in the usual care and CGA-only groups.Discussion: High adherence and retention rates were observed among participants and preliminary findings indicate a lower incidence of functional decline in the ED-PLUS group. Recruitment challenges existed in the context of COVID-19. Data collection is ongoing for 6-month outcomes.

Objective To compare the outcomes in published core outcome sets with the outcomes recommended in corresponding guidance documents from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), matched by health condition.Design Cross sectional analysis.Setting US and Europe.Population Sample of core outcome sets related to drugs, devices, and gene therapy that involved patients in the consensus process, published between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019; and corresponding EMA and FDA guidance documents.Main outcome measures The extent of matches between outcomes included within core outcome sets and those recommended in corresponding EMA and FDA guidance documents were assessed. Matches were considered to be general (ie, non-specific) or specific (ie, exact). General matches were assessed to determine whether the core outcome set or guidance document outcome was narrower.Results Relevant guidance documents were found for for 38 (39%) of 98 eligible published core outcome sets. Among outcomes in core outcome sets, medians of 70% (interquartile range 48-86%) and 52% (33-77%) were matches with outcomes recommended in EMA and FDA documents, respectively. Medians of 46% (27-68%) and 26% (18-46%) were specific matches with outcomes in EMA and FDA documents, respectively. When outcomes were generally matched, the outcomes from core outcome sets were more frequently narrower than the regulatory outcomes (83% and 75% for EMA and FDA, respectively).Conclusion Greater adoption of, and reference to, core outcome sets in regulatory guidance documents can encourage clinical trialists, especially those in industry, to measure and report consistent and agreed outcomes and improve the quality of guidance. Given the overlap between outcomes in core outcome sets and regulatory guidance, and given that most core outcome sets now involve patients in the consensus process, these sets could serve as a useful resource for regulators when recommending outcomes for studies evaluating regulated products. Developers are encouraged to appraise recommended outcomes in salient regulatory documents when planning a core outcome set.

Background: The COMET Initiative promotes the development and use of ‘core outcome sets’ (COS), agreed standardised sets of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all studies in a particular clinical condition. COS are determined by consensus amongst key stakeholders, including health professionals, policymakers and patients, ensuring that the priorities and expertise of these representatives inform the choice of the most important outcomes to measure for a given condition. There is increased recognition of the need to integrate COS across the healthcare system and with existing regulatory apparatus, to ensure that outcomes being recorded are those of key relevance to important stakeholders. The aim of this study is to assess the degree of concordance between outcomes recommended in COS for research and in guidance provided by two key regulators: US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Methods: COS for research published during 2015-2019 with patient involvement and covering drug or device interventions will be compared against relevant regulatory guidelines, matched by condition. Guidance documents matching in scope (relating to intervention and population) to a COS for research will be scrutinised to identify all suggested outcomes for comparison against the core outcomes in the corresponding COS. Discussion: This study will identify variation between outcomes suggested in FDA and EMA regulatory guidance relative to outcomes included in published COS for research, thus demonstrating the degree of representation of COS in regulatory guidance and vice versa. We will share the study findings (in particular, highlighting any lack of concordance between COS and regulatory guidance overall or for particular disease areas) and will invite feedback from FDA and EMA; we will seek to highlight where findings support the recommendations towards using well-developed COS or will make recommendations to COS developers on outcomes of importance to these key regulators.

Background: Care home residents are mainly inactive, leading to increased dependency and low mood. Although exercise classes may increase activity, a more sustainable model is to engage staff and residents in increasing routine activity. Objectives: The objectives were to develop and preliminarily test strategies to enhance the routine physical activity of care home residents to improve their physical, psychological and social well-being through five overlapping workstreams. Design: This trial had a mixed-methods research design to develop and test the feasibility of undertaking an evaluative study consisting of gaining an understanding of the opportunities for and barriers to enhancing physical activity in care homes (workstream 1); testing physical activity assessment instruments (workstream 2); developing an intervention through a process of intervention mapping (workstream 3); refining the provisional intervention in the care home setting and clarifying outcome measurement (workstream 4); and undertaking a cluster randomised feasibility trial of the intervention [introduced via three facilitated workshops at baseline (with physiotherapist input), 2 weeks (with artist input) and 2 months], with embedded process and health economic evaluations (workstream 5). Setting: The trial was set in 12 residential care homes differing in size, location, ownership and provision in Yorkshire, UK. Participants: The participants were elderly residents, carers, managers and staff of care homes. Intervention: The intervention was MoveMore, designed for the whole home, to encourage and support the movement of residents in their daily routines. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures related to the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a full-scale trial in terms of recruitment and retention of care homes and residents, intervention delivery, completion and reporting of baseline data and outcomes (including hours of accelerometer wear, hours of sedentary behaviour and hours and type of physical activity), and safety and cost data (workstream 5). Results: Workstream 1 – through a detailed understanding of life in a care home, a needs assessment was produced, and barriers to and facilitators of activity were identified. Key factors included ethos of care; organisation, management and delivery of care; use of space; and the residents’ daily routines. Workstream 2 – 22 (73.3%) out of 30 residents who wore a hip accelerometer had valid data (≥ 8 hours on ≥ 4 days of the week). Workstream 3 – practical mechanisms for increasing physical activity were developed, informed by an advisory group of stakeholders and outputs from workstreams 1 and 2, framed by the process of intervention mapping. Workstream 4 – action groups were convened in four care homes to refine the intervention, leading to further development of implementation strategies. The intervention, MoveMore, is a whole-home intervention involving engagement with a stakeholder group to implement a cyclical process of change to encourage and support the movement of residents in their daily routines. Workstream 5 – 12 care homes and 153 residents were recruited to the cluster randomised feasibility trial. Recruitment in the care homes varied (40–89%). Five care homes were randomised to the intervention and seven were randomised to usual care. Predetermined progression criteria were recruitment of care homes and residents (green); intervention delivery (amber); and data collection and follow-up – 52% of residents provided usable accelerometer data at 9 months (red), > 75% of residents had reported outcomes at 9 months (green, but self-reported resident outcomes were red), 26% loss of residents to follow-up at 9 months [just missing green criterion (no greater than 25%)] and safety concerns (green). Limitations: Observations of residents’ movements were not conducted in private spaces. Working with care home residents to identify appropriate outcome measures was challenging. Take-up of the intervention was suboptimal in some sites. It was not possible to make a reliably informed decision on the most appropriate physical activity end point(s) for future use in a definitive trial. Conclusions: A whole-home intervention was developed that was owned and delivered by staff and was informed by residents and staff. The feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial was successfully tested: the target numbers of care homes and residents were recruited, demonstrating that it is possible to recruit care home residents to a cluster randomised trial, although this process was time-consuming and resource heavy. A large data set was collected, which provided a comprehensive picture of the environment, residents and staff in care homes. Extensive quantitative and qualitative work comprehensively explored a neglected area of health and social care research. Completion of ethnographic work in a range of settings enabled the production of an in-depth picture of life in care homes that will be helpful for other researchers considering organisational change in this setting. Future work: The content and delivery of the intervention requires optimisation and the outcome measurement requires further refinement prior to undertaking a full trial evaluation. Consideration could be given to a recommended, simplified, core outcome set, which would facilitate data collection in this population. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16076575. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grant for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grant for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BackgroundOlder adults frequently attend the emergency department (ED) and experience high rates of adverse events following ED presentation. This randomised controlled trial evaluated the impact of early assessment and intervention by a dedicated team of health and social care professionals (HSCPs) in the ED on the quality, safety, and clinical effectiveness of care of older adults in the ED.Methods and findingsThis single-site randomised controlled trial included a sample of 353 patients aged ≥65 years (mean age = 79.6, SD = 7.01; 59.2% female) who presented with lower urgency complaints to the ED a university hospital in the Mid-West region of Ireland, during HSCP operational hours. The intervention consisted of early assessment and intervention carried out by a HSCP team comprising a senior medical social worker, senior occupational therapist, and senior physiotherapist. The primary outcome was ED length of stay. Secondary outcomes included rates of hospital admissions from the ED; hospital length of stay for admitted patients; patient satisfaction with index visit; ED revisits, mortality, nursing home admission, and unscheduled hospital admission at 30-day and 6-month follow-up; and patient functional status and quality of life (at index visit and follow-up). Demographic information included the patient's gender, age, marital status, residential status, mode of arrival to the ED, source of referral, index complaint, triage category, falls, and hospitalisation history. Participants in the intervention group (n = 176) experienced a significantly shorter ED stay than the control group (n = 177) (6.4 versus 12.1 median hours, p < 0.001). Other significant differences (intervention versus control) included lower rates of hospital admissions from the ED (19.3% versus 55.9%, p < 0.001), higher levels of satisfaction with the ED visit (p = 0.008), better function at 30-day (p = 0.01) and 6-month follow-up (p = 0.03), better mobility (p = 0.02 at 30 days), and better self-care (p = 0.03 at 30 days; p = 0.009 at 6 months). No differences at follow-up were observed in terms of ED re-presentation or hospital admission. Study limitations include the inability to blind patients or ED staff to allocation due to the nature of the intervention, and a focus on early assessment and intervention in the ED rather than care integration following discharge.ConclusionsEarly assessment and intervention by a dedicated ED-based HSCP team reduced ED length of stay and the risk of hospital admissions among older adults, as well as improving patient satisfaction. Our findings support the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary model of care for key ED outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03739515; registered on 12 November 2018.

Background: The COMET Initiative promotes the development and use of ‘core outcome sets’ (COS), agreed standardised sets of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all studies in a particular clinical condition. COS are determined by consensus amongst key stakeholders, including health professionals, policymakers and patients, ensuring that the priorities and expertise of these representatives inform the choice of the most important outcomes to measure for a given condition. There is increased recognition of the need to integrate COS across the healthcare system and with existing regulatory apparatus, to ensure that outcomes being recorded are those of key relevance to important stakeholders. The aim of this study is to assess the degree of concordance between outcomes recommended in COS for research and in guidance provided by two key regulators: US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Methods: COS for research published during 2015-2019 with patient involvement and covering drug or device interventions will be compared against relevant regulatory guidelines, matched by condition. Guidance documents matching in scope (relating to intervention and population) to a COS for research will be scrutinised to identify all suggested outcomes for comparison against the core outcomes in the corresponding COS. Discussion: This study will identify variation between outcomes suggested in FDA and EMA regulatory guidance relative to outcomes included in published COS for research, thus demonstrating the degree of representation of COS in regulatory guidance and vice versa. We will share the study findings (in particular, highlighting any lack of concordance between COS and regulatory guidance overall or for particular disease areas) and will invite feedback from FDA and EMA; we will seek to highlight where findings support the recommendations towards using well-developed COS or will make recommendations to COS developers on outcomes of importance to these key regulators.

Abstract Background Older people are frequent emergency department (ED) users who present with complex issues that are linked to poorer health outcomes following the index visit, often have increased ED length of stay, and tend to have raised healthcare costs. Encouraging evidence suggests that ED teams involving health and social care professionals (HSCPs) can contribute to enhanced patient flow and an improved patient experience by improving care decision-making and thus promoting timely and effective care. However, the evidence supporting the impact of HSCP teams assessing and intervening with older adults in the ED is limited and identifies important methodological limitations, highlighting the need for more robust and comprehensive investigations of this model of care. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a dedicated ED-based HSCP team on the quality, safety, and clinical- and cost-effectiveness of care of older adults when compared with usual care. Methods The study is a single-site randomised controlled trial whereby patients aged ≥65 years who present to the ED of a large Irish hospital will be randomised to the experimental group (ED-based HSCP assessment and intervention) or the control group (usual ED care). The recruitment target is 320 participants. The HSCP team will provide a comprehensive functional assessment as well as interventions to promote a safe discharge for the patient. The primary outcome is ED length of stay (from arrival to discharge). Secondary outcomes include: rates of hospital admissions from the ED, ED re-visits, unplanned hospital admissions and healthcare utilisation at 30 days, and 4 and 6 months of follow-up; patient functional status and quality of life (at baseline and follow-up); patient satisfaction; cost-effectiveness in terms of costs associated with ED-based HSCP compared with usual care; and perceptions on implementation by ED staff members. Discussion This is the first randomised controlled trial testing the impact of HSCPs working in teams in the ED on the quality, safety, and clinical- and cost-effectiveness of care for older patients. The findings of this study will provide important information on the effectiveness of this model of care for future implementation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03739515. Registered on 12 November 2018.

Abstract Background Obesity is a rising global threat to health and a major contributor to health inequalities. Weight management programmes that are effective, economical and reach underprivileged groups are needed. We examined whether a multi-modal group intervention structured to cater for clients from disadvantaged communities (Weight Action Programme; WAP) has better one-year outcomes than a primary care standard weight management intervention delivered by practice nurses (PNI). Methods In this randomised controlled trial, 330 obese adults were recruited from general practices in London and allocated (2:1) to WAP (N = 221) delivered over eight weekly group sessions or PNI (N = 109) who received four sessions over eight weeks. Both interventions covered diet, physical activity and self-monitoring. The primary outcome was the change in weight from baseline at 12 months. To indicate value to the NHS, a cost effectiveness analysis estimated group differences in cost and Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) related to WAP. Results Participants were recruited from September 2012 to January 2014 with follow-up completed in February 2015. Most participants were not in paid employment and 60% were from ethnic minorities. 88% of participants in each study arm provided at least one recorded outcome and were included in the primary analysis. Compared with the PNI, WAP was associated with greater weight loss overall (− 4·2 kg vs. − 2·3 kg; difference = − 1·9 kg, 95% CI: -3·7 to − 0·1; P = 0·04) and was more likely to generate a weight loss of at least 5% at 12 months (41% vs. 27%, OR = 14·61 95% CI: 2·32 to 91·96, P = 0·004). With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £7742/QALY, WAP would be considered highly cost effective compared to PNI. Conclusions The task-based programme evaluated in this study can provide a template for an effective and economical approach to weight management that can reach clients from disadvantaged communities. Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN45820471. Registered 12/10/2012 (retrospectively registered).

Background: Older adults are frequent users of Emergency departments (ED) and this trend will continue due to population ageing and the associated increase in healthcare needs. Older adults are vulnerable to adverse outcomes following ED discharge. A number of heterogeneous interventions have been developed and implemented to improve clinical outcomes among this cohort. A growing number of systematic reviews have synthesised evidence regarding ED interventions using varying methodologies. This overview aims to synthesise the totality of evidence in order to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce adverse outcomes in older adults discharged from the ED. Methods: To identify relevant reviews, the following databases will be searched: Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews, Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, Databases of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, PubMed, MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, Ageline, Embase, PEDro, Scopus, CINAHL and the PROSPERO register. The search for grey literature will include Open Grey and Grey Literature Reports. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials will be analysed to assess the effect of ED interventions on clinical and process outcomes in older adults. Methodological quality of the reviews will be assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 tool. The review will be reported in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Summary of findings will include a hierarchical rank of interventions based on estimates of effects and the quality of evidence. Discussion: This overview is required given the number of systematic reviews published regarding the effectiveness of various ED interventions for older adults at risk of adverse outcomes following discharge from the ED. There is a need to examine the totality of evidence using rigorous analytic techniques to inform best care and potentially develop a hierarchy of treatment options. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020145315 (28/04/2020)

Abstract Demonstrating that treatments are clinically meaningful across the Alzheimer's disease (AD) continuum is critical for meeting our goals of accelerating a cure by 2025. While this topic has been a focus of several Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable (AARR) meetings, there remains no consensus as to what constitutes a “clinically meaningful outcome” in the eyes of patients, clinicians, care partners, policymakers, payers, and regulatory bodies. Furthermore, the field has not come to agreement as to what constitutes a clinically meaningful treatment effect at each stage of disease severity. The AARR meeting on November 19–20, 2019, reviewed current approaches to defining clinical meaningfulness from various perspectives including those of patients and care partners, clinicians, regulators, health economists, and public policymakers. Participants discussed approaches that may confer clinical relevance at each stage of the disease continuum and fostered discussion about what should guide us in the future.

Background: There has been a policy shift towards public and patient involvement (PPI) in population health and health services research in Ireland and internationally. Despite growing evidence that PPI can have positive impacts on the quality and appropriateness of health research, little is known about the involvement and impact of older adults as research partners. The aim of this study is to 1) describe the process of establishing a PPI panel of older adults, family carers and ageing research academics and 2) to evaluate the impact of this research partnership on all research partners. Methods: A partnership-focused framework will guide the recruitment and establishment of a PPI panel of older adults, family carers and academic researchers. Eight to ten older adults and four to six family carers with experience of using health services will be recruited through gatekeepers in a range of non-governmental, voluntary, and community organisations in the Mid-West region of Ireland. Academic researchers will be recruited through the Ageing Research Centre at the University of Limerick. To evaluating the impact of the research partnership on all members of the PPI panel we propose to record an activity log, maintain a record of all meeting, panel discussions and conduct individual interviews with all members of the research team at key time points. The final plan for evaluation will be negotiated and agreed with all members of the PPI panel. Data will be transcribed, managed in NVivo and analysed using an inductive approach to thematic analysis. Dissemination of research findings will be facilitated by the research partnership team of academics and older adults. Discussion: This study will identify learning about the process of establishing a PPI panel guided by a partnership-focused framework and will evaluate the impact of participation in a PPI panel for all members of the research team.

Background: In Spain, long-term use of benzodiazepine is prevalent in 7% of the population; however, this longer-term use lacks clinical benefits, costs €90million per year and side-effects further add extra cost through adverse health outcomes. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of primary care services stepped dose reduction of long-term benzodiazepines using either Structured Interview with Follow-up (SIF) or Without Follow-up (SIW), compared to Treatment as Usual (TAU). Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside randomised control utilizing data from three arm cluster randomized trial. Setting: Primary care. Participants: 75 general practitioners were randomised to one of the three arms (TAU, SIW, SIF). Measurements: Cost and Cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) Results: Compared to usual care, providing SIW per participant costs an additional €117.94 and adding patient follow-up, €218.4. As a result of intervention, participants showed a gain of, on average, for SIW 0.0144 QALY (95% CI -0.0137 to 0.0425) and for SIF 0.0340 QALYs (0.0069 to 0.0612). The Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio was €8190.28/QALY (SIW) and €6423.53/QALY (SIF). At the Spanish reimbursement threshold (€45,000 per QALY) the chance interventions are cost effective is 79.8% for SIW and 97.7% for SIF. Conclusions: Brief structured interventions to discontinue long-term benzodiazepine use represent value for money, particularly with scheduled follow-up appointments, and would represent a cost-effective investment by the Spanish healthcare to reduce prevalence of long-term use.

BackgroundComputerised cognitive–behavioural therapy (CCBT) in the care pathway has the potential to improve access to psychological therapies and reduce waiting lists within Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, however, more randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to assess this.AimsThis single-centre RCT pilot study compared a CCBT program (Stressbusters) with an attention control (self-help websites) for adolescent depression at referral to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of CCBT (trial registration: ISRCTN31219579).MethodThe trial ran within community and clinical settings. Adolescents (aged 12–18) presenting to their primary mental health worker service for low mood/depression support were assessed for eligibility at their initial appointment, 139 met inclusion criteria (a 33-item Mood and Feelings Questionnaire score of ≥20) and were randomised to Stressbusters (n = 70) or self-help websites (n = 69) using remote computerised single allocation. Participants completed mood, quality of life (QoL) and resource-use measures at intervention completion, and 4 and 12 months post-intervention. Changes in self-reported measures and completion rates were assessed by group.ResultsThere was no significant difference between CCBT and the website group at 12 months. Both showed improvements on all measures. QoL measures in the intervention group showed earlier improvement compared with the website group. Costs were lower in the intervention group but the difference was not statistically significant. The cost-effectiveness analysis found just over a 65% chance of Stressbusters being cost-effective compared with websites. The 4-month follow-up results from the initial feasibility study are reported separately.ConclusionsCCBT and self-help websites may both have a place in the care pathway for adolescents with depression.

Abstract The SARS‐CoV‐2 global pandemic will disproportionately impact countries with weak economies and vulnerable populations including people with dementia. Latin American and Caribbean countries (LACs) are burdened with unstable economic development, fragile health systems, massive economic disparities, and a high prevalence of dementia. Here, we underscore the selective impact of SARS‐CoV‐2 on dementia among LACs, the specific strain on health systems devoted to dementia, and the subsequent effect of increasing inequalities among those with dementia in the region. Implementation of best practices for mitigation and containment faces particularly steep challenges in LACs. Based upon our consideration of these issues, we urgently call for a coordinated action plan, including the development of inexpensive mass testing and multilevel regional coordination for dementia care and related actions. Brain health diplomacy should lead to a shared and escalated response across the region, coordinating leadership, and triangulation between governments and international multilateral networks.

Abstract Background Residents of care homes have high levels of disability and poor mobility, but the promotion of health and wellbeing within care homes is poorly realised. Residents spend the majority of their time sedentary which leads to increased dependency and, coupled with poor postural management, can have many adverse outcomes including pressure sores, pain and reduced social interaction. The intervention being tested in this project (the Skilful Care Training Package) aims to increase the awareness and skills of care staff in relation to poor posture in the older, less mobile adult and highlight the benefits of activity, and how to skilfully assist activity, in this group to enable mobility and reduce falls risk. Feasibility work will be undertaken to inform the design of a definitive cluster randomised controlled trial. Methods This is a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial, aiming to recruit at least 12–15 residents at each of 10 care homes across Yorkshire. Care homes will be randomly allocated on a 1:1 basis to receive either the Skilful Care Training Package alongside usual care or to continue to provide usual care alone. Assessments will be undertaken by blinded researchers with participating residents at baseline (before care home randomisation) and at three and six months post randomisation. Data relating to changes in physical activity, mobility, posture, mood and quality of life will be collected. Data at the level of the home will also be collected and will include staff experience of care and changes in the numbers and types of adverse events residents experience (for example, hospital admissions, falls). Details of NHS service usage will be collected to inform the economic analysis. An embedded process evaluation will explore intervention delivery and its acceptability to staff and residents. Discussion Participant uptake, engagement and retention are key feasibility outcomes. Exploration of barriers and facilitators to intervention delivery will inform intervention optimisation. Study results will inform progression to a definitive trial and add to the body of evidence for good practice in care home research. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN50080330. Registered on 27 March 2017.

Background: Depression in older adults is common and is associated with poor quality of life, increased morbidity and early mortality, and increased health and social care use. Collaborative care, a low-intensity intervention for depression that is shown to be effective in working-age adults, has not yet been evaluated in older people with depression who are managed in UK primary care. The CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs (CASPER) plus trial fills the evidence gap identified by the most recent guidelines on depression management. Objectives: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for older adults with major depressive disorder in primary care. Design: A pragmatic, multicentred, two-arm, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study. Participants were automatically randomised by computer, by the York Trials Unit Randomisation Service, on a 1 : 1 basis using simple unstratified randomisation after informed consent and baseline measures were collected. Blinding was not possible. Setting: Sixty-nine general practices in the north of England. Participants: A total of 485 participants aged ≥ 65 years with major depressive disorder. Interventions: A low-intensity intervention of collaborative care, including behavioural activation, delivered by a case manager for an average of six sessions over 7–8 weeks, alongside usual general practitioner (GP) care. The control arm received only usual GP care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items score at 4 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included depression severity and caseness at 12 and 18 months, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 items, Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale-2 items, a medication questionnaire, objective data and adverse events. Participants were followed up at 12 and 18 months. Results: In total, 485 participants were randomised (collaborative care, n = 249; usual care, n = 236), with 390 participants (80%: collaborative care, 75%; usual care, 86%) followed up at 4 months, 358 participants (74%: collaborative care, 70%; usual care, 78%) followed up at 12 months and 344 participants (71%: collaborative care, 67%; usual care, 75%) followed up at 18 months. A total of 415 participants were included in primary analysis (collaborative care, n = 198; usual care, n = 217), which revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of collaborative care at the primary end point at 4 months [8.98 vs. 10.90 score points, mean difference 1.92 score points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 2.99 score points; p

Background: Obesity in pregnancy is associated with insulin resistance, which underpins many common complications including gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and fetal macrosomia. Objectives: To assess the effect of a complex behavioural intervention based on diet and physical activity (PA) on the risk of GDM and delivery of a large-for-gestational age (LGA) infant. Design: Three phases: (1) the development phase, (2) the pilot study and (3) a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing a behavioural intervention to improve glycaemic control with standard antenatal care in obese pregnant women. A cost–utility analysis was undertaken to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the health training (intervention) over and above standard care (control). Setting: Pilot study: antenatal clinics in four inner-city UK hospitals. RCT: eight antenatal clinics in eight UK inner-city hospitals. Participants: Women were eligible for inclusion if they had a body mass index of ≥ 30 kg/m2, were pregnant with a single fetus and at 15+0 to 18+6 weeks’ gestation, were able to give written informed consent and were without predefined disorders. Intervention: The intervention comprised an initial session with a health trainer, followed by eight weekly sessions. Dietary advice recommended foods with a low dietary glycaemic index, avoidance of sugar-sweetened beverages and reduced saturated fats. Women were encouraged to increase daily PA. Main outcome measures: Development phase: intervention development, acceptability and optimal approach for delivery. Pilot study: change in dietary and PA behaviours at 28 weeks’ gestation. RCT: the primary outcome of the RCT was, for the mother, GDM [as measured by the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG)’s diagnostic criteria] and, for the infant, LGA delivery (i.e. customised birthweight ≥ 90th centile for gestational age). Results: Development phase: following a literature meta-analysis, a study of dietary intention questionnaires and semistructured interviews, an intervention based on behavioural science was developed that incorporated optimal and acceptable methods for delivery. Pilot study: the pilot study demonstrated improvement in dietary behaviours in the intervention compared with the standard care arm but no increase in objectively measured PA. Process evaluation demonstrated feasibility and general acceptability. RCT: the RCT showed no effect of the intervention on GDM in obese pregnant women or the number of deliveries of LGA infants. There was a reduction in dietary glycaemic load (GL) and reduced saturated fat intake, an increase in PA and a modest reduction in gestational weight gain, all secondary outcomes. Lower than expected was the number of LGA infant deliveries in all women, which suggested that universal screening for GDM with IADPSG’s diagnostic criteria, and subsequent treatment, may reduce the number of deliveries of LGA infants. According to the cost–utility analysis, the estimated probability that the UK Pregnancies Better Eating and Activity Trial (UPBEAT) behavioural intervention is cost-effective at the £30,000/quality-adjusted life-year willingness-to-pay threshold was 1%. Limitations: Included the high refusal rate for participation and self-reported assessment of diet and PA. Conclusions: The UPBEAT intervention, an intense theoretically based intervention in obese pregnant women, did not reduce the risk of GDM in women or the number of LGA infant deliveries, despite successfully reducing the dietary GL. Based on total cost to the NHS provider and health gains, the UPBEAT intervention provided no supporting evidence to suggest that the intervention represents value for money based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence benchmarks for cost-effectiveness. Future work: Alternative strategies for reducing the risk of GDM in obese pregnant women and the number of LGA infant deliveries should be considered, including development of clinically effective interventions to prevent obesity in women of reproductive age, of clinically effective interventions to reduce weight retention following pregnancy and of risk stratification tools in early pregnancy. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN89971375 and UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio 5035. Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Programme Grant for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research, Vol. 5, No. 10. See the NIHR journals library website for further project information. Contributions to funding were also provided by the Chief Scientist Office CZB/4/680, Scottish Government Health Directorates, Edinburgh; Guys and St Thomas’ Charity, Tommy’s Charity (Lucilla Poston, Annette L Briley, Paul T Seed) and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, UK and the Academy of Finland, Finland. Keith M Godfrey was supported by the National Institute for Health Research through the NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre. Lucilla Poston and Keith M Godfrey were supported by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013), project EarlyNutrition under grant agreement number 289346.

Background: Efforts to reduce the burden of illness and personal suffering associated with depression in older adults have focused on those with more severe depressive syndromes. Less attention has been paid to those with mild disorders/subthreshold depression, but these patients also suffer significant impairments in their quality of life and level of functioning. There is currently no clear evidence-based guidance regarding treatment for this patient group. Objectives: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a low-intensity intervention of collaborative care for primary care older adults who screened positive for subthreshold depression. Design: A pragmatic, multicentred, two-arm, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial with a qualitative study embedded within the pilot. Randomisation occurred after informed consent and baseline measures were collected. Setting: Thirty-two general practitioner (GP) practices in the north of England. Participants: A total of 705 participants aged ≥ 75 years during the pilot phase and ≥ 65 years during the main trial with subthreshold depression. Interventions: Participants in the intervention group received a low-intensity intervention of collaborative care, which included behavioural activation delivered by a case manager for an average of six sessions over 7–8 weeks, alongside usual GP care. Control-arm participants received only usual GP care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was a self-reported measure of depression severity, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items PHQ-9 score at 4 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder seven-item scale, Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale two-item version, a medication questionnaire and objective data. Participants were followed up for 12 months. Results: In total, 705 participants were randomised (collaborative care n = 344, usual care n = 361), with 586 participants (83%; collaborative care 76%, usual care 90%) followed up at 4 months and 519 participants (74%; collaborative care 68%, usual care 79%) followed up at 12 months. Attrition was markedly greater in the collaborative care arm. Model estimates at the primary end point of 4 months revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of collaborative care compared with usual care [mean difference 1.31 score points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.95 score points; p

Background: An increasing number of people require help to manage their weight. The NHS recommends weight loss advice by general practitioners and/or a referral to a practice nurse. Although this is helpful for some, more effective approaches that can be disseminated economically on a large scale are needed. Objective: To assess whether or not a task-based weight management programme [Weight Action Programme (WAP)] has better long-term effects than a ‘best practice’ intervention provided in primary care by practice nurses. Design: Randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting: General practices in east London, UK. Participants: Three hundred and thirty adults with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 30 kg/m2 or a BMI of ≥ 28 kg/m2 plus comorbidities were recruited from local general practices and via media publicity. Those who had a BMI of > 45 kg/m2, had lost > 5% of their body weight in the previous 6 months, were currently pregnant or taking psychiatric medications were excluded. Participants were randomised (2 : 1) to the WAP or nurse arms. Interventions: The WAP intervention was delivered in eight weekly group sessions that combined dietary and physical activity, advice and self-monitoring in a group-oriented intervention. The initial course was followed by 10 monthly group maintenance sessions open to all participants in this study arm. The practice nurse intervention (best usual care) consisted of four one-to-one sessions delivered over 8 weeks, and included standard advice on diet and physical activity based on NHS ‘Change4Life’ materials and motivational support. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was weight change at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures included change in BMI, waist circumference and blood pressure, and proportion of participants losing at least 5% and 10% of baseline body weight. Staff collecting measurements at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups were blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle, and included all participants with at least one recorded outcome at either 1, 2, 6 or 12 months. The analysis employed a mixed-effects linear regression model, adjusted for baseline weight, age, sex, ethnicity, smoking status and general practice. The European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels questionnaire was completed and used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) within the cost-effectiveness analysis. Results: There were 330 participants (WAP arm, n = 221; nurse arm, n = 109; 72% women). A total of 291 (88%) participants (WAP arm, n = 194; nurse arm, n = 97) were included in the main analysis for the primary outcome. Weight loss at 12 months was greater in the WAP arm than in the nurse intervention arm [–4.2 kg vs. –2.3 kg; difference –1.9 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) –3.7 to –0.1 kg; p = 0.04]. Participants in the WAP arm were more likely than participants in the nurse arm to have lost at least 5% of their baseline body weight at 12 months (41% vs. 27%; odds ratio 14.61, 95% CI 2.32 to 91.96; p = 0.004). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for WAP over and above the nurse arm is £7742 per QALY. Conclusions: A WAP delivered in general practice better promotes weight loss over 12 months than a best usual practice nurse-led weight loss programme. Limitations: The trial recruited mostly women. Research is needed into factors that would make weight loss programmes more attractive to men. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45820471. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 79. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background and objectives: Progesterone is essential to maintain a healthy pregnancy. Guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and a Cochrane review called for a definitive trial to test whether or not progesterone therapy in the first trimester could reduce the risk of miscarriage in women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriage (RM). The PROMISE trial was conducted to answer this question. A concurrent cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. Design and setting: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international multicentre study, with economic evaluation, conducted in hospital settings across the UK (36 sites) and in the Netherlands (nine sites). Participants and interventions: Women with unexplained RM (three or more first-trimester losses), aged between 18 and 39 years at randomisation, conceiving naturally and giving informed consent, received either micronised progesterone (Utrogestan®, Besins Healthcare) at a dose of 400 mg (two vaginal capsules of 200 mg) or placebo vaginal capsules twice daily, administered vaginally from soon after a positive urinary pregnancy test (and no later than 6 weeks of gestation) until 12 completed weeks of gestation (or earlier if the pregnancy ended before 12 weeks). Main outcome measures: Live birth beyond 24 completed weeks of gestation (primary outcome), clinical pregnancy at 6–8 weeks, ongoing pregnancy at 12 weeks, miscarriage, gestation at delivery, neonatal survival at 28 days of life, congenital abnormalities and resource use. Methods: Participants were randomised after confirmation of pregnancy. Randomisation was performed online via a secure internet facility. Data were collected on four occasions of outcome assessment after randomisation, up to 28 days after birth. Results: A total of 1568 participants were screened for eligibility. Of the 836 women randomised between 2010 and 2013, 404 received progesterone and 432 received placebo. The baseline data (age, body mass index, maternal ethnicity, smoking status and parity) of the participants were comparable in the two arms of the trial. The follow-up rate to primary outcome was 826 out of 836 (98.8%). The live birth rate in the progesterone group was 65.8% (262/398) and in the placebo group it was 63.3% (271/428), giving a relative risk of 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.15; p = 0.45). There was no evidence of a significant difference between the groups for any of the secondary outcomes. Economic analysis suggested a favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for decision-making but wide confidence intervals indicated a high level of uncertainty in the health benefits. Additional sensitivity analysis suggested the probability that progesterone would fall within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s threshold of £20,000–30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year as between 0.7145 and 0.7341. Conclusions: There is no evidence that first-trimester progesterone therapy improves outcomes in women with a history of unexplained RM. Limitations: This study did not explore the effect of treatment with other progesterone preparations or treatment during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. Future work: Future research could explore the efficacy of progesterone supplementation administered during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle in women attempting natural conception despite a history of RM. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN92644181; EudraCT 2009-011208-42; Research Ethics Committee 09/H1208/44. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background and objectives: Services have variable practices for identifying and providing interventions for ‘severe attachment problems’ (disorganised attachment patterns and attachment disorders). Several government reports have highlighted the need for better parenting interventions in at-risk groups. This report was commissioned to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of parenting interventions for children with severe attachment problems (the main review). One supplementary review explored the evaluation of assessment tools and a second reviewed 10-year outcome data to better inform health economic aspects of the main review. Data sources: A total of 29 electronic databases were searched with additional mechanisms for identifying a wide pool of references using the Cochrane methodology. Examples of databases searched include PsycINFO (1806 to January week 1, 2012), MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (1946 to December week 4, 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to week 1, 2012). Searches were carried out between 6 and 12 January 2012. Review methods: Papers identified were screened and data were extracted by two independent reviewers, with disagreements arbitrated by a third independent reviewer. Quality assessment tools were used, including quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies – version 2 and the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parenting interventions was undertaken. A health economics analysis was conducted. Results: The initial search returned 10,167 citations. This yielded 29 RCTs in the main review of parenting interventions to improve attachment patterns, and one involving children with reactive attachment disorder. A meta-analysis of eight studies seeking to improve outcome in at-risk populations showed statistically significant improvement in disorganised attachment. The interventions saw less disorganised attachment at outcome than the control (odds ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 0.65; p 0.7) and four studies for the reference tests (four with α > 0.7). Three carried out concurrent validity comparing the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) with another assessment tool. These had good sensitivity but poor specificity. The Disturbances of Attachment Interview had good sensitivity and specificity with the research diagnostic criteria (RDC) for attachment disorders. In our supplementary review of 10-year outcomes in cohorts using a baseline reference standard, two studies were found with disorganised attachment at baseline, with one finding raised psychopathology in adolescence. Budget impact analysis of costs was estimated because a decision model could not be justifiably populated. This, alongside other findings, informed research priorities. Limitations: There are relatively few UK-based clinical trials. A 10-year follow-up, while necessary for our health economists for long-term sequelae, yielded a limited number of papers. Conclusions: Maternal sensitivity interventions show good outcomes in at-risk populations, but require further research with complex children. The SSP and RDC for attachment disorders remain the reference standards for identification until more concurrent and predictive validity research is conducted. A birth cohort with sequential attachment measures and outcomes across different domains is recommended with further, methodologically sound randomised controlled intervention trials. The main area identified for future work was a need for good-quality RCTs in at-risk groups such as those entering foster care or adoption. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001395. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background: There is policy interest in the screening and treatment of mental health problems in young people who offend, but the value of such screening is not yet known. Objectives: To assess the diagnostic test accuracy of screening measures for mental health problems in young people who offend; to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening and treatment; to model estimates of cost; to assess the evidence base for screening against UK National Screening Committee criteria; and to identify future research priorities. Data sources: In total, 25 electronic databases including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception until April 2011. Reverse citation searches of included studies were undertaken and reference list of included studies were examined. Review methods: Two reviewers independently examined titles and abstracts and extracted data from included studies using a standardised form. The inclusion criteria for the review were (1) population – young offenders (aged 10–21 years); (2) intervention/instrument – screening instruments for mental health problems, implementation of a screening programme or a psychological or pharmacological intervention as part of a clinical trial; (3) comparator – for diagnostic test accuracy studies, any standardised diagnostic interview; for trials, any comparator; (4) outcomes – details of diagnostic test accuracy, mental health outcomes over the short or longer term or measurement of cost data; and (5) study design – for diagnostic test accuracy studies, any design; for screening programmes, randomised controlled trials or controlled trials; for clinical effectiveness studies, randomised controlled trials; for economic studies, economic evaluations of screening strategies or interventions. Results: Of 13,580 studies identified, nine, including eight independent samples, met the inclusion criteria for the diagnostic test accuracy and validity of screening measures review. Screening accuracy was typically modest. No studies examined the clinical effectiveness of screening, although 10 studies were identified that examined the clinical effectiveness of interventions for mental health problems. There were too few studies to make firm conclusions about the clinical effectiveness of treatments in this population. No studies met the inclusion criteria for the assessment of the cost-effectiveness of screening or treatment. An exemplar decision model was developed for depression, which identified a number of the likely key drivers of uncertainty, including the prevalence of unidentified mental health problems, the severity of mental health problems and their relationship to generic measures of outcome and the impact of treatment on recidivism. The information evaluated as part of the review was relevant to five of the UK National Screening Committee criteria. On the basis of the above results, none of the five criteria was met. Limitations: The conclusions of the review are based on limited evidence. Conclusions are tentative and the decision model should be treated as an exemplar. Conclusions: Evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for mental health problems in young people who offend is currently lacking. Future research should consider feasibility trials of clinical interventions to establish important parameters ahead of conducting definitive trials. Future diagnostic studies should compare the diagnostic test accuracy of a range of screening instruments, including those recommended for use in the UK in this population. These studies should be designed to reduce the decision uncertainty identified by the exemplar decision model. Registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001466. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Abstract Background A new class of antibody-based drug therapy with the potential for disease modification is now available for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, the complexity of drug eligibility, administration, cost, and safety of such disease modifying therapies (DMTs) necessitates adopting new treatment and care pathways. A working group was convened in Ireland to consider the implications of, and health system readiness for, DMTs for AD, and to describe a service model for the detection, diagnosis, and management of early AD in the Irish context, providing a template for similar small-medium sized healthcare systems. Methods A series of facilitated workshops with a multidisciplinary working group, including Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) members, were undertaken. This informed a series of recommendations for the implementation of new DMTs using an evidence-based conceptual framework for health system readiness based on [1] material resources and structures and [2] human and institutional relationships, values, and norms. Results We describe a hub-and-spoke model, which utilises the existing dementia care ecosystem as outlined in Ireland’s Model of Care for Dementia, with Regional Specialist Memory Services (RSMS) acting as central hubs and Memory Assessment and Support Services (MASS) functioning as spokes for less central areas. We provide criteria for DMT referral, eligibility, administration, and ongoing monitoring. Conclusions Healthcare systems worldwide are acknowledging the need for advanced clinical pathways for AD, driven by better diagnostics and the emergence of DMTs. Despite facing significant challenges in integrating DMTs into existing care models, the potential for overcoming challenges exists through increased funding, resources, and the development of a structured national treatment network, as proposed in Ireland’s Model of Care for Dementia. This approach offers a replicable blueprint for other healthcare systems with similar scale and complexity.