Search

Abstract Background Mediation analysis, often completed as secondary analysis to estimating the main treatment effect, investigates situations where an exposure may affect an outcome both directly and indirectly through intervening mediator variables. Although there has been much research on power in mediation analyses, most of this has focused on the power to detect indirect effects. Little consideration has been given to the extent to which the strength of the mediation pathways, i.e., the intervention-mediator path and the mediator-outcome path respectively, may affect the power to detect the total effect, which would correspond to the intention-to-treat effect in a randomized trial. Methods We conduct a simulation study to evaluate the relation between the mediation pathways and the power of testing the total treatment effect, i.e., the intention-to-treat effect. Consider a sample size that is computed based on the usual formula for testing the total effect in a two-arm trial. We generate data for a continuous mediator and a normal outcome using the conventional mediation models. We estimate the total effect using simple linear regression and evaluate the power of a two-sided test. We explore multiple data generating scenarios by varying the magnitude of the mediation paths whilst keeping the total effect constant. Results Simulations show the estimated total effect is unbiased across the considered scenarios as expected, but the mean of its standard error increases with the magnitude of the mediator-outcome path and the variability in the residual error of the mediator, respectively. Consequently, this affects the power of testing the total effect, which is always lower than planned when the mediator-outcome path is non-trivial and a naive sample size was employed. Analytical explanation confirms that the intervention-mediator path does not affect the power of testing the total effect but the mediator-outcome path. The usual effect size consideration can be adjusted to account for the magnitude of the mediator-outcome path and its residual error. Conclusions The sample size calculation for studies with efficacy and mechanism evaluation should account for the mediator-outcome association or risk the power to detect the total effect/intention-to-treat effect being lower than planned.

Abstract Background A platform trial approach allows adding arms to on-going trials to speed up intervention discovery programs. A control arm remains open for recruitment in a platform trial while intervention arms may be added after the onset of the study and could be terminated early for efficacy and/or futility when early stopping is allowed. The topic of utilising non-concurrent control data in the analysis of platform trials has been explored and discussed extensively. A less familiar issue is the presence of heterogeneity, which may exist for example due to modification of enrolment criteria and recruitment strategy. Method We conduct a simulation study to explore the impact of heterogeneity on the analysis of a two-stage platform trial design. We consider heterogeneity in treatment effects and heteroscedasticity in outcome data across stages for a normally distributed endpoint. We examine the performance of some hypothesis testing procedures and modelling strategies. The use of non-concurrent control data is also considered accordingly. Alongside standard regression analysis, we examine the performance of a novel method that was known as the pairwise trials analysis. It is similar to a network meta-analysis approach but adjusts for treatment comparisons instead of individual studies using fixed effects. Results Several testing strategies with concurrent control data seem to control the type I error rate at the required level when there is heteroscedasticity in outcome data across stages and/or a random cohort effect. The main parameter of treatment effects in some analysis models correspond to overall treatment effects weighted by stage wise sample sizes; while others correspond to the effect observed within a single stage. The characteristics of the estimates are not affected significantly by the presence of a random cohort effect and/ or heteroscedasticity. Conclusion In view of heterogeneity in treatment effect across stages, the specification of null hypotheses in platform trials may need to be more subtle. We suggest employing testing procedure of adaptive design as opposed to testing the statistics from regression models; comparing the estimates from the pairwise trials analysis method and the regression model with interaction terms may indicate if heterogeneity is negligible.

Abstract Background People with serious mental health problems (SMHP) are more likely to be admitted to psychiatric hospital following contact with crisis services. Admissions can have significant personal costs, be traumatic and are the most expensive form of mental health care. There is an urgent need for treatments to reduce suicidal thoughts and behaviours and reduce avoidable psychiatric admissions. Methods A multi-stage, multi-arm (MAMS) randomised controlled trial (RCT) with four arms conducted over two stages to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of three psychosocial treatments, compared to treatment as usual (TAU), for people with SMHP who have had recent suicidal crisis. Primary outcome is any psychiatric hospital admissions over a 6-month period. We will assess the impact on suicidal thoughts and behaviour, hope, recovery, anxiety and depression. The remote treatments delivered over 3 months are structured peer support (PREVAIL); a safety planning approach (SAFETEL) delivered by assistant psychologists; and a CBT-based suicide prevention app accessed via a smartphone (BrighterSide). Recruitment is at five UK sites. Stage 1 includes an internal pilot with a priori progression criteria. In stage 1, the randomisation ratio was 1:1:1:2 in favour of TAU. This has been amended to 2:2:3 in favour of TAU following an unplanned change to remove the BrighterSide arm following the release of efficacy data from an independent RCT. Randomisation is via an independent remote web-based randomisation system using randomly permuted blocks, stratified by site. An interim analysis will be performed using data from the first 385 participants from PREVAIL, SAFETEL and TAU with outcome data at 6 months. If one arm is dropped for lack of benefit in stage 2, the allocation ratio of future participants will be 1:1. The expected total sample size is 1064 participants (1118 inclusive of BrighterSide participants). Discussion There is a need for evidence-based interventions to reduce psychiatric admissions, via reduction of suicidality. Our focus on remote delivery of established brief psychosocial interventions, utilisation of different modalities of delivery that can provide sustainable and scalable solutions, which are also suitable for a pandemic or national crisis context, will significantly advance treatment options. Trial registration ISRCTN33079589. Registered on June 20, 2022.

Summary: Background: Children whose parents have anxiety problems are at increased risk of developing anxiety themselves. Parenting behaviors are a contributing factor to intergenerational transmission. Interventions which seek to limit anxiogenic parenting behaviors have shown potential in reducing anxiety in offspring but are not widely accessible. This prevention trial aimed to establish the effectiveness of an unguided modular online intervention for highly anxious parents in preventing anxiety in their children. Methods: A parallel group, block-randomised controlled trial of unblinded participants in a 1:1 ratio was conducted to compare efficacy of the online course compared to a no-intervention control. The intervention comprised 8 modules, of approximately 20 min each, and participants progressed through the course at their own pace. The study was conducted entirely online with a self-referred UK-based community sample of parents (child 2–11 years) with substantial anxiety. The primary outcome measure was change in parent-reported child anxiety, as measured by the Spence Children's Anxiety Scale–Parent Report (SCAS-P) or Spence Pre-School Anxiety Scale–Parent Report (Preschool SCAS). Secondary outcomes were child internalising, externalising, and attentional symptoms (Pediatric Symptom Checklist), and parent anxiety (SCARED-Adult). Analyses using complete case analysis following intention to treat principles investigated intervention effects at 6 months (primary analysis) and additionally at 9 to 25-months’ follow-up. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT04755933, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04755933. Findings: 1811 participants (intervention = 900; control = 911; 92.7% (1677/1810) female; 85.3% (1535/1800) White-British; 66.8% (1201/1799) university educated). Participant retention (based on primary outcome completion) at T2 (6-months post consent) was 67.6% overall (n = 1224) and substantially lower in the intervention arm 57.3% ((516/900) control = 77.8% (708/910)). Child anxiety was lower in the intervention group compared to control at 6-month follow-up (adjusted effect size estimate −0.15 (95% CI: −0.23 to −0.08, p

Abstract Background Suicidal thoughts, acts, plans and deaths are considerably more prevalent in people with non-affective psychosis, including schizophrenia, compared to the general population. Social isolation and interpersonal difficulties have been implicated in pathways which underpin suicidal experiences in people with severe mental health problems. However, the interactions between psychotic experiences, such as hallucinations and paranoia, suicidal experiences, and the presence, and indeed, absence of interpersonal relationships is poorly understood and insufficiently explored. The current study sought to contribute to this understanding. Methods An inductive thematic analysis was conducted on transcripts of 22, individual, semi-structured interviews with adult participants who had both non-affective psychosis and recent suicidal experiences. A purposive sampling strategy was used. Trustworthiness of the analysis was assured with researcher triangulation. Results Participants relayed both positive and negative experiences of interpersonal relationships. A novel conceptual model is presented reflecting a highly complex interplay between a range of different suicidal experiences, psychosis, and aspects of interpersonal relationships. Three themes fed into this interplay, depicting dynamics between perceptions of i. not mattering and mattering, ii. becoming disconnected from other people, and iii. constraints versus freedom associated with sharing suicidal and psychotic experiences with others. Conclusion This study revealed a detailed insight into ways in which interpersonal relationships are perceived to interact with psychotic and suicidal experiences in ways that can be both beneficial and challenging. This is important from scientific and clinical perspectives for understanding the complex pathways involved in suicidal experiences. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03114917), 14th April 2017. ISRCTN (reference ISRCTN17776666 .); 5th June 2017). Registration was recorded prior to participant recruitment commencing.

Background: The use of a second informant (co-respondent) is a common method of identifying potential bias in outcome data (e.g., parent-report child outcomes). There is, however, limited evidence regarding methods of increasing response rates from co-respondents. The use of financial incentives is associated with higher levels of engagement and follow-up data collection in online surveys. This study investigated whether financial incentives paid to index participants in an online trial of a parenting-focused intervention, would lead to higher levels of co-respondent data collection. Methods: A study within a trial (SWAT) using a parallel group RCT design. Participants in the host study (an RCT of an online intervention) were randomised into one of two SWAT arms: received/did not receive a £15 voucher when referred co-respondent completed baseline measures. Primary outcome was completion (No/Yes) of Spence Children's Anxiety Scale (SCAS or SCAS-Pre) at baseline. Additional analysis explored impact of incentives on data quality. Results: Intention to treat analysis of 899 parents (183 co-respondents) in the no-incentive arm, and 911 parents (199 co-respondents) in incentive arm. Nomination of co-respondents was similar between incentive arms. The RR for the incentive arm compared to the no incentive arm was 1.13 (95% CI: 0.91 to 1.41, p = 0.264) indicating that incentives did not impact completion of outcomes by consented co-respondents. There were no indications of different data quality between arms. Discussion: The finding that payment of financial incentives to index participant does not lead to greater levels of co-respondent outcome completion suggests that careful consideration should be made before allocating resources in this way in future trials. Trial registration: The host study was registered at Study Record | ClinicalTrials.gov and the SWAT study was registered in the SWAT Store | The Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research (qub.ac.uk): SWAT number 143: Filetoupload,1099612,en.pdf (qub.ac.uk).

Abstract Background Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disability affecting at least 5 million children in South Asia. Majority of these children are without access to evidence-based care. The UK Pre-school Autism Communication Therapy (PACT) is the only intervention to have shown sustained impact on autism symptoms. It was systematically adapted for non-specialist community delivery in South Asia, as the ‘Parent-mediated Autism Social Communication Intervention for non-Specialists (PASS)’ and extended ‘PASS Plus’ interventions. RCTs of both showed feasibility, acceptability and positive effect on parent and child dyadic outcomes. Methods The Communication-centred Parent-mediated treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorder in South Asia (COMPASS) trial is now a scale-up two-centre, two-arm single (rater) blinded random allocation parallel group study of the PASS Plus intervention in addition to treatment as usual (TAU) compared to TAU alone, plus health economic evaluation embedded in the India health system. Two hundred forty children (approximately 120 intervention/120 TAU) with ASD aged 2–9 years will be recruited from two tertiary care government hospitals in New Delhi, India. Accredited Social Health Activists will be one of the intervention delivery agents. Families will undertake up to 12 communication sessions over 8 months and will be offered the Plus modules which address coexisting problems. The trial’s primary endpoint is at 9 months from randomisation, with follow-up at 15 months. The primary outcome is autism symptom severity; secondary outcomes include parent–child communication, child adaptation, quality of life and parental wellbeing. Primary analysis will follow intention-to-treat principles using linear mixed model regressions with group allocation and repeated measures as random effects. The cost-effectiveness analysis will use a societal perspective over the 15-month period of intervention and follow-up. Discussion If clinically and cost-effective, this programme will fill an important gap of scalable interventions delivered by non-specialist health workers within the current care pathways for autistic children and their families in low-resource contexts. The programme has been implemented through the COVID-19 pandemic when restrictions were in place; intervention delivery and evaluation processes have been adapted to address these conditions. Trial registration ISRCTN; ISRCTN21454676 ; Registered 22 June 2018.

Abstract Background When conducting randomised controlled trials is impractical, an alternative is to carry out an observational study. However, making valid causal inferences from observational data is challenging because of the risk of several statistical biases. In 2016 Hernán and Robins put forward the ‘target trial framework’ as a guide to best design and analyse observational studies whilst preventing the most common biases. This framework consists of (1) clearly defining a causal question about an intervention, (2) specifying the protocol of the hypothetical trial, and (3) explaining how the observational data will be used to emulate it. Methods The aim of this scoping review was to identify and review all explicit attempts of trial emulation studies across all medical fields. Embase, Medline and Web of Science were searched for trial emulation studies published in English from database inception to February 25, 2021. The following information was extracted from studies that were deemed eligible for review: the subject area, the type of observational data that they leveraged, and the statistical methods they used to address the following biases: (A) confounding bias, (B) immortal time bias, and (C) selection bias. Results The search resulted in 617 studies, 38 of which we deemed eligible for review. Of those 38 studies, most focused on cardiology, infectious diseases or oncology and the majority used electronic health records/electronic medical records data and cohort studies data. Different statistical methods were used to address confounding at baseline and selection bias, predominantly conditioning on the confounders (N = 18/49, 37%) and inverse probability of censoring weighting (N = 7/20, 35%) respectively. Different approaches were used to address immortal time bias, assigning individuals to treatment strategies at start of follow-up based on their data available at that specific time (N = 21, 55%), using the sequential trial emulations approach (N = 11, 29%) or the cloning approach (N = 6, 16%). Conclusion Different methods can be leveraged to address (A) confounding bias, (B) immortal time bias, and (C) selection bias. When working with observational data, and if possible, the ‘target trial’ framework should be used as it provides a structured conceptual approach to observational research.

Abstract Background Self-harm is an important predictor of a suicide death. Culturally appropriate strategies for the prevention of self-harm and suicide are needed but the evidence is very limited from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of a culturally adapted manual-assisted problem-solving intervention (CMAP) for patients presenting after self-harm. Methods This was a rater-blind, multicenter randomised controlled trial. The study sites were all participating emergency departments, medical wards of general hospitals and primary care centres in Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Peshawar, and Quetta, Pakistan. Patients presenting after a self-harm episode (n = 901) to participating recruitment sites were assessed and randomised (1:1) to one of the two arms; CMAP with enhanced treatment as usual (E-TAU) or E-TAU. The intervention (CMAP) is a manual-assisted, cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT)-informed problem-focused therapy, comprising six one-to-one sessions delivered over three months. Repetition of self-harm at 12-month post-randomisation was the primary outcome and secondary outcomes included suicidal ideation, hopelessness, depression, health-related quality of life (QoL), coping resources, and level of satisfaction with service received, assessed at baseline, 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month post-randomisation. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02742922 (April 2016). Results We screened 3786 patients for eligibility and 901 eligible, consented patients were randomly assigned to the CMAP plus E-TAU arm (n = 440) and E-TAU arm (N = 461). The number of self-harm repetitions for CMAP plus E-TAU was lower (n = 17) compared to the E-TAU arm (n = 23) at 12-month post-randomisation, but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.407). There was a statistically and clinically significant reduction in other outcomes including suicidal ideation (− 3.6 (− 4.9, − 2.4)), depression (− 7.1 (− 8.7, − 5.4)), hopelessness (− 2.6 (− 3.4, − 1.8), and improvement in health-related QoL and coping resources after completion of the intervention in the CMAP plus E-TAU arm compared to the E-TAU arm. The effect was sustained at 12-month follow-up for all the outcomes except for suicidal ideation and hopelessness. On suicidal ideation and hopelessness, participants in the intervention arm scored lower compared to the E-TAU arm but the difference was not statistically significant, though the participants in both arms were in low-risk category at 12-month follow-up. The improvement in both arms is explained by the established role of enhanced care in suicide prevention. Conclusions Suicidal ideation is considered an important target for the prevention of suicide, therefore, CMAP intervention should be considered for inclusion in the self-harm and suicide prevention guidelines. Given the improvement in the E-TAU arm, the potential use of brief interventions such as regular contact requires further exploration.

Abstract Background A high proportion of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders will at some point in their lives be assessed as not having the capacity to make their own decisions about pharmacological treatment or inpatient care (‘capacity’). Few will be helped to regain it before these interventions proceed. This is partly because effective and safe methods to do so are lacking. Our aim is to accelerate their development by testing, for the first time in mental healthcare, the feasibility, acceptability and safety of running an ‘Umbrella’ trial. This involves running, concurrently and under one multi-site infrastructure, multiple assessor-blind randomised controlled trials, each of which is designed to examine the effect on capacity of improving a single psychological mechanism (‘mechanism’). Our primary objectives are to demonstrate feasibility of (i) recruitment and (ii) data retention on the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Treatment (MacCAT-T; planned primary outcome for a future trial) at end-of-treatment. We selected three mechanisms to test: ‘self-stigma’, low self-esteem and the ‘jumping to conclusions’ bias. Each is highly prevalent in psychosis, responsive to psychological intervention, and hypothesised to contribute to impaired capacity. Methods Sixty participants with schizophrenia-spectrum diagnoses, impaired capacity and one or more mechanism(s) will be recruited from outpatient and inpatient mental health services in three UK sites (Lothian, Scotland; Lancashire and Pennine; North West England). Those lacking capacity to consent to research could take part if the key criteria were met, including either proxy consent (Scotland) or favourable Consultee advice (England). They will be allocated to one of three randomised controlled trials, depending on which mechanism(s) they have. They will then be randomised to receive, over an 8-week period and in addition to treatment as usual (TAU), 6 sessions of either a psychological intervention which targets the mechanism, or 6 sessions of assessment of the causes of their incapacity (control condition). Participants are assessed at 0 (baseline), 8 (end-of-treatment) and 24 (follow-up) weeks post-randomisation using measures of capacity (MacCAT-T), mechanism, adverse events, psychotic symptoms, subjective recovery, quality of life, service use, anxiety, core schemata and depression. Two nested qualitative studies will be conducted; one to understand participant and clinician experiences and one to investigate the validity of MacCAT-T appreciation ratings. Discussion This will be the first Umbrella trial in mental healthcare. It will produce the first 3 single-blind randomised controlled trials of psychological interventions to support treatment decision-making in schizophrenia-spectrum disorder. Demonstrating feasibility will have significant implications not only for those seeking to support capacity in psychosis, but also for those who wish to accelerate the development of psychological interventions for other conditions. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04309435 . Pre-registered on 16 March 2020.

Some text in this abstract has been reproduced from Lindsay J, Din S, Hawkey C, Hind D, Irving P, Lobo A, et al. OFR-9 An RCT of autologous stem-cell transplantation in treatment refractory Crohn’s disease (low-intensity therapy evaluation): ASTIClite. Gut 2021;70(Suppl. 4):A4. Background Treatment-refractory Crohn’s disease is characterised by chronic symptoms, poor quality of life and high costs to the NHS, and through days of work lost by patients. A previous trial of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) failed its end point of medication-free clinical remission for 3 months with no evidence of disease activity, and reported high toxicity. Subsequent studies suggest that HSCT achieves complete mucosal healing in 50% of patients, and that toxicity likely relates to the cyclophosphamide dose. Objectives The primary objective was to assess the efficacy of HSCTlite (HSCT with low-dose cyclophosphamide) compared with standard care for inducing regression of intestinal ulceration in patients with refractory Crohn’s disease at week 48. Secondary objectives included the assessment of disease activity, quality of life and regimen safety. Mechanistic objectives included immune reconstitution after HSCTlite. Design Two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with a 2 : 1 (intervention : control) allocation ratio. Setting Nine NHS trusts (eight trusts were recruitment sites; one trust was a treatment-only site). Participants Adults with treatment-refractory Crohn’s disease, for whom surgery was inappropriate or who had declined surgery. Interventions The intervention treatment was HSCTlite using cyclophosphamide, and the control was any current available treatment for Crohn’s disease, apart from stem cell transplantation. Main outcomes The primary outcome was treatment success at week 48 [mucosal healing (Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease ulcer subscore of 0) without surgery or death], assessed by central readers blinded to allocation and timing of assessment. Key secondary outcomes were clinical remission, Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease scores at week 48, change in Crohn’s Disease Activity Index scores and safety. Results The trial was halted owing to Suspected unexpected serious adverse events that took place after randomising 23 patients (HSCTlite arm, n = 13; usual-care arm, n = 10). Ten out of the 13 patients randomised to the HSCTlite arm received the intervention and nine (one death) reached the 48-week follow-up. In the usual-care arm 9 out of the 10 patients randomised reached the 48-week follow-up (one ineligible). The primary outcome was available for 7 out of 10 HSCTlite patients (including the patient who died) and six out of nine usual-care patients. Absence of endoscopic ulceration without surgery or death was reported in three out of seven (43%) HSCTlite patients, compared with zero out of six (0%) usual-care patients. Centrally read Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease scores [mean (standard deviation)] were 10.8 (6.3) and 10.0 (6.1) at baseline, compared with 2.8 (2.9) and 18.7 (9.1) at week 48, in the HSCT and usual-care arms, respectively. Clinical remission (Crohn’s Disease Activity Index scores of 18.5 kg/m2). Have received a diagnosis of CD using colonoscopy, histology and/or radiology. Have had a disease duration of at least 6 months. Have a disease distribution accessible to endoscopic assessment (jejuno-ileal, ileo-caecal or colonic). Have had active clinical CD activity with impaired quality of life at any time within 3 months prior to randomisation into the trial, as assessed by a gastroenterology clinician. Be refractory or intolerant to azathioprine, mercaptopurine or methotrexate. Be refractory or intolerant to at least two classes of biologic therapy [currently anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy, vedolizumab (Entyvio, Takeda UK Limited, London, UK) or ustekinumab (Stelara, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, New Brunswick, NJ, USA)] despite dose optimisation. Be considered unsuitable for surgery or have had surgery declined. Have endoscopic evidence of active disease in screening [Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD) ulcer size subscore of ≥ 2 in at least one segment]. SES-CD will be used as standard for patients with disease in the ileum and/or colon. Should the disease be only proximal to the ileum, the SES-CD would still be used to score the relevant bowel segment. Have undergone a satisfactory European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Autoimmune Disease Working Party-recommended screening assessment prior to HSCT. Be willing to discontinue all immunosuppressant medication after randomisation if allocated to the HSCT arm. Be, in the opinion of the Trial Management Group (TMG), fit enough to undergo treatment. Participants were ineligible if any of the following conditions were met: Have received a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis or indeterminate colitis. Have no evidence of active CD on screening endoscopic assessment. Have strictures that prevent assessment for endoscopic active disease. Have undrained perianal fistulae (patients with previous perianal disease or perianal disease adequately drained with a seton in situ were eligible). Presence of undrained perianal sepsis on screening pelvic [magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, or computerised tomography (CT) scan if MRI was contraindicated]. Have evidence of intra-abdominal sepsis on abdominal MRI (or CT scan if MRI scan was contraindicated). Have an active or latent mycobacterial infection. Have had prior exposure to hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Have evidence of an enteric or systemic infection. Be pregnant or breastfeeding, or planning pregnancy within the study duration. The possibility of current pregnancy was to be ruled out with a pregnancy test at the screening assessment. Be unwilling to use adequate contraception (if appropriate) until at least 12 months after the last dose of study drug. Have a contraindication to the use of cyclophosphamide, fludarabine, filgrastim or rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (Thymoglobulin, Sanofi UK, Reading, UK). Have a significant medical comorbidity that precludes HSCT, as adjudicated by the TMG. Have significant psychiatric comorbidity. Have significant language barriers likely to affect their understanding of the study or their ability to complete outcome questionnaires. Be participating in another interventional clinical trial. Be considered medically unfit for HSCT as defined by any of the following criteria – Renal: creatinine clearance of 6.7 kPa. Forced expiratory volume or forced vital capacity of 1.0 × 109/l for two consecutive days. Participants randomised to the usual-care arm continued with conventional, biologic or nutritional therapy for the management of CD, until the primary end point was assessed. Follow-up Participants were followed up at 8, 14, 24, 32, 40 and 48 weeks. Day 0 of the follow up was the date of stem cell reinfusion for HSCT arm participants and day 49, post randomisation, for usual-care arm participants to align the timelines in both groups. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was treatment success at week 48, defined as mucosal healing [no endoscopic ulceration (SES-CD ulcer subscore of zero, assessed by central readers blind to allocation and time of assessment)] without surgery or death. Key secondary outcomes included clinical remission using the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI), the Harvey–Bradshaw Index and patient-reported outcomes; SES-CD at week 48; change in CDAI SES-CD between baseline and week 48; assessment of safety through reports of AEs and SAEs; patient-reported quality of life; and healthcare resource use. Mechanistic outcomes included analysis of re-engraftment. Results The trial was halted because of unexpected SAEs after 23 patients (HSCT arm, n = 13; usual-care arm, n = 10) had been randomised. Patients had advanced disease [mean (standard deviation) CD duration 13.8 (7) years, mean CDAI at baseline 337.5 (182.4)], with 20 (91%) having undergone at least one resection and nine (41%) having a stoma (these figures are calculated based on the 22 participants in the intention-to-treat population, as opposed to the 23 participants randomised). Of the 13 participants randomised to receive HSCTlite, three withdrew before transplantation, 12 reached mobilisation, and 10 went on to receive stem cell reinfusion. Of the 10 usual-care arm participants, eight received medications specifically to treat CD (including biologic therapies and corticosteroids), one underwent surgery for CD (small bowel resection) and one withdrew. All patients contributed to the safety analysis, and 10 patients who completed HSCT and nine patients receiving usual care contributed to the efficacy analyses. The primary outcome using central reading was available for 7 out of 10 HSCT and six out of nine usual-care patients at week 48. Absence of endoscopic ulceration without surgery or death (at 48 weeks) was reported in three out of seven (43%) HSCT patients, compared with zero out of six (0%) usual-care patients. Centrally read SES-CD scores [mean (SD)] were 10.8 (6.3) and 10.0 (6.1) at baseline, compared with 2.8 (2.9) and 18.7 (9.1) at week 48, in the HSCT and usual-care arms, respectively. Centrally read change in SES-CD fell by 6.4 (4.3) in HSCT patients, whereas it increased by 7.5 (3.5) in usual-care patients. Clinical remission (CDAI

Background Randomised controlled trials (‘trials’) are susceptible to poor participant recruitment and retention. Studies Within A Trial are the strongest methods for testing the effectiveness of strategies to improve recruitment and retention. However, relatively few of these have been conducted. Objectives PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to facilitate at least 25 Studies Within A Trial evaluating recruitment or retention strategies. We share our experience of delivering the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme, and the lessons learnt for undertaking randomised Studies Within A Trial. Design A network of 10 Clinical Trials Units and 1 primary care research centre committed to conducting randomised controlled Studies Within A Trial of recruitment and/or retention strategies was established. Promising recruitment and retention strategies were identified from various sources including Cochrane systematic reviews, the Study Within A Trial Repository, and existing prioritisation exercises, which were reviewed by patient and public members to create an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. Host trial teams could apply for funding and receive support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to undertake Studies Within A Trial. We also tested the feasibility of undertaking co-ordinated Studies Within A Trial, across multiple host trials simultaneously. Setting Clinical trials unit-based trials recruiting or following up participants in any setting in the United Kingdom were eligible. Participants Clinical trials unit-based teams undertaking trials in any clinical context in the United Kingdom. Interventions Funding of up to £5000 and support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to design, implement and report Studies Within A Trial. Main outcome measures Number of host trials funded. Results Forty-two Studies Within A Trial were funded (31 host trials), across 12 Clinical Trials Units. The mean cost of a Study Within A Trial was £3535. Twelve Studies Within A Trial tested the same strategy across multiple host trials using a co-ordinated Study Within A Trial design, and four used a factorial design. Two recruitment and five retention strategies were evaluated in more than one host trial. PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial will add 18% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane systematic review of recruitment strategies, and 79% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane review of retention strategies. For retention, we found that pre-notifying participants by card, letter or e-mail before sending questionnaires was effective, as was the use of pens, and sending personalised text messages to improve questionnaire response. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others planning Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient and public involvement partners; prioritising and selecting strategies to evaluate and elements to consider when designing a Study Within A Trial; obtaining governance approvals; implementing Studies Within A Trial, including individual and co-ordinated Studies Within A Trials; and reporting Study Within A Trials. Limitations The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted five Studies Within A Trial, being either delayed (n = 2) or prematurely terminated (n = 3). Conclusions PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial significantly increased the evidence base for recruitment and retention strategies. When provided with both funding and practical support, host trial teams successfully implemented Studies Within A Trial. Future work Future research should identify and target gaps in the evidence base, including widening Study Within A Trial uptake, undertaking more complex Studies Within A Trial and translating Study Within A Trial evidence into practice. Study registration All Studies Within A Trial in the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme had to be registered with the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research Study Within A Trial Repository. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/55/80) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Aims of the research A Study Within A Trial is a research study nested inside a larger ‘host trial’, promoting the use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to do Study Within A Trial routine practice in clinical trial units by funding and supporting at least 25 Studies Within A Trial. Background The best way to test health and social care treatments is to do a randomised controlled trial (‘trial’), where some patients get the treatment being tested and some do not. The results of different groups are compared to see if the treatment improves care. Recruiting patients and keeping them involved in trials is often very difficult. Research teams often do not know how best to recruit and keep patients engaged as the methods have not been tested to see if they work. The best way to test these methods is by doing a Study Within A Trial. We test a programme of Studies Within A Trial for recruiting and keeping patients engaged in trials. Methods Trial teams were able to apply for funding of up to £5000 and receive support from Promoting the use of Study Within A Trial team to do Studies Within A Trial. We used our experience of doing Studies Within A Trial to outline lessons learnt for doing Studies Within A Trial. Results We funded 42 Studies Within A Trial and gave teams necessary advice to do them. We significantly increased the knowledge for both recruitment and retention strategies, and found ‘pre-notifying’ before sending questionnaires, sending pens and personalised text messages were all effective for increasing responses by participants. We tested Studies Within A Trial across several different trials at the same time to find out more quickly whether their methods worked. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others doing Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient partners; picking the right strategy to test; getting ethical approvals; how to do and report Studies Within A Trial. Conclusions Promoting the use of studies within a trial was successful and supported more Studies Within A Trial than planned. We hope our experience will support those doing Studies Within A Trial in the future. Scientific summary Background Many delivery aspects of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have not been subjected to rigorous evaluation. Strategies to enhance recruitment and retention often tend to not be based on evidence. However, there is an increasing interest in embedding RCTs of such strategies. The Medical Research Council (MRC) funded systematic techniques for assisting recruitment to trials (START), which found it feasible to test two strategies for recruitment and retention across a number of trials by performing randomised ‘Studies Within A Trial (SWATs)’. Aims The aim of the PROMoting THE USE of Studies Within A Trial (PROMETHEUS) programme was to build on the START initiative and make embedding SWATs standard practice across Clinical Trials Units (CTUs). We intended to pump prime and facilitate the start of at least 25 SWATs across multiple CTUs within 30 months. The ultimate aim was to make the inclusion of SWATs routine when conducting a trial in a CTU. We share our experience of delivering the PROMETHEUS programme, along with the lessons learnt for undertaking randomised SWATs of recruitment and retention methods. Methods A network of 10 CTUs and one primary care research centre committed to conducting randomised controlled SWATs of recruitment and/or retention interventions was established by the PROMETHEUS team. We identified promising recruitment and retention interventions from a variety of sources including Cochrane systematic reviews, the Northern Ireland Network for Trial Methodology Research SWAT Repository Store, and existing prioritisation exercises. Promising strategies were reviewed by our patient and public (PPI) members to create an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. The programme allowed host trial teams to apply for funding of up to £5000 and receive support from the PROMETHEUS team to design, implement and report SWATs. We also tested the feasibility of undertaking co-ordinated SWATs, across multiple host trials simultaneously. Results The PROMETHEUS programme funded 42 SWATs, embedded within 31 host trials, across 12 CTUs. The mean cost of a funded SWAT was £3535. Of the 42 SWATs, 12 tested the same SWAT across multiple host trials using a co-ordinated SWAT design and four tested more than one strategy in a factorial design. Two recruitment and five retention strategies were evaluated in more than one host trial. In the space of just 4 years, PROMETHEUS will add 18% more SWATs to the Cochrane review of global recruitment strategies, and 79% more SWATs to the Cochrane review of global retention strategies. The results from the SWATs reported to date found there was no evidence of a significant difference in recruitment for any of the strategies tested. For retention, pre-notifying participants by card prior to sending questionnaires was effective [risk difference 3.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) −3.0% to 9.6%]; as was pre-notifying participants by letter or e-mail (risk difference 3.8%, 95% CI −6.1% to 13.6%). Sending personalised text messages was more effective for improving the return of postal questionnaires compared to non-personalised text messages (risk ratio 1.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.33); and resulted in fewer completions via telephone compared with a non-personalised text [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.87]. Including a pen with a questionnaire probably increases retention and response rate (pooled OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.35). We highlight key lessons learnt below (see Recommendations section). Conclusions The PROMETHEUS programme significantly increased the international evidence base for both recruitment and retention strategies within RCTs. The funded SWATs evaluated a wide range of recruitment and retention strategies; however, the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted five funded SWATs, with two being delayed and three prematurely terminated. Through this project, we identified that when provided with both funding and practical support, host trial teams successfully implemented SWATs. PROMETHEUS led to an overall increase in the evidence base; however, ongoing ‘routine’ application of SWATs across RCTs employing the lessons learnt is required to ensure that efficient trial conduct strategies are identified. Recommendations Recommendations for funders All trial funders should contribute to the effort to improve the efficiency of trials. Funders should encourage the teams that they fund to undertake SWATs. Funding streams specifically designed to support SWATs must be made available to trial teams to continue building the trial process evidence base, for recruitment and retention as well as for other stages of the trial design and delivery process. This includes funding streams for undertaking specific SWATs, as well as infrastructure funding to support CTUs and other centres to undertake co-ordination activities that will support the design, conduct, reporting, and implementation of SWATs and their findings to inform the work of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the MRC, and other funders. PROMETHEUS has demonstrated that co-ordination of activity remains crucial to the delivery of SWATs. A central, national co-ordination point that provides hands-on support needs to continue and funding should be allocated for this. Additionally, CTUs should identify a lead for SWATs, to support SWAT activities and evidence-based trial conduct within the CTU, as well as links with others undertaking SWATs elsewhere to share best practice. The funding for both central and CTU-based support should be ongoing. SWAT priorities need to be identified and communicated clearly to funders, and funders should use these priorities to inform their funding decisions. Funders should develop a mechanism to promote SWAT questions that have been identified as a priority during the funding application process. The mean cost of funding requested for a standalone SWAT within PROMETHEUS was £3535 (range £500–5000). The co-ordinated SWATs cost was £10,668 (training SWAT) and £1306.40 (Christmas cards); however, these did not include costs for central co-ordination, data preparation and sharing by the host trial teams, data cleaning, analysis and write-up. These costs suggest that the £10,000 being offered by the NIHR for trial teams to include a SWAT should be sufficient for most planned SWATs. However, there may be occasions where trial teams may wish to test strategies that may be more expensive. When applying for SWAT funding, trial teams should be asked to indicate whether the question they are addressing is a priority SWAT question, and to provide a clear rationale for selecting that particular question. If teams are unable to undertake a SWAT, funders should ask that recruitment and retention methods are clearly reported to support the evidence base. Recommendations for Sponsors Our experience suggests that there is a need for clear, easily accessible information about the nature of SWATs, as well as the role of the funder in supporting SWATs. Any future changes proposed by the Health Research Authority (HRA) to the approvals process need to be communicated clearly and applied consistently to each SWAT. Recommendations for involving patient and public involvement partners in Studies Within A Trial research PPI should be considered when undertaking a SWAT, in the same way PPI is expected to be undertaken in the main trial. PPI partners should be involved to develop novel and untested recruitment and retention strategies, as well as to adapt existing strategies to the context of their specific host trial and the population being enrolled. Recommendations for oversight committees Our experience suggests that Trial Management Groups (TMGs) play a key role in decisions about whether a SWAT is undertaken and continued in the host trial or not. TMG members should encourage the uptake of SWATs in their trials. While the findings of SWATs may not always directly inform their host trial, the findings of SWATs undertaken during the early, or internal pilot, phase of the trial may inform the decisions about which strategies should be used at a later stage, such as in the main trial. Trial Steering Committees should review the SWAT activity and progress, in the same way that they review substudies in a trial. Data Monitoring Committee review is dependent on the specific host trial and SWAT strategy being evaluated. Recommendations for journals and reviewers Journal peer reviewer profiles should be updated to include methodological interests and expertise, to support evidence of suitability to undertake a peer review for a SWAT. When selecting peer reviewers, the SWAT and methodology interests as registered by reviewers should be used where possible. SWATs are a niche area and so to increase the pool of reviewers, journals should consider being more flexible when assessing reviewer credentials to review a SWAT, such as allowing relevant experience in place of a PhD. Reviewers should be advised that in many instances informed consent from participants need not be obtained when undertaking a SWAT, due to the low risk associated with the intervention and in the case of retention SWATs due to existing consent for further research being in place. This may depend on the jurisdiction. In the UK, this approach is supported by HRA guidance in relation to grading for SWAT interventions and approvals. Robust and transparent reporting is necessary, that is compliant with CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). Recommendations for trial teams and methodologists undertaking SWAT research There remains a need for continually updated research priorities to allow researchers to address the questions relevant at that time. When SWAT priorities are set, methodologists need to provide enough information to enable teams to make informed decisions about evaluating the priorities set. Further work is needed to help teams identify suitable SWAT strategies for their host trials. SWAT priorities need to be communicated clearly and consistently to trial teams. Recommendation for trial conduct and using SWAT evidence As the evidence base develops for effective and cost-effective recruitment and retention strategies, it will become increasingly important for trial teams to use this evidence base to inform their recruitment and retention activities. Trial teams need to actively engage with the evidence base to inform their practice. Funders will need to actively support the trials they fund to use evidence-informed recruitment and retention strategies. Recommendations for future research There remains a substantial need for more high-quality SWAT evidence and so Chief Investigators should be encouraged to consider the embedding of a SWAT at the funding stage. Further work is therefore needed to increase the awareness of the methodological importance of SWAT research with research teams, and to develop engagement strategies to increase SWAT activity. Future research needs to focus on identifying whether further replications are needed for existing evidence. If so, the gaps in the evidence base should be targeted. More co-ordination and replication of SWAT evaluations are encouraged. A ‘real-time’ and dynamic communication strategy including a clear cost and resource breakdown for each suggested SWAT should be developed. This will alleviate the burden on trials teams to begin costing exercises and enable them to make an informed decision more quickly as to whether they can embed a given SWAT. There is a need to aid teams to identify and select a suitable SWAT for their host trial populations. Pragmatic decisions on which SWAT may be appropriate and feasible to include should be taken as required. A mechanism to communicate SWAT research priorities is needed, and this information needs to be readily accessible for all trialists to refer to. Our findings demonstrate that within an individual host trial, there is often a capacity to address more than one SWAT question, either separately, or simultaneously using a factorial design. This suggests that there is a capacity to significantly speed up and strengthen the evidence base through teams undertaking more than one SWAT in their trials where relevant. For certain strategies, co-ordinated SWATs should be encouraged. This method could be used to rapidly replicate SWAT evaluations to plug the evidence gap, as well as to evaluate more complex recruitment and retention strategies that may be more challenging to undertake using individual SWATs. Materials should be developed to advise teams on how to undertake co-ordinated SWATs, as well as a method of networking to enable teams to promote their co-ordinated SWAT and collaborate. As the evidence base develops, it will become increasingly important for trialists to utilise the evidence base in a systematic way to identify both effective and ineffective strategies to inform their practice. Future work should therefore consider issues around the dissemination and implementation of SWATs and develop guidance to enable the wider trials community to undertake, report and adopt the findings of SWATs. Implementation science, the study of methods to promote the uptake of evidence-based practice, could be used to inform any such future work. Funders can also help by questioning strategies proposed by trial teams that are known to be either ineffective or not cost-effective. Improving the knowledge of the potential ‘harms’ from implementing interventions that have no evidence of benefit is an important next step to help improve uptake. While establishing the effectiveness of recruitment or retention strategies is important, the high costs of research waste and limited public finance mean that cost considerations around SWATs are just as important. With only one retention strategy having high Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) certainty of cost effectiveness, we encourage trial teams to undertake streamlined economic evaluations alongside all their SWATs in the future, for strategies shown to be effective, as well as those that are ineffective. For cost effectiveness, trial teams should look to report the cost per additional participant recruited or retained (i.e. the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). Value of information analyses can help determine the need for further SWAT evidence where several SWATs already exist. Many trial teams wish to contribute to developing the evidence base by undertaking non-randomised SWATs. Future work that informs the development of guidance for undertaking non-randomised SWATs would be helpful. Working with trial teams to develop engagement strategies and training to undertake SWATs would be beneficial. Audience specific guidance should be developed to support SWAT research. Trial teams have expressed they want to undertake SWATs that are important and necessary to increase the evidence base. Collaboration with funders, working groups involved in priority setting, and trial teams is needed to develop a mechanism to communicate this dynamic and evolving information once priority SWATs have been identified. Work is needed to identify the barriers that teams have when undertaking a SWAT, and strategies and solutions for addressing these barriers should be identified and implemented. Continued and proactive collaboration is needed with working groups to enable networking, and collaboration with teams undertaking SWAT research. Reporting guidance is needed to support teams when writing publications to ensure sufficient information is included to GRADE evaluation can be undertaken. Study registration All SWATs in the PROMETHEUS programme had to be registered with the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository. Funding details This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/55/80) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Abstract Background Surgical interventions are complex. Key elements of this complexity are the surgeon and their learning curve. They pose methodological challenges in the design, analysis and interpretation of surgical RCTs. We identify, summarise, and critically examine current guidance about how to incorporate learning curves in the design and analysis of RCTs in surgery. Examining current guidance Current guidance presumes that randomisation must be between levels of just one treatment component, and that the evaluation of comparative effectiveness will be made via the average treatment effect (ATE). It considers how learning effects affect the ATE, and suggests solutions which seek to define the target population such that the ATE is a meaningful quantity to guide practice. We argue that these are solutions to a flawed formulation of the problem, and are inadequate for policymaking in this setting. Reformulating the problem The premise that surgical RCTs are limited to single-component comparisons, evaluated via the ATE, has skewed the methodological discussion. Forcing a multi-component intervention, such as surgery, into the framework of the conventional RCT design ignores its factorial nature. We briefly discuss the multiphase optimisation strategy (MOST), which for a Stage 3 trial would endorse a factorial design. This would provide a wealth of information to inform nuanced policy but would likely be infeasible in this setting. We discuss in more depth the benefits of targeting the ATE conditional on operating surgeon experience (CATE). The value of estimating the CATE for exploring learning effects has been previously recognised, but with discussion limited to analysis methods only. The robustness and precision of such analyses can be ensured via the trial design, and we argue that trial designs targeting CATE represent a clear gap in current guidance. Conclusion Trial designs that facilitate robust, precise estimation of the CATE would allow for more nuanced policymaking, leading to patient benefit. No such designs are currently forthcoming. Further research in trial design to facilitate the estimation of the CATE is needed.

Abstract Background Recovery Colleges are a relatively recent initiative within mental health services. The first opened in 2009 in London and since then numbers have grown. They are based on principles of personal recovery in mental health, co-production between people with lived experience of mental health problems and professionals, and adult learning. Student eligibility criteria vary, but all serve people who use mental health services, with empirical evidence of benefit. Previously we developed a Recovery College fidelity measure and a preliminary change model identifying the mechanisms of action and outcomes for this group, which we refer to as service user students. The Recovery Colleges Characterisation and Testing (RECOLLECT) study is a five-year (2020–2025) programme of research in England. The aim of RECOLLECT is to determine Recovery Colleges’ effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and identify organisational influences on fidelity and improvements in mental health outcomes. Methods RECOLLECT comprises i) a national survey of Recovery Colleges, ii) a prospective cohort study to establish the relationship between fidelity, mechanisms of action and psychosocial outcomes, iii) a prospective cohort study to investigate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, iv) a retrospective cohort study to determine the relationship between Recovery College use and outcomes and mental health service use, and v) organisational case studies to establish the contextual and organisational factors influencing fidelity and outcomes. The programme has been developed with input from individuals who have lived experience of mental health problems. A Lived Experience Advisory Panel will provide input into all stages of the research. Discussion RECOLLECT will provide the first rigorous evidence on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of Recovery Colleges in England, to inform their prioritising, commissioning, and running. The validated RECOLLECT multilevel change model will confirm the active components of Recovery Colleges. The fidelity measure and evidence about the fidelity-outcome relationship will provide an empirically-based approach to develop Recovery Colleges, to maximise benefits for students. Findings will be disseminated through the study website (researchintorecovery.com/recollect) and via national and international Recovery College networks to maximise impact, and will shape policy on how Recovery Colleges can help those with mental health problems lead empowered, meaningful and fulfilling lives.

AimThere is growing interest in tailoring psychological interventions for distressing voices and a need for reliable tools to assess phenomenological features which might influence treatment response. This study examines the reliability and internal consistency of the Voice Characterisation Checklist (VoCC), a novel 10-item tool which assesses degree of voice characterisation, identified as relevant to a new wave of relational approaches.MethodsThe sample comprised participants experiencing distressing voices, recruited at baseline on the AVATAR2 trial between January 2021 and July 2022 (n = 170). Inter-rater reliability (IRR) and internal consistency analyses (Cronbach’s alpha) were conducted.ResultsThe majority of participants reported some degree of voice personification (94%) with high endorsement of voices as distinct auditory experiences (87%) with basic attributes of gender and age (82%). While most identified a voice intention (75%) and personality (76%), attribution of mental states (35%) to the voice (‘What are they thinking?’) and a known historical relationship (36%) were less common. The internal consistency of the VoCC was acceptable (10 items, α = 0.71). IRR analysis indicated acceptable to excellent reliability at the item-level for 9/10 items and moderate agreement between raters’ global (binary) classification of more vs. less highly characterised voices, κ = 0.549 (95% CI, 0.240–0.859), p

Abstract Background Autism is a neurodevelopmental disability affecting over 1% of UK children. The period following a child’s autism diagnosis can present real challenges in adaptation for families. Twenty to 50% of caregivers show clinically significant levels of mental health need within the post-diagnostic period and on an ongoing basis. Best practice guidelines recommend timely post-diagnostic family support. Current provision is patchy, largely unevidenced, and a source of dissatisfaction for both families and professionals. There is a pressing need for an evidenced programme of post-diagnostic support focusing on caregiver mental health and adjustment, alongside autism psycho-education. This trial tests the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a new brief manualised psychosocial intervention designed to address this gap. Methods This is a multi-centre two-parallel-group single (researcher)-blinded randomised controlled trial of the Empower-Autism programme plus treatment-as-usual versus usual local post-diagnostic offer plus treatment-as-usual. Caregivers of children aged 2–15 years with a recent autism diagnosis will be recruited from North West England NHS or local authority centres. Randomisation is individually by child, with one “index” caregiver per child, stratified by centre, using 2:1 randomisation ratio to assist recruitment and timely intervention. Empower-Autism is a group-based, manualised, post-diagnostic programme that combines autism psycho-education and psychotherapeutic components based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy to support caregiver mental health, stress management and adjustment to their child’s diagnosis. The comparator is any usual local group-based post-diagnostic psycho-education offer. Receipt of services will be specified through health economic data. Primary outcome: caregiver mental health (General Health Questionnaire-30) at 52-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes: key caregiver measures (wellbeing, self-efficacy, adjustment, autism knowledge) at 12-, 26- and 52-week follow-up and family and child outcomes (wellbeing and functioning) at 52-week endpoint. Sample: N=380 (approximately 253 intervention/127 treatment-as-usual). Primary analysis will follow intention-to-treat principles using linear mixed models with random intercepts for group membership and repeated measures. Cost-effectiveness acceptability analyses will be over 52 weeks, with decision modelling to extrapolate to longer time periods. Discussion If effective, this new approach will fill a key gap in the provision of evidence-based care pathways for autistic children and their families. Trial registration ISRCTN 45412843 . Prospectively registered on 11 September 2019.

Abstract Background People with psychosis have high rates of trauma, with a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) prevalence rate of approximately 15%, which exacerbates psychotic symptoms such as delusions and hallucinations. Pilot studies have shown that trauma-focused (TF) psychological therapies can be safe and effective in such individuals. This trial, the largest to date, will evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a TF therapy integrated with cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis (TF-CBTp) on post-traumatic stress symptoms in people with psychosis. The secondary aims are to compare groups on cost-effectiveness; ascertain whether TF-CBTp impacts on a range of other meaningful outcomes; determine whether therapy effects endure; and determine acceptability of the therapy in participants and therapists. Methods Rater-blind, parallel arm, pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing TF-CBTp + treatment as usual (TAU) to TAU only. Adults (N = 300) with distressing post-traumatic stress and psychosis symptoms from five mental health Trusts (60 per site) will be randomised to the two groups. Therapy will be manualised, lasting 9 months (m) with trained therapists. We will assess PTSD symptom severity (primary outcome); percentage who show loss of PTSD diagnosis and clinically significant change; psychosis symptoms; emotional well-being; substance use; suicidal ideation; psychological recovery; social functioning; health-related quality of life; service use, a total of four times: before randomisation; 4 m (mid-therapy); 9 m (end of therapy; primary end point); 24 m (15 m after end of therapy) post-randomisation. Four 3-monthly phone calls will be made between 9 m and 24 m assessment points, to collect service use over the previous 3 months. Therapy acceptability will be assessed through qualitative interviews with participants (N = 35) and therapists (N = 5–10). An internal pilot will ensure integrity of trial recruitment and outcome data, as well as therapy protocol safety and adherence. Data will be analysed following intention-to-treat principles using generalised linear mixed models and reported according to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Social and Psychological Interventions Statement. Discussion The proposed intervention has the potential to provide significant patient benefit in terms of reductions in distressing symptoms of post-traumatic stress, psychosis, and emotional problems; enable clinicians to implement trauma-focused therapy confidently in this population; and be cost-effective compared to TAU through reduced service use. Trial registration ISRCTN93382525 (03/08/20)

Background: Parent-report questionnaires are a common method of generating data on child outcomes in mental health studies. A second report from another person who knows the child (co-respondent) is implemented to reduce bias and increase objectivity. The success of this approach is dependent on the engagement of co-respondents, which can be difficult. Financial incentives are used to increase data return in clinical trials, and to promote referral rates in online marketing. This protocol describes the use of an embedded randomised controlled trial (RCT) to investigate the effect of financial incentives on rates of co-respondent data completion. In the host RCT (of an online intervention designed to reduce the impact of a parent's anxiety on their child) index participants (i.e. parents) are asked to invite a co-respondent to complete measures on the index child. This study will test the hypothesis that providing monetary incentives to index participants will increase the outcome measure completion rate of co-respondents. Methods: Embedded RCT of two parallel groups. Participants in the intervention arm will be sent a £10 voucher if their chosen co-respondent completes online baseline measures. Participants in the control arm will not be offered payment regardless of their chosen co-respondent's behaviour. 1754 participants will take part. Analysis will compare co-respondent outcome measure completion rates between the two arms at baseline and follow-up. Conclusion: Findings from this study will provide evidence on the impact of offering payment to index participants on return rates of co-respondent data. This will inform resource allocation within future clinical trials.

Abstract Background When performed in an observational setting, treatment effect modification analyses should account for all confounding, where possible. Often, such studies only consider confounding between the exposure and outcome. However, there is scope for misspecification of the confounding adjustment when estimating moderation as the effects of the confounders may themselves be influenced by the moderator. The aim of this study was to investigate bias in estimates of treatment effect modification resulting from failure to account for an interaction between a binary moderator and a confounder on either treatment receipt or the outcome, and to assess the performance of different approaches to account for such interactions. Methods The theory behind the reason for bias and factors that impact the magnitude of bias is explained. Monte Carlo simulations were used to assess the performance of different propensity scores adjustment methods and regression adjustment where the adjustment 1) did not account for any moderator-confounder interactions, 2) included moderator-confounder interactions, and 3) was estimated separately in each moderator subgroup. A real-world observational dataset was used to demonstrate this issue. Results Regression adjustment and propensity score covariate adjustment were sensitive to the presence of moderator-confounder interactions on outcome, whilst propensity score weighting and matching were more sensitive to the presence of moderator-confounder interactions on treatment receipt. Including the relevant moderator-confounder interactions in the propensity score (for methods using this) or the outcome model (for regression adjustment) rectified this for all methods except propensity score covariate adjustment. For the latter, subgroup-specific propensity scores were required. Analysis of the real-world dataset showed that accounting for a moderator-confounder interaction can change the estimate of effect modification. Conclusions When estimating treatment effect modification whilst adjusting for confounders, moderator-confounder interactions on outcome or treatment receipt should be accounted for.

Abstract Background There is good evidence that psychological interventions improve patient well-being and independent living, but patients on acute mental health wards often do not have access to evidence-based psychological therapies which are strongly advised by NICE guidance for severe mental health problems. The overall aim of this programme of work is to increase patient access to psychological therapies on acute mental health inpatient wards. Stage one of the programme (which is complete) aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to delivering therapy in these settings through a large qualitative study. The key output of stage one was an intervention protocol that is designed to be delivered on acute wards to increase patient access to psychologically-informed care and therapy. Stage two of the programme aims to test the effects of the intervention on patient wellbeing and serious incidents on the ward (primary outcomes), patient social functioning and symptoms, staff burnout, ward atmosphere from staff and patient perspectives and cost effectiveness of the intervention (secondary outcomes). Methods The study is a single blind, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial and will recruit thirty-four wards across England that will be randomised to receive the new intervention plus treatment as usual, or treatment as usual only. Primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed at baseline and 6-month and 9-month follow-ups, with serious incidents on the ward collected at an additional 3-month follow-up. Discussion The key output will be a potentially effective and cost-effective ward-based psychological intervention that increases patient access to psychological therapy in inpatient settings, is feasible to deliver in inpatient settings and is acceptable to patients. Trial Registration number ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03950388. Registered 15th May 2019. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03950388

Abstract Background The SlowMo study demonstrated the effects of SlowMo, an eight‐session digitally supported reasoning intervention, on paranoia in a large‐scale randomized‐controlled trial with 362 participants with schizophrenia‐spectrum psychosis. Aim The current evaluation aimed to investigate the impact of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in the SlowMo study. Method PPI members were six women and three men from Sussex, Oxford and London with experience of using mental health services for psychosis. They received training and met at least 3‐monthly throughout the project. The impact of PPI was captured quantitatively and qualitatively through (i) a PPI log of recommendations and implementation; (ii) written subjective experiences of PPI members; (iii) meeting minutes; and (iv) outputs produced. Results The PPI log revealed 107 recommendations arising from PPI meetings, of which 87 (81%) were implemented. Implementation was greater for recruitment‐, data collection‐ and organization‐related actions than for dissemination and emergent innovations. Qualitative feedback revealed impacts on study recruitment, data collection, PPI participants' confidence, knowledge, career aspirations and society more widely. Outputs produced included a film about psychosis that aired on BBC primetime television, novel webpages and journal articles. Barriers to PPI impact included geography, travel, funding, co‐ordination and well‐being. Discussion A future challenge for PPI impact will be the extent to which peer innovation (innovative PPI‐led ideas) can be supported within research study delivery. Patient and Public Contribution Planned Patient and Public Contribution in SlowMo comprised consultation and collaboration in (i) design, (ii) recruitment, (iii) qualitative interviews and analysis of service users' experiences of SlowMo therapy and (iv) dissemination.

Abstract Background Older people are the fastest-growing demographic group among prisoners in England and Wales and they have complex health and social care needs. Their care is frequently ad hoc and uncoordinated. No previous research has explored how to identify and appropriately address the needs of older adults in prison. We hypothesised that the Older prisoner Health and Social Care Assessment and Plan (OHSCAP) would significantly increase the proportion of met health and social care needs 3 months after prison entry, compared to treatment as usual (TAU). Methods The study was a parallel randomised controlled trial (RCT) recruiting male prisoners aged 50 and over from 10 prisons in northern England. Participants received the OHSCAP or TAU. A clinical trials unit used minimisation with a random element as the allocation procedure. Data analysis was conducted blind to allocation status. The intervention group had their needs assessed using the OHSCAP tool and care plans were devised; processes that lasted approximately 30 min in total per prisoner. TAU included the standard prison health assessment and care. The intention to treat principle was followed. The trial was registered with the UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio (ISRCTN ID: 11841493) and was closed on 30 November 2016. Results Data were collected between 28 January 2014 and 06 April 2016. Two hundred and forty nine older prisoners were assigned TAU of which 32 transferred prison; 12 were released; 2 withdrew and 1 was deemed unsafe to interview. Two hundred and fifty three 3 prisoners were assigned the OHSCAP of which 33 transferred prison; 11 were released; 6 withdrew and 1 was deemed unsafe to interview. Consequently, data from 202 participants were analysed in each of the two groups. There were no significant differences in the number of unmet needs as measured by the Camberwell Assessment of Needs – Forensic Short Version (CANFOR-S). The mean number of unmet needs for the OHSCAP group at follow-up was 2.03 (SD = 2.07) and 2.06 (SD = 2.11) for the TAU group (mean difference = 0.088; 95% CI − 0.276 to 0.449, p = 0.621). No adverse events were reported. Conclusion The OHSCAP was fundamentally not implemented as planned, partly due to the national prison staffing crisis that ensued during the study period. Therefore, those receiving the OHSCAP did not experience improved outcomes compared to those who received TAU. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN11841493 , 25/10/2012.

BackgroundAnxiety is the most common childhood mental health condition and is associated with impaired child outcomes, including increased risk of mental health difficulties in adulthood. Anxiety runs in families: when a parent has anxiety, their child has a 50% higher chance of developing it themselves. Environmental factors are predominant in the intergenerational transmission of anxiety and, of these, parenting processes play a major role. Interventions that target parents to support them to limit the impact of any anxiogenic parenting behaviors are associated with reduced anxiety in their children. A brief UK-based group intervention delivered to parents within the UK National Health Service led to a 16% reduction in children meeting the criteria for an anxiety disorder. However, this intervention is not widely accessible. To widen access, a 9-module web-based version of this intervention has been developed. This course comprises psychoeducation and home practice delivered through text, video, animations, and practice tasks. ObjectiveThis study seeks to evaluate the feasibility of delivering this web-based intervention and assess its effectiveness in reducing child anxiety symptoms. Methods This is the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a community sample of 1754 parents with self-identified high levels of anxiety with a child aged 2-11 years. Parents in the intervention arm will receive access to the web-based course, which they undertake at a self-determined rate. The control arm receives no intervention. Follow-up data collection is at months 6 and months 9-21. Intention-to-treat analysis will be conducted on outcomes including child anxiety, child mental health symptoms, and well-being; parental anxiety and well-being; and parenting behaviors. ResultsFunding was received in April 2020, and recruitment started in February 2021 and is projected to end in October 2022. A total of 1350 participants have been recruited as of May 2022. ConclusionsThe results of this RCT will provide evidence on the utility of a web-based course in preventing intergenerational transmission of anxiety and increase the understanding of familial anxiety. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04755933; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04755933 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/40707

Background: Water fluoridation was introduced in the UK against a background of high dental decay within the population. Levels of decay have dramatically reduced over the last 40 years following widespread use of fluoride toothpaste. Objective: The aim of the CATFISH (Cumbrian Assessment of Teeth a Fluoride Intervention Study for Health) study was to address the question of whether or not the addition of fluoride to community drinking water, in a contemporary population, lead to a reduction in the number of children with caries and, if so, is this reduction cost-effective? Design: A longitudinal prospective cohort design was used in two distinct recruited populations: (1) a birth cohort to assess systemic and topical effects of water fluoridation and (2) an older school cohort to assess the topical effects of drinking fluoridated water. Setting: The study was conducted in Cumbria, UK. Broadly, the intervention group (i.e. individuals receiving fluoridated drinking water) were from the west of Cumbria and the control group were from the east of Cumbria. Participants: Children who were lifetime residents of Cumbria were recruited. For the birth cohort, children were recruited at birth (2014–15), and followed until age 5 years. For the older school cohort, children were recruited at age 5 years (2013–14) and followed until the age of 11 years. Intervention: The provision of a ‘reintroduced fluoridated water scheme’. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the presence or absence of decay into dentine in the primary teeth (birth cohort) and permanent teeth (older school cohort). The cost per quality-adjusted life-year was also assessed. Results: In the birth cohort (n = 1444), 17.4% of children in the intervention group had decay into dentine, compared with 21.4% of children in the control group. The evidence, after adjusting for deprivation, age and sex, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.98), suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a modest beneficial effect. There was insufficient evidence of difference in the presence of decay in children in the older school cohort (n = 1192), with 19.1% of children in the intervention group having decay into dentine, compared with 21.9% of children in the control group (adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.09). The intervention was found to be likely to be cost-effective for both the birth cohort and the older school cohort at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. There was no significant difference in the performance of water fluoridation on caries experience across deprivation quintiles. Conclusions: The prevalence of caries and the impact of water fluoridation was much smaller than previous studies have reported. The intervention was effective in the birth cohort group; however, the importance of the modest absolute reduction in caries (into dentine) needs to be considered against the use of other dental caries preventative measures. Longer-term follow-up will be required to fully understand the balance of benefits and potential risks (e.g. fluorosis) of water fluoridation in contemporary low-caries populations. Limitations: The low response rates to the questionnaires reduced their value for generalisations. The observed numbers of children with decay and the postulated differences between the groups were far smaller than anticipated and, consequently, the power of the study was affected (i.e. increasing the uncertainty indicated in the confidence intervals). Study registration: This study is registered as Integrated Research Application System 131824 and 149278. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Abstract Background AVATAR therapy is a novel intervention targeting distressing auditory verbal hallucinations (henceforth ‘voices’). A digital simulation (avatar) of the voice is created and used in a three-way dialogue between participant, avatar and therapist. To date, therapy has been delivered over 6 sessions, comprising an initial phase, focusing on standing up to a hostile avatar, and a second phase in which the avatar concedes and focus shifts to individualised treatment targets, including beliefs about voices. The first fully powered randomised trial found AVATAR therapy resulted in a rapid and substantial fall in voice frequency and associated distress that was superior to supportive counselling at 12 weeks. The main objective of this AVATAR2 trial is to test the efficacy of two forms of AVATAR therapy in reducing voice-related distress: AVATAR-brief (standardised focus on exposure, assertiveness and self-esteem) and AVATAR-extended (phase 1 mirroring AVATAR-brief augmented by a formulation-driven phase 2). Secondary objectives include the examination of additional voice, wellbeing and mood outcomes, the exploration of mediators and moderators of therapy response, and examining cost-effectiveness of both forms of therapy compared with usual treatment (TAU). Methods This multi-site parallel group randomised controlled trial will independently randomise 345 individuals to receive AVATAR-brief (6 sessions) plus TAU or AVATAR-extended (12 sessions) plus TAU or TAU alone (1:1:1 allocation). Participants will be people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders who have heard distressing voices for more than 6 months. The primary outcome is the PSYRATS Auditory Hallucinations Distress dimension score at 16 and 28 weeks, conducted by blinded assessors. Statistical analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle and data will be analysed using linear mixed models. Mediation and moderation analyses using contemporary causal inference methods will be conducted as secondary analyses. Service costs will be calculated, and cost-effectiveness assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life years accrued. Discussion This study will clarify optimal therapy delivery, test efficacy in a multi-site study and enable the testing of the AVATAR software platform, therapy training and provision in NHS settings. Trial registration ISRCTN registry ISRCTN55682735 . Registered on 22 January 2020. The trial is funded by the Wellcome Trust (WT).

BackgroundMarginalized groups are more likely to experience problems with technology-related access, motivation, and skills. This is known as the “digital divide.” Technology-related exclusion is a potential barrier to the equitable implementation of digital health. SlowMo therapy was developed with an inclusive, human-centered design to optimize accessibility and bridge the “digital divide.” SlowMo is an effective, blended digital psychological therapy for paranoia in psychosis. ObjectiveThis study explores the “digital divide” and mobile app engagement in the SlowMo randomized controlled trial. MethodsDigital literacy was assessed at baseline, and a multidimensional assessment of engagement (ie, adherence [via system analytics and self-report] and self-reported user experience) was conducted at 12 weeks after therapy. Engagement was investigated in relation to demographics (ie, gender, age, ethnicity, and paranoia severity). ResultsDigital literacy data demonstrated that technology use and confidence were lower in Black people and older people (n=168). The engagement findings indicated that 80.7% (96/119) of therapy completers met the a priori analytics adherence criteria. However, analytics adherence did not differ by demographics. High rates of user experience were reported overall (overall score: mean 75%, SD 17.1%; n=82). No differences in user experience were found for ethnicity, age, or paranoia severity, although self-reported app use, enjoyment, and usefulness were higher in women than in men. ConclusionsThis study identified technology-related inequalities related to age and ethnicity, which did not influence engagement with SlowMo, suggesting that the therapy design bridged the “digital divide.” Intervention design may moderate the influence of individual differences on engagement. We recommend the adoption of inclusive, human-centered design to reduce the impact of the “digital divide” on therapy outcomes. Trial RegistrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN32448671; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN32448671

BackgroundApproximately 1–2% of mothers may experience severe mental illness (SMI) requiring admission to an inpatient Mother and Baby Unit (MBU). MBUs aim to provide mental health assessment and treatment and strengthen the mother-infant relationship, essential for infant development. Whilst MBUs offer various interventions, they do not routinely offer structured parenting interventions. The Baby Triple P Positive Parenting Program (BTP) was developed to enhance parenting competence, psychological coping and the quality of partner and other social support. Guided by lived experience consultation, we aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability of delivering BTP plus Treatment as Usual (TAU) in this setting.MethodA multi-site, parallel-group, single-blind pilot randomized controlled trial (registration: ISRCTN12765736) comparing BTP+TAU to TAU in participants, recruited from two MBUs in England. The Baby Triple P intervention consisted of eight parenting sessions, with the final four being delivered over the telephone following MBU discharge. Feasibility outcomes were participant intervention engagement and study retention. Clinical outcomes including maternal parenting competence, bonding and mental health outcomes were assessed at baseline, post-baseline/intervention (10 weeks) and six-month follow-up. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and linear regression models. An economic feasibility analysis was also conducted.ResultsThirty-seven of the 67 eligible participants consented; 34 were randomized (16 to BTP+TAU and 18 to TAU), of whom 20 were retained at post-intervention data collection and 21 at six-month follow-up. Twelve participants (75%) completed the intervention, which was rated as highly acceptable. Clinical outcomes signaled potential improvements in maternal parenting competence, bonding, mood and mental health symptomatology in participants who received the intervention. Healthcare resource use and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires were well-completed by participants. Delivering BTP in this setting is estimated to cost £443-822 per participant.ConclusionsThis is the first trial of a parenting intervention in a MBU setting. BTP is feasible and acceptable to mothers with SMI, with a promising signal for treatment efficacy. Although minor modifications may be required for the collection of observer-rated measures post-MBU discharge, the findings indicate that a larger, definitive trial could be conducted, especially if the setting is extended to include perinatal mental health community settings.

Background: Prior evidence suggests that behaviours closely related to the intervention delivered for autism are amenable to change, but it becomes more difficult when generalising treatment effects beyond that immediate context. Objectives: The objectives were (1) to test an early autism social communication intervention designed to promote child social communication change in the naturalistic contexts of both home and education, with an additive effect on overall child symptom outcomes, and (2) to conduct a mechanistic study investigating the transmission of treatment effects within and across contexts to an overall treatment effect. Design: The trial was a three-site, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial of the experimental treatment plus treatment as usual and treatment as usual alone. The primary intention-to-treat analysis used analysis of covariance. The mechanism analysis used regression models to test mediation of the primary outcome by parent–child and education staff (learning support assistant)–child social interactions. Setting: The study took place in three urban/semiurban regions in Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne and London. Participants: Children aged 2–11 years who met the criteria for severe autism. Interventions: The Preschool Autism Communication Trial was adapted to parallel components within home and educational settings using in-person and remote delivery. Treatment as usual was the control condition. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was autism symptoms on the Autism Diagnostic Observation schedule-2. The secondary outcomes were Brief Observation of Social Communication Change, dyadic social interaction between child and parent or learning support assistant, reported language, functional outcome and reduction in child disruptive behaviour. Outcomes were measured at baseline and at the 12-month end point in all settings; interim mechanism measurements were taken at 7 months. Results: Participants (n = 249; 122 in the PACT-G group and 127 in the treatment-as-usual group; 51 were female and 197 were male) received a median of 10 (interquartile range 8–12) sessions at home and 8 (interquartile range 5–10) sessions in an educational setting. We found no significant treatment effects on the end-point Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-2 primary outcome (–0.04, 95% confidence interval –0.26 to 0.18; p = 0.734), on the end-point Brief Observation of Social Communication Change secondary outcome (–0.03, 95% confidence interval –0.31 to 0.25; p = 0.85) or on language, repetitive behaviour, adaptive behaviour and child well-being. We did find significant treatment effects on dyadic interactions (increased parent synchronous response 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.69; p = 0.001); child initiations with a parent (0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.41; p = 0.001); learning support assistant synchronous response (0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.49; p = 0.001); child initiations with a learning support assistant (0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.36; p = 0.005); and unblinded measures of improved parental well-being and child disruptive behaviour across home and educational settings. Adult (parent/learning support assistant) synchronous responsiveness in a home/education setting improved child dyadic social initiation. The child dyadic social initiation was also associated with child symptoms on researcher Brief Observation of Social Communication Change. Limitations: The delivered sessional dosage was 83% of that planned in the home setting and 67% in the educational setting, with 5.5% of home sessions and 5% of educational sessions deemed ‘unacceptable’, particularly for remote delivery. A change of therapy learning support assistant was experienced by over one-third of children by the mid-point of the trial, by another third by the end point, and by one-fifth at both points. Conclusions: The multicomponent Paediatric Autism Communication Trial – Generalised (PACT-G) treatment for a child in a home or educational setting did not produce the hypothesised improvement in child autism symptomatology or adaptive behaviour, but did produce significant improvements in proximal adult–child reciprocal dyadic communication. Future work: Future work will involve building on these results towards a further understanding of delivery options, dosage and multicomponent extension of social communication interventions for young children with autism in naturalistic settings. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25378536. Funding: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) partnership. This was also part funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 9, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Abstract Background In the presence of heterogeneous treatment effects, it is desirable to divide patients into subgroups based on their expected response to treatment. This is formalised via a personalised treatment recommendation: an algorithm that uses biomarker measurements to select treatments. It could be that multiple, rather than single, biomarkers better predict these subgroups. However, finding the optimal combination of multiple biomarkers can be a difficult prediction problem. Methods We described three parametric methods for finding the optimal combination of biomarkers in a personalised treatment recommendation, using randomised trial data: a regression approach that models outcome using treatment by biomarker interactions; an approach proposed by Kraemer that forms a combined measure from individual biomarker weights, calculated on all treated and control pairs; and a novel modification of Kraemer’s approach that utilises a prognostic score to sample matched treated and control subjects. Using Monte Carlo simulations under multiple data-generating models, we compare these approaches and draw conclusions based on a measure of improvement under a personalised treatment recommendation compared to a standard treatment. The three methods are applied to data from a randomised trial of home-delivered pragmatic rehabilitation versus treatment as usual for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (the FINE trial). Prior analysis of this data indicated some treatment effect heterogeneity from multiple, correlated biomarkers. Results The regression approach outperformed Kraemer’s approach across all data-generating scenarios. The modification of Kraemer’s approach leads to improved treatment recommendations, except in the case where there was a strong unobserved prognostic biomarker. In the FINE example, the regression method indicated a weak improvement under its personalised treatment recommendation algorithm. Conclusions The method proposed by Kraemer does not perform better than a regression approach for combining multiple biomarkers. All methods are sensitive to misspecification of the parametric models.

Abstract Background A downwards secular trend in the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in England was identified through previous work and the literature. Risk prediction models for primary prevention of CVD do not model this secular trend, this could result in over prediction of risk for individuals in the present day. We evaluate the effects of modelling this secular trend, and also assess whether it is driven by an increase in statin use during follow up. Methods We derived a cohort of patients (1998–2015) eligible for cardiovascular risk prediction from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink with linked hospitalisation and mortality records (N = 3,855,660). Patients were split into development and validation cohort based on their cohort entry date (before/after 2010). The calibration of a CVD risk prediction model developed in the development cohort was tested in the validation cohort. The calibration was also assessed after modelling the secular trend. Finally, the presence of the secular trend was evaluated under a marginal structural model framework, where the effect of statin treatment during follow up is adjusted for. Results Substantial over prediction of risks in the validation cohort was found when not modelling the secular trend. This miscalibration could be minimised if one was to explicitly model the secular trend. The reduction in risk in the validation cohort when introducing the secular trend was 35.68 and 33.24% in the female and male cohorts respectively. Under the marginal structural model framework, the reductions were 33.31 and 32.67% respectively, indicating increasing statin use during follow up is not the only the cause of the secular trend. Conclusions Inclusion of the secular trend into the model substantially changed the CVD risk predictions. Models that are being used in clinical practice in the UK do not model secular trend and may thus overestimate the risks, possibly leading to patients being treated unnecessarily. Wider discussion around the modelling of secular trends in a risk prediction framework is needed.

Abstract Background Stability of risk estimates from prediction models may be highly dependent on the sample size of the dataset available for model derivation. In this paper, we evaluate the stability of cardiovascular disease risk scores for individual patients when using different sample sizes for model derivation; such sample sizes include those similar to models recommended in the national guidelines, and those based on recently published sample size formula for prediction models. Methods We mimicked the process of sampling N patients from a population to develop a risk prediction model by sampling patients from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. A cardiovascular disease risk prediction model was developed on this sample and used to generate risk scores for an independent cohort of patients. This process was repeated 1000 times, giving a distribution of risks for each patient. N = 100,000, 50,000, 10,000, N min (derived from sample size formula) and N epv10 (meets 10 events per predictor rule) were considered. The 5–95th percentile range of risks across these models was used to evaluate instability. Patients were grouped by a risk derived from a model developed on the entire population (population-derived risk) to summarise results. Results For a sample size of 100,000, the median 5–95th percentile range of risks for patients across the 1000 models was 0.77%, 1.60%, 2.42% and 3.22% for patients with population-derived risks of 4–5%, 9–10%, 14–15% and 19–20% respectively; for N = 10,000, it was 2.49%, 5.23%, 7.92% and 10.59%, and for N using the formula-derived sample size, it was 6.79%, 14.41%, 21.89% and 29.21%. Restricting this analysis to models with high discrimination, good calibration or small mean absolute prediction error reduced the percentile range, but high levels of instability remained. Conclusions Widely used cardiovascular disease risk prediction models suffer from high levels of instability induced by sampling variation. Many models will also suffer from overfitting (a closely linked concept), but at acceptable levels of overfitting, there may still be high levels of instability in individual risk. Stability of risk estimates should be a criterion when determining the minimum sample size to develop models.

Abstract Background Children with Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder (SPCD) have long-term needs in using and processing social language and have a high risk of later mental health difficulties. A manualised speech and language therapy programme, the Social Communication Intervention Programme (SCIP) provides therapy content for SPCD. A feasibility study is required to derive more precise estimates of key parameters for a future trial of SCIP. Aims To assess the feasibility of conducting a substantive randomized controlled trial of SCIP for children with SPCD. Methods A questionnaire was distributed to paediatric speech and language therapists in England. Survey questions addressed number of eligible children, routine intervention provision and trial recruitment factors. In the second phase, a single-arm intervention feasibility study was completed. Fifteen speech and language practitioners identified 24 children aged 5–11 years with SPCD. Practitioners received training/supervision to deliver 20 SCIP therapy sessions to each child. At time 1, parents of participating children provided three communication goals; expected steps in each goal were defined. After intervention, parents and practitioners independently rated each goal compared to baseline ability. Two research practitioners compared parent post-intervention commentaries with outcome scores to derive guidance about clinical significance. All practitioners recorded audio commentaries on therapy experiences. Post-intervention interviews were conducted with 6 practitioners and 6 parents. An expert panel completed a Delphi consultation on trial design. Results Routine practice for SPCD varies widely. Children tend to be embedded in autism provision. Participation in a future trial was well supported provided resources are available to services. Outcomes analysis indicated all children except one made some progress on parent ratings; all children made progress on practitioner ratings. A power analysis for a future trial was carried out using current outcome measure as putative primary endpoint. Practitioners’ audio-diaries provided suggestions for training and adaption in a future trial. Outcomes and therapy methods were acceptable to practitioners and parents. Conclusions The feasibility study evaluated a novel outcome measure of social communication skills in SPCD. A power calculation indicated a feasible framework for a trial within a realistic period of time. Recommendations for recruitment methods, adaptation of manual and training were supported by practitioners and an expert panel. Trial registration Title: Speech-language therapy for child social communication disorder Trial ID: ISRCTN48030419 . Date registered: January 1, 2017. Registered retrospectively.

Abstract Background High response rates are essential when questionnaires are used within research, as representativeness can affect the validity of studies and the ability to generalise the findings to a wider population. The study aimed to measure the response rate to questionnaires from a large longitudinal epidemiological study and sought to determine if any changes made throughout data collection had a positive impact on the response to questionnaires and addressed any imbalance in response rates by participants’ levels of deprivation. Methods Data were taken from a prospective, comparative study, designed to examine the effects of the reintroduction of water fluoridation on children’s oral health over a five-year period. Response rates were analysed for the first year of data collection. During this year changes were made to the questionnaire layout and cover letter to attempt to increase response rates. Additionally a nested randomised control trial compared the effect on response rates of three different reminders to complete questionnaires. Results Data were available for 1824 individuals. Sending the complete questionnaire again to non-responders resulted in the highest level of response (25%). A telephone call to participants was the only method that appeared to address the imbalance in deprivation, with a mean difference in deprivation score of 2.65 (95% CI -15.50 to 10.20) between the responders and non-responders. Conclusions Initially, low response rates were recorded within this large, longitudinal study giving rise to concerns about non-response bias. Resending the entire questionnaire again was the most effective way of reminding participants to complete the questionnaire. As this is a less labour intensive method than for example, calling participants, more time can then be spent targeting groups who are underrepresented. In order to address these biases, data can be weighted in order to draw conclusions about the population.

Abstract Background Suicide is a leading cause of death globally. Suicide deaths are elevated in those experiencing severe mental health problems, including schizophrenia. Psychological talking therapies are a potentially effective means of alleviating suicidal thoughts, plans, and attempts. However, talking therapies need to i) focus on suicidal experiences directly and explicitly, and ii) be based on testable psychological mechanisms. The Cognitive AppRoaches to coMbatting Suicidality (CARMS) project is a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) which aims to investigate both the efficacy and the underlying mechanisms of a psychological talking therapy for people who have been recently suicidal and have non-affective psychosis. Methods The CARMS trial is a two-armed single-blind RCT comparing a psychological talking therapy (Cognitive Behavioural Suicide Prevention for psychosis [CBSPp]) plus Treatment As Usual (TAU) with TAU alone. There are primary and secondary suicidality outcome variables, plus mechanistic, clinical, and health economic outcomes measured over time. The primary outcome is a measure of suicidal ideation at 6 months after baseline. The target sample size is 250, with approximately 125 randomised to each arm of the trial, and an assumption of up to 25% attrition. Hence, the overall recruitment target is up to 333. An intention to treat analysis will be used with primary stratification based on National Health Service (NHS) recruitment site and antidepressant prescription medication. Recruitment will be from NHS mental health services in the North West of England, UK. Participants must be 18 or over; be under the care of mental health services; have mental health problems which meet ICD-10 non-affective psychosis criteria; and have experienced self-reported suicidal thoughts, plans, and/or attempts in the 3 months prior to recruitment. Nested qualitative work will investigate the pathways to suicidality, experiences of the therapy, and identify potential implementation challenges beyond a trial setting as perceived by numerous stake-holders. Discussion This trial has important implications for countering suicidal experiences for people with psychosis. It will provide definitive evidence about the efficacy of the CBSPp therapy; the psychological mechanisms which lead to suicidal experiences; and provide an understanding of what is required to implement the intervention into services should it be efficacious. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03114917 ), 14th April 2017. ISRCTN (reference ISRCTN17776666 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17776666 ); 5th June 2017). Registration was recorded prior to participant recruitment commencing.

Abstract Background Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have increased cardiovascular (CV) and mortality risk. Patients with RA are also frequently prescribed glucocorticoids (GCs) which have been associated with increased risk of mortality. In addition, for patients who have concomitant diabetes mellitus (DM), GCs are known to worsen glycaemic control and hence may further increase CV and mortality risk. This study aimed to understand the relationship between GCs, DM and mortality in patients with RA. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with incident RA identified from UK primary care electronic medical records. Patients with linkage to Office for National Statistics (ONS) for mortality data (N = 9085) were included. DM was identified through Read codes, prescriptions and blood tests, and GC use was identified through prescriptions. Mortality rate ratios (RR) and rate differences (RD) were calculated across the different exposure groups. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate interaction on the multiplicative and additive scales. Results In those without DM GC use had a 4.4-fold increased all-cause mortality RR (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.83 to 5.14) compared to non-use, whilst those with DM had a lower RR for GC use (3.02 (95% CI: 2.34, 3.90)). However, those with DM had a higher RD associated with GC use because of their higher baseline risk. In those with DM, GC use was associated with an additional 46.7 deaths/1000 person-years (pyrs) (95% CI: 34.1 to 59.3) compared to non-use, while in those without DM GC use was associated with an additional 36.2 deaths/1000 pyrs (95% CI: 31.6 to 40.8). A similar pattern was seen for CV mortality. The adjusted Cox proportional hazards model showed no evidence of multiplicative interaction, but additive interaction indicated a non-significant increased risk. For CV mortality there was no interaction on either scale. Conclusions GC use was associated with higher mortality rates in people with comorbid DM compared to people without DM, despite apparently reassuring similar relative risks. Clinicians need to be aware of the higher baseline risk in patients with DM, and consider this when prescribing GCs in patients with RA and comorbid DM.

Abstract Background Threshold regression, in which time to remission is modelled as a stochastic drift towards a boundary, is an alternative to the proportional hazards survival model and has a clear conceptual mechanism for examining the effects of drug dose. However, for both threshold regression and proportional hazard models, when dose titration occurs during treatment, the estimated causal effect of dose can be biased by confounding. An instrumental variable analysis can be used to minimise such bias. Method Weekly antidepressant dose was measured in 380 men and women with major depression treated with escitalopram or nortriptyline for 12 weeks as part of the Genome Based Therapeutic Drugs for Depression (GENDEP) study. The averaged dose relative to maximum prescribing dose was calculated from the 12 trial weeks and tested for association with time to depression remission. We combined the instrumental variable approach, utilising randomised treatment as an instrument, with threshold regression and proportional hazard survival models. Results The threshold model was constructed with two linear predictors. In the naïve models, averaged daily dose was not associated with reduced time to remission. By contrast, the instrumental variable analyses showed a clear and significant relationship between increased dose and faster time to remission, threshold regression (velocity estimate: 0.878, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.152–1.603) and proportional hazards (log hazards ratio: 3.012, 95% CI: 0.086–5.938). Conclusions We demonstrate, using the GENDEP trial, the benefits of these analyses to estimate causal parameters rather than those that estimate associations. The results for the trial dataset show the link between antidepressant dose and time to depression remission. The threshold regression model more clearly distinguishes the factors associated with initial severity from those influencing treatment effect. Additionally, applying the instrumental variable estimator provides a more plausible causal estimate of drug dose on treatment effect. This validity of these results is subject to meeting the assumptions of instrumental variable analyses. Trial registration EudraCT, 2004–001723-38; ISRCTN, 03693000. Registered on 27 September 2007.

Background In the UK, postnatal depression is more common in British South Asian women than White Caucasion women. Cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) is recommended as a first-line treatment, but there is little evidence for the adaptation of CBT for postnatal depression to ensure its applicability to different ethnic groups. Aims To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a CBT-based positive health programme group intervention in British South Asian women with postnatal depression. Method We have designed a multicentre, two-arm, partially nested, randomised controlled trial with 4- and 12-month follow-up, comparing a 12-session group CBT-based intervention (positive health programme) plus treatment as usual with treatment as usual alone, for British South Asian women with postnatal depression. Participants will be recruited from primary care and appropriate community venues in areas of high South Asian density across the UK. It has been estimated that randomising 720 participants (360 into each group) will be sufficient to detect a clinically important difference between a 55% recovery rate in the intervention group and a 40% recovery rate in the treatment-as-usual group. An economic analysis will estimate the cost-effectiveness of the positive health programme. A qualitative process evaluation will explore barriers and enablers to study participation and examine the acceptability and impact of the programme from the perspective of British South Asian women and other key stakeholders.

Background: Reasoning may play a causal role in paranoid delusions in psychosis. SlowMo, a new digitally supported cognitive–behavioural therapy, targets reasoning to reduce paranoia. Objectives: To examine the effectiveness of SlowMo therapy in reducing paranoia and in improving reasoning, quality of life and well-being, and to examine its mechanisms of action, moderators of effects and acceptability. Design: A parallel-arm, assessor-blind, randomised controlled trial comparing SlowMo plus treatment as usual with treatment as usual alone. An online independent system randomised eligible participants (1 : 1) using randomly varying permuted blocks, stratified by site and paranoia severity. Setting: Community mental health services in three NHS mental health trusts in England, plus patient identification centres. Participants: A total of 362 participants with schizophrenia-spectrum psychosis. Eligibility criteria comprised distressing and persistent (≥ 3 months) paranoia. Interventions: Eight face-to-face SlowMo sessions over 12 weeks plus treatment as usual, or treatment as usual alone (control group). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was paranoia measured by the Green Paranoid Thoughts Scale and its revised version, together with observer-rated measures of persecutory delusions (The Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales delusion scale and delusion items from the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms). The secondary outcome measures were reasoning (measures of belief flexibility, jumping to conclusions, and fast and slow thinking), well-being, quality of life, schemas, service use and worry. Results: A total of 362 participants were recruited between 1 May 2017 and 14 May 2019: 181 in the SlowMo intervention group and 181 in the treatment-as-usual (control) group. One control participant subsequently withdrew. In total, 325 (90%) participants provided primary Green Paranoid Thoughts Scale outcome data at 12 weeks (SlowMo, n = 162; treatment as usual, n = 163). A total of 145 (80%) participants in the SlowMo group completed all eight therapy sessions. SlowMo was superior to treatment as usual in reducing paranoia on all three measures used: Green Paranoid Thoughts Scale total at 12 weeks (Cohen’s d = 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.09 to 0.51; p = 0.005) and 24 weeks (Cohen’s d = 0.20, 95% confidence interval –0.02 to 0.40; p = 0.063); Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales delusions at 12 weeks (Cohen’s d = 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.78; p = 0.002) and 24 weeks (Cohen’s d = 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.80; p = 0.001); and Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms persecutory delusions at 12 weeks (Cohen’s d = 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.84; p = 0.035) and 24 weeks (Cohen’s d = 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.94; p = 0.009). Reasoning (belief flexibility, possibility of being mistaken and Fast and Slow Thinking Questionnaire measure) improved, but jumping to conclusions did not improve. Worry, quality of life, well-being and self-concept also improved, improving most strongly at 24 weeks. Baseline characteristics did not moderate treatment effects. Changes in belief flexibility and worry mediated changes in paranoia. Peer researcher-led qualitative interviews confirmed positive experiences of the therapy and technology. Nineteen participants in the SlowMo group and 21 participants in the treatment-as-usual group reported 54 adverse events (51 serious events, no deaths). Limitations: The trial included treatment as usual as the comparator and, thus, the trial design did not control for the effects of time with a therapist. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a psychological therapy for paranoia in people with psychosis and the first trial using a brief targeted digitally supported therapy. High rates of therapy uptake demonstrated acceptability. It was effective for paranoia, comparable to longer therapy, and equally effective for people with different levels of negative symptoms and working memory. Mediators were improvements in belief flexibility and worry. Our results suggest that targeting reasoning helps paranoia. Future work: Further examination of SlowMo mechanisms of action and implementation. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32448671. Funding: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a MRC and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 8, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Recovery focused therapy has been shown to improve recovery outcomes in individuals with recent onset bipolar disorder. However the process by which this is achieved is unclear. This paper therefore examines potential mediators of this effect using data from a randomised controlled trial comparing recovery focused therapy with treatment as usual (ISRCTN43062149). Methods: A single-blind randomised controlled trial compared treatment as usual (TAU) with recovery-focused therapy (RfT) plus TAU (n = 67) in participants diagnosed with bipolar disorder with onset within 5 years. Impact of treatment at six and twelve months post baseline on potential mediators (mood appraisal, growth and self-concept) for changes in personal recovery, social functioning and quality of life outcomes were first assessed. Mediation effects were evaluated on each outcome for mediators significantly impacted by treatment. Results: RfT had a significant impact on positive self-appraisal and stigma at 12 months and self-esteem and post-trauma growth at six months. Both self-esteem and post-trauma growth significantly mediated the effect of RfT on personal recovery at six months follow-up. Limitations: This is a relatively small study which was not originally powered to test for exploratory mediation effects. Conclusions: Improvements in personal recovery following RfT are linked to improvements in personal growth and self-esteem. This mediation relationship was not apparent for functioning or quality of life.

Introduction Aggregate data meta-analyses have shown heterogeneous treatment effects for cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) for patients with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses. This heterogeneity could stem from specific intervention or patient characteristics that could influence the clinical effectiveness of CBT, termed treatment effect modifiers. This individual participant data meta-analysis will investigate a range of potential treatment effect modifiers of the efficacy of CBT.Methods and analysis We will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies investigating CBT versus treatment as usual, or CBT versus other psychosocial interventions, for patients with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE and the online clinical trials registers of the US government, European Union, WHO and Current Controlled Trials will be searched. Two researchers will screen titles and abstracts identified by the search. Individual participant data will be requested for any eligible study, for the primary outcome (overall psychotic symptoms), secondary outcomes and treatment effect modifiers. Data will be checked and recoded according to an established statistical analysis plan. One-stage and two-stage random effects meta-analyses investigating potential treatment effect modifiers will be conducted. A list of potential treatment effect modifiers for CBT will be produced, motivating future research into particular modifiers.Ethics and dissemination This study does not require ethical approval as it is based on data from existing studies, although best ethical practice for secondary analysis of clinical data will be followed. The findings will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, and promoted to relevant stakeholders.PROSPERO registration number CRD42017060068.

A main symptom of chronic insufficient sleep is excessive daytime sleepiness. Here, Wang et al. report 42 genome-wide significant loci for self-reported daytime sleepiness in 452,071 individuals from the UK Biobank that cluster into two biological subtypes of either sleep propensity or sleep fragmentation.

Abstract Background Adolescent-onset psychosis is associated with more severe symptoms and poorer outcomes than adult-onset psychosis. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommend that adolescents with first episode psychosis (FEP) should be offered a combination of antipsychotic medication (APs), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and family intervention (FI). The evidence for APs in treating psychosis is limited in adolescents compared to adults. Nevertheless, it indicates that APs can reduce overall symptoms in adolescents but may cause more severe side effects, including cardiovascular and metabolic effects, than in adults. CBT and FI can improve outcomes in adults, but there are no studies of psychological interventions (PI) in patients under 18 years old. Given this limited evidence base, NICE made a specific research recommendation for determining the clinical and cost effectiveness of APs versus PI versus both treatments for adolescent FEP. Methods/design The current study aimed to establish the feasibility and acceptability of conducting such a trial by recruiting 14–18-year-olds with a first episode of psychosis into a feasibility prospective randomised open blinded evaluation (PROBE) design, three-arm, randomised controlled trial of APs alone versus PI alone versus a combination of both treatments. We aimed to recruit 90 participants from Early Intervention and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Teams in seven UK sites. APs were prescribed by participants’ usual psychiatrists. PI comprised standardised cognitive behavioural therapy and family intervention sessions. Discussion This is the first study to compare APs to PI in an adolescent population with FEP. Recruitment finished on 31 October 2018. The study faced difficulties with recruitment across most sites due to factors including clinician and service-user treatment preferences. Trial registration Current controlled trial with ISRCTN, ISRCTN80567433. Registered on 27 February 2017.

Abstract Background Risk prediction models are commonly used in practice to inform decisions on patients’ treatment. Uncertainty around risk scores beyond the confidence interval is rarely explored. We conducted an uncertainty analysis of the QRISK prediction tool to evaluate the robustness of individual risk predictions with varying modelling decisions. Methods We derived a cohort of patients eligible for cardiovascular risk prediction from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) with linked hospitalisation and mortality records (N = 3,855,660). Risk prediction models were developed using the methods reported for QRISK2 and 3, before adjusting for additional risk factors, a secular trend, geographical variation in risk and the method for imputing missing data when generating a risk score (model A–model F). Ten-year risk scores were compared across the different models alongside model performance metrics. Results We found substantial variation in risk on the individual level across the models. The 95 percentile range of risks in model F for patients with risks between 9 and 10% according to model A was 4.4–16.3% and 4.6–15.8% for females and males respectively. Despite this, the models were difficult to distinguish using common performance metrics (Harrell’s C ranged from 0.86 to 0.87). The largest contributing factor to variation in risk was adjusting for a secular trend (HR per calendar year, 0.96 [0.95–0.96] and 0.96 [0.96–0.96]). When extrapolating to the UK population, we found that 3.8 million patients may be reclassified as eligible for statin prescription depending on the model used. A key limitation of this study was that we could not assess the variation in risk that may be caused by risk factors missing from the database (such as diet or physical activity). Conclusions Risk prediction models that use routinely collected data provide estimates strongly dependent on modelling decisions. Despite this large variability in patient risk, the models appear to perform similarly according to standard performance metrics. Decision-making should be supplemented with clinical judgement and evidence of additional risk factors. The largest source of variability, a secular trend in CVD incidence, can be accounted for and should be explored in more detail.

Abstract Background Intestinal inflammation in Crohn’s disease (CD) is caused by mucosal immune system reactivity to luminal antigen and results in debilitating symptoms, reduced quality of life, impaired work productivity and significant health care costs. Not all patients respond to conventional and biologic therapies, with chronic inflammation ensuing. Although surgical resection may be required, disease frequently returns and surgery may not be an option, or may be declined. Case reports suggest potential benefit after haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) for patients with refractory CD. The ASTIC trial asked whether HSCT could cure CD. Few patients achieved the primary endpoint of clinical remission for 3 months, off all medication with no evidence of active disease, and there were a high number of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs), including one patient death. However, beneficial effects were observed in some aspects of disease activity. The ASTIClite trial will investigate these potential benefits and safety using a lower intensity regimen than ASTIC. Methods Ninety-nine participants will be recruited from secondary care IBD centres in the UK into a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT, ASTIClite) and an observational follow-up, and randomised to autologous HSCT versus standard care (ratio 2:1). The primary endpoint is treatment success at week 48, defined as mucosal healing without surgery or death. Secondary endpoints relating to efficacy, safety and mechanistic analyses will be evaluated at week 8, 14, 24, 32, 40 and 48. Long-term safety of the low intensity HSCT regimen forms the primary endpoint for the EBMT follow-up study and will be assessed annually for 4–7 years. Discussion ASTIClite will compare HSCTlite with standard care with respect to safety, efficacy and quality of life, and capture outcomes allowing findings to be generalised to current clinical practice in the UK. It will also provide significant mechanistic insights into the immunological consequences of HSCTlite and its impact on treatment outcomes. The observational follow-up will provide information, which is currently unavailable for this population. Trial registration The ASTIClite RCT was registered on 31st October 2017 (ISRCTN17160440) and the EBMT follow-up study on 19th January 2018 (ISRCTN31981313).

Abstract Background A key step in the design of a RCT is the estimation of the number of participants needed in the study. The most common approach is to specify a target difference between the treatments for the primary outcome and then calculate the required sample size. The sample size is chosen to ensure that the trial will have a high probability (adequate statistical power) of detecting a target difference between the treatments should one exist. The sample size has many implications for the conduct and interpretation of the study. Despite the critical role that the target difference has in the design of a RCT, the way in which it is determined has received little attention. In this article, we summarise the key considerations and messages from new guidance for researchers and funders on specifying the target difference, and undertaking and reporting a RCT sample size calculation. This article on choosing the target difference for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation has been dual published in the BMJ and BMC Trials journals Methods The DELTA2 (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) project comprised five major components: systematic literature reviews of recent methodological developments (stage 1) and existing funder guidance (stage 2); a Delphi study (stage 3); a two-day consensus meeting bringing together researchers, funders and patient representatives (stage 4); and the preparation and dissemination of a guidance document (stage 5). Results and Discussion The key messages from the DELTA2 guidance on determining the target difference and sample size calculation for a randomised caontrolled trial are presented. Recommendations for the subsequent reporting of the sample size calculation are also provided.

Background: Quality of life for children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness can be impaired, but evidence-based interventions to improve it are scarce. Objective: Co-production of a child-centred intervention [called Young Simplifying Mental Illness plus Life Enhancement Skills (SMILES)] to improve the health-related quality of life of children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness, and evaluating its acceptability and feasibility for delivery in NHS and community settings. Design: Qualitative and co-production methods informed the development of the intervention (Phase I). A feasibility randomised controlled trial was designed to compare Young SMILES with treatment as usual (Phase II). Semistructured qualitative interviews were used to explore acceptability among children and adolescents living with their parents, who had serious mental illness, and their parents. A mixture of semistructured qualitative interviews and focus group research was used to examine feasibility among Young SMILES facilitators and referrers/non-referrers. Setting: Randomisation was conducted after baseline measures were collected by the study co-ordinator, ensuring that the blinding of the statistician and research team was maintained to reduce detection bias. Participants: Phase I: 14 children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness, seven parents and 31 practitioners from social, educational and health-related sectors. Phase II: 40 children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness, 33 parents, five referrers/non-referrers and 16 Young SMILES facilitators. Intervention: Young SMILES was delivered at two sites: (1) Warrington, supported by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), and (2) Newcastle, supported by the NHS and Barnardo’s. An eight-session weekly group programme was delivered, with four to six children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness per age-appropriate group (6–11 and 12–16 years). At week 4, a five-session parallel weekly programme was offered to the parents/carers. Sessions lasted 2 hours each and focused on improving mental health literacy, child–parent communication and children’s problem-solving skills. Main outcome measures: Phase ll children and parents completed questionnaires at randomisation and then again at 4 and 6 months post randomisation. Quality of life was self-reported by children and proxy-reported by parents using the Paediatric Quality of Life questionnaire and KIDSCREEN. Semistructured interviews with parents (n = 14) and children (n = 17) who participated in the Young SMILES groups gathered information about their motivation to sign up to the study, their experiences of participating in the group sessions, and their perceived changes in themselves and their family members following intervention. Further interviews with individual referrers (n = 5) gathered information about challenges to recruitment and randomisation. Two focus groups (n = 16) with practitioners who facilitated the intervention explored their views of the format and content of the Young SMILES manual and their suggestions for changes. Results: A total of 35 families were recruited: 20 were randomly allocated to Young SMILES group and 15 to treatment as usual. Of those, 28 families [15/20 (75%) in the intervention group and 13/15 (87%) in the control group] gave follow-up data at the primary end point (4 months post baseline). Participating children had high adherence to the intervention and high completion rates of the questionnaires. Children and adolescents living with their parents, who had serious mental illness, and their parents were mainly very positive and enthusiastic about Young SMILES, both of whom invoked the benefits of peer support and insight into parental difficulties. Although facilitators regarded Young SMILES as a meaningful and distinctive intervention having great potential, referrers identified several barriers to referring families to the study. One harm was reported by a parent, which was dealt with by the research team and the NSPCC in accordance with the standard operating procedures. Limitations: The findings from our feasibility study are not sufficient to recommend a fully powered trial of Young SMILES in the near future. Although it was feasible to randomise children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness of different ages to standardised, time-limited groups in both NHS and non-NHS settings, an intervention like Young SMILES is unlikely to address underlying core components of the vulnerability that children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness express as a population over time. Conclusions: Young SMILES was widely valued as unique in filling a recognised gap in need. Outcome measures in future studies of interventions for children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness are more likely to capture change in individual risk factors for reduced quality of life by considering their unmet need, rather than on an aggregate construct of health-related quality of life overall, which may not reflect these young people’s needs. Future work: A public health approach to intervention might be best. Most children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness remain well most of the time, so, although their absolute risks are low across outcomes (and most will remain resilient most of the time), consistent population estimates find their relative risk to be high compared with unexposed children. A public health approach to intervention needs to be both tailored to the particular needs of children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness and agile to these needs so that it can respond to fluctuations over time. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36865046. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: People aged ≥ 50 years constitute the fastest-growing group in the prison population of England and Wales. This population has complex health and social care needs. There is currently no national strategy to guide the development of the many-faceted services required for this vulnerable population; therefore, prisons are responding to the issue with a range of local initiatives that are untested and often susceptible to failure if they are not fully embedded in and securely funded as part of commissioned services. Objectives: The objectives were to establish the prevalence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in prisoners in England and Wales and their health and social care needs; validate the six-item cognitive impairment test for routine use in prisons to aid early and consistent identification of older prisoners with possible dementia or mild cognitive impairment; identify gaps in current service provision; understand the first-hand experiences of prisoners living with dementia and mild cognitive impairment; develop a care pathway for prisoners with dementia and mild cognitive impairment; develop dementia and mild cognitive impairment training packages for staff and prisoners; and produce health economic costings for the care pathway and training packages. Design: This was a mixed-methods study. Setting: The study setting was prisons in England and Wales. Participants: Prisoners aged ≥ 50 years and multiagency staff working in prison discipline and health and social care services took part. Results: Quantitative research estimated that the prevalence rate of suspected dementia and mild cognitive impairment in the prison population of England and Wales is 8%. This equates to 1090 individuals. Only two people (3%) in our sample had a relevant diagnosis in their health-care notes, suggesting current under-recognition of these conditions. The prevalence rate in prisons was approximately two times higher among individuals aged 60–69 years and four times higher among those aged ≥ 70 years than among those in the same age groups living in the community. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment screening test was found to be more effective than the six-item cognitive impairment test assessment in the older prisoner population. Qualitative research determined that staff and prisoners lacked training in knowledge and awareness of dementia and mild cognitive impairment, and this leads to problematic behaviour being viewed as a disciplinary issue rather than a health issue. Local initiatives to improve the lives of prisoners with dementia and mild cognitive impairment are often disadvantaged by not being part of commissioned services, making them difficult to sustain. Multidisciplinary working is hampered by agencies continuing to work in silos, with inadequate communication across professional boundaries. A step-by-step care pathway for prisoners with dementia and mild cognitive impairment was developed, and two tiers of training materials were produced for staff and prisoners. Limitations: Our prevalence rate was based on the results of a standardised assessment tool, rather than on clinical diagnosis by a mental health professional, and therefore it may represent an overestimation. Furthermore, we were unable to distinguish subcategories of dementia. We were also unable to distinguish between a likely diagnosis of dementia and other conditions presenting with mild cognitive impairment, including learning disability, severe depression and hearing impairment. Questionnaires regarding current service provision were collected over an extended period of time, so they do not reflect a ‘snapshot’ of service provision at a particular point. Conclusions: We hypothesise that implementing the step-by-step care pathway and the training resources developed in this study will improve the care of older prisoners with dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Future work: The care pathway and training materials should be evaluated in situ. Alternatives to prison for those with dementia or mild cognitive impairment should be developed and evaluated. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Abstract Background A key step in the design of a randomised controlled trial is the estimation of the number of participants needed. The most common approach is to specify a target difference in the primary outcome between the randomised groups and then estimate the corresponding sample size. The sample size is chosen to provide reassurance that the trial will have high statistical power to detect the target difference at the planned statistical significance level. Alternative approaches are also available, though most still require specification of a target difference. The sample size has many implications for the conduct of the study, as well as incurring scientific and ethical aspects. Despite the critical role of the target difference for the primary outcome in the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT), the manner in which it is determined has received little attention. This article reports the development of the DELTA2 guidance on the specification and reporting of the target difference for the primary outcome in a sample size calculation for a RCT. Methods The DELTA2 (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) project has five components comprising systematic literature reviews of recent methodological developments (stage 1) and existing funder guidance (stage 2), a Delphi study (stage 3), a 2-day consensus meeting bringing together researchers, funders and patient representatives (stage 4), and the preparation and dissemination of a guidance document (stage 5). Results The project started in April 2016. The literature search identified 28 articles of methodological developments relevant to a method for specifying a target difference. A Delphi study involving 69 participants, along with a 2-day consensus meeting were conducted. In addition, further engagement sessions were held at two international conferences. The main guidance text was finalised on April 18, 2018, after revision informed by feedback gathered from stages 2 and 3 and from funder representatives. Discussion The DELTA2 Delphi study identified a number of areas (such as practical recommendations and examples, greater coverage of different trial designs and statistical approaches) of particular interest amongst stakeholders which new guidance was desired to meet. New relevant references were identified by the review. Such findings influenced the scope, drafting and revision of the guidance. While not all suggestions could be accommodated, it is hoped that the process has led to a more useful and practical document.

BackgroundMethod of levels (MOL) is an innovative transdiagnostic cognitive therapy with potential advantages over existing psychological treatments for psychosis.AimsThe Next Level study is a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) of MOL for people experiencing first-episode psychosis. It aims to determine the suitability of MOL for further testing in a definitive trial (trial registration ISRCTN13359355).MethodThe study uses a parallel group non-masked feasibilityRCT design with two conditions: (a) treatment as usual (TAU) and (b) TAU plus MOL. Participants (n = 36) were recruited from early intervention in psychosis services. Outcome measures are completed at baseline, 10 and 14 months. The primary outcomes are recruitment and retention.ResultsParticipants’ demographic and clinical characteristics are presented along with baseline data.ConclusionsNext Level has recruited to target, providing evidence that it is feasible to recruit to a RCT of MOL for first-episode psychosis.Declaration of interestNone.