Search

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

Background Care home (CH) residents are mainly inactive, leading to increased dependency and low mood. Strategies to improve activity are required. Design and setting Cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial with embedded process and health economic evaluations. Twelve residential CHs in Yorkshire, United Kingdom, were randomised to the MoveMore intervention plus usual care (UC) (n = 5) or UC only (n = 7). Participants Permanent residents aged ≥65 years. Intervention MoveMore: a whole home intervention involving all CH staff designed to encourage and support increase in movement of residents. Objectives and measurements Feasibility objectives relating to recruitment, intervention delivery, data collection and follow-up and safety concerns informed the feasibility of progression to a definitive trial. Data collection at baseline, 3, 6 and 9 months included: participants’ physical function and mobility, perceived health, mood, quality of life, cognitive impairment questionnaires; accelerometry; safety data; intervention implementation. Results 300 residents were screened; 153 were registered (62 MoveMore; 91 UC). Average cluster size: MoveMore: 12.4 CHs; UC: 13.0 CHs. There were no CH/resident withdrawals. Forty (26.1%) participants were unavailable for follow-up: 28 died (12 MoveMore; 16 UC); 12 moved from the CH. Staff informant/proxy data collection for participants was >80%; data collection from participants was Conclusions Recruiting CHs and residents was feasible. Intervention implementation and data collection methods need refinement before a definitive trial. There were no safety concerns.

Background There are more than a quarter of a million individuals aged ≥ 65 years who are resident in care homes in England and Wales. Care home residents have high levels of cognitive impairment, physical disability, multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Research is needed to ensure there are robust, evidence-based interventions to improve the quality of life of this frail group. However, there is a paucity of research studies in this area. Recruiting care homes and their residents to research is challenging. A feasibility, cluster randomised controlled trial was undertaken as part of a research programme to identify ways to develop and test methods to enhance the physical activity of care home residents. This paper describes two methods of recruiting care homes to the trial and draws out learning to inform future studies. Methods Eligible care homes met the following criteria: they were within a defined geographical area in the north of England; provided residential care for adults ≥ 65 years of age; had not previously been involved in the research programme; were not taking part in a conflicting study; were not recorded on the Care Quality Commission website as ‘inadequate’ or ‘requiring improvements’ in any area; and had ≥ 10 beds. Care homes were identified by a ‘systematic approach’ using the Care Quality Commission website database of care homes or a ‘targeted approach’ via a network of research-ready care homes. A standardised method was used to recruit care homes including eligibility screening; invitation letters; telephone contact; visits; formal letter of agreement. Results In the systematic approach, 377 care homes were screened, 230 (61%) were initially eligible and invited to participate, 11 were recruited (recruitment rate (RR) 4.8%). In the targeted approach, 15 care homes were invited to participate, two were recruited (RR 13.3%). Overall, 245 care homes were approached and 13 recruited (RR 5.3%). A variety of care homes were recruited to the trial in terms of size, location, ownership and care provision. Conclusions Systematic recruitment of care homes to the study was time-consuming and resource-heavy but led to a variety of care homes being recruited. The targeted approach led to a higher recruitment rate. Trial registration ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN16076575. Registered on 25 June 2015.

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

Background When designing and analysing clinical trials, using previous relevant information, perhaps in the form of evidence syntheses, can reduce research waste. We conducted the INVEST (INVestigating the use of Evidence Synthesis in the design and analysis of clinical Trials) survey to summarise the current use of evidence synthesis in trial design and analysis, to capture opinions of trialists and methodologists on such use, and to understand any barriers. Methods Our sampling frame was all delegates attending the International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference in November 2015. Respondents were asked to indicate (1) their views on the use of evidence synthesis in trial design and analysis, (2) their own use during the past 10 years and (3) the three greatest barriers to use in practice. Results Of approximately 638 attendees of the conference, 106 (17%) completed the survey, half of whom were statisticians. Support was generally high for using a description of previous evidence, a systematic review or a meta-analysis in trial design. Generally, respondents did not seem to be using evidence syntheses as often as they felt they should. For example, only 50% (42/84 relevant respondents) had used a meta-analysis to inform whether a trial is needed compared with 74% (62/84) indicating that this is desirable. Only 6% (5/81 relevant respondents) had used a value of information analysis to inform sample size calculations versus 22% (18/81) indicating support for this. Surprisingly large numbers of participants indicated support for, and previous use of, evidence syntheses in trial analysis. For example, 79% (79/100) of respondents indicated that external information about the treatment effect should be used to inform aspects of the analysis. The greatest perceived barrier to using evidence synthesis methods in trial design or analysis was time constraints, followed by a belief that the new trial was the first in the area. Conclusions Evidence syntheses can be resource-intensive, but their use in informing the design, conduct and analysis of clinical trials is widely considered desirable. We advocate additional research, training and investment in resources dedicated to ways in which evidence syntheses can be undertaken more efficiently, offering the potential for cost savings in the long term. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1955-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends evidence-based parenting programmes as a first-line intervention for conduct disorders (CD) in children aged 5–11 years. As these are not effective in 25–33% of cases, NICE has requested research into second-line interventions. Child and Adolescent Psychotherapists (CAPTs) address highly complex problems where first-line treatments have failed and there have been small-scale studies of Psychoanalytic Child Psychotherapy (PCP) for CD. A feasibility trial is needed to determine whether a confirmatory trial of manualised PCP (mPCP) versus Treatment as Usual (TaU) for CD is practicable or needs refinement. The aim of this paper is to publish the abridged protocol of this feasibility trial. Methods and design TIGA-CUB (Trial on improving Inter-Generational Attachment for Children Undergoing Behaviour problems) is a two-arm, pragmatic, parallel-group, multicentre, individually randomised (1:1) controlled feasibility trial (target n = 60) with blinded outcome assessment (at 4 and 8 months), which aims to develop an optimum practicable protocol for a confirmatory, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial (RCT) (primary outcome: child’s behaviour; secondary outcomes: parental reflective functioning and mental health, child and parent quality of life), comparing mPCP and TaU as second-line treatments for children aged 5–11 years with treatment-resistant CD and inter-generational attachment difficulties, and for their primary carers. Child-primary carer dyads will be recruited following a referral to, or re-referral within, National Health Service (NHS) Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) after an unsuccessful first-line parenting intervention. PCP will be delivered by qualified CAPTs working in routine NHS clinical practice, using a trial-specific PCP manual (a brief version of established PCP clinical practice). Outcomes are: (1) feasibility of recruitment methods, (2) uptake and follow-up rates, (3) therapeutic delivery, treatment retention and attendance, intervention adherence rates, (4) follow-up data collection, and (5) statistical, health economics, process evaluation, and qualitative outcomes. Discussion TIGA-CUB will provide important information on the feasibility and potential challenges of undertaking a confirmatory RCT to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of mPCP. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials, ID: ISRCTN86725795. Registered on 31 May 2016. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2166-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Blood for transfusion is a frequently used clinical intervention, and is also a costly and limited resource with risks. Many transfusions are given to stable and non-bleeding patients despite no clear evidence of benefit from clinical studies. Audit and feedback (A&F) is widely used to improve the quality of healthcare, including appropriate use of blood. However, its effects are often inconsistent, indicating the need for coordinated research including more head-to-head trials comparing different ways of delivering feedback. A programmatic series of research projects, termed the ‘Audit and Feedback INterventions to Increase evidence-based Transfusion practIcE’ (AFFINITIE) programme, aims to test different ways of developing and delivering feedback within an existing national audit structure. Methods The evaluation will comprise two linked 2×2 factorial, cross-sectional cluster-randomised controlled trials. Each trial will estimate the effects of two feedback interventions, ‘enhanced content’ and ‘enhanced follow-on support’, designed in earlier stages of the AFFINITIE programme, compared to current practice. The interventions will be embedded within two rounds of the UK National Comparative Audit of Blood Transfusion (NCABT) focusing on patient blood management in surgery and use of blood transfusions in patients with haematological malignancies. The unit of randomisation will be National Health Service (NHS) trust or health board. Clusters providing care relevant to the audit topics will be randomised following each baseline audit (separately for each trial), with stratification for size (volume of blood transfusions) and region (Regional Transfusion Committee). The primary outcome for each topic will be the proportion of patients receiving a transfusion coded as unnecessary. For each audit topic a linked, mixed-method fidelity assessment and cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted in parallel to the trial. Discussion AFFINITIE involves a series of studies to explore how A&F may be refined to change practice including two cluster randomised trials linked to national audits of transfusion practice. The methodology represents a step-wise increment in study design to more fully evaluate the effects of two enhanced feedback interventions on patient- and trust-level clinical, cost, safety and process outcomes. Trial registration http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15490813 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0614-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Up to 90 % of people living with dementia in care homes experience one or more behaviours that staff may describe as challenging to support (BSC). Of these agitation is the most common and difficult to manage. The presence of agitation is associated with fewer visits from relatives, poorer quality of life and social isolation. It is recommended that agitation is treated through psychosocial interventions. Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM™) is an established, widely used observational tool and practice development cycle, for ensuring a systematic approach to providing person-centred care. There is a body of practice-based literature and experience to suggests that DCM™ is potentially effective but limited robust evidence for its effectiveness, and no examination of its cost-effectiveness, as a UK health care intervention. Therefore, a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) of DCM™ in the UK is urgently needed. Methods/design A pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster-randomised controlled trial of Dementia Care Mapping (DCM™) plus Usual Care (UC) versus UC alone, where UC is the normal care delivered within the care home following a minimum level of dementia awareness training. The trial will take place in residential, nursing and dementia-specialist care homes across West Yorkshire, Oxfordshire and London, with residents with dementia. A random sample of 50 care homes will be selected within which a minimum of 750 residents will be registered. Care homes will be randomised in an allocation ratio of 3:2 to receive either intervention or control. Outcome measures will be obtained at 6 and 16 months following randomisation. The primary outcome is agitation as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory, at 16 months post randomisation. Key secondary outcomes are other BSC and quality of life. There will be an integral cost-effectiveness analysis and a process evaluation. Discussion The protocol was refined following a pilot of trial procedures. Changes include replacement of a questionnaire, whose wording caused some residents distress, to an adapted version specifically designed for use in care homes, a change to the randomisation stratification factors, adaption in how the staff measures are collected to encourage greater compliance, and additional reminders to intervention homes of when mapping cycles are due, via text message. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852. Registered on 16 January 2014. Full protocol version and date: v7.1: 18 December 2015. Additional file The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1416-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Conducting trials in care homes is complex on multiple levels. Here we focus on recruitment issues surrounding: a) care home selection to participate in research, b) selection and involvement of participants fulfilling various roles (residents, relatives, staff), c) consent in the context of the Mental Capacity Act, and d) scheduling researcher time to undertake complex recruitment processes across multiple care homes. To ensure generalizability of results, EPIC care homes were selected to form a stratified random sample of a known sampling frame. This was done by first defining catchment areas around each of three participating UK hubs. Randomly ordered listings of all eligible care homes within those areas were then produced, with batches of care homes sent trial information and followed up by researchers. Trial participation for a home requires agreement to take part from residents and their relatives (as personal consultees and providers of proxy data), as well as staff involvement to provide data (proxy and self) and be trained to deliver the DCM™ intervention. This requires complex, lengthy discussions with all parties, provision of tailored information sheets specific to intended role and capacity, and involvement of trial experts to explain DCM™ in more detail to staff. The trial aims to recruit 50 care homes (750 residents) by the end of 2015. Thus there is the need to balance the complexity of processes with required speed of recruitment - a task which is achieved by detailed monitoring of projected researcher workload in relation to care home commitments and availability.

Complex interventions are challenging to evaluate, as the same intervention can be used in a variety of settings. We will describe a large research programme that is developing and evaluating theory-based audit and feedback interventions to increase the uptake of evidence-based blood transfusion practice (AFFINITIE), encompassing two sequentially-linked factorial cluster-randomised trials, each evaluating the individual effect of two feedback interventions within national NHS Blood and Transplant audits, applied first to surgical use of blood and then to patients with haematological malignancies. This will enable us to have an understanding of the generalizability of the interventions across settings as part of a single research programme. As the two trials are national, each aiming to include 152 UK NHS Trust and Health Boards, we require most eligible clusters to take part in both trials. To minimise contamination and maintain equipoise, we require that clusters maintain their treatment allocation across trials. This poses new complications for the allocation of clusters to treatment arms, particularly for the second trial. We will discuss how we accounted for the shift from sequential to all-in-one randomisation, outlining the key considerations during this process. We will describe the issues arising from randomisation occurring at two stages (once for each trial), including awareness of which clusters will drop out between the trials, which clusters will join for the second and what minimisation factors they have. We will explore the need to ensure the randomisation for the second trial is robust, either maintaining or recreating balance in the treatment allocations.

The DCM™ EPIC trial requires participating care homes to identify two staff members willing to be trained in the DCM™ intervention and thereafter implement three DCM ‘mapping cycles’ during the trial. These staff are known as ‘mappers’. This is no small undertaking, and early pilot work highlighted the need to include additional measures to enhance adherence to some elements of intervention uptake and delivery. Various strategies were thus implemented which comprise: a) provision of enhanced information to prospective staff mappers, b) requirement for staff to detail their understanding of DCM™, c) DCM™ expert contact with mappers ahead of randomisation to ensure eligibility and suitability, d) an expert-supported first cycle of mapping, e) review of mapper and expert feedback after the first cycle to ensure areas of concern can be addressed prior to the next cycle, f) CTU contact with mappers to flag the timing of the next mapping cycle, and address any concerns. To achieve the above, trials unit staff act as a central point of contact, reviewing mapper consent and materials, monitoring each stage of the process and contacting DCM™ experts and the Chief Investigator to flag issues and problems in a timely manner. Although enhancing intervention compliance in this way can be seen to be altering the implementation of the intervention and thus reducing its generalizability, it will be discussed that intervention optimisation is necessary to minimise the likelihood of negative results attributable to poor implementation rather than intervention ineffectiveness.