Search

Abstract Elevated intracellular sodium Nai adversely affects mitochondrial metabolism and is a common feature of heart failure. The reversibility of acute Na induced metabolic changes is evaluated in Langendorff perfused rat hearts using the Na/K ATPase inhibitor ouabain and the myosin-uncoupler para-aminoblebbistatin to maintain constant energetic demand. Elevated Nai decreases Gibb’s free energy of ATP hydrolysis, increases the TCA cycle intermediates succinate and fumarate, decreases ETC activity at Complexes I, II and III, and causes a redox shift of CoQ to CoQH2, which are all reversed on lowering Nai to baseline levels. Pseudo hypoxia and stabilization of HIF-1α is observed despite normal tissue oxygenation. Inhibition of mitochondrial Na/Ca-exchange with CGP-37517 or treatment with the mitochondrial ROS scavenger MitoQ prevents the metabolic alterations during Nai elevation. Elevated Nai plays a reversible role in the metabolic and functional changes and is a novel therapeutic target to correct metabolic dysfunction in heart failure.

Abstract Background Glycolytic flux is regulated by the energy demands of the cell. Upregulated glycolysis in cancer cells may therefore result from increased demand for adenosine triphosphate (ATP), however it is unknown what this extra ATP turnover is used for. We hypothesise that an important contribution to the increased glycolytic flux in cancer cells results from the ATP demand of Na+/K+-ATPase (NKA) due to altered sodium ion homeostasis in cancer cells. Methods Live whole-cell measurements of intracellular sodium [Na+]i were performed in three human breast cancer cells (MDA-MB-231, HCC1954, MCF-7), in murine breast cancer cells (4T1), and control human epithelial cells MCF-10A using triple quantum filtered 23Na nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Glycolytic flux was measured by 2H NMR to monitor conversion of [6,6-2H2]d-glucose to [2H]-labelled l-lactate at baseline and in response to NKA inhibition with ouabain. Intracellular [Na+]i was titrated using isotonic buffers with varying [Na+] and [K+] and introducing an artificial Na+ plasma membrane leak using the ionophore gramicidin-A. Experiments were carried out in parallel with cell viability assays, 1H NMR metabolomics of intracellular and extracellular metabolites, extracellular flux analyses and in vivo measurements in a MDA-MB-231 human-xenograft mouse model using 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoroglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET). Results Intracellular [Na+]i was elevated in human and murine breast cancer cells compared to control MCF-10A cells. Acute inhibition of NKA by ouabain resulted in elevated [Na+]i and inhibition of glycolytic flux in all three human cancer cells which are ouabain sensitive, but not in the murine cells which are ouabain resistant. Permeabilization of cell membranes with gramicidin-A led to a titratable increase of [Na+]i in MDA-MB-231 and 4T1 cells and a Na+-dependent increase in glycolytic flux. This was attenuated with ouabain in the human cells but not in the murine cells. 18FDG PET imaging in an MDA-MB-231 human-xenograft mouse model recorded lower 18FDG tumour uptake when treated with ouabain while murine tissue uptake was unaffected. Conclusions Glycolytic flux correlates with Na+-driven NKA activity in breast cancer cells, providing evidence for the ‘centrality of the [Na+]i-NKA nexus’ in the mechanistic basis of the Warburg effect.

Abstract Background Depression ranks as the foremost mental health concern among childbearing women. Within low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), between 20 and 25% of women encounter depression during pregnancy or soon after delivery. This condition impacts not only the mothers but also their offspring. Offspring of women suffering from postnatal depression (PND) exhibit suboptimal cognitive development and increased emotional and behavioural issues throughout their growth. This scenario becomes more pronounced in LMICs, where numerous adversities further jeopardise children’s developmental progress. Despite antenatal services providing a pivotal platform to address women’s mental health needs, PND treatment remains inaccessible in many LMICs. The World Health Organization advocates interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for treating depression. While research from high-income countries has established the efficacy of IPT and group-IPT (g-IPT) for PND, its effectiveness within the LMIC context and its potential benefits for child development remain uncharted. This study seeks to gauge the potency of g-IPT for women with PND in two LMICs. Methods This multi-site randomised controlled trial is a continuation of two preceding phases—conceptual mapping and a feasibility study executed in Lebanon and Kenya. Insights gleaned from these phases underpin this comprehensive RCT, which contrasts the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of high-quality standard care (HQ-SC) augmented with g-IPT against HQ-SC in isolation. The trial, characterised as an individually randomised superiority assessment, targets women with postnatal depression in Beirut, Lebanon, and Nairobi, Kenya. It aims to determine if culturally tailored g-IPT, administered within community settings in both countries, outperforms HQ-SC in influencing child developmental outcomes, maternal depression, and the quality of the mother–child bond. Discussion The SUMMIT trial, designed with pragmatism, possesses the magnitude to evaluate g-IPT within two LMIC frameworks. It seeks to enlighten policymakers, service commissioners, professionals, and users about g-IPT’s potential to alleviate maternal PND and bolster child developmental outcomes in LMICs. Additionally, the trial will generate valuable data on the clinical and economic merits of high-quality standard care. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN15154316. Registered on 27 September 2023, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN15154316

Abstract Direct modulation of cardiac myosin function has emerged as a therapeutic target for both heart disease and heart failure. However, the development of myosin-based therapeutics has been hampered by the lack of targeted in vitro screening assays. In this study we use Artificial Intelligence-based virtual high throughput screening (vHTS) to identify novel small molecule effectors of human β-cardiac myosin. We test the top scoring compounds from vHTS in biochemical counter-screens and identify a novel chemical scaffold called ‘F10’ as a cardiac-specific low-micromolar myosin inhibitor. Biochemical and biophysical characterization in both isolated proteins and muscle fibers show that F10 stabilizes both the biochemical (i.e. super-relaxed state) and structural (i.e. interacting heads motif) OFF state of cardiac myosin, and reduces force and left ventricular pressure development in isolated myofilaments and Langendorff-perfused hearts, respectively. F10 is a tunable scaffold for the further development of a novel class of myosin modulators.

Abstract Background Non-memory-led dementias such as posterior cortical atrophy (PCA), primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) are low prevalent and often affect individuals under the age of 65. Tailored educational and support resources for caregivers of people living with these dementia phenotypes are scarce and unevenly distributed geographically. Web-based educational programmes are emerging as promising alternatives to improve caregiver self-efficacy and well-being. Here, we present the protocol of a study aiming to assess the feasibility of a co-produced online educational programme for caregivers of people living PCA, PPA and bvFTD: the Better Living with Non-memory-led Dementia programme. Methods A randomised controlled feasibility trial will be conducted on a sample of 30 caregivers of people living with PCA, PPA and bvFTD. Participants will be recruited among members of the support organisation Rare Dementia Support (based at UCL in the UK). The intervention group will be given access to an 8-week co-produced web-based educational programme consisting of 6 modules addressing education about PCA, PPA and bvFTD and support strategies for the person with dementia and for the caregiver. The control group will receive treatment as usual (TAU). Feasibility will be measured through feasibility of recruitment, clinical measurement tools and acceptability. Clinical measures will be used to assess preliminary efficacy and data on completion rates, missing data and variability used to decide on measures to be included in a full-scale trial. Allocation ratio will be 2:1 (intervention:control) stratified by diagnosis. Feasibility of recruitment and acceptability will be assessed. Clinical measures will be administered at baseline and 8-week and 3-month post-randomisation. The control group will be offered access to the intervention at the completion of data collection. Participants will be unblinded, and all measures will be self-reported online. Discussion Online-delivered educational programmes show potential for improving care competency of caregivers and may contribute to overcoming geographical inequalities in local provision of support services. This pilot study will inform a fully powered international trial to determine the effectiveness of Better Living with Non-memory-led Dementia. Trial registration This trial has been registered prospectively on the Clinical Trials Registry on 1st September 2022, registration number NCT05525377.

Abstract Background and objectives Policies to support people living with dementia increasingly focus on strengths-based approaches, highlighting the importance of building resilience. This research responds to the lack of a suitable resilience measure for people with dementia. It develops a pool of items to inform a new measure of resilience for this population. Methods A conceptual model and associated data informed the item generation of the draft resilience measure. Regular meetings with professionals (n = 7) discussed response-scale formatting, content and face validity, leading to refinement and item reduction. Cognitive interviews with people living with dementia (n = 11) then examined the face and content validity of items and the suitability of response-scale formatting. These two phases informed subsequent revision and further item reduction of the resilience measure. Results The first item generation exercise led to 140 items. These were independently assessed by the professionals and this refinement reduced the measure to 63 items across 7 domains of the conceptual model (psychological strengths; practical approaches for adapting to life with dementia; continuing with hobbies, interests and activities; strong relationships with family and friends; peer support and education; participating in community activities; the role of professional support services). Cognitive interviews explored the 63 items with people living with dementia. Detailed feedback led to items removed due to difficulty with (a) understanding (N = 7); (b) answering (n = 11); (c) low preference for that item (n = 6); and (d) presence of a preferred item within a cluster of similar questions (n = 4). Items were amended to enhance clarity/conciseness (n = 19) leading to a final 37-item pool. Conclusion Established methods for measurement development included the expertise of people with dementia and led to the generation of a set of items for a new resilience measure that were understandable and acceptable to this target population. This 37-item pool reflects the conceptual understanding of resilience in dementia as being derived across individual, community and societal level resources.

Abstract Background The public health measures imposed in many countries to contain the spread of COVID-19 resulted in significant suspensions in the provision of support and care for people with dementia. The negative effects of these measures have been extensively reported. However, little is known about the specific impact on people with young onset, non-memory-led and inherited dementias. This group may have experienced different challenges compared to those with late onset dementia given their non-memory phenotypes and younger age. We explored the impact of the first COVID-19 lockdown on people living with familial Alzheimer’s disease, behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, familial frontotemporal dementia, dementia with Lewy bodies, posterior cortical atrophy and primary progressive aphasia and their carers in the UK and their self-reported strategies for coping. Methods This was a mixed methods study. An online survey was administered to people with dementia and family carers recruited via Rare Dementia Support. Free-text responses were analysed using framework analysis to identify key issues and themes. Results 184 carers and 24 people with dementia completed the survey. Overall, people with dementia experienced worsening of cognitive symptoms (70%), ability to do things (62%), well-being (57%) and changes to medication (26%) during lockdown. Carers reported a reduction in the support they received (55%) which impacted their own mental health negatively. Qualitative analysis of free-text responses shed light on how the disruption to routines, changes to roles and responsibilities, and widespread disconnection from friends, family and health and social care support varied according to phenotype. These impacts were exacerbated by a more general sense that precious time was being lost, given the progressive nature of dementia. Despite significant challenges, respondents demonstrated resilience and resourcefulness in reporting unexpected positives and strategies for adapting to confinement. Conclusions This study has highlighted the specific impacts of the COVID-19 restrictions on people with young onset, non-memory-led and inherited dementias, including behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, primary progressive aphasia and posterior cortical atrophy, and their carers. The specific challenges faced according to diagnosis and the self-reported strategies speak to the importance of – and may inform the development of – tailored support for these underrepresented groups more generally. Visual abstract

Abstract Background Dental service provision in the care home sector is poor, with little emphasis on prevention. Emerging evidence suggests that the use of Dental Care Professionals (dental therapists and dental nurses) as an alternative to dentists has the potential to improve preventive advice, the provision of care and access to services within care homes. However, robust empirical evidence from definitive trials on how to successfully implement and sustain these interventions within care homes is currently lacking. The aim of the study is to determine whether Dental Care Professionals could reduce plaque levels of dentate older adults (65 + years) residing in care homes. Methods This protocol describes a two-arm cluster-randomised controlled trial that will be undertaken in care homes across Wales, Northern Ireland and England. In the intervention arm, the dental therapists will visit the care homes every 6 months to assess and then treat eligible residents, where necessary. All treatment will be conducted within their Scope of Practice. Dental nurses will visit the care homes every month for the first 3 months and then three-monthly afterwards to promulgate advice to improve the day-to-day prevention offered to residents by carers. The control arm will be ‘treatment as usual’. Eligible care homes (n = 40) will be randomised based on a 1:1 ratio (20 intervention and 20 control), with an average of seven residents recruited in each home resulting in an estimated sample of 280. Assessments will be undertaken at baseline, 6 months and 12 months and will include a dental examination and quality of life questionnaires. Care home staff will collect weekly information on the residents’ oral health (e.g. episodes of pain and unscheduled care). The primary outcome will be a binary classification of the mean reduction in Silness-Löe Plaque Index at 6 months. A parallel process evaluation will be undertaken to explore the intervention’s acceptability and how it could be embedded in standard practice (described in a separate paper), whilst a cost-effectiveness analysis will examine the potential long-term costs and benefits of the intervention. Discussion This trial will provide evidence on how to successfully implement and sustain a Dental Care Professional-led intervention within care homes to promote access and prevention. Trial registration ISRCTN16332897 . Registered on 3 December 2021.

Background: UK cancer survival rates are much lower compared with other high-income countries. In primary care, there are opportunities for GPs and other healthcare professionals to act more quickly in response to presented symptoms that might represent cancer. ThinkCancer! is a complex behaviour change intervention aimed at primary care practice teams to improve the timely diagnosis of cancer. Aim: To explore the costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in primary care. Design & setting: Feasibility economic analysis using a micro-costing approach, which was undertaken in 19 general practices in Wales, UK. Method: From an NHS perspective, micro-costing methodology was used to determine whether it was feasible to gather sufficient economic data to cost the ThinkCancer! intervention. Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, ThinkCancer! was mainly delivered remotely online in a digital format. Budget impact analysis (BIA) and sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore the costs of face-to-face delivery of the ThinkCancer! intervention as intended pre-COVID-19. Results: The total costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention across 19 general practices in Wales was £25 030, with an average cost per practice of £1317 (standard deviation [SD]: 578.2). Findings from the BIA indicated a total cost of £34 630 for face-to-face delivery. Conclusion: Data collection methods were successful in gathering sufficient health economics data to cost the ThinkCancer! intervention. Results of this feasibility study will be used to inform a future definitive economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT).

Abstract Background Up to 20% of UK children experience socio-emotional difficulties which can have serious implications for themselves, their families and society. Stark socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in children’s well-being exist. Supporting parents to develop effective parenting skills is an important preventive strategy in reducing inequalities. Parenting interventions have been developed, which aim to reduce the severity and impact of these difficulties. However, most parenting interventions in the UK focus on early childhood (0–10 years) and often fail to engage families from ethnic minority groups and those living in poverty. Strengthening Families, Strengthening Communities (SFSC) is a parenting programme designed by the Race Equality Foundation, which aims to address this gap. Evidence from preliminary studies is encouraging, but no randomised controlled trials have been undertaken so far. Methods/design The TOGETHER study is a multi-centre, waiting list controlled, randomised trial, which aims to test the effectiveness of SFSC in families with children aged 3–18 across seven urban areas in England with ethnically and socially diverse populations. The primary outcome is parental mental well-being (assessed by the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale). Secondary outcomes include child socio-emotional well-being, parenting practices, family relationships, self-efficacy, quality of life, and community engagement. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, post intervention, three- and six-months post intervention. Cost effectiveness will be estimated using a cost-utility analysis and cost-consequences analysis. The study is conducted in two stages. Stage 1 comprised a 6-month internal pilot to determine the feasibility of the trial. A set of progression criteria were developed to determine whether the stage 2 main trial should proceed. An embedded process evaluation will assess the fidelity and acceptability of the intervention. Discussion In this paper we provide details of the study protocol for this trial. We also describe challenges to implementing the protocol and how these were addressed. Once completed, if beneficial effects on both parental and child outcomes are found, the impact, both immediate and longer term, are potentially significant. As the intervention focuses on supporting families living in poverty and those from minority ethnic communities, the intervention should also ultimately have a beneficial impact on reducing health inequalities. Trial registration Prospectively registered Randomised Controlled Trial ISRCTN15194500 .

Abstract Background Evidence for interventions promoting oral health amongst care home residents is weak. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline NG48 aims to maintain and improve the oral health of care home residents. A co-design process that worked with residents and care home staff to understand how the NG48 guideline could be best implemented in practice has been undertaken to refine a complex intervention. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of the intervention to inform a future larger scale definitive trial. Methods This is a protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial with a 12-month follow-up that will be undertaken in 12 care homes across two sites (six in London, six in Northern Ireland). Care homes randomised to the intervention arm (n = 6) will receive the complex intervention based on the NG48 guideline, whilst care homes randomised to the control arm (n = 6) will continue with routine practice. The intervention will include a training package for care home staff to promote knowledge and skills in oral health promotion, the use of the Oral Health Assessment Tool on residents by trained care home staff, and a ‘support worker assisted’ daily tooth-brushing regime with toothpaste containing 1500 ppm fluoride. An average of ten residents, aged 65 years or over who have at least one natural tooth, will be recruited in each care home resulting in a recruited sample of 120 participants. Assessments will be undertaken at baseline, 6 months and 12 months, and will include a dental examination and questionnaires on general health and oral health administered by a research assistant. A parallel process evaluation involving semi-structured interviews will be undertaken to explore how the intervention could be embedded in standard practice. Rates of recruitment and retention, and intervention fidelity will also be recorded. A cost-consequence model will determine the relevance of different outcome measures in the decision-making context. Discussion The study will provide valuable information for trialists, policymakers, clinicians and care home staff on the feasibility and associated costs of oral health promotion in UK care homes. Trial registration ISRCTN10276613. Registered on 17th April 2020. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10276613 .

BackgroundPeople living with rarer dementias face considerable difficulty accessing tailored information, advice, and peer and professional support. Web-based meeting platforms offer a critical opportunity to connect with others through shared lived experiences, even if they are geographically dispersed, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. ObjectiveWe aim to develop facilitated videoconferencing support groups (VSGs) tailored to people living with or caring for someone with familial or sporadic frontotemporal dementia or young-onset Alzheimer disease, primary progressive aphasia, posterior cortical atrophy, or Lewy body dementia. This paper describes the development, coproduction, field testing, and evaluation plan for these groups. MethodsWe describe a 3-phase approach to development. First, information and knowledge were gathered as part of a coproduction process with members of the Rare Dementia Support service. This information, together with literature searches and consultation with experts by experience, clinicians, and academics, shaped the design of the VSGs and session themes. Second, field testing involved 154 Rare Dementia Support members (people living with dementia and carers) participating in 2 rounds of facilitated sessions across 7 themes (health and social care professionals, advance care planning, independence and identity, grief and loss, empowering your identity, couples, and hope and dementia). Third, a detailed evaluation plan for future rounds of VSGs was developed. ResultsThe development of the small groups program yielded content and structure for 9 themed VSGs (the 7 piloted themes plus a later stages program and creativity club for implementation in rounds 3 and beyond) to be delivered over 4 to 8 sessions. The evaluation plan incorporated a range of quantitative (attendance, demographics, and geography; pre-post well-being ratings and surveys; psycholinguistic analysis of conversation; facial emotion recognition; facilitator ratings; and economic analysis of program delivery) and qualitative (content and thematic analysis) approaches. Pilot data from round 2 groups on the pre-post 3-word surveys indicated an increase in the emotional valence of words selected after the sessions. ConclusionsThe involvement of people with lived experience of a rare dementia was critical to the design, development, and delivery of the small virtual support group program, and evaluation of this program will yield convergent data about the impact of tailored support delivered to geographically dispersed communities. This is the first study to design and plan an evaluation of VSGs specifically for people affected by rare dementias, including both people living with a rare dementia and their carers, and the outcome of the evaluation will be hugely beneficial in shaping specific and targeted support, which is often lacking in this population. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/35376

Abstract Background Compared to the rest of Europe, the UK has relatively poor cancer outcomes, with late diagnosis and a slow referral process being major contributors. General practitioners (GPs) are often faced with patients presenting with a multitude of non-specific symptoms that could be cancer. Safety netting can be used to manage diagnostic uncertainty by ensuring patients with vague symptoms are appropriately monitored, which is now even more crucial due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its major impact on cancer referrals. The ThinkCancer! workshop is an educational behaviour change intervention aimed at the whole general practice team, designed to improve primary care approaches to ensure timely diagnosis of cancer. The workshop will consist of teaching and awareness sessions, the appointment of a Safety Netting Champion and the development of a bespoke Safety Netting Plan and has been adapted so it can be delivered remotely. This study aims to assess the feasibility of the ThinkCancer! intervention for a future definitive randomised controlled trial. Methods The ThinkCancer! study is a randomised, multisite feasibility trial, with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis. Twenty-three to 30 general practices will be recruited across Wales, randomised in a ratio of 2:1 of intervention versus control who will follow usual care. The workshop will be delivered by a GP educator and will be adapted iteratively throughout the trial period. Baseline practice characteristics will be collected via questionnaire. We will also collect primary care intervals (PCI), 2-week wait (2WW) referral rates, conversion rates and detection rates at baseline and 6 months post-randomisation. Participant feedback, researcher reflections and economic costings will be collected following each workshop. A process evaluation will assess implementation using an adapted Normalisation Measure Development (NoMAD) questionnaire and qualitative interviews. An economic feasibility analysis will inform a future economic evaluation. Discussion This study will allow us to test and further develop a novel evidenced-based complex intervention aimed at general practice teams to expedite the diagnosis of cancer in primary care. The results from this study will inform the future design of a full-scale definitive phase III trial. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04823559 .

Background: Data from case series suggest that clozapine may benefit inpatients with borderline personality disorder (BPD), but randomised trials have not been conducted. Methods: Multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. We aimed to recruit 222 inpatients with severe BPD aged 18 or over, who had failed to respond to other antipsychotic medications. We randomly allocated participants on a 1:1 ratio to receive up to 400 mg of clozapine per day or an inert placebo using a remote web-based randomisation service. The primary outcome was total score on the Zanarini Rating scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included self-harm, aggression, resource use and costs, side effects and adverse events. We used a modified intention to treat analysis (mITT) restricted to those who took one or more dose of trial medication, using a general linear model fitted at 6 months adjusted for baseline score, allocation group and site. Results: The study closed early due to poor recruitment and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of 29 study participants, 24 (83%) were followed up at 6 months, of whom 21 (72%) were included in the mITT analysis. At 6 months, 11 (73%) participants assigned to clozapine and 6 (43%) of those assigned to placebo were still taking trial medication. Adjusted difference in mean total ZAN-BPD score at 6 months was -3.86 (95% Confidence Intervals = -10.04 to 2.32). There were 14 serious adverse events; 6 in the clozapine arm and 8 in the placebo arm of the trial. There was little difference in the cost of care between groups. Interpretation: We recruited insufficient participants to test the primary hypothesis. The study findings highlight problems in conducting placebo-controlled trials of clozapine and in using clozapine for people with BPD, outside specialist inpatient mental health units. Trial registration ISRCTN18352058. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN18352058

Background Cancer survival in the UK remains low compared to other Western countries including Australia, Canada and European countries. Delays in cancer diagnosis have an adverse impact on patient well-being and survival. Welsh Government outline a number of challenges with respect to earlier cancer diagnosis, including a lack of awareness of ‘red flag’ symptoms and difficulties among GPs and other healthcare professionals in identifying cancers that present with vague or non-specific symptoms. For some cancers, earlier diagnosis is associated with greater survival, better patient experience and quality of life, and lower healthcare costs. Methods The ThinkCancer! intervention is a complex behaviour change intervention, which aims to change the behaviours of primary care practice teams when thinking of and acting on clinical symptoms that could be cancer. From an NHS perspective, we conducted a feasibility economic analysis of the ThinkCancer! intervention. We used micro-costing methodology to determine whether it was feasible to gather sufficient economic data to cost the ThinkCancer! intervention. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the intervention was mostly delivered remotely in a digital format. Intervention deliverers completed data collection sheets (including forms recording materials used and intervention deliverer time) and provided information on primary care staff attendance at each of the ThinkCancer! workshops. Budget impact analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore the costs of face-to-face delivery of the ThinkCancer! intervention as intended pre-COVID-19. Findings The total costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention across 19 general practices in Wales was £25,030. Costs per practice ranged from £431 to £2,498, with an average cost per practice of £1,311 (SD: 579.5). The potential budget impact if the intervention were to be delivered face-to-face across the 19 general practices would be £34,630. Sensitivity analysis revealed that if the intervention were to be delivered by one GP educator, the total estimated cost for face-to-face delivery would be £31,232. With the addition of one support role assisting the GP educator with the intervention delivery, the total cost of face-to-face delivery is estimated to be approximately £33,138. Conclusions Results of this feasibility study are being used to inform a definitive economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Primary care interventions to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer have the potential to reduce large costs to the NHS and improve patient and carer outcomes as later stage cancer treatments are often longer, more aggressive to patients, with larger associated healthcare costs compared to earlier stage treatment. http://wicked.bangor.ac.uk/

Abstract Background We tested the feasibility of delivering and evaluating a complex therapy intervention which aimed to promote activity and independence for people with early dementia (PrAISED). Feasibility questions were on: recruitment, randomisation, intervention delivery, adherence and withdrawals, level of supervision required, adverse events, data collection and sample size assumptions. Methods We conducted a three-arm, multi-site, single-blind, randomised controlled feasibility trial. Eligibility criteria were aged 65 years or older, diagnosed mild dementia or mild cognitive impairment, able to walk without human help, and communicate in English, no co-morbidities that prevented participation in cognitive assessment and capacity to give consent. Participants were recruited from Memory Assessment Service clinics and the ‘Join Dementia Research’ register. Patient participants were randomised 1:1:1 to a high intensity supervision PrAISED intervention, moderate intensity supervision PrAISED intervention or brief falls prevention assessment and advice (control). The PrAISED intervention aimed for participants to complete three hours of PrAISED exercises a week for 12 months. It included individualised activity and exercise plans and supervised exercises with regular re-assessment and progression, and was delivered by occupational therapists, physiotherapists and rehabilitation support workers. Primary efficacy outcome was the Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD), measured after 12 months. Secondary outcomes included physical activity, quality of life, mood, cognition, strength, balance, rate of falls, frailty and carer strain. Falls and activity were ascertained by monthly diary. Results Between September 2016 and March 2017 we recruited 60 patient participants and 54 carer participants from two sites. Forty-nine patient participants completed a follow-up interview. Feasibility outcomes were mostly satisfactory, including recruitment and retention, intervention delivery and data completeness for most scales used. We could not maintain blinding of researchers at follow-up and experienced difficulties collecting data using some questionnaires and devices. Participants only completed a mean 77 (moderate supervision) and 71 (high supervision) minutes per week of PrAISED exercises over 12 months. We recorded 19 adverse events, none serious and related to the intervention. Conclusion We conclude that with some adjustments to the trial protocol, it is feasible to deliver the PrAISED intervention and conduct a trial. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02874300 (first posted 22nd August 2016), ISRCTN: 10550694 (date assigned 31st August 2016).

Abstract Background People with dementia progressively lose cognitive and functional abilities. Interventions promoting exercise and activity may slow decline. We developed a novel intervention to promote activity and independence and prevent falls in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early dementia. We successfully undertook a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) to refine the intervention and research delivery. We are now delivering a multi-centred RCT to evaluate its clinical and cost-effectiveness. Methods We will recruit 368 people with MCI or early dementia (Montreal Cognitive Assessment score 13–25) and a family member or carer from memory assessment clinics, other community health or social care venues or an online register (the National Institute for Health Research Join Dementia Research). Participants will be randomised to an individually tailored activity and exercise programme delivered using motivational theory to promote adherence and continued engagement, with up to 50 supervised sessions over one year, or a brief falls prevention assessment (control). The intervention will be delivered in participants’ homes by trained physiotherapists, occupational therapists and therapy assistants. We will measure disabilities in activities of daily living, physical activity, balance, cognition, mood, quality of life, falls, carer strain and healthcare and social care use. We will use a mixed methods approach to conduct a process evaluation to assess staff training and delivery of the intervention, and to identify individual- and context-level mechanisms affecting intervention engagement and activity maintenance. We will undertake a health economic evaluation to determine if the intervention is cost-effective. Discussion We describe the protocol for a multi-centre RCT that will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a therapy programme designed to promote activity and independence amongst people living with dementia. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN15320670. Registered on 4 September 2018.

Abstract Background The sensitivity of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in staging gastro-oesophageal cancers (GOCs) has been widely studied. However, the economic evidence of EUS staging in the management of patients with GOCs is scarce. This review aimed to examine all economic evidence (not limited to randomised controlled trials) of the use of EUS staging in the management of GOCs patients, and to offer a review of economic evidence on the costs, benefits (in terms of GOCs patients’ health-related quality of life), and economic implications of the use of EUS in staging GOCs patients. Methods The protocol was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42016043700; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42016043700). MEDLINE (ovid), EMBASE (ovid), The Cochrane Collaboration Register and Library (including the British National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and Web of Science (Core Collection) as well as reference lists were systematically searched for studies conducted between 1996 and 2018 (search update 28/04/2018). Two authors independently screened the identified articles, assessed study quality, and extracted data. Study characteristics of the included articles, including incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, when available, were summarised narratively. Results Of the 197 articles retrieved, six studies met the inclusion criteria: three economic studies and three economic modelling studies. Of the three economic studies, one was a cost-effectiveness analysis and two were cost analyses. Of the three economic modelling studies, one was a cost-effectiveness analysis and two were cost-minimisation analyses. Both of the cost-effectiveness analyses reported that use of EUS as an additional staging technique provided, on average, more QALYs (0.0019–0.1969 more QALYs) and saved costs (by £1969–£3364 per patient, 2017 price year) compared to staging strategy without EUS. Of the six studies, only one included GOCs participants and the other five included oesophageal cancer participants. Conclusions The data available suggest use of EUS as a complementary staging technique to other staging techniques for GOCs appears to be cost saving and offers greater QALYs. Nevertheless, future studies are necessary because the economic evidence around this EUS staging intervention for GOCs is far from robust. More health economic research and good quality data are needed to judge the economic benefits of EUS staging for GOCs. PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42016043700.

Abstract Background While the majority of seriously ill people wish to die at home, only half achieve this. The likelihood of someone dying at home often depends on the availability of able and willing lay carers to support them. Dying people are usually unable to take oral medication. When top-up symptom relief medication is required, a clinician travels to the home to administer injectable medication, with attendant delays. The administration of subcutaneous injections by lay carers, though not widespread practice in the UK, has proven key in achieving home deaths in other countries. Our aim is to determine if carer-administration of as-needed subcutaneous medication for four frequent breakthrough symptoms (pain, nausea, restlessness and noisy breathing) in home-based dying patients is feasible and acceptable in the UK. Methods This paper describes a randomised pilot trial across three UK sites, with an embedded qualitative study. Dyads of adult patients/carers are eligible, where patients are in the last weeks of life and wish to die at home, and lay carers who are willing to be trained to give subcutaneous medication. Dyads who do not meet strict risk assessment criteria (including known history of substance abuse or carer ability to be trained to competency) will not be approached. Carers in the intervention arm will receive a manualised training package delivered by their local nursing team. Dyads in the control arm will receive usual care. The main outcomes of interest are feasibility, acceptability, recruitment rates, attrition and selection of the most appropriate outcome measures. Interviews with carers and healthcare professionals will explore attitudes to, experiences of and preferences for giving subcutaneous medication and experience of trial processes. The study has obtained full ethical approval. Discussion This study will rehearse the procedures and logistics which will be undertaken in a future definitive randomised controlled trial and will inform the design of such a study. Findings will illuminate methodological and ethical issues pertaining to researching last days of life care. The study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (Health Technology Assessment [HTA] project 15/10/37). Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN 11211024. Registered on 27 September 2016.

Background: Many dental ‘check-ups’ in the NHS result in no further treatment. The patient is examined by a dentist and returned to the recall list for a further check-up, commonly in 6 or 12 months’ time. As the oral health of regular dental attenders continues to improve, it is likely that an increasing number of these patients will be low risk and will require only a simple check-up in the future, with no further treatment. This care could be delivered by dental therapists. In 2013, the body responsible for regulating the dental profession, the General Dental Council, ruled that dental therapists could see patients directly and undertake check-ups and routine dental treatments (e.g. fillings). Using dental therapists to undertake check-ups on low-risk patients could help free resources to meet the future challenges for NHS dentistry. Objectives: The objectives were to determine the most appropriate design for a definitive study, the most appropriate primary outcome measure and recruitment and retention rates, and the non-inferiority margin. We also undertook a realist-informed process evaluation and rehearsed the health economic data collection tool and analysis. Design: A pilot randomised controlled trial over a 15-month period, with a realist-informed process evaluation. In parallel, we rehearsed the health economic evaluation and explored patients’ preferences to inform a preference elicitation exercise for a definitive study. Setting: The setting was NHS dental practices in North West England. Participants: A total of 217 low-risk patients in eight high-street dental practices participated. Interventions: The current practice of using dentists to provide NHS dental check-ups (treatment as usual; the control arm) was compared with using dental therapists to provide NHS dental check-ups (the intervention arm). Main outcome measure: The main outcome measure was difference in the proportion of sites with bleeding on probing among low-risk patients. We also recorded the number of ‘cross-over’ referrals between dentists and dental therapists. Results: No differences were found in the health status of patients over the 15 months of the pilot trial, suggesting that non-inferiority is the most appropriate design. However, bleeding on probing suffered from ‘floor effects’ among low-risk patients, and recruitment rates were moderately low (39.7%), which suggests that an experimental design might not be the most appropriate. The theory areas that emerged from the realist-informed process evaluation were contractual, regulatory, institutional logistics, patients’ experience and logistics. The economic evaluation was rehearsed and estimates of cost-effectiveness made; potential attributes and levels that can form the basis of preference elicitation work in a definitive study were determined. Limitations: The pilot was conducted over a 15-month period only, and bleeding on probing appeared to have floor effects. The number of participating dental practices was a limitation and the recruitment rate was moderate. Conclusions: Non-inferiority, floor effects and moderate recruitment rates suggest that a randomised controlled trial might not be the best evaluative design for a definitive study in this population. The process evaluation identified multiple barriers to the use of dental therapists in ‘high-street’ practices and added real value. Future work: Quasi-experimental designs may offer more promise for a definitive study alongside further realist evaluation. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70032696. 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. 9, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Sexual dysfunction is common among people who are prescribed antipsychotic medication for psychosis. Sexual dysfunction can impair quality of life and reduce treatment adherence. Switching antipsychotic medication may help, but the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this approach is unclear. Objective: To examine whether or not switching antipsychotic medication provides a clinically effective and cost-effective method to reduce sexual dysfunction in people with psychosis. Design: A two-arm, researcher-blind, pilot randomised trial with a parallel qualitative study and an internal pilot phase. Study participants were randomised to enhanced standard care plus a switch of antipsychotic medication or enhanced standard care alone in a 1 : 1 ratio. Randomisation was via an independent and remote web-based service using dynamic adaptive allocation, stratified by age, gender, Trust and relationship status. Setting: NHS secondary care mental health services in England. Participants: Potential participants had to be aged ≥ 18 years, have schizophrenia or related psychoses and experience sexual dysfunction associated with the use of antipsychotic medication. We recruited only people for whom reduction in medication dosage was ineffective or inappropriate. We excluded those who were acutely unwell, had had a change in antipsychotic medication in the last 6 weeks, were currently prescribed clozapine or whose sexual dysfunction was believed to be due to a coexisting physical or mental disorder. Interventions: Switching to an equivalent dose of one of three antipsychotic medications that are considered to have a relatively low propensity for sexual side effects (i.e. quetiapine, aripiprazole or olanzapine). All participants were offered brief psychoeducation and support to discuss their sexual health and functioning. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was patient-reported sexual dysfunction, measured using the Arizona Sexual Experience Scale. Secondary outcomes were researcher-rated sexual functioning, mental health, side effects of medication, health-related quality of life and service utilisation. Outcomes were assessed 3 and 6 months after randomisation. Qualitative data were collected from a purposive sample of patients and clinicians to explore barriers to recruitment. Sample size: Allowing for a 20% loss to follow-up, we needed to recruit 216 participants to have 90% power to detect a 3-point difference in total Arizona Sexual Experience Scale score (standard deviation 6.0 points) using a 0.05 significance level. Results: The internal pilot was discontinued after 12 months because of low recruitment. Ninety-eight patients were referred to the study between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019, of whom 10 were randomised. Eight (80%) participants were followed up 3 months later. Barriers to referral and recruitment included staff apprehensions about discussing side effects, reluctance among patients to switch medication and reticence of both staff and patients to talk about sex. Limitations: Insufficient numbers of participants were recruited to examine the study hypotheses. Conclusions: It may not be possible to conduct a successful randomised trial of switching antipsychotic medication for sexual functioning in people with psychosis in the NHS at this time. Future work: Research examining the acceptability and effectiveness of adjuvant phosphodiesterase inhibitors should be considered. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12307891. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: The effective management of agitation and other neuropsychiatric and behavioural symptoms in people with dementia is a major challenge, particularly in care home settings, where dementia severity is higher and there is limited training and support for care staff. There is evidence for the value of staff training and the use of psychosocial approaches; however, no intervention currently exists that combines these elements into an intervention that is fit for purpose and effective in these settings based on evidence from a randomised controlled trial. Objective: The objective was to develop and evaluate a complex intervention to improve well-being, reduce antipsychotic use and improve quality of life in people with dementia in care homes through person-centred care, management of agitation and non-drug approaches. Design: This was a 5-year programme that consisted of six work packages. Work package 1 consisted of two systematic reviews of personalised psychosocial interventions for behavioural and psychological symptoms for people with dementia in care homes. Work package 2 consisted of a metasynthesis of studies examining implementation of psychosocial interventions, in addition to developing a draft Well-being and Health for people with Dementia (WHELD) programme. Work package 3 consisted of a factorial study of elements of the draft WHELD programme in 16 care homes. Work package 4 involved optimisation of the WHELD programme based on work package 3 data. Work package 5 involved a multicentre randomised controlled trial in 69 care homes, which evaluated the impact of the optimised WHELD programme on quality of life, agitation and overall neuropsychiatric symptoms in people with dementia. Work package 6 focused on dissemination of the programme. Setting: This programme was carried out in care homes in the UK. Participants: Participants of this programme were people with dementia living in care homes, and the health and care professionals providing treatment and care in these settings. Results: Work package 1: reviews identified randomised controlled trials and qualitative evidence supporting the use of psychosocial approaches to manage behavioural symptoms, but highlighted a concerning lack of evidence-based training manuals in current use. Work package 2: the meta-analysis identified key issues in promoting the use of interventions in care homes. The WHELD programme was developed through adaptation of published approaches. Work package 3: the factorial trial showed that antipsychotic review alone significantly reduced antipsychotic use by 50% (odds ratio 0.17, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.60). Antipsychotic review plus social interaction significantly reduced mortality (odds ratio 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.57), but this group showed significantly worse outcomes in behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia than the group receiving neither antipsychotic review nor social interaction (mean difference 7.37 symptoms, 95% confidence interval 1.53 to 13.22 symptoms). This detrimental impact was reduced when combined with social interaction (mean difference –0.44 points, 95% confidence interval –4.39 to 3.52 points), but with no significant benefits for agitation. The exercise intervention significantly improved neuropsychiatric symptoms (mean difference –3.58 symptoms, 95% confidence interval –7.08 to –0.09 symptoms) but not depression (mean difference –1.21 points, 95% confidence interval –4.35 to 1.93 points). Qualitative work with care staff provided additional insights into the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. Work package 4: optimisation of the WHELD programme led to a final version that combined person-centred care training with social interaction and pleasant activities. The intervention was adapted for delivery through a ‘champion’ model. Work package 5: a large-scale, multicentre randomised controlled trial in 69 care homes showed significant benefit to quality of life, agitation and overall neuropsychiatric symptoms, at reduced overall cost compared with treatment as usual. The intervention conferred a statistically significant improvement in quality of life (Dementia Quality of Life Scale – Proxy z-score of 2.82, mean difference 2.54, standard error of measurement 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 4.28, Cohen’s d effect size of 0.24; p = 0.0042). There were also statistically significant benefits in agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory z-score of 2.68, mean difference –4.27, standard error of measurement 1.59, 95% confidence interval –7.39 to –1.15, Cohen’s d effect size of 0.23; p = 0.0076) and overall neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory – Nursing Home version z-score of 3.52, mean difference –4.55, standard error of measurement 1.28, 95% confidence interval –7.07 to –2.02, Cohen’s d of 0.30; p

Background: Most people who are dying want to be cared for at home, but only half of them achieve this. The likelihood of a home death often depends on the availability of able and willing lay carers. When people who are dying are unable to take oral medication, injectable medication is used. When top-up medication is required, a health-care professional travels to the dying person’s home, which may delay symptom relief. The administration of subcutaneous medication by lay carers, although not widespread UK practice, has proven to be key in achieving better symptom control for those dying at home in other countries. Objectives: To determine if carer administration of as-needed subcutaneous medication for common breakthrough symptoms in people dying at home is feasible and acceptable in the UK, and if it would be feasible to test this intervention in a future definitive randomised controlled trial. Design: We conducted a two-arm, parallel-group, individually randomised, open pilot trial of the intervention versus usual care, with a 1 : 1 allocation ratio, using convergent mixed methods. Setting: Home-based care without 24/7 paid care provision, in three UK sites. Participants: Participants were dyads of adult patients and carers: patients in the last weeks of their life who wished to die at home and lay carers who were willing to be trained to give subcutaneous medication. Strict risk assessment criteria needed to be met before approach, including known history of substance abuse or carer ability to be trained to competency. Intervention: Intervention-group carers received training by local nurses using a manualised training package. Main outcome measures: Quantitative data were collected at baseline and 6–8 weeks post bereavement and via carer diaries. Interviews with carers and health-care professionals explored attitudes to, experiences of and preferences for giving subcutaneous medication and experience of trial processes. The main outcomes of interest were feasibility, acceptability, recruitment rates, attrition and selection of the most appropriate outcome measures. Results: In total, 40 out of 101 eligible dyads were recruited (39.6%), which met the feasibility criterion of recruiting > 30% of eligible dyads. The expected recruitment target (≈50 dyads) was not reached, as fewer than expected participants were identified. Although the overall retention rate was 55% (22/40), this was substantially unbalanced [30% (6/20) usual care and 80% (16/20) intervention]. The feasibility criterion of > 40% retention was, therefore, considered not met. A total of 12 carers (intervention, n = 10; usual care, n = 2) and 20 health-care professionals were interviewed. The intervention was considered acceptable, feasible and safe in the small study population. The context of the feasibility study was not ideal, as district nurses were seriously overstretched and unfamiliar with research methods. A disparity in readiness to consider the intervention was demonstrated between carers and health-care professionals. Findings showed that there were methodological and ethics issues pertaining to researching last days of life care. Conclusion: The success of a future definitive trial is uncertain because of equivocal results in the progression criteria, particularly poor recruitment overall and a low retention rate in the usual-care group. Future work regarding the intervention should include understanding the context of UK areas where this has been adopted, ascertaining wider public views and exploring health-care professional views on burden and risk in the NHS context. There should be consideration of the need for national policy and of the most appropriate quantitative outcome measures to use. This will help to ascertain if there are unanswered questions to be studied in a trial. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11211024. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background and study aims The English National Bowel Scope Screening Programme (BSSP) invites 55-year-olds for a one-off, unsedated flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG). Data from BSSP participant-reported experience studies shows 1 in 3 participants report moderate or severe discomfort. Water-assisted colonoscopy (WAS) may improve participants’ comfort. The primary objective of this study is to ascertain if post-procedural participant-assessed pain is reduced in WAS compared with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation, in invitees undergoing FSIG in BSSP. Patients and methods This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, two-arm, single-blinded trial designed to evaluate the performance of WAS versus CO2 insufflation in BSSP. Participants will be randomized to either CO2 or WAS and will be asked to rate pain post-procedure. Key procedure-related data will be analyzed, including adenoma detection rates (ADR) and degree of sigmoid looping. A cost-effectiveness analysis of WAS versus CO2 and a discrete choice experiment exploring preferences of participants for attributes of sigmoidoscopy will also be performed. Discussion This is the first trial in the United Kingdom (UK) to investigate the effects of WAS in a screening setting. If the trial shows WAS either reduces pain or increases ADR, this may result in a practice change to implement WAS in screening and non-screening endoscopic practice directly impacting on 256,000 people a year who will undergo BSSP FSIG by 2020. Trial funding came from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) supported by the NIHR Clinical Research Network. The trial is actively recruiting. ID: 35866 ISRCTN: 81466870

Abstract Background Adalimumab, a biological treatment targeting tumour necrosis factor α, might be useful in sciatica. This paper describes the challenges faced when developing a new treatment pathway for a randomised controlled trial of adalimumab for people with sciatica, as well as the reasons why the trial discussed was stopped early. Methods A pragmatic, parallel group, randomised controlled trial with blinded (masked) participants, clinicians, outcome assessment and statistical analysis was conducted in six UK sites. Participants were identified and recruited from general practices, musculoskeletal services and outpatient physiotherapy clinics. They were adults with persistent symptoms of sciatica of 1 to 6 months’ duration with moderate to high level of disability. Eligibility was assessed by research physiotherapists according to clinical criteria, and participants were randomised to receive two doses of adalimumab (80 mg then 40 mg 2 weeks later) or saline placebo subcutaneous injections in the posterior lateral thigh. Both groups were referred for a course of physiotherapy. Outcomes were measured at baseline, 6-week, 6-month and 12-month follow-up. The main outcome measure was disability measured using the Oswestry Disability Index. The planned sample size was 332, with the first 50 in an internal pilot phase. Results The internal pilot phase was discontinued after 10 months from opening owing to low recruitment (two of the six sites active, eight participants recruited). There were several challenges: contractual delays; one site did not complete contract negotiations, and two sites signed contracts shortly before trial closure; site withdrawal owing to patient safety concerns; difficulties obtaining excess treatment costs; and in the two sites that did recruit, recruitment was slower than planned because of operational issues and low uptake by potential participants. Conclusions Improved patient care requires robust clinical research within contexts in which treatments can realistically be provided. Step changes in treatment, such as the introduction of biologic treatments for severe sciatica, raise complex issues that can delay trial initiation and retard recruitment. Additional preparatory work might be required before testing novel treatments. A randomised controlled trial of tumour necrosis factor-α blockade is still needed to determine its cost-effectiveness in severe sciatica. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN14569274. Registered on 15 December 2014.

Abstract Background Health economic evaluations rely on the accurate measurement of health service resource use in order to calculate costs. These are usually measured with patient completed questionnaires using instruments such as the Client Service Receipt Inventory (CSRI). These rely on participants’ recall and can be burdensome to complete. Health service activity data are routinely captured by electronic databases. The aim was to test methods for obtaining these data and compare with those data collected using the CSRI, within a feasibility study of an enhanced rehabilitation intervention following hip fracture (Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation: FEMuR). Methods Primary care activity including prescribing data was obtained from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank and secondary care activity (Emergency Department attendances, out-patient visits and in-patient days) directly from Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (BCUHB), North Wales, UK. These data were compared with patient responses from the CSRI using descriptive statistics and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results It was possible to compare health service resource use data for 49 out of 61 participants in the FEMuR study. For emergency department (ED) attendances, records matched in 23 (47%) cases, 21 (43%) over-reported on electronic records compared with CSRI and five participants (10%) under-reported, with an overall ICC of 0.42. For out-patient episodes, records matched in only six cases, 28 participants over-reported on electronic records compared with CSRI and 15 (12%) under-reported, with an overall ICC of only 0.27. For in-patient days, records matched exactly in only five cases (10%), but if an error margin of 7 days was allowed, then agreement rose to 39 (66%) cases, and the overall ICC for all data was 0.88. It was only possible to compare prescribing data for 12 participants. For prescribing data, the SAIL data reported 117 out of 118 items (99%) and the CSRI only 89 (79%) items. Conclusions The use of routinely collected data has the potential to improve the efficiency of trials and other studies. Although the methodology to make the data available has been demonstrated, the data obtained was incomplete and the validity of using this method remains to be demonstrated. Trial registration Trial registration: ISRCTN22464643 Registered 21 July 2014.

Abstract Background People with dementia progressively lose abilities and are prone to falling. Exercise- and activity-based interventions hold the prospect of increasing abilities, reducing falls, and slowing decline in cognition. Current falls prevention approaches are poorly suited to people with dementia, however, and are of uncertain effectiveness. We used multiple sources, and a co-production approach, to develop a new intervention, which we will evaluate in a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT), with embedded adherence, process and economic analyses. Methods We will recruit people with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia from memory assessment clinics, and a family member or carer. We will randomise participants between a therapy programme with high intensity supervision over 12 months, a therapy programme with moderate intensity supervision over 3 months, and brief falls assessment and advice as a control intervention. The therapy programmes will be delivered at home by mental health specialist therapists and therapy assistants. We will measure activities of daily living, falls and a battery of intermediate and distal health status outcomes, including activity, balance, cognition, mood and quality of life. The main aim is to test recruitment and retention, intervention delivery, data collection and other trial processes in advance of a planned definitive RCT. We will also study motivation and adherence, and conduct a process evaluation to help understand why results occurred using mixed methods, including a qualitative interview study and scales measuring psychological, motivation and communication variables. We will undertake an economic study, including modelling of future impact and cost to end-of-life, and a social return on investment analysis. Discussion In this study, we aim to better understand the practicalities of both intervention and research delivery, and to generate substantial new knowledge on motivation, adherence and the approach to economic analysis. This will enable us to refine a novel intervention to promote activity and safety after a diagnosis of dementia, which will be evaluated in a definitive randomised controlled trial. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02874300; ISRCTN 10550694.

Background: Cognitive rehabilitation (CR) is an individualised, person-centred intervention for people with mild to moderate dementia that addresses the impact of cognitive impairment on everyday functioning. Objectives: To determine whether or not CR is a clinically effective and cost-effective intervention for people with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease or vascular or mixed dementia, and their carers. Design: This multicentre randomised controlled trial compared CR with treatment as usual (TAU). Following a baseline assessment and goal-setting to identify areas of everyday functioning that could be improved or better managed, participants were randomised (1 : 1) via secure web access to an independent randomisation centre to receive either TAU or CR and followed up at 3 and 9 months post randomisation. Setting: Community. Participants: Participants had an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition, diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease or vascular or mixed dementia, had mild to moderate cognitive impairment (Mini Mental State Examination score of ≥ 18 points), were stable on medication if prescribed, and had a family carer who was willing to contribute. The exclusion criteria were people with a history of brain injury or other neurological disorder and an inability to speak English. To achieve adequate power, we needed 350 people to complete the trial, with 175 people in each trial arm. Intervention: Cognitive rehabilitation consisted of 10 therapy sessions over 3 months, followed by four maintenance sessions over 6 months, delivered in participants’ homes. The therapists were nine occupational therapists and one nurse. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was self-reported goal attainment at 3 months. Goal attainment was also assessed at 9 months. Carers provided independent ratings of goal attainment at both time points. The secondary outcomes were participant quality of life, mood, self-efficacy and cognition, and carer stress, health status and quality of life. The assessments at 3 and 9 months were conducted by researchers who were blind to the participants’ group allocation. Results: A total of 475 participants were randomised (CR arm, n = 239; TAU arm, n = 236), 427 participants (90%) completed the trial and 426 participants were analysed (CR arm, n = 208, TAU arm, n = 218). At 3 months, there were statistically significant large positive effects for participant-rated goal attainment [mean change in the CR arm: 2.57; mean change in the TAU arm: 0.86; Cohen’s d = 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.19], corroborated by carer ratings (Cohen’s d = 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.34). These effects were maintained at 9 months for both the participant ratings (Cohen’s d = 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.17) and the carer ratings (Cohen’s d = 0.96, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.20). There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes. In the cost–utility analyses, there was no evidence of cost-effectiveness in terms of gains in the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of the person with dementia (measured using the DEMentia Quality Of Life questionnaire utility score) or the QALYs of the carer (measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version) from either cost perspective. In the cost-effectiveness analyses, by reference to the primary outcome of participant-rated goal attainment, CR was cost-effective from both the health and social care perspective and the societal perspective at willingness-to-pay values of £2500 and above for improvement in the goal attainment measure. There was no evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the self-efficacy measure (the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale) from either cost perspective. Limitations: Possible limitations arose from the non-feasibility of using observational outcome measures, the lack of a general measure of functional ability and the exclusion of people without a carer or with rarer forms of dementia. Conclusions: Cognitive rehabilitation is clinically effective in enabling people with early-stage dementia to improve their everyday functioning in relation to individual goals targeted in the therapy sessions. Future work: Next steps will focus on the implementation of CR into NHS and social care services and on extending the approach to people with rarer forms of dementia. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN21027481. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: GPs can play an important role in achieving earlier cancer diagnosis to improve patient outcomes, for example through prompt use of the urgent suspected cancer referral pathway. Barriers to early diagnosis include individual practitioner variation in knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, professional expectations, and norms. Aim: This programme of work (Wales Interventions and Cancer Knowledge about Early Diagnosis [WICKED]) will develop a behaviour change intervention to expedite diagnosis through primary care and contribute to improved cancer outcomes. Design & setting: Non-experimental mixed-method study with GPs and primary care practice teams from Wales. Method: Four work packages will inform the development of the behaviour change intervention. Work package 1 will identify relevant evidence-based interventions (systematic review of reviews) and will determine why interventions do or do not work, for whom, and in what circumstances (realist review). Work package 2 will assess cancer knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour of GPs, as well as primary care teams’ perspectives on cancer referral and investigation (GP survey, discrete choice experiment [DCE], interviews, and focus groups). Work package 3 will synthesise findings from earlier work packages using the behaviour change wheel as an overarching theoretical framework to guide intervention development. Work package 4 will test the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, and determine methods for measuring costs and effects of subsequent behaviour change in a randomised feasibility trial. Results: The findings will inform the design of a future effectiveness trial, with concurrent economic evaluation, aimed at earlier diagnosis. Conclusion: This comprehensive, evidence-based programme will develop a complex GP behaviour change intervention to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer, and may be applicable to countries with similar healthcare systems.

Background and study aims UK Bowel Cancer Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy (BowelScope) currently offers patients aged 55 a one-off flexible sigmoidoscopy for adenoma clearance to decrease colorectal cancer incidence by interrupting the adenoma-carcinoma sequence. Recent evidence has shown maximum benefit in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR) using the Endocuff Vision device in the left side of the colon and in screening patients. Currently, ADR is low and shows unacceptable variation in BowelScope. ADR is a quality indicator in screening sigmoidoscopy and higher rates have been shown to reduce colorectal cancer incidence. Patients and methods This will be a prospective, multicenter, UK-based randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ADR in Endocuff-assisted versus standard bowel cancer screening flexible sigmoidoscopy (BowelScope). All patients aged 55 to 61 years invited to BowelScope screening and able to give informed consent will be eligible for recruitment. Exclusion criteria include absolute contraindications to flexible sigmoidoscopy, known or suspected large bowel obstruction or pseudo-obstruction, colonic strictures or polyposis syndromes, known severe diverticular segment, active colitis, inability to give informed consent, anticoagulation precluding polypectomy and pregnancy. Patients will be randomized on the day of procedure to Endocuff-assisted flexible sigmoidoscopy or standard flexible sigmoidoscopy, stratified by age group and sex. Baseline, endoscopy and polyp data were collected as well as nurse and patient assessment of comfort. Polyp histology was collected when available. Patients will be asked to return a comfort questionnaire the following day and were followed up for 14 days for complications. The study will take place across 12 to 20 hospital trusts across the UK and recruited 3222 patients. Results The ADENOMA trial will be designed to demonstrate a significant improvement in ADR with maximal effect in the left colon and in fecal occult blood test-positive screening patients. This trial will be the first RCT to look at Endocuff Vision in bowel cancer screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. We will aim to establish whether Endocuff vision improves ADR in this population. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03072472

Background: Although it is widely recognised that adopting a person-centred approach is beneficial in the care of people living with dementia, a gap remains between the rhetoric and the reality of quality care. Some widely adopted care practices can result in the personhood of this group being threatened and their human rights being undermined. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of applying a human rights based approach in dementia inpatient wards and care homes on the quality of care delivered and the well-being of the person living with dementia. Design: A cluster randomised design was employed to compare the impact of implementing a human rights based approach intervention (i.e. training, applying the ‘Getting It Right’ assessment tool and receiving booster sessions) at 10 intervention sites with 10 control sites. Setting: Eight NHS dementia inpatient wards and 12 care homes in the north-west of England. Participants: People living with dementia who were residing on dementia inpatient wards or in care homes, and staff working at these sites. The aim was to recruit 280 people living with dementia. Interventions: A sample of staff (an average of 8.9 per site) at each of the sites was trained in a human rights based approach to care, including the application of the ‘Getting It Right’ assessment tool. The tool was then introduced at the site and monthly booster sessions were delivered. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure used in the research was the Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease scale to assess the subjective well-being of the person with dementia. Secondary outcome measures included measures of the quality of care provided (dementia care mapping) and direct measures of the effectiveness of the training in increasing knowledge of and attitudes towards human rights. The study also included an economic evaluation utilising the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, and the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit measure. Results: The study recruited 439 people living with dementia: 213 to the intervention arm and 226 to the control arm. Primary outcome data were analysed using a linear mixed model. There were no significant differences found in the reported quality of life of residents between the control and intervention groups after the intervention [F(1,16.51) = 3.63; p = 0.074]. The mean difference between the groups was 1.48 (95% confidence interval –7.86 to 10.82). Conclusions: Despite the fact that the training increased staff knowledge of and positive attitudes towards human rights, and although there were some changes in staff decision-making strategies in clinical situations, there was no change in the quality of care provided or in the reported well-being of people living with dementia in these settings. This led to questions about the efficacy of training in bringing about cultural change and improving care practices. Limitations: There was limited uptake of the training and booster sessions that were integral to the intervention. Future work: Future work could usefully focus on understanding the difficulty in translating change in attitude and knowledge into behaviour. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN94553028. 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. 6, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Biological treatments such as adalimumab (Humira®; AbbVie Ltd, Maidenhead, UK) are antibodies targeting tumour necrosis factor alpha, released from ruptured intervertebral discs, which might be useful in sciatica. Recent systematic reviews concluded that they might be effective, but that a definitive randomised controlled trial was needed. Usual care in the NHS typically includes a physiotherapy intervention. Objectives: To test whether or not injections of adalimumab plus physiotherapy are more clinically effective and cost-effective than injections of saline plus physiotherapy for patients with sciatica. Design: Pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded participants and clinicians, and an outcome assessment and statistical analysis with concurrent economic evaluation and internal pilot. Setting: Participants were referred from primary care and musculoskeletal services to outpatient physiotherapy clinics. Participants: Adults with persistent symptoms of sciatica of 1–6 months’ duration and with moderate to high levels of disability. Eligibility was assessed by research physiotherapists according to clinical criteria for diagnosing sciatica. Interventions: After a second eligibility check, trial participants were randomised to receive two doses of adalimumab (80 mg and then 40 mg 2 weeks later) or saline injections. Both groups were referred for a course of physiotherapy. Main outcome measures: Outcomes were measured at the start, and after 6 weeks’ and 6 months’ follow-up. The main outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Other outcomes: leg pain version of the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire, Sciatica Bothersomeness Index, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, 5-level version, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, resource use, risk of persistent disabling pain, pain trajectory based on a single question, Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia and adverse effects. Sample size: To detect an effect size of 0.4 with 90% power, a 5% significance level for a two-tailed t-test and 80% retention rate, 332 participants would have needed to be recruited. Analysis plan: The primary effectiveness analysis would have been linear mixed models for repeated measures to measure the effects of time and group allocation. An internal pilot study would have involved the first 50 participants recruited across all centres. The primary economic analysis would have been a cost–utility analysis. Results: The internal pilot study was discontinued as a result of low recruitment after eight participants were recruited from two out of six sites. One site withdrew from the study before recruitment started, one site did not complete contract negotiations and two sites signed contracts shortly before trial closure. In the two sites that did recruit participants, recruitment was slow. This was partly because of operational issues, but also because of a low rate of uptake from potential participants. Limitations: Although large numbers of invitations were sent to potential participants, identified by retrospective searches of general practitioner (GP) records, there was a low rate of uptake. Two sites planned to recruit participants during GP consultations but opened too late to recruit any participants. Conclusion: The main failure was attributable to problems with contracts. Because of this we were not able to complete the internal pilot or to test all of the different methods for primary care recruitment we had planned. A trial of biological therapy in patients with sciatica still needs to be done, but would require a clearer contracting process, qualitative research to ensure that patients would be willing to participate, and simpler recruitment methods. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14569274. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 60. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Proximal femoral fracture is a major health problem in old age, with annual UK health and social care costs of £2.3B. Rehabilitation has the potential to maximise functional recovery and maintain independent living, but evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is lacking. Objectives: To develop an enhanced community-based rehabilitation package following surgical treatment for proximal femoral fracture and to assess acceptability and feasibility for a future definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation. Design: Phase I – realist review, survey and focus groups to develop the rehabilitation package. Phase II – parallel-group, randomised (using a dynamic adaptive algorithm) feasibility study with focus groups and an anonymised cohort study. Setting: Recruitment was from orthopaedic wards of three acute hospitals in the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, North Wales. The intervention was delivered in the community following hospital discharge. Participants: Older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) who had received surgical treatment for hip fracture, lived independently prior to fracture, had mental capacity (assessed by the clinical team) and received rehabilitation in the North Wales area. Interventions: Participants received usual care (control) or usual care plus an enhanced rehabilitation package (intervention). Usual care was variable and consisted of multidisciplinary rehabilitation delivered by the acute hospital, community hospital and community services depending on need and availability. The intervention was designed to enhance rehabilitation by improving patients’ self-efficacy and increasing the amount and quality of patients’ practice of physical exercise and activities of daily living. It consisted of a patient-held information workbook, a goal-setting diary and six additional therapy sessions. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the Barthel Activities of Daily Living (BADL) index. The secondary outcome measures included the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people, General Self-Efficacy Scale, Falls Efficacy Scale – International (FES-I), Self-Efficacy for Exercise scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and service use measures. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and at 3-month follow-up by blinded researchers. Results: Sixty-two participants were recruited (23% of those who were eligible), 61 were randomised (control, n = 32; intervention, n = 29) and 49 (79%) were followed up at 3 months. Compared with the cohort study, a younger, healthier subpopulation was recruited. There were minimal differences in most outcomes between the two groups, including the BADL index, with an adjusted mean difference of 0.5 (Cohen’s d = 0.29). The intervention group showed a medium-sized improvement on the NEADL scale relative to the control group, with an adjusted mean difference between groups of 3.0 (Cohen’s d = 0.63). There was a trend for greater improvement in FES-I and HADS in the intervention group, but with small effect sizes, with an adjusted mean difference of 4.2 (Cohen’s d = 0.31) and 1.3 (Cohen’s d = 0.20), respectively. The cost of delivering the intervention was £231 per patient. There was a possible small relative increase in quality-adjusted life-years in the intervention group. No serious adverse events relating to the intervention were reported. Conclusions: Trial methods were feasible in terms of eligibility, recruitment and retention, although recruitment was challenging. The NEADL scale was more responsive than the BADL index, suggesting that the intervention could enable participants to regain better levels of independence compared with usual care. This should be tested in a definitive Phase III RCT. There were two main limitations of the study: the feasibility study lacked power to test for differences between the groups and a ceiling effect was observed in the primary measure. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22464643. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library for further project information.

BackgroundCognitive stimulation therapy (CST) is a well-established group psychosocial intervention for people with dementia. There is evidence that home-based programmes of cognitive stimulation delivered by family caregivers may benefit both the person and the caregiver. However, no previous studies have evaluated caregiver-delivered CST. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a home-based, caregiver-led individual cognitive stimulation therapy (iCST) program in (i) improving cognition and quality of life (QoL) for the person with dementia and (ii) mental and physical health (well-being) for the caregiver.Methods and findingsA single-blind, pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted at eight study sites across the United Kingdom. The intervention and blinded assessment of outcomes were conducted in participants' homes. Three hundred fifty-six people with mild to moderate dementia and their caregivers were recruited from memory services and community mental health teams (CMHTs). Participants were randomly assigned to iCST (75, 30-min sessions) or treatment as usual (TAU) control over 25 wk. iCST sessions consisted of themed activities designed to be mentally stimulating and enjoyable. Caregivers delivering iCST received training and support from an unblind researcher. Primary outcomes were cognition (Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive [ADAS-Cog]) and self-reported QoL (Quality of Life Alzheimer's Disease [QoL-AD]) for the person with dementia and general health status (Short Form-12 health survey [SF-12]) for the caregiver. Secondary outcomes included quality of the caregiving relationship from the perspectives of the person and of the caregiver (Quality of the Carer Patient Relationship Scale) and health-related QoL (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions [EQ-5D]) for the caregiver. Intention to treat (ITT) analyses were conducted. At the post-test (26 wk), there were no differences between the iCST and TAU groups in the outcomes of cognition (mean difference [MD] = -0.55, 95% CI -2.00-0.90; p = 0.45) and self-reported QoL (MD = -0.02, 95% CI -1.22-0.82; p = 0.97) for people with dementia, or caregivers' general health status (MD = 0.13, 95% CI -1.65-1.91; p = 0.89). However, people with dementia receiving iCST rated the relationship with their caregiver more positively (MD = 1.77, 95% CI 0.26-3.28; p = 0.02), and iCST improved QoL for caregivers (EQ-5D, MD = 0.06, 95% CI 0.02-0.10; p = 0.01). Forty percent (72/180) of dyads allocated to iCST completed at least two sessions per week, with 22% (39/180) completing no sessions at all. Study limitations include low adherence to the intervention.ConclusionsThere was no evidence that iCST has an effect on cognition or QoL for people with dementia. However, participating in iCST appeared to enhance the quality of the caregiving relationship and caregivers' QoL.Trial registrationThe iCST trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (identified ISRCTN 65945963, URL: DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN65945963).

Background: Dementia is a national priority and this research addresses the Prime Minister’s commitment to dementia research as demonstrated by his 2020 challenge and the new UK Dementia Research Institute. In the UK > 800,000 older people have dementia. It has a major impact on the lives of people with dementia themselves, on the lives of their family carers and on services, and costs the nation £26B per year. Pharmacological cures for dementias such as Alzheimer’s disease are not expected before 2025. If no cure can be found, the ageing demographic will result in 2 million people living with dementia by 2050. People with dementia lose much more than just their memory and their daily living skills; they can also lose their independence, their dignity and status, their confidence and morale, and their roles both within the family and beyond. They can be seen as a burden by society, by their families and even by themselves, and may feel unable to contribute to society. This programme of research aims to find useful interventions to improve the quality of life of people with dementia and their carers, and to better understand how people with dementia can be supported at home and avoid being admitted to hospital. Objectives: (1) To develop and evaluate the maintenance cognitive stimulation therapy (MCST) for people with dementia; (2) to develop the Carer Supporter Programme (CSP), and to evaluate the CSP and Remembering Yesterday, Caring Today (RYCT) for people with dementia both separately and together in comparison with usual care; and (3) to develop a home treatment package (HTP) for dementia, to field test the HTP in practice and to conduct an exploratory trial. Methods: (1) The MCST programme was developed for people with dementia based on evidence and qualitative work. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) [with a pilot study of MCST plus acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs)] compared MCST with cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) only. The MCST implementation study conducted a trial of outreach compared with usual care, and assessed implementation in practice. (2) The CSP was developed based on existing evidence and the engagement of carers of people with dementia. The RCT (with internal pilot) compared the CSP and reminiscence (RYCT), both separately and in combination, with usual care. (3) A HTP for dementia, including the most promising interventions and components, was developed by systematically reviewing the literature and qualitative studies including consensus approaches. The HTP for dementia was evaluated in practice by conducting in-depth field testing. Results: (1) Continuing MCST improved quality of life and improved cognition for those taking AChEIs. It was also cost-effective. The CST implementation studies indicated that many staff will run CST groups following a 1-day training course, but that outreach support helps staff go on to run maintenance groups and may also improve staff sense of competence in dementia care. The study of CST in practice found no change in cognition or quality of life at 8-month follow-up. (2) The CSP/RYCT study found no benefits for family carers but improved quality of life for people with dementia. RYCT appeared beneficial for the quality of life of people with dementia but at an excessively high cost. (3) Case management for people with dementia reduces admissions to long-term care and reduces behavioural problems. In terms of managing crises, staff suggested more costly interventions, carers liked education and support, and people with dementia wanted family support, home adaptations and technology. The easy-to-use home treatment manual was feasible in practice to help staff working in crisis teams to prevent hospital admissions for people with dementia. Limitations: Given constraints on time and funding, we were unable to compete the exploratory trial of the HTP package or to conduct an economic evaluation. Future research: To improve the care of people with dementia experiencing crises, a large-scale clinical trial of the home treatment manual is needed. Conclusion: There is an urgent need for effective psychosocial interventions for dementia. MCST improved quality of life and was cost-effective, with benefits to cognition for those on AChEIs. MCST was feasible in practice. Both CSP and RYCT improved the quality of life of people with dementia, but the overall costs may be too high. The HTP was useful in practice but requires evaluation in a full trial. Dementia care research may improve the lives of millions of people across the world. Trial registrations: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN26286067 (MCST), ISRCTN28793457 (MCST implementation) and ISRCTN37956201 (CSP/RYCT). Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 5, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation for the diagnosis of bowel pathology and colorectal cancer screening. Adenoma detection rate is a marker of high quality colonoscopy and a high adenoma detection rate is associated with a lower incidence of interval cancers. Several technological advancements have been explored to improve adenoma detection rate. A new device called Endocuff Vision™ has been shown to improve adenoma detection rate in pilot studies. Methods/Design: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing the adenoma detection rate in patients undergoing Endocuff Vision™-assisted colonoscopy with standard colonoscopy. All patients above 18 years of age referred for screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy who are able to consent are invited to the study. Patients with absolute contraindications to colonoscopy, large bowel obstruction or pseudo-obstruction, colon cancer or polyposis syndromes, colonic strictures, severe diverticular segments, active colitis, anticoagulant therapy, or pregnancy are excluded. Patients are randomized according to site, age, sex, and bowel cancer screening status to receive Endocuff Vision™-assisted colonoscopy or standard colonoscopy on the day of procedure. Baseline data, colonoscopy, and polyp data including histology are collected. Nurse assessment of patient comfort and patient comfort questionnaires are completed post procedure. Patients are followed up at 21 days and complete a patient experience questionnaire. This study will take place across seven NHS Hospital Trusts: one in London and six within the Northern Region Endoscopy Group. A maximum of 10 colonoscopists per site will recruit a total of 1772 patients, with a maximum of four bowel screening colonoscopists permitted per site. Discussion: This is the first trial to evaluate the adenoma detection rate of Endocuff Vision™ in all screening, surveillance, and diagnostic patient groups. This timely study will guide clinicians as to the role of Endocuff Vision™ in routine colonoscopy. Study registration: ISRCTN11821044.

BackgroundJoint reminiscence groups, involving people with dementia and family carers together, are popular, but the evidence-base is limited. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of joint reminiscence groups as compared to usual care.MethodsThis multi-centre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial had two parallel arms: intervention group and usual-care control group. A restricted dynamic method of randomisation was used, with an overall allocation ratio of 1:1, restricted to ensure viable sized intervention groups. Assessments, blind to treatment allocation, were carried out at baseline, three months and ten months (primary end-point), usually in the person's home. Participants were recruited in eight centres, mainly through NHS Memory Clinics and NHS community mental health teams. Included participants were community resident people with mild to moderate dementia (DSM-IV), who had a relative or other care-giver in regular contact, to act as informant and willing and able to participate in intervention. 71% carers were spouses. 488 people with dementia (mean age 77.5)were randomised: 268 intervention, 220 control; 350 dyads completed the study (206 intervention, 144 control). The intervention evaluated was joint reminiscence groups (with up to 12 dyads) weekly for twelve weeks; monthly maintenance sessions for further seven months. Sessions followed a published treatment manual and were held in a variety of community settings. Two trained facilitators in each centre were supported by volunteers. Primary outcome measures were self-reported quality of life for the person with dementia (QoL-AD), psychological distress for the carer (General Health Questionnaire, GHQ-28). Secondary outcome measures included: autobiographical memory and activities of daily living for the person with dementia; carer stress for the carer; mood, relationship quality and service use and costs for both.ResultsThe intention to treat analysis (ANCOVA) identified no differences in outcome between the intervention and control conditions on primary or secondary outcomes (self-reported QoL-AD mean difference 0.07 (-1.21 to 1.35), F = 0.48, p = 0.53). Carers of people with dementia allocated to the reminiscence intervention reported a significant increase in anxiety on a General Health Questionnaire-28 sub-scale at the ten month end-point (mean difference 1.25 (0.25 to 2.26), F = 8.28, p = 0.04). Compliance analyses suggested improved autobiographical memory, quality of life and relationship quality for people with dementia attending more reminiscence sessions, however carers attending more groups showed increased care-giving stress. Economic analyses from a public sector perspective indicated that joint reminiscence groups are unlikely to be cost-effective. There were no significant adverse effects attributed to the intervention. Potential limitations of the study include less than optimal attendance at the group sessions--only 57% of participants attended at least half of the intervention sessions over the 10 month period, and a higher rate of study withdrawal in the control group.ConclusionsThis trial does not support the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of joint reminiscence groups. Possible beneficial effects for people with dementia who attend sessions as planned are offset by raised anxiety and stress in their carers. The reasons for these discrepant outcomes need to be explored further, and may necessitate reappraisal of the movement towards joint interventions.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN42430123.

Alongside the physical symptoms associated with Parkinson’s disease dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies, health services must also address the cognitive impairments that accompany these conditions. There is growing interest in the use of nonpharmacological approaches to managing the consequences of cognitive disorder. Cognitive rehabilitation is a goal-orientated behavioural intervention which aims to enhance functional independence through the use of strategies specific to the individual’s needs and abilities. Fundamental to this therapy is a person’s capacity to set goals for rehabilitation. To date, no studies have assessed goal setting in early-stage Parkinson’s disease dementia or dementia with Lewy bodies. Semistructured interviews were carried out with 29 participants from an ongoing trial of cognitive rehabilitation for people with these conditions. Here, we examined the goal statements provided by these participants using qualitative content analysis, exploring the types and nature of the goals set. Participants’ goals reflected their motivations to learn new skills or improve performance in areas such as technology-use, self-management and orientation, medication management, and social and leisure activities. These results suggest that goal setting is achievable for these participants, provide insight into the everyday cognitive difficulties that they experience, and highlight possible domains as targets for intervention. The trial is registered with ISRCTN16584442 (DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN16584442 13/04/2015).

Background: Group cognitive stimulation therapy programmes can benefit cognition and quality of life for people with dementia. Evidence for home-based, carer-led cognitive stimulation interventions is limited. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of carer-delivered individual cognitive stimulation therapy (iCST) for people with dementia and their family carers, compared with treatment as usual (TAU). Design: A multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial assessing clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Assessments were at baseline, 13 weeks and 26 weeks (primary end point). Setting: Participants were recruited through Memory Clinics and Community Mental Health Teams for older people. Participants: A total of 356 caregiving dyads were recruited and 273 completed the trial. Intervention: iCST consisted of structured cognitive stimulation sessions for people with dementia, completed up to three times weekly over 25 weeks. Family carers were supported to deliver the sessions at home. Main outcome measures: Primary outcomes for the person with dementia were cognition and quality of life. Secondary outcomes included behavioural and psychological symptoms, activities of daily living, depressive symptoms and relationship quality. The primary outcome for the family carers was mental/physical health (Short Form questionnaire-12 items). Health-related quality of life (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions), mood symptoms, resilience and relationship quality comprised the secondary outcomes. Costs were estimated from health and social care and societal perspectives. Results: There were no differences in any of the primary outcomes for people with dementia between intervention and TAU [cognition: mean difference –0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) –2.00 to 0.90; p-value = 0.45; self-reported quality of life: mean difference –0.02, 95% CI –1.22 to 0.82; p-value = 0.97 at the 6-month follow-up]. iCST did not improve mental/physical health for carers. People with dementia in the iCST group experienced better relationship quality with their carer, but there was no evidence that iCST improved their activities of daily living, depression or behavioural and psychological symptoms. iCST seemed to improve health-related quality of life for carers but did not benefit carers’ resilience or their relationship quality with their relative. Carers conducting more sessions had fewer depressive symptoms. Qualitative data suggested that people with dementia and their carers experienced better communication owing to iCST. Adjusted mean costs were not significantly different between the groups. From the societal perspective, both health gains and cost savings were observed. Conclusions: iCST did not improve cognition or quality of life for people with dementia, or carers’ physical and mental health. Costs of the intervention were offset by some reductions in social care and other services. Although there was some evidence of improvement in terms of the caregiving relationship and carers’ health-related quality of life, iCST does not appear to deliver clinical benefits for cognition and quality of life for people with dementia. Most people received fewer than the recommended number of iCST sessions. Further research is needed to ascertain the clinical effectiveness of carer-led cognitive stimulation interventions for people with dementia. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN65945963. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further information.