Search

Abstract Background While patient safety incident reporting is of key importance for patient safety in primary care, the reporting rate by healthcare professionals remains low. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a risk management program in increasing the reporting rate within multiprofessional primary care facilities. Methods A nation-wide cluster-randomised controlled trial was performed in France, with each cluster defined as a primary care facility. The intervention included professional e-learning training, identification of a risk management advisor, and multidisciplinary meetings to address incident analysis. In the first observational period, a patient safety incident reporting system for professionals was implemented in all facilities. Then, facilities were randomised, and the program was implemented. Incidents were reported over the 15-month study period. Quasi-Poisson models were used to compare reporting rates. Results Thirty-five facilities (intervention, n = 17; control, n = 18) were included, with 169 and 232 healthcare professionals, respectively, involved. Overall, 7 out of 17 facilities carried out the entire program (41.2%), while 6 did not hold meetings (35.3%); 48.5% of professionals logged on to the e-learning website. The relative rate of incidents reported was 2.7 (95% CI = [0.84–11.0]; p = 0.12). However, a statistically significant decrease in the incident rate between the pre-intervention and post-intervention periods was observed for the control arm (HR = 0.2; 95% CI = [0.05–0.54]; p = 0.02), but not for the intervention arm (HR = 0.54; 95% CI = [0.2–1.54]; p = 0.23). Conclusion This program didn’t lead to a significant improvement in the patient safety incident reporting rate by professionals but seemed to sustain reporting over time. Considering that the program was fully implemented in only 41% of facilities, this highlights the difficulty of implementing such multidisciplinary programs in primary care despite its adaptation to the setting. A better understanding of how risk management is currently organized in these multiprofessional facilities is of key importance to improve patient safety in primary care. Trial registrations The study has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02403388) on 30 March 2015.

Background: While patient safety incident reporting is of key importance for patient safety in primary care, the reporting rate by healthcare professionals remains low. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a risk management program in increasing the reporting rate within multiprofessional primary care facilities. Methods: A nation-wide cluster-randomised controlled trial was performed in France, with each cluster defined as a primary care facility. The intervention included professional e-learning training, identification of a risk management advisor, and multidisciplinary meetings to address incident analysis. In the first observational period, a patient safety incident reporting system for professionals was implemented in all facilities. Then, facilities were randomised, and the program was implemented. Incidents were reported over the 15-month study period. Quasi-Poisson models were used to compare reporting rates. Results: Thirty-five facilities (intervention, n = 17; control, n = 18) were included, with 169 and 232 healthcare professionals, respectively, involved. Overall, 7 out of 17 facilities carried out the entire program (41.2%), while 6 did not hold meetings (35.3%); 48.5% of professionals logged on to the e-learning website. The relative rate of incidents reported was 2.7 (95% CI = [0.84–11.0]; p = 0.12). However, a statistically significant decrease in the incident rate between the pre-intervention and post-intervention periods was observed for the control arm (HR = 0.2; 95% CI = [0.05–0.54]; p = 0.02), but not for the intervention arm (HR = 0.54; 95% CI = [0.2–1.54]; p = 0.23). Conclusion: This program didn't lead to a significant improvement in the patient safety incident reporting rate by professionals but seemed to sustain reporting over time. Considering that the program was fully implemented in only 41% of facilities, this highlights the difficulty of implementing such multidisciplinary programs in primary care despite its adaptation to the setting. A better understanding of how risk management is currently organized in these multiprofessional facilities is of key importance to improve patient safety in primary care. Trial registrations: The study has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02403388) on 30 March 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To determine the feasibility of a nurse‐led, primary care‐based comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) intervention. Design: A feasibility cluster randomized controlled trial. Methods: The trial was conducted in six general practices in the United Kingdom from May 2018 to April 2020. Participants were moderately/severely frail people aged 65 years and older living at home. Clusters were randomly assigned to the intervention arm control arms. A CGA was delivered to the intervention participants, with control participants receiving usual care. Study outcomes related to feasibility of the intervention and of conducting the trial including recruitment and retention. A range of outcome measures of quality of life, function, loneliness, self‐determination, mortality, hospital admission/readmission and number of prescribed medications were evaluated. Results: All pre‐specified feasibility criteria relating to recruitment and retention were met with 56 participants recruited in total (30 intervention and 26 control). Retention was high with 94.6% of participants completing 13‐week follow‐up and 87.5% (n = 49) completing 26‐week follow‐up. All outcome measures instruments met feasibility criteria relating to completeness and responsiveness over time. Quality of life was recommended as the primary outcome for a definitive trial with numbers of prescribed medications as a secondary outcome measure. Conclusion: It is feasible to implement and conduct a randomized controlled trial of a nurse‐led, primary care‐based CGA intervention. Impact: The study provided evidence on the feasibility of a CGA intervention for older people delivered in primary care. It provides information to maximize the success of a definitive trial of the clinical effectiveness of the intervention. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient and public representatives were involved in the study design including intervention development and production of participant‐facing documentation. Representatives served on the trial management and steering committees and, as part of this role, interpreted feasibility data. ISRCTN Number: 74345449. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Office workers spend 70–85% of their time at work sitting. High levels of sitting have been linked to poor physiological and psychological health. Evidence shows the need for fully powered randomised controlled trials, with long-term follow-up, to test the effectiveness of interventions to reduce sitting time. Objective Our objective was to test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life intervention, delivered with and without a height-adjustable workstation, compared with usual practice at 12-month follow-up. Design A three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting Councils in England. Participants Office workers. Intervention SMART Work & Life is a multicomponent intervention that includes behaviour change strategies, delivered by workplace champions. Clusters were randomised to (1) the SMART Work & Life intervention, (2) the SMART Work & Life intervention with a height-adjustable workstation (i.e. SMART Work & Life plus desk) or (3) a control group (i.e. usual practice). Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 12 months. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was device-assessed daily sitting time compared with usual practice at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included sitting, standing, stepping time, physical activity, adiposity, blood pressure, biochemical measures, musculoskeletal issues, psychosocial variables, work-related health, diet and sleep. Cost-effectiveness and process evaluation data were collected. Results A total of 78 clusters (756 participants) were randomised [control, 26 clusters (n = 267); SMART Work & Life only, 27 clusters (n = 249); SMART Work & Life plus desk, 25 clusters (n = 240)]. At 12 months, significant differences between groups were found in daily sitting time, with participants in the SMART Work & Life-only and SMART Work & Life plus desk arms sitting 22.2 minutes per day (97.5% confidence interval –38.8 to –5.7 minutes/day; p = 0.003) and 63.7 minutes per day (97.5% confidence interval –80.0 to –47.4 minutes/day; p < 0.001), respectively, less than the control group. Participants in the SMART Work & Life plus desk arm sat 41.7 minutes per day (95% confidence interval –56.3 to –27.0 minutes/day; p < 0.001) less than participants in the SMART Work & Life-only arm. Sitting time was largely replaced by standing time, and changes in daily behaviour were driven by changes during work hours on workdays. Behaviour changes observed at 12 months were similar to 3 months. At 12 months, small improvements were seen for stress, well-being and vigour in both intervention groups, and for pain in the lower extremity and social norms in the SMART Work & Life plus desk group. Results from the process evaluation supported these findings, with participants reporting feeling more energised, alert, focused and productive. The process evaluation also showed that participants viewed the intervention positively; however, the extent of engagement varied across clusters. The average cost of SMART Work & Life only and SMART Work & Life plus desk was £80.59 and £228.31 per participant, respectively. Within trial, SMART Work & Life only had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,091 per quality-adjusted life-year, with SMART Work & Life plus desk being dominated. Over a lifetime, SMART Work & Life only and SMART Work & Life plus desk had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £4985 and £13,378 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. Limitations The study was carried out in one sector, limiting generalisability. Conclusions The SMART Work & Life intervention, provided with and without a height-adjustable workstation, was successful in changing sitting time. Future work There is a need for longer-term follow-up, as well as follow-up within different organisations. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11618007. Plain language summary Office workers spend a large proportion of their day sitting. High levels of sitting have been linked to diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and some cancers. The SMART Work & Life intervention is designed to reduce office workers’ sitting time inside and outside work. The SMART Work & Life intervention involves organisational, environmental, group and individual strategies to encourage a reduction in sitting time and was designed to be delivered with and without a height-adjustable workstation (which allows the user to switch between sitting and standing while working). To test whether or not the SMART Work & Life intervention worked, we recruited 756 office workers from councils in Leicester/Leicestershire, Greater Manchester and Liverpool, UK. Participants were from 78 office groups. One-third of the participants received the intervention, one-third received the intervention with a height-adjustable workstation and one-third were a control group (and carried on as usual). Workplace champions in each office group were given training and resources to deliver the intervention. Data were collected at the start of the study, with follow-up measurements at 3 and 12 months. We measured sitting time using a small device worn on the thigh and collected data on weight, body fat, blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol levels. We asked participants about their health and work and spoke to participants to find out what they thought of the intervention. Our results showed that participants who received the intervention without workstation sat for 22 minutes less per day, and participants who received the intervention with workstation sat for 64 minutes less per day, than participants in the control group. Levels of stress, well-being, vigour (i.e. personal and emotional energy and cognitive liveliness) and pain in the lower extremity appeared to improve in the intervention groups. Participants viewed the intervention positively and reported several benefits, such as feeling more energised, alert, focused and productive; however, the extent to which participants engaged with the intervention varied across groups. Scientific summary Background High levels of sedentary behaviour (e.g. sitting, reclining or lying, and expending ≤ 1.5 metabolic equivalents) have been linked to poor health outcomes, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, some cancers and premature mortality. In addition to physiological health outcomes, high levels of sitting are detrimentally associated with cognitive function, mental health and a lower quality of life. Working-age adults spend around 60–70% of their workday sitting, with workdays being more sedentary than non-workdays; however, this can vary by occupation. Office workers spend 70–85% of their time at work sitting and accumulate a large proportion (40–50%) of this time in prolonged sitting bouts. Office workers also typically spend a large proportion of their leisure time sitting, compared with other occupations. In the workplace, lower levels of sitting have been linked to higher work vigour, higher job performance and lower presenteeism. Workplaces are, therefore, an ideal setting for implementing interventions to reduce daily sitting. Current evidence shows a need for fully powered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with long-term follow-up to test the effectiveness of interventions to reduce sitting. Previous work from our group, evaluating multicomponent interventions to address high levels of sitting in office workers, found that significant reductions in sitting time across the day were mainly driven by changes to workplace sitting and to not daily sitting, indicating that a whole-day approach to encourage reductions in daily sitting was needed to maximise the potential health benefits. Objectives The main aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life (SWAL) intervention (provided with and without a height-adjustable workstation) in a sample of desk-based office workers. If both interventions were shown to be effective in comparison with the control group, then a secondary aim would be to determine if one intervention was more clinically effective and cost-effective than the other. Primary objective To investigate the impact of the SWAL intervention, delivered with and without a height-adjustable workstation, on device-assessed daily sitting time compared with usual practice at 12 months’ follow-up. Secondary objectives To investigate the impact of the SWAL intervention, delivered with and without a height-adjustable workstation, over the short term (assessed at 3 months) and longer term (assessed at 12 months) on: daily sitting time on any valid day (3 months) and on workdays and non-workdays sitting time during work hours daily time spent standing and in light and moderate or vigorous physical activity (MVPA) across any valid day, during work hours and on workdays and non-workdays daily time spent stepping and number of steps across any valid day, during work hours and on workdays and non-workdays markers of adiposity [i.e. body mass index (BMI), per cent body fat, waist circumference] blood pressure blood biomarkers [i.e. fasting glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)] musculoskeletal health psychosocial health (i.e. fatigue, stress, anxiety and depression, well-being and quality of life) work-related health and performance (i.e. work engagement, job performance and satisfaction, occupational fatigue, presenteeism, sickness absence) sleep duration and quality. To undertake a full economic analysis of the SWAL intervention. To conduct a mixed-methods process evaluation throughout the intervention implementation period (using qualitative and quantitative measures) with participants and workplace champions. Methods Design A three-arm cluster RCT with a cost-effectiveness and process evaluation analysis. Follow-up measures were taken at 3 and 12 months. Setting Local councils in Leicester, Leicestershire, Greater Manchester and Liverpool, UK. Participants Participants were recruited from across participating councils (i.e. Leicester City Council, Leicestershire County Council, Salford City Council, Bolton Council, Trafford Council and Liverpool City Council). Participants were office-based employees (aged ≥ 18 years) who spent the majority (≥ 50%) of their day sitting, were at least 60% full-time equivalent and were able to walk without assistance. Employees who were pregnant, who already used a height-adjustable workstation or were unable to communicate in English were not eligible. Participants were grouped into clusters either by a shared office space (although could be made up of different teams/departments) or if they were members of the same team but split into different office spaces. To be eligible, each cluster was required to have at least one participant willing to undertake the role of workplace champion and at least four participants in the cluster. Informed consent was obtained from participants before the baseline measurement session and verbal consent was confirmed at each follow-up. Sample size To detect a 60-minute difference in average daily sitting time between the intervention groups and the control group [assuming a sitting time standard deviation (SD) of 90 minutes, 90% power, a two-tailed significance level of 5%, an average cluster size of 10 (range 4–38), an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.05, the number of clusters being inflated by a factor of 1.23, allowing for one cluster drop out per arm and a 40% loss to follow-up/non-compliance with the activPAL (PAL Technologies Ltd, Glasgow, UK)], the required sample size was 690 participants from 72 clusters. Testing two intervention arms independently with the control arm was also taken account of as part of the sample size calculation. Interventions The SWAL intervention is a multicomponent intervention grounded in several behaviour change theories, which aims to reduce daily sitting in office workers. The SWAL intervention includes organisational-level behaviour change strategies (e.g. management buy-in), environmental-level behaviour change strategies (e.g. relocating waster bins, printers) and group-/individual-level behaviour change strategies (e.g. education, action-planning, goal-setting, addressing barriers, group coaching, challenges, self-monitoring) that are delivered by workplace champions. After all baseline measures were carried out, clusters were randomised to one of the following three conditions: (1) SWAL only, (2) the SWAL intervention with the addition of a height-adjustable workstation (i.e. SWAL plus desk) or (3) the control group. Randomisation was stratified by area (i.e. Leicester, Salford or Liverpool) and cluster size [i.e. small (

Introduction: Universal HIV testing and treatment aims to identify all people living with HIV and offer them treatment, decreasing the number of individuals with unsuppressed HIV and thus reducing HIV transmission. Longitudinal follow‐up of individuals with and without HIV in a cluster‐randomized trial of communities allowed for the examination of community‐ and individual‐level measures of HIV risk and HIV incidence. Methods: HPTN 071 (PopART) was a three‐arm cluster‐randomized trial conducted between 2013 and 2018 that evaluated the use of two combination HIV prevention strategies implemented at the community level to reduce HIV incidence compared to the standard of care. The trial, conducted in 21 communities in Zambia and South Africa, measured HIV incidence over 36 months in a population cohort of ∼2000 randomly selected adults per community aged 18–44. Multilevel models were used to assess the association between HIV incidence and community‐ and individual‐level socio‐demographic and behavioural risk factors, as well as prevalence of detectable virus (PDV) defined as the estimated proportion of the community with unsuppressed viral load. Results: Overall HIV incidence was 1.49/100 person‐years. Communities with less financial wealth and communities with more individuals reporting having sex partners outside of the community or two or more sexual partners had higher HIV incidence. PDV at 2 years of study was 6.8% and was strongly associated with HIV incidence: for every 50% relative reduction in community PDV, there was a 49% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 37%–58%, p < 0.001) relative decrease in HIV incidence. At the individual level; socio‐economic status, AUDIT score, medical male circumcision and certain sexual behaviours were associated with HIV risk. Conclusions: Using data from the PopART randomized trial, we found several associations of HIV incidence with community‐level measures reflecting the sexual behaviour and socio‐economic make‐up of each community. We also found a strong association between community PDV and HIV incidence supporting the use of PDV as a tool for monitoring progress in controlling the epidemic. Lastly, we found significant individual‐level factors of HIV risk that are generally consistent with previous HIV epidemiological research. These results have the potential to identify high high‐incidence communities, inform structural‐level interventions, and optimize individual‐level interventions for HIV prevention. Clinical Trial Number: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01900977, HPTN 071 [PopArt] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IntroductionType 2 diabetes (T2D) is a global epidemic, and nations are struggling to implement effective healthcare strategies to reduce the burden. While efficacy studies demonstrate that metformin can reduce incident T2D by half among younger, obese adults with prediabetes, its real-world effectiveness are understudied, and its use for T2D prevention in primary care is low. We describe the design of a pragmatic trial to evaluate the incremental effectiveness of metformin, as an adjunct to a simple lifestyle counseling.MethodsThe "Prevención de la Diabetes con Ejercicio, Nutrición y Tratamiento" [Diabetes Prevention with Exercise, Nutrition and Treatment; PRuDENTE, (Spanish acronym)] is a cluster-randomized trial in Mexico City's public primary healthcare system. The study randomly assigns 51 clinics to deliver one of two interventions for 36 months: 1) lifestyle only; 2) lifestyle plus metformin, to 3060 patients ages 30-65 with impaired fasting glucose and obesity. The primary endpoint is incident T2D (fasting glucose ≥126 mg/dL, or HbA1c ≥6.5%). We will also measure a range of implementation-related process outcomes at the clinic-, clinician- and patient-levels to inform interpretations of effectiveness and enable efforts to refine, adapt, adopt and disseminate the model. We will also estimate the cost-effectiveness of metformin as an adjunct to lifestyle counseling in Mexico.DiscussionFindings from this pragmatic trial will generate new translational knowledge in Mexico and beyond, both with respect to metformin's real-world effectiveness among an 'at-risk' population, and uncovering facilitators and barriers to the reach, adoption and implementation of metformin preventive therapy in public primary care settings.Trial registrationThis trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03194009).

Abstract Introduction Universal HIV testing and treatment aims to identify all people living with HIV and offer them treatment, decreasing the number of individuals with unsuppressed HIV and thus reducing HIV transmission. Longitudinal follow‐up of individuals with and without HIV in a cluster‐randomized trial of communities allowed for the examination of community‐ and individual‐level measures of HIV risk and HIV incidence. Methods HPTN 071 (PopART) was a three‐arm cluster‐randomized trial conducted between 2013 and 2018 that evaluated the use of two combination HIV prevention strategies implemented at the community level to reduce HIV incidence compared to the standard of care. The trial, conducted in 21 communities in Zambia and South Africa, measured HIV incidence over 36 months in a population cohort of ∼2000 randomly selected adults per community aged 18–44. Multilevel models were used to assess the association between HIV incidence and community‐ and individual‐level socio‐demographic and behavioural risk factors, as well as prevalence of detectable virus (PDV) defined as the estimated proportion of the community with unsuppressed viral load. Results Overall HIV incidence was 1.49/100 person‐years. Communities with less financial wealth and communities with more individuals reporting having sex partners outside of the community or two or more sexual partners had higher HIV incidence. PDV at 2 years of study was 6.8% and was strongly associated with HIV incidence: for every 50% relative reduction in community PDV, there was a 49% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 37%–58%, p < 0.001) relative decrease in HIV incidence. At the individual level; socio‐economic status, AUDIT score, medical male circumcision and certain sexual behaviours were associated with HIV risk. Conclusions Using data from the PopART randomized trial, we found several associations of HIV incidence with community‐level measures reflecting the sexual behaviour and socio‐economic make‐up of each community. We also found a strong association between community PDV and HIV incidence supporting the use of PDV as a tool for monitoring progress in controlling the epidemic. Lastly, we found significant individual‐level factors of HIV risk that are generally consistent with previous HIV epidemiological research. These results have the potential to identify high high‐incidence communities, inform structural‐level interventions, and optimize individual‐level interventions for HIV prevention. Clinical Trial Number ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01900977, HPTN 071 [PopArt]

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

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

Sample size calculations for cluster-randomised trials require inclusion of an inflation factor taking into account the intra-cluster correlation coefficient. Often, estimates of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient are taken from pilot trials, which are known to have uncertainty about their estimation. Given that the value of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient has a considerable influence on the calculated sample size for a main trial, the uncertainty in the estimate can have a large impact on the ultimate sample size and consequently, the power of a main trial. As such, it is important to account for the uncertainty in the estimate of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient. While a commonly adopted approach is to utilise the upper confidence limit in the sample size calculation, this is a largely inefficient method which can result in overpowered main trials. In this paper, we present a method of estimating the sample size for a main cluster-randomised trial with a continuous outcome, using numerical methods to account for the uncertainty in the intra-cluster correlation coefficient estimate. Despite limitations with this initial study, the findings and recommendations in this paper can help to improve sample size estimations for cluster randomised controlled trials by accounting for uncertainty in the estimate of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient. We recommend this approach be applied to all trials where there is uncertainty in the intra-cluster correlation coefficient estimate, in conjunction with additional sources of information to guide the estimation of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Evidence-based guidelines for management of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in the emergency department (ED) are now widely available; however, clinical practice remains inconsistent with these guidelines. A targeted, theory-informed implementation intervention (Neurotrauma Evidence Translation (NET) intervention) was designed to increase the uptake of three clinical practice recommendations regarding the management of patients who present to Australian EDs with mild head injuries. The intervention involved local stakeholder meetings, identification and training of nursing and medical local opinion leaders, train-the-trainer workshops and standardised education materials and interactive workshops delivered by the opinion leaders to others within their EDs during a 3 month period. This paper reports on the effects of this intervention. Methods EDs (clusters) were allocated to receive either access to a clinical practice guideline (control) or the implementation intervention, using minimisation, a method that allocates clusters to groups using an algorithm to minimise differences in predefined factors between the groups. We measured clinical practice outcomes at the patient level using chart audit. The primary outcome was appropriate screening for post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) using a validated tool until a perfect score was achieved (indicating absence of acute cognitive impairment) before the patient was discharged home. Secondary outcomes included appropriate CT scanning and the provision of written patient information upon discharge. Patient health outcomes (anxiety, primary outcome: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) were also assessed using follow-up telephone interviews. Outcomes were assessed by independent auditors and interviewers, blinded to group allocation. Results Fourteen EDs were allocated to the intervention and 17 to the control condition; 1943 patients were included in the chart audit. At 2 months follow-up, patients attending intervention EDs (n = 893) compared with control EDs (n = 1050) were more likely to have been appropriately assessed for PTA (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 20.1, 95%CI 6.8 to 59.3; adjusted absolute risk difference (ARD) 14%, 95%CI 8 to 19). The odds of compliance with recommendations for CT scanning and provision of written patient discharge information were small (OR 1.2, 95%CI 0.8 to 1.6; ARD 3.2, 95%CI − 3.7 to 10 and OR 1.2, 95%CI 0.8 to 1.8; ARD 3.1, 95%CI − 3.0 to 9.3 respectively). A total of 343 patients at ten interventions and 14 control sites participated in follow-up interviews at 4.3 to 10.7 months post-ED presentation. The intervention had a small effect on anxiety levels (adjusted mean difference − 0.52, 95%CI − 1.34 to 0.30; scale 0–21, with higher scores indicating greater anxiety). Conclusions Our intervention was effective in improving the uptake of the PTA recommendation; however, it did not appreciably increase the uptake of the other two practice recommendations. Improved screening for PTA may be clinically important as it leads to appropriate periods of observation prior to safe discharge. The estimated intervention effect on anxiety was of limited clinical significance. We were not able to compare characteristics of EDs who declined trial participation with those of participating sites, which may limit the generalizability of the results. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12612001286831), date registered 12 December 2012.

Background: Sedentary behaviour (sitting) is a highly prevalent negative health behaviour, with individuals of all ages exposed to environments that promote prolonged sitting. The school classroom represents an ideal setting for environmental change through the provision of sit–stand desks. Objectives: The aim of this study was to undertake a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of the introduction of sit–stand desks in primary school classrooms, to inform a definitive trial. Objectives included providing information on school and participant recruitment and retention, acceptability of the intervention, and outcome measures. A preliminary estimate of the intervention’s effectiveness on the proposed primary outcome (change in weekday sitting time) for inclusion in a definitive trial was calculated, along with a preliminary assessment of potential cost-effectiveness. A full process evaluation was also undertaken. Design: A two-armed pilot cluster randomised controlled trial with economic and qualitative evaluations. Schools were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to the intervention (n = 4) or control (n = 4) trial arms. Setting: Primary schools in Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK. Participants: Children in Year 5 (i.e. aged 9–10 years). Intervention: Six sit–stand desks replaced three standard desks (sitting six children) in the intervention classrooms for 4.5 months. Teachers were encouraged to ensure that all pupils were exposed to the sit–stand desks for at least 1 hour per day, on average, using a rotation system. Schools assigned to the control arm continued with their usual practice. Main outcome measures: Trial feasibility outcomes included school and participant recruitment and attrition, acceptability of the intervention, and acceptability of and compliance with the proposed outcome measures [including weekday sitting measured using activPAL™ (PAL Technologies Ltd, Glasgow, UK) accelerometers, physical activity, adiposity, blood pressure, cognitive function, musculoskeletal comfort, academic progress, engagement and behaviour]. Results: Thirty-three per cent of schools approached and 75% (n = 176) of eligible children took part. At the 7-month follow-up, retention rates were 100% for schools and 97% for children. Outcome measure completion rates ranged from 63% to 97%. A preliminary estimate of intervention effectiveness, from a weighted linear regression model (adjusting for baseline sitting time and wear time) revealed a mean difference in change in sitting of –30.6 minutes per day (95% confidence interval –56.42 to –4.84 minutes per day) between the intervention and control trial arms. The process evaluation revealed that the intervention, recruitment and evaluation procedures were acceptable to teachers and children, with the exception of minor issues around activPAL attachment. A preliminary within-trial economic analysis revealed no difference between intervention and control trial arms in health and education resource use or outcomes. Long-term modelling estimated an unadjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Stand Out in Class of £78,986 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Conclusion: This study has provided evidence of the acceptability and feasibility of the Stand Out in Class intervention and evaluation methods. Preliminary evidence suggests that the intervention may have a positive direction of effect on weekday sitting time, which warrants testing in a full cluster randomised controlled trial. Lessons learnt from this trial will inform the planning of a definitive trial. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12915848. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 8, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Abstract Background Bronchiolitis is the most common reason for admission to hospital for infants less than one year of age. Although management is well defined, there is substantial variation in practice, with infants receiving ineffective therapies or management. This study will test the effectiveness of tailored, theory informed knowledge translation (KT) interventions to decrease the use of five clinical therapies or management processes known to be of no benefit, compared to usual dissemination practices in infants with bronchiolitis. The primary objective is to establish whether the KT interventions are effective in increasing compliance to five evidence based recommendations in the first 24 h following presentation to hospital. The five recommendations are that infants do not receive; salbutamol, antibiotics, glucocorticoids, adrenaline, or a chest x-ray. Methods/design This study is designed as a cluster randomised controlled trial. We will recruit 24 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand, stratified by country and provision of tertiary or secondary paediatric care. Hospitals will be randomised to either control or intervention groups. Control hospitals will receive a copy of the recent Australasian Bronchiolitis Guideline. Intervention hospitals will receive KT interventions informed by a qualitative analysis of factors influencing clinician care of infants with bronchiolitis. Key interventions include, local stakeholder meetings, identifying medical and nursing clinical leads in both emergency departments and paediatric inpatient areas who will attend a single education train-the-trainer day to then deliver standardised staff education with the training materials provided and coordinate audit and feedback reports locally over the study period. Data will be extracted retrospectively for three years prior to the study intervention year, and for seven months of the study intervention year bronchiolitis season following intervention delivery to determine compliance with the five evidence-based recommendations. Data will be collected to assess fidelity to the implementation strategies and to facilitate an economic evaluation. Discussion This study will contribute to the body of knowledge to determine the effectiveness of tailored, theory informed interventions in acute care paediatric settings, with the aim of reducing the evidence to practice gaps in the care of infants with bronchiolitis. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001567415 (retrospectively registered on 14 November 2016).

Abstract Background The national pneumonia treatment guidelines in Kenya changed in February 2016 but such guideline changes are often characterized by prolonged delays in affecting practice. We designed an enhanced feedback intervention, delivered within an ongoing clinical network that provides a general form of feedback, aimed at improving and sustaining uptake of the revised pneumonia treatment policy. The objective was to determine whether an enhanced feedback intervention will improve correctness of classification and treatment of childhood pneumonia, compared to an existing approach to feedback, after nationwide treatment policy change and within an existing hospital network. Methods/design A pragmatic, cluster randomized trial conducted within a clinical network of 12 Kenyan county referral hospitals providing inpatient pediatric care to children (aged 2–59 months) with acute medical conditions between March and November 2016. The intervention comprised enhanced feedback (monthly written feedback incorporating goal setting, and action planning delivered by a senior clinical coordinator for selected pneumonia indicators) and this was compared to standard feedback (2-monthly written feedback on multiple quality of pediatric care indicators) both delivered within a clinical network promoting clinical leadership linked to mentorship and peer-to-peer support, and improved use of health information on service delivery. The 12 hospitals were randomized to receive either enhanced feedback (n = 6) or standard feedback (n = 6) delivered over a 9-month period following nationwide pneumonia treatment policy change. The primary outcome is the proportion of all admitted patients with pneumonia (fulfilling criteria for treatment with orally administered amoxicillin) who are correctly classified and treated in the first 24 h. The secondary outcome will be measured over the course of the admission as any change in treatment for pneumonia after the first 24 h. Discussion This trial protocol employs a pragmatic trial design during a period of nationwide change in treatment guidelines to address two high-priority areas within implementation research: promoting adoption of health policies and optimizing effectiveness of feedback. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02817971 . Registered retrospectively on 27 June 2016

Objectives: To examine the feasibility of a behavioural e-learning intervention to support nurses to manage interruptions during medication administration.Design: A cluster randomised feasibility trial.Setting: The cluster trial included four intervention and four control wards randomly selected across four metropolitan hospitals in Sydney, Australia.Participants: We observed 806 (402 pre-intervention and 404 post-intervention) medication events, where nurses prepared and administered medications to patients within the cluster wards.Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measured was the observed number of interruptions occurring during administration, with secondary outcomes being the number of clinical errors and procedural failures. Changes in the use of behavioural strategies to manage interruptions, targeted by the e-learning intervention, were also assessed.Results: No significant differences were found in the number of interruptions (P = 0.82), procedural failures (P = 0.19) or clinical errors per 100 medications (P = 0.32), between the intervention and control wards. Differences in the use of specific behavioural strategies (engagement and multitasking) were found in the intervention wards.Conclusion: This behavioural e-learning intervention has not been found to significantly reduce interruptions, however, changes in the use of strategies did occur. Careful selection of clinical settings where there is a high number of predictable interruptions is recommended for further research into the impact of the behavioural e-learning intervention. An increase in the intensity of this intervention is recommended with training undertaken away from the clinical setting. Further research on additional consumer-sensitive interventions is urgently needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with an intellectual (learning) disability (ID) and epilepsy have an increased seizure frequency, higher frequencies of multiple antiepileptic drug (AED) use and side effects, higher treatment costs, higher mortality rates and more behavioural problems than the rest of the population with epilepsy. The introduction of nurse-led care may lead to improvements in outcome for those with an ID and epilepsy; however, this has not been tested in a definitive clinical trial. Objective: To determine whether or not ID nurses, using a competency framework developed to optimise nurse management of epilepsy in people with an ID, can cost-effectively improve clinical and quality-of-life outcomes in the management of epilepsy compared with treatment as usual. Design: Cluster-randomised two-arm trial. Setting: Community-based secondary care delivered by members of community ID teams. Participants: Participants were adults aged 18–65 years with an ID and epilepsy under the care of a community ID team and had had at least one seizure in the 6 months before the trial. Interventions: The experimental intervention was the Learning Disability Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Competency Framework. This provides guidelines describing a structure and goals to support the delivery of epilepsy care and management by ID-trained nurses. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the seizure severity scale from the Epilepsy and Learning Disabilities Quality of Life questionnaire. Measures of mood, behaviour, AED side effects and carer strain were also collected. A cost–utility analysis was undertaken along with a qualitative examination of carers’ views of participants’ epilepsy management. Results: In total, 312 individuals were recruited into the study from 17 research clusters. Using an intention-to-treat analysis controlling for baseline individual-level and cluster-level variables there was no significant difference in seizure severity score between the two arms. Altogether, 238 complete cases were included in the non-imputed primary analysis. Analyses of the secondary outcomes revealed no significant differences between arms. A planned subgroup analysis identified a significant interaction between treatment arm and level of ID. There was a suggestion in those with mild to moderate ID that the competency framework may be associated with a small reduction in concerns over seizure severity (standard error 2.005, 95% confidence interval –0.554 to 7.307; p = 0.092). However, neither subgroup showed a significant intervention effect individually. Family members’ perceptions of nurses’ management depended on the professional status of the nurses, regardless of trial arm. Economic analysis suggested that the competency framework intervention was likely to be cost-effective, primarily because of a reduction in the costs of supporting participants compared with treatment as usual. Limitations: The intervention could not be delivered blinded. Treatment as usual varied widely between the research sites. Conclusions: Overall, for adults with an ID and epilepsy, the framework conferred no clinical benefit compared with usual treatment. The economic analysis suggested that there may be a role for the framework in enhancing the cost-effectiveness of support for people with epilepsy and an ID. Future research could explore the specific value of the competency framework for those with a mild to moderate ID and the potential for greater long-term benefits arising from the continuing professional development element of the framework. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN96895428. Funding: This trial was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: The national pneumonia treatment guidelines in Kenya changed in February 2016 but such guideline changes are often characterized by prolonged delays in affecting practice. We designed an enhanced feedback intervention, delivered within an ongoing clinical network that provides a general form of feedback, aimed at improving and sustaining uptake of the revised pneumonia treatment policy. The objective was to determine whether an enhanced feedback intervention will improve correctness of classification and treatment of childhood pneumonia, compared to an existing approach to feedback, after nationwide treatment policy change and within an existing hospital network.Methods/design: A pragmatic, cluster randomized trial conducted within a clinical network of 12 Kenyan county referral hospitals providing inpatient pediatric care to children (aged 2-59 months) with acute medical conditions between March and November 2016. The intervention comprised enhanced feedback (monthly written feedback incorporating goal setting, and action planning delivered by a senior clinical coordinator for selected pneumonia indicators) and this was compared to standard feedback (2-monthly written feedback on multiple quality of pediatric care indicators) both delivered within a clinical network promoting clinical leadership linked to mentorship and peer-to-peer support, and improved use of health information on service delivery. The 12 hospitals were randomized to receive either enhanced feedback (n = 6) or standard feedback (n = 6) delivered over a 9-month period following nationwide pneumonia treatment policy change. The primary outcome is the proportion of all admitted patients with pneumonia (fulfilling criteria for treatment with orally administered amoxicillin) who are correctly classified and treated in the first 24 h. The secondary outcome will be measured over the course of the admission as any change in treatment for pneumonia after the first 24 h.Discussion: This trial protocol employs a pragmatic trial design during a period of nationwide change in treatment guidelines to address two high-priority areas within implementation research: promoting adoption of health policies and optimizing effectiveness of feedback.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02817971 . Registered retrospectively on 27 June 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In adults with intellectual disability (ID) and epilepsy there are suggestions that improvements in management may follow introduction of epilepsy nurse-led care. However, this has not been tested in a definitive clinical trial and results cannot be generalised from general population studies as epilepsy tends to be more severe and to involve additional clinical comorbidities in adults with ID. This trial investigates whether nurses with expertise in epilepsy and ID, working proactively to a clinically defined role, can improve clinical and quality of life outcomes in the management of epilepsy within this population, compared to treatment as usual. The trial also aims to establish whether any perceived benefits represent good value for money.Methods/design: The EpAID clinical trial is a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of nurse-led epilepsy management versus treatment as usual. This trial aims to obtain follow-up data from 320 participants with ID and drug-resistant epilepsy. Participants are randomly assigned either to a 'treatment as usual' control or a 'defined epilepsy nurse role' active arm, according to the cluster site at which they are treated. The active intervention utilises the recently developed Learning Disability Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Competency Framework for adults with ID. Participants undergo 4 weeks of baseline data collection, followed by a minimum of 20 weeks intervention (novel treatment or treatment as usual), followed by 4 weeks of follow-up data collection. The primary outcome is seizure severity, including associated injuries and the level of distress manifest by the patient in the preceding 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes include cost-utility analysis, carer strain, seizure frequency and side effects. Descriptive measures include demographic and clinical descriptors of participants and clinical services in which they receive their epilepsy management. Qualitative study of clinical interactions and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and participants' carers are also undertaken.Discussion: The EpAID clinical trial is the first cluster randomised controlled trial to test possible benefits of a nurse-led intervention in adults with epilepsy and ID. This research will have important implications for ID and epilepsy services. The challenges of undertaking such a trial in this population, and the approaches to meeting these are discussed.Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN96895428 version 1.1. Registered on 26 March 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Educating parents about ways to minimize pain during routine infant vaccine injections at the point of care may positively impact on pain management practices. The objective of this cluster randomized trial was to determine the impact of educating parents about pain in outpatient pediatric clinics on their use of pain treatments during routine infant vaccinations. Four hospital-based pediatric clinics were randomized to intervention or control groups. Parents of 2- to 4-month-old infants attending the intervention clinics reviewed a pamphlet and a video about vaccination pain management on the day of vaccination, whereas those in the control clinics did not. Parent use of specific pain treatments (breastfeeding, sugar water, topical anesthetics, and/or holding of infants) on the education day and at subsequent routine vaccinations 2 months laterwas the primary outcome. Altogether, 160 parent-infant dyads (80 per group) participated between November 2012 and February 2014; follow-up data were available for 126 (79%). Demographics did not differ between groups (P>0.05).On the education day and at follow-up vaccinations, use of pain interventions during vaccinations was higher in the intervention group (80%vs 26% and 68%vs 32%, respectively; P<0.001 for both analyses). Educating parents about pain management in a hospital outpatient setting leads to higher use of pain interventions during routine infant vaccinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little research has investigated interventions to improve the delivery of counselling in health care settings. We determined the impact of training and supervision delivered as part of the Options: Western Cape project on lay antiretroviral adherence counsellors' practice. Four NGOs employing 39 adherence counsellors in the Western Cape were randomly allocated to receive 53 h of training and supervision in Options for Health, an intervention based on the approach of Motivational Interviewing. Five NGOs employing 52 adherence counsellors were randomly allocated to the standard care control condition. Counselling observations were analysed for 23 intervention and 32 control counsellors. Intervention counsellors' practice was more consistent with a client-centred approach than control counsellors', and significantly more intervention counsellors engaged in problem-solving barriers to adherence (91 vs. 41 %). The Options: Western Cape training and supervision package enabled lay counsellors to deliver counselling for behaviour change in a manner consistent with evidence-based approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The study aimed to conduct a process evaluation for a cluster randomised trial of a computer-delivered, point-of-care intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care. The study aimed to evaluate both the intervention and implementation of the trial. Methods: The intervention comprised a set of electronic educational and decision support tools that were remotely installed and activated during consultations with patients with acute respiratory infections over a 12 month intervention period. A mixed method evaluation was conducted with 103 general practitioners (GPs) who participated in the trial. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 GPs who had been in the intervention group of the trial and 4 members of the implementation staff. Questionnaires, consisting of both intervention evaluation and theory-based measures, were self-administered to 83 GPs (56 control group and 27 intervention group). Results: Interviews suggested that a key factor influencing GPs’ use of the intervention appeared to be their awareness of the implementation of the system into their practice. GPs who were aware of the implementation of the intervention reported feeling confident in using it if they chose to and understood the purpose of the intervention screens. However, GPs who were unaware that the intervention would be appearing often reported feeling confused when they saw the messages appear on the screen and not fully understanding what they were for or how they could be used. Intervention evaluation questionnaires indicated that GPs were satisfied with the usability of the prompts, and theory-based measures revealed that intervention group GPs reported higher levels of self-efficacy in managing RTI patients according to recommended guidelines compared to GPs in the control group. Conclusions: Remote installation of a computer-delivered intervention for use at the point-of-care was feasible and acceptable. Additional measures to promote awareness of the intervention may be required to promote health care professionals’ utilisation of the intervention and these might sometimes compromise the pragmatic intention of a trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mild head injuries commonly present to emergency departments. The challenges facing clinicians in emergency departments include identifying which patients have traumatic brain injury, and which patients can safely be sent home. Traumatic brain injuries may exist with subtle symptoms or signs, but can still lead to adverse outcomes. Despite the existence of several high quality clinical practice guidelines, internationally and in Australia, research shows inconsistent implementation of these recommendations. The aim of this trial is to test the effectiveness of a targeted, theory- and evidence-informed implementation intervention to increase the uptake of three key clinical recommendations regarding the emergency department management of adult patients (18 years of age or older) who present following mild head injuries (concussion), compared with passive dissemination of these recommendations. The primary objective is to establish whether the intervention is effective in increasing the percentage of patients for which appropriate post-traumatic amnesia screening is performed. Methods/design: The design of this study is a cluster randomised trial. We aim to include 34 Australian 24-hour emergency departments, which will be randomised to an intervention or control group. Control group departments will receive a copy of the most recent Australian evidence-based clinical practice guideline on the acute management of patients with mild head injuries. The intervention group will receive an implementation intervention based on an analysis of influencing factors, which include local stakeholder meetings, identification of nursing and medical opinion leaders in each site, a train-the-trainer day and standardised education and interactive workshops delivered by the opinion leaders during a 3 month period of time. Clinical practice outcomes will be collected retrospectively from medical records by independent chart auditors over the 2 month period following intervention delivery (patient level outcomes). In consenting hospitals, eligible patients will be recruited for a follow-up telephone interview conducted by trained researchers. A cost-effectiveness analysis and process evaluation using mixed-methods will be conducted. Sample size calculations are based on including 30 patients on average per department. Outcome assessors will be blinded to group allocation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over the last three decades there has been a substantial increase in the proportion of children who are overweight or obese. The Healthy Lifestyles Programme (HeLP) is a novel school-based intervention, using highly interactive and creative delivery methods to prevent obesity in children. Methods/Design: We describe a cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of HeLP. The intervention has been developed using intervention mapping (involving extensive stakeholder involvement) and has been guided by the Information, Motivation, Behavioural Skills model. HeLP includes creating a receptive environment, drama activities, goal setting and reinforcement activities and runs over three school terms. Piloting showed that 9 to 10 year olds were the most receptive and participative. This study aims to recruit 1,300 children from 32 schools (over half of which will have ⩾19% of pupils eligible for free school meals) from the southwest of England. Participating schools will be randomised to intervention or control groups with baseline measures taken prior to randomisation. The primary outcome is change in body mass index standard deviation score (BMI SDS) at 24 months post baseline. Secondary outcomes include, waist circumference and percent body fat SDS and proportion of children classified as overweight or obese at 18 and 24 months and objectively measured physical activity and food intake at 18 months. Between-group comparisons will be made using random effects regression analysis taking into account the hierarchical nature of the study design. An economic evaluation will estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of HeLP, compared to control, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS)/third party payer. An in-depth process evaluation will provide insight into how HeLP works, and whether there is any differential uptake or engagement with the programme. Discussion: The results of the trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the Healthy Lifestyles Programme in affecting the weight status of children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This cluster randomised controlled study assessed the effectiveness of twice-yearly applications of fluoride varnish as a public health measure to reduce dental caries in children living in relatively deprived communities. The test (n = 334) and control (n = 330) children in 2 school years (unit of randomisation) attended 24 state primary schools and were 6–8 years of age at the start. Good baseline balance was found. Duraphat varnish was applied at school on 5 occasions over 26 months, by dental therapists. A combined visual and fibre-optic transillumination examination included all surfaces of primary and first permanent molars at baseline and after 26 months for small and large enamel and dentine lesions. At the final examination the only statistically significant difference was in the caries increment for small enamel lesions in the primary dentition, with the test children having fewer lesions. This study failed to demonstrate that the twice-yearly application of fluoride varnish provided at school reduced dental caries in children living in this community. The low level of response and a lower than expected caries increment had a major impact on the effectiveness of the intervention, since the children who participated were least likely to have benefited from the programme, whereas those who might have benefited did not consent. Copyright © 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The resurgence of interest in the effect of neighborhood contexts on health outcomes, motivated by advances in social epidemiology, multilevel theories and sophisticated statistical models, too often fails to confront the enormous methodological problems associated with causal inference. This paper employs the counterfactual causal framework to illuminate fundamental obstacles in the identification, explanation, and usefulness of multilevel neighborhood effect studies. We show that identifying useful independent neighborhood effect parameters, as currently conceptualized with observational data, to be impossible. Along with the development of a dependency-based methodology and theories of social interaction, randomized community trials are advocated as a superior research strategy, one that may help social epidemiology answer the causal questions necessary for remediating disparities and otherwise improving the public''s health. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a global epidemic, and nations are struggling to implement effective healthcare strategies to reduce the burden. While efficacy studies demonstrate that metformin can reduce incident T2D by half among younger, obese adults with prediabetes, its real-world effectiveness are understudied, and its use for T2D prevention in primary care is low. We describe the design of a pragmatic trial to evaluate the incremental effectiveness of metformin, as an adjunct to a simple lifestyle counseling. The "Prevención de la Diabetes con Ejercicio, Nutrición y Tratamiento" [Diabetes Prevention with Exercise, Nutrition and Treatment; PRuDENTE, (Spanish acronym)] is a cluster-randomized trial in Mexico City's public primary healthcare system. The study randomly assigns 51 clinics to deliver one of two interventions for 36 months: 1) lifestyle only; 2) lifestyle plus metformin, to 3060 patients ages 30–65 with impaired fasting glucose and obesity. The primary endpoint is incident T2D (fasting glucose ≥126 mg/dL, or HbA1c ≥6.5%). We will also measure a range of implementation-related process outcomes at the clinic-, clinician- and patient-levels to inform interpretations of effectiveness and enable efforts to refine, adapt, adopt and disseminate the model. We will also estimate the cost-effectiveness of metformin as an adjunct to lifestyle counseling in Mexico. Findings from this pragmatic trial will generate new translational knowledge in Mexico and beyond, both with respect to metformin's real-world effectiveness among an 'at-risk' population, and uncovering facilitators and barriers to the reach, adoption and implementation of metformin preventive therapy in public primary care settings. This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03194009). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mental health difficulties in young people are increasing, and there is a need for evidence on the effectiveness of digital interventions to increase opportunities for supporting mental health in young people. Such studies are complicated due to issues of implementation and adoption, outcome measurement, and appropriate study designs.Objective: The objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness of an mHealth intervention (ReZone) in reducing mental health difficulties in young people.Methods: The cluster-randomized controlled trial enrolled 409 participants aged 10-15 years, and classes were allocated to ReZone or management as usual. Self-reported questionnaires were completed at baseline and 3-month follow-up.Results: There were no significant differences between the ReZone condition and management as usual in the self-reported outcome measures. However, there were 3467 usage sessions, which corresponds to 16.9 times per student (total of 205 students) in classes allocated to ReZone.Conclusions: It is essential to publish studies that do not show significant differences, as these findings can still contribute to the literature, help in learning, and inform the direction of future work. The results reported in this paper could be due to a range of reasons, including whether ReZone has the scope to impact change or limitations related to the setting, context, and appropriateness of an RCT. The findings of this study suggest that ReZone was implemented and adopted.International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): RR2-10.2196/resprot.7019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Diabetes management in primary care remains suboptimal in China, despite its inclusion in the essential public health service (EPHS). We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a mobile health (mHealth) based and three-tiered diabetes management system in diverse Chinese contexts., Methods and Analysis: This is a cluster randomised controlled trial, named road to hierarchical diabetes management at primary care (ROADMAP). 19 008 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) were recruited from primary care clinics in 864 communities across 144 counties/districts of 24 provinces. Eligible participants were adult patients diagnosed with T2D and registered for diabetes management in communities. Patients within the same communities (clusters) were randomly allocated into the intervention or control arm for 1 year in a 2:1 ratio. The control arm patients received usual care as EPHS packaged: at least four blood glucose (BG) and blood pressure (BP) tests, and lifestyle and medication instruction, yearly, from primary care providers. The intervention arm patients received at least two BG and one BP tests, monthly, and lifestyle and treatment instruction from a three-tiered contracted team. A mHealth platform, Graded ROADMAP, enabled test results uploading and sharing, and patient referral within the team. The intervention participants will be further divided into basic or intensive intervention group according to whether they were actively using the Your Doctor App. The primary outcome is the BG control rate with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)<7.0%. Secondary outcomes include control rates and changes of ABC (HbA1c, BP and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) and fasting BG, hypoglycaemia episodes and health-related quality of life (EuroQol (EQ-5D))., Ethics and Dissemination: The trial has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital. Findings on the intervention effectiveness will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and other relevant mechanisms., Trial Registration Number: ChiCTR-IOC-17011325., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)