Interspecific comparisons of C\u3csub\u3e3\u3c/sub\u3e turfgrass for tennis use: I. Wear tolerance and carrying capacity under actual match play

Previous studies in the evaluation of wear tolerance have been conducted using wear simulators. Research to investigate wear tolerance of C3 turfgrasses under actual playing conditions and their carrying capacity is limited. Three grass tennis courts (replicates) maintained as official size (single) courts were constructed. Eight species and cultivars were randomized within the three courts (blocks): (1) ‘Keeneland’ Kentucky bluegrass (KB, Poa pratensis L.), (2) ‘Rubix’ KB, (3) ‘Villa’ velvet bentgrass (VBG, Agrostis canina L.), (4) ‘Puritan’ colonial bentgrass (CL, Agrostis capillaris L.), (5) ‘007’ creeping bentgrass (CB, Agrostis stolonifera L.), (6) fine fescue (FF, Festuca spp.) mixture, (7) ‘Karma’ perennial ryegrass (PR, Lolium perenne L.), and (8) ‘Wicked’ PR. Injury at the baseline was measured by counting healthy grass on four dates in 2017 and 2019 using an intersect grid. Carrying capacity at the baseline was derived as hours of play to sustain 90, 80, 70, and 60% grass cover. After 6 wk of actual tennis play involving \u3e120 participating players in 2017 and 2019, KB and PR were superior to other C3 turfgrass for wear tolerance and carrying capacity. These two species exhibited four times the carrying capacity of FF species and nearly 60% more carrying capacity than bentgrass (BG) species. Species of BG afforded higher shoot density and better traction than KB and PR, with VBG exhibiting the best traction, and FF and PR exhibiting the poorest traction. In 2017, greater cell wall content increased wear tolerance and carrying capacity. Velvet bentgrass was as good as KB and PR in overall wear tolerance and carrying capacity under actual match play

Systematic review of economic evaluations of exercise and physiotherapy for patients treated for breast cancer

Purpose: Treatments for breast cancer can lead to chronic musculoskeletal problems. This study aimed to systematically review the evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of exercise and physiotherapy interventions aimed at reducing the risk of physical symptoms and functional limitations due to breast cancer treatment. Methods: A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of exercise and physiotherapy interventions during and following treatment for breast cancer was undertaken according to PRISMA guidelines. Literature searches were carried out in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, EconLit, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Cost-effectiveness evidence was summarised in a descriptive manner and studies were assessed using quality appraisal tools. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO. Results: A total of 7783 articles were identified and seven were included in the final review. Five studies undertook trial-based economic evaluations, whereas two studies conducted economic evaluation based on decision models. One study was a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), three undertook stand-alone cost–utility analyses (CUA) and three studies were combined CEAs and CUAs. Three studies reported favourable cost-effectiveness results for different exercise or physiotherapy interventions. In contrast, four studies found that exercise and physiotherapy interventions were not cost-effective on the basis of quality-adjusted life year outcomes. Conclusions: The evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of exercise and physiotherapy interventions for the treatment of breast cancer remains sparse with contrasting conclusions. Future research should particularly aim to broaden the evidence base by disentangling the contributing effects of frequency, intensity, time and type of exercise and physiotherapy interventions on cost-effectiveness outcomes

Supporting good practice in the provision of services to people with comorbid mental health and alcohol and other drug problems in Australia: describing key elements of good service models

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The co-occurrence of mental illness and substance use problems (referred to as "comorbidity" in this paper) is common, and is often reported by service providers as the expectation rather than the exception. Despite this, many different treatment service models are being used in the alcohol and other drugs (AOD) and mental health (MH) sectors to treat this complex client group. While there is abundant literature in the area of comorbidity treatment, no agreed overarching framework to describe the range of service delivery models is apparent internationally or at the national level. The aims of the current research were to identify and describe elements of good practice in current service models of treatment of comorbidity in Australia. The focus of the research was on models of service delivery. The research did not aim to measure the client outcomes achieved by individual treatment services, but sought to identify elements of good practice in services.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Australian treatment services were identified to take part in the study through a process of expert consultation. The intent was to look for similarities in the delivery models being implemented across a diverse set of services that were perceived to be providing good quality treatment for people with comorbidity problems.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A survey was designed based on a concept map of service delivery devised from a literature review. Seventeen Australian treatment services participated in the survey, which explored the context in which services operate, inputs such as organisational philosophy and service structure, policies and procedures that guide the way in which treatment is delivered by the service, practices that reflect the way treatment is provided to clients, and client impacts.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The treatment of people with comorbidity of mental health and substance use disorders presents complex problems that require strong but flexible service models. While the treatment services included in this study reflected the diversity of settings and approaches described in the literature, the research found that they shared a range of common characteristics. These referred to: service linkages; workforce; policies, procedures and practices; and treatment.</p

A comparison of clinical outcomes, service satisfaction and well-being in people using acute day units and crisis resolution teams: cohort study in England.

BACKGROUND: For people in mental health crisis, acute day units (ADUs) provide daily structured sessions and peer support in non-residential settings, often as an addition or alternative to crisis resolution teams (CRTs). There is little recent evidence about outcomes for those using ADUs, particularly compared with those receiving CRT care alone. AIMS: We aimed to investigate readmission rates, satisfaction and well-being outcomes for people using ADUs and CRTs. METHOD: We conducted a cohort study comparing readmission to acute mental healthcare during a 6-month period for ADU and CRT participants. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire), well-being (Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale) and depression (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale). RESULTS: We recruited 744 participants (ADU: n = 431, 58%; CRT: n = 312, 42%) across four National Health Service trusts/health regions. There was no statistically significant overall difference in readmissions: 21% of ADU participants and 23% of CRT participants were readmitted over 6 months (adjusted hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.54-1.14). However, readmission results varied substantially by setting. At follow-up, ADU participants had significantly higher Client Satisfaction Questionnaire scores (2.5, 95% CI 1.4-3.5, P < 0.001) and well-being scores (1.3, 95% CI 0.4-2.1, P = 0.004), and lower depression scores (-1.7, 95% CI -2.7 to -0.8, P < 0.001), than CRT participants. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who accessed ADUs demonstrated better outcomes for satisfaction, well-being and depression, and no significant differences in risk of readmission, compared with those who only used CRTs. Given the positive outcomes for patients, and the fact that ADUs are inconsistently provided in the National Health Service, their value and place in the acute care pathway needs further consideration and research

Use of community treatment orders and their outcomes: an observational study

Background Community treatment orders are widely used in England. It is unclear whether their use varies between patients, places and services, or if they are associated with better patient outcomes. Objectives To examine variation in the use of community treatment orders and their associations with patient outcomes and health-care costs. Design Secondary analysis using multilevel statistical modelling. Setting England, including 61 NHS mental health provider trusts. Participants A total of 69,832 patients eligible to be subject to a community treatment order. Main outcome measures Use of community treatment orders and time subject to community treatment order; re-admission and total time in hospital after the start of a community treatment order; and mortality. Data sources The primary data source was the Mental Health Services Data Set. Mental Health Services Data Set data were linked to mortality records and local area deprivation statistics for England. Results There was significant variation in community treatment order use between patients, provider trusts and local areas. Most variation arose from substantially different practice in a small number of providers. Community treatment order patients were more likely to be in the ‘severe psychotic’ care cluster grouping, male or black. There was also significant variation between service providers and local areas in the time patients remained on community treatment orders. Although slightly more community treatment order patients were re-admitted than non-community treatment order patients during the study period (36.9% vs. 35.6%), there was no significant difference in time to first re-admission (around 32 months on average for both). There was some evidence that the rate of re-admission differed between community treatment order and non-community treatment order patients according to care cluster grouping. Community treatment order patients spent 7.5 days longer, on average, in admission than non-community treatment order patients over the study period. This difference remained when other patient and local area characteristics were taken into account. There was no evidence of significant variation between service providers in the effect of community treatment order on total time in admission. Community treatment order patients were less likely to die than non-community treatment order patients, after taking account of other patient and local area characteristics (odds ratio 0.69, 95% credible interval 0.60 to 0.81). Limitations Confounding by indication and potential bias arising from missing data within the Mental Health Services Data Set. Data quality issues precluded inclusion of patients who were subject to community treatment orders more than once. Conclusions Community treatment order use varied between patients, provider trusts and local areas. Community treatment order use was not associated with shorter time to re-admission or reduced time in hospital to a statistically significant degree. We found no evidence that the effectiveness of community treatment orders varied to a significant degree between provider trusts, nor that community treatment orders were associated with reduced mental health treatment costs. Our findings support the view that community treatment orders in England are not effective in reducing future admissions or time spent in hospital. We provide preliminary evidence of an association between community treatment order use and reduced rate of death. Future work These findings need to be replicated among patients who are subject to community treatment order more than once. The association between community treatment order use and reduced mortality requires further investigation. Study registration The study was approved by the University of Warwick’s Biomedical and Scientific Research Ethics Committee (REGO-2015-1623). Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Economic evaluation of a childhood obesity prevention programme for children: Results from the WAVES cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in schools

Background Childhood obesity is a serious public health challenge and schools have been identified as an ideal place to implement prevention interventions. The aim of this study was to measure the cost-effectiveness of a multi-faceted school-based obesity prevention intervention targeting children aged 6–7 years when compared to ‘usual activities’. Methods A cluster randomised controlled trial in 54 schools across the West Midlands (UK) was conducted. The 12-month intervention aimed to increase physical activity by 30 minutes per day and encourage healthy eating. Costs were captured from a public sector perspective and utility-based health related outcomes measured using the CHU-9D. Multiple imputation using chained equations was used to address missing data. The cost effectiveness was measured at 30 months from baseline using a hierarchical net-benefit regression framework, that controlled for clustering and prespecified covariates. Any uncertainty in the results was characterised using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results At 30 months, the total adjusted incremental mean cost of the intervention was £155 (95% confidence interval [CI]: £139, £171), and the incremental mean QALYs gained was 0.006 (95% CI: -0.024, 0.036), per child. The incremental cost-effectiveness at 30 months was £26,815 per QALY and using a standard willingness to pay threshold of £30,000 per QALY, there was a 52% chance that the intervention was cost-effective. Conclusions The cost-effectiveness of the school-based WAVES intervention was subject to substantial uncertainty. We therefore recommend more research to explore obesity prevention within schools as part of a wider systems approach to obesity prevention. Trial registration This paper uses data collected by the WAVES trial: Controlled trials ISRCTN97000586 (registered May 2010)

Predictors of transitioning to adult mental health services and associated costs: a cross-country comparison

BACKGROUND: Young people are at risk of falling through the care gap after leaving child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) despite an ongoing need for mental health support. Currently, little is known about the predictors of transitioning to adult mental health services (AMHS), and associated healthcare and societal costs as young people cross the transition boundary. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a secondary data analysis exploring predictors of transitioning or falling through the gap and associated costs. METHODS: Data were used from a longitudinal study, which followed young people from seven European countries for 2 years after reaching their CAMHS boundary. Predictors of transitioning (including sociodemographic and clinical variables) and longitudinal resource use were compared for 488 young people who transitioned to AMHS versus those who fell through the gap. FINDINGS: Young people were more likely to transition to AMHS if they were severely ill. Those from Italy, the Netherlands and the UK were more likely to fall through the gap than transition to AMHS. Healthcare costs fell for all young people over the study, with a sharper decrease for those who fell through the gap. CONCLUSIONS: Total healthcare costs fell for all participants, indicating that the intensity of mental health support reduces for all young people as they cross the CAMHS boundary, regardless of clinical need. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: It is important that alternative forms of mental health support are available for young people who do not meet the AMHS care threshold but still have mental health needs after leaving CAMHS

Acute day units in non-residential settings for people in mental health crisis: the AD-CARE mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND: For people in mental health crisis, acute day units provide daily structured sessions and peer support in non-residential settings as an alternative to crisis resolution teams. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the provision, effectiveness, intervention acceptability and re-admission rates of acute day units. DESIGN: Work package 1 – mapping and national questionnaire survey of acute day units. Work package 2.1 – cohort study comparing outcomes during a 6-month period between acute day unit and crisis resolution team participants. Work package 2.2 – qualitative interviews with staff and service users of acute day units. Work package 3 – a cohort study within the Mental Health Minimum Data Set exploring re-admissions to acute care over 6 months. A patient and public involvement group supported the study throughout. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Work package 1 – all non-residential acute day units (NHS and voluntary sector) in England. Work packages 2.1 and 2.2 – four NHS trusts with staff, service users and carers in acute day units and crisis resolution teams. Work package 3 – all individuals using mental health NHS trusts in England. RESULTS: Work package 1 – we identified 27 acute day units in 17 out of 58 trusts. Acute day units are typically available on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., providing a wide range of interventions and a multidisciplinary team, including clinicians, and having an average attendance of 5 weeks. Work package 2.1 – we recruited 744 participants (acute day units, n = 431; crisis resolution teams, n = 312). In the primary analysis, 21% of acute day unit participants (vs. 23% of crisis resolution team participants) were re-admitted to acute mental health services over 6 months. There was no statistically significant difference in the fully adjusted model (acute day unit hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.14; p = 0.20), with highly heterogeneous results between trusts. Acute day unit participants had higher satisfaction and well-being scores and lower depression scores than crisis resolution team participants. The health economics analysis found no difference in resource use or cost between the acute day unit and crisis resolution team groups in the fully adjusted analysis. Work package 2.2 – 36 people were interviewed (acute day unit staff, n = 12; service users, n = 21; carers, n = 3). There was an overwhelming consensus that acute day units are highly valued. Service users found the high amount of contact time and staff continuity, peer support and structure provided by acute day units particularly beneficial. Staff also valued providing continuity, building strong therapeutic relationships and providing a variety of flexible, personalised support. Work package 3 – of 231,998 individuals discharged from acute care (crisis resolution team, acute day unit or inpatient ward), 21.4% were re-admitted for acute treatment within 6 months, with women, single people, people of mixed or black ethnicity, those living in more deprived areas and those in the severe psychosis care cluster being more likely to be re-admitted. Little variation in re-admissions was explained at the trust level, or between trusts with and trusts without acute day units (adjusted odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.15). LIMITATIONS: In work package 1, some of the information is likely to be incomplete as a result of trusts’ self-reporting. There may have been recruitment bias in work packages 2.1 and 2.2. Part of the health economics analysis relied on clinical Health of the Nations Outcome Scale ratings. The Mental Health Minimum Data Set did not contain a variable identifying acute day units, and some covariates had a considerable number of missing data. CONCLUSIONS: Acute day units are not provided routinely in the NHS but are highly valued by staff and service users, giving better outcomes in terms of satisfaction, well-being and depression than, and no significant differences in risk of re-admission or increased costs from, crisis resolution teams. Future work should investigate wider health and care system structures and the place of acute day units within them; the development of a model of best practice for acute day units; and staff turnover and well-being (including the impacts of these on care). 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. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Evaluating the effects of community treatment orders (CTOs) in England using the Mental Health Services Dataset (MHSDS): protocol for a national, population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: Supervised community treatment (SCT) for people with serious mental disorders has become accepted practice in many countries around the world. In England, SCT was adopted in 2008 in the form of community treatment orders (CTOs). CTOs have been used more than expected, with significant variations between people and places. There is conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of SCT; studies based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have suggested few positive impacts, while those employing observational designs have been more favourable. Robust population-based studies are needed, because of the ethical challenges of undertaking further RCTs and because variation across previous studies may reflect the effects of sociospatial context on SCT outcomes. We aim to examine spatial and temporal variation in the use, effectiveness and cost of CTOs in England through the analysis of routine administrative data. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Four years of data from the Mental Health Services Dataset (MHSDS) will be analysed using multilevel models. Models based on all patients eligible for CTOs will be used to explore variation in their use. A subset of CTO-eligible patients comprising a treatment group (CTO patients) and a matched control group (non-CTO patients) will be used to examine variation in the association between CTO use and study outcomes. Primary outcome will be total time in hospital. Secondary outcomes will include time to first readmission and mortality. Outputs from these models will be used to populate predictive models of healthcare resource use. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the National Health Service Data Access and Advisory Group and Warwick University. To ensure patient confidentiality and to meet data governance requirements, analyses will be carried out in a secure microdata laboratory using de-identified data. Study findings will be disseminated through academic channels and shared with mental health policy-makers and other stakeholders

Randomised controlled trial of analgesia for the management of acute severe pain from traumatic injury: study protocol for the paramedic analgesia comparing ketamine and morphine in trauma (PACKMaN)

Background Prehospital analgesia is often required after traumatic injury, currently morphine is the strongest parenteral analgesia routinely available for use by paramedics in the United Kingdom (UK) when treating patients with severe pain. This protocol describes a multi-centre, randomised, double blinded trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ketamine and morphine for severe pain following acute traumatic injury. Methods A two arm pragmatic, phase III trial working with two large NHS ambulance services, with an internal pilot. Participants will be randomised in equal numbers to either (1) morphine or (2) ketamine by IV/IO injection. We aim to recruit 446 participants over the age of 16 years old, with a self-reported pain score of 7 or above out of 10. Randomised participants will receive a maximum of 20 mg of morphine, or a maximum of 30 mg of ketamine, to manage their pain. The primary outcome will be the sum of pain intensity difference. Secondary outcomes measure the effectiveness of pain relief and overall patient experience from randomisation to arrival at hospital as well as monitoring the adverse events, resource use and cost-effectiveness outcomes. Discussion The PACKMAN study is the first UK clinical trial addressing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ketamine and morphine in treating acute severe pain from traumatic injury treated by NHS paramedics. The findings will inform future clinical practice and provide insights into the effectiveness of ketamine as a prehospital analgesia. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN14124474. Registered 22 October 2020, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN1412447