Individual placement and support versus individual placement and support enhanced with work-focused cognitive behaviour therapy: feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial

Introduction: Employment is a key goal for many people with long-term mental health issues. Evidence-based individual placement and support is a widely advocated approach. This study explored whether individual placement and support outcomes could be enhanced with work-focused counselling. Method: The study was designed as a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing the cost-effectiveness, in severe mental illness, of work-focused intervention (intervention) as an adjunct to individual placement and support compared to individual placement and support alone (control). Results: The original sample (330) proved impossible to attain so the design was revised to a pilot study from which information on feasibility of a full trial could be drawn. Twenty-five individuals out of 74 found paid work but no difference was found in the mean number of hours in paid employment between the intervention and control groups. Conclusion: Results demonstrate that delivering work-focused counselling in tandem with individual placement and support is feasible and acceptable to service users. The study observed that, even during a period of recession (2010–13), individuals with mental health problems succeeded in obtaining paid employment. Any additional benefit of counselling over individual placement and support alone could not be ascertained, due mainly to the high drop-out rate from this study

Parents' responses to prognostic disclosure at diagnosis of a child with a high‐risk brain tumor: Analysis of clinician‐parent interactions and implications for clinical practice

Background: Previous studies have found that parents of children with cancer desire more prognostic information than is often given even when prognosis is poor. We explored in audio‐recorded consultations the kinds of information they seek. / Methods: Ethnographic study including observation and audio recording of consultations at diagnosis. Consultations were transcribed and analyzed using an interactionist perspective including tools drawn from conversation and discourse analysis. / Results: Enrolled 21 parents and 12 clinicians in 13 cases of children diagnosed with a high‐risk brain tumor (HRBT) over 20 months at a tertiary pediatric oncology center. Clinicians presented prognostic information in all cases. Through their questions, parents revealed what further information they desired. Clinicians made clear that no one could be absolutely certain what the future held for an individual child. Explicit communication about prognosis did not satisfy parents’ desire for information about their own child. Parents tried to personalize prognostic information and to apply it to their own situation. Parents moved beyond prognostic information presented and drew conclusions, which could change over time. Parents who were present in the same consultations could form different views of their child's prognosis. / Conclusion: Population level prognostic information left parents uncertain about their child's future. The need parents revealed was not for more such information but rather how to use the information given and how to apply it to their child in the face of such uncertainty. Further research is needed on how best to help parents deal with uncertainty and make prognostic information actionable

Effectiveness of structured patient-clinician communication with a solution focused approach (DIALOG+) in community treatment of patients with psychosis - a cluster randomised controlled trial

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

Protocol for the saMS trial (supportive adjustment for multiple sclerosis): a randomized controlled trial comparing cognitive behavioral therapy to supportive listening for adjustment to multiple sclerosis

BackgroundMultiple Sclerosis (MS) is an incurable, chronic, potentially progressive and unpredictable disease of the central nervous system. The disease produces a range of unpleasant and debilitating symptoms, which can have a profound impact including disrupting activities of daily living, employment, income, relationships, social and leisure activities, and life goals. Adjusting to the illness is therefore particularly challenging. This trial tests the effectiveness of a cognitive behavioural intervention compared to supportive listening to assist adjustment in the early stages of MS.MethodsThis is a two arm randomized multi-centre parallel group controlled trial. 122 consenting participants who meet eligibility criteria will be randomly allocated to receive either Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Supportive Listening. Eight one hour sessions of therapy (delivered over a period of 10 weeks) will be delivered by general nurses trained in both treatments. Self-report questionnaire data will be collected at baseline (0 weeks), mid-therapy (week 5 of therapy), post-therapy (15 weeks) and at six months (26 weeks) and twelve months (52 weeks) follow-up. Primary outcomes are distress and MS-related social and role impairment at twelve month follow-up. Analysis will also consider predictors and mechanisms of change during therapy. In-depth interviews to examine participants’ experiences of the interventions will be conducted with a purposively sampled sub-set of the trial participants. An economic analysis will also take place. DiscussionThis trial is distinctive in its aims in that it aids adjustment to MS in a broad sense. It is not a treatment specifically for depression. Use of nurses as therapists makes the interventions potentially viable in terms of being rolled out in the NHS. The trial benefits from incorporating patient input in the development and evaluation stages. The trial will provide important information about the efficacy, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of the interventions as well as mechanisms of psychosocial adjustment.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN91377356<br/

The costs of dementia in England

Objectives: This study measures the average per person and annual total costs of dementia in England in 2015. Methods/Design: Up-to-date data for England were drawn from multiple sources to identify prevalence of dementia by severity, patterns of health and social care service utilisation and their unit costs, levels of unpaid care and its economic impacts, and other costs of dementia. These data were used in a refined macrosimulation model to estimate annual per-person and aggregate costs of dementia. Results: There are around 690 000 people with dementia in England, of whom 565 000 receive unpaid care or community care or live in a care home. Total annual cost of dementia in England is estimated to be £24.2 billion in 2015, of which 42% (£10.1 billion) is attributable to unpaid care. Social care costs (£10.2 billion) are three times larger than health care costs (£3.8 billion). £6.2 billion of the total social care costs are met by users themselves and their families, with £4.0 billion (39.4%) funded by government. Total annual costs of mild, moderate, and severe dementia are £3.2 billion, £6.9 billion, and £14.1 billion, respectively. Average costs of mild, moderate, and severe dementia are £24 400, £27 450, and £46 050, respectively, per person per year. Conclusions: Dementia has huge economic impacts on people living with the illness, their carers, and society as a whole. Better support for people with dementia and their carers, as well as fair and efficient financing of social care services, are essential to address the current and future challenges of dementia

The effectiveness of Chance UK's mentoring programme in improving behavioural and emotional outcomes in primary school children with behavioural difficulties: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: There is a need to build the evidence base of early interventions to promote children's health and development in the UK. Chance UK is a voluntary sector organisation based in London that delivers a 12-month mentoring programme for primary school children identified by teachers and parents as having behavioural and emotional difficulties. The aim of the study is to determine the effectiveness of the programme in terms of children's behaviour and emotional well-being; this is the primary outcome of the trial. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial will be conducted in which participants are randomly allocated on a dynamic basis to one of two possible arms: the intervention arm (n = 123) will be offered the mentoring programme, and the control arm (n = 123) will be offered services as usual. Outcome data will be collected at three points: pre-intervention (baseline), mid-way through the mentoring year (c.9 months after randomisation) and post- mentoring programme (c.16 months after randomisation). DISCUSSION: This study will further enhance the evidence for early intervention mentoring programmes for child behaviour and emotional well-being in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47154925 . Retrospectively registered 9 September 2014

Protocol for the PACE trial: A randomised controlled trial of adaptive pacing, cognitive behaviour therapy, and graded exercise as supplements to standardised specialist medical care versus standardised specialist medical care alone for patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis or encephalopathy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS, also called myalgic encephalomyelitis/encephalopathy or ME) is a debilitating condition with no known cause or cure. Improvement may occur with medical care and additional therapies of pacing, cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy. The latter two therapies have been found to be efficacious in small trials, but patient organisations' surveys have reported adverse effects. Although pacing has been advocated by patient organisations, it lacks empirical support. Specialist medical care is commonly provided but its efficacy when given alone is not established. This trial compares the efficacy of the additional therapies when added to specialist medical care against specialist medical care alone.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>600 patients, who meet operationalised diagnostic criteria for CFS, will be recruited from secondary care into a randomised trial of four treatments, stratified by current comorbid depressive episode and different CFS/ME criteria. The four treatments are standardised specialist medical care either given alone, or with adaptive pacing therapy or cognitive behaviour therapy or graded exercise therapy. Supplementary therapies will involve fourteen sessions over 23 weeks and a 'booster session' at 36 weeks. Outcome will be assessed at 12, 24, and 52 weeks after randomisation. Two primary outcomes of self-rated fatigue and physical function will assess differential effects of each treatment on these measures. Secondary outcomes include adverse events and reactions, subjective measures of symptoms, mood, sleep and function and objective measures of physical activity, fitness, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. The primary analysis will be based on intention to treat and will use logistic regression models to compare treatments. Secondary outcomes will be analysed by repeated measures analysis of variance with a linear mixed model. All analyses will allow for stratification factors. Mediators and moderators will be explored using multiple linear and logistic regression techniques with interactive terms, with the sample split into two to allow validation of the initial models. Economic analyses will incorporate sensitivity measures.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The results of the trial will provide information about the benefits and adverse effects of these treatments, their cost-effectiveness and cost-utility, the process of clinical improvement and the predictors of efficacy.</p

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of contingency management for cannabis use in early psychosis: the CIRCLE randomised clinical trial

Background Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit substance among people with psychosis. Continued cannabis use following the onset of psychosis is associated with poorer functional and clinical outcomes. However, finding effective ways of intervening has been very challenging. We examined the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adjunctive contingency management (CM), which involves incentives for abstinence from cannabis use, in people with a recent diagnosis of psychosis. Methods CIRCLE was a pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Participants were recruited via Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services across the Midlands and South East of England. They had had at last one episode of clinically diagnosed psychosis (affective or non-affective); were aged 18 to 36; reported cannabis use in at least 12 out of the previous 24 weeks; and were not currently receiving treatment for cannabis misuse, or subject to a legal requirement for cannabis testing. Participants were randomised via a secure web-based service 1:1 to either an experimental arm, involving 12 weeks of CM plus a six-session psychoeducation package, or a control arm receiving the psychoeducation package only. The total potential voucher reward in the CM intervention was £240. The primary outcome was time to acute psychiatric care, operationalised as admission to an acute mental health service (including community alternatives to admission). Primary outcome data were collected from patient records at 18 months post-consent by assessors masked to allocation. The trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN33576045. Results: 551 participants were recruited between June 2012 and April 2016. Primary outcome data were obtained for 272 (98%) in the CM (experimental) group and 259 (95%) in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in time to acute psychiatric care (the primary outcome) (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.76, 1.40) between groups. By 18 months, 90 (33%) of participants in the CM group, and 85 (30%) of the control groups had been admitted at least once to an acute psychiatric service. Amongst those who had experienced an acute psychiatric admission, the median time to admission was 196 days (IQR 82, 364) in the CM group and 245 days (IQR 99,382) in the control group. Cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that there is an 81% likelihood that the intervention was cost-effective, mainly resulting from higher mean inpatient costs for the control group compared with the CM group, however the cost difference between groups was not statistically significant. There were 58 adverse events, 27 in the CM group and 31 in the control group. Conclusions Overall, these results suggest that CM is not an effective intervention for improving the time to acute psychiatric admission or reducing cannabis use in psychosis, at least at the level of voucher reward offered

Utility of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) in Predicting Mental Health Service Costs for Patients with Common Mental Health Problems : Historical Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: Few countries have made much progress in implementing transparent and efficient systems for the allocation of mental health care resources. In England there are ongoing efforts by the National Health Service (NHS) to develop mental health 'payment by results' (PbR). The system depends on the ability of patient 'clusters' derived from the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) to predict costs. We therefore investigated the associations of individual HoNOS items and the Total HoNOS score at baseline with mental health service costs at one year follow-up.METHODS: An historical cohort study using secondary care patient records from the UK financial year 2012-2013. Included were 1,343 patients with 'common mental health problems', represented by ICD-10 disorders between F32-48. Costs were based on patient contacts with community-based and hospital-based mental health services. The costs outcome was transformed into 'high costs' vs 'regular costs' in main analyses.RESULTS: After adjustment for covariates, 11 HoNOS items were not associated with costs. The exception was 'self-injury' with an odds ratio of 1.41 (95% CI 1.10-2.99). Population attributable fractions (PAFs) for the contribution of HoNOS items to high costs ranged from 0.6% (physical illness) to 22.4% (self-injury). After adjustment, the Total HoNOS score was not associated with costs (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99-1.07). However, the PAF (33.3%) demonstrated that it might account for a modest proportion of the incidence of high costs.CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide limited support for the utility of the self-injury item and Total HoNOS score in predicting costs. However, the absence of associations for the remaining HoNOS items indicates that current PbR clusters have minimal ability to predict costs, so potentially contributing to a misallocation of NHS resources across England. The findings may inform the development of mental health payment systems internationally, especially since the vast majority of countries have not progressed past the early stages of this development. Discrepancies between our findings with those from Australia and New Zealand point to the need for further international investigations