“It seems like a luxury to be able to offer that”: Factors influencing the implementation of annual health checks for autistic people in England

Autistic people in England face worse health outcomes than non-autistic people. Autismspecific annual health checks have been proposed as one solution to this issue. This study identified strategies to incentivise primary care providers to offer autism-specific annual health checks, using a behavioural science approach. In phase one, we conducted interviews and focus groups with autistic people (n=10) and primary care providers (n=11). In phase two, we conducted a national survey of primary care providers (n=196). Qualitative data were analysed using a framework method and the Theoretical Domains Framework. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and comparisons between sub-groups of survey respondents were made using Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. The most salient Theoretical Domain was environmental context and resources. Participants identified lack of time and staff as key barriers to implementation. Delegating tasks to non-GPs and automating processes were seen as key facilitators. Autism-specific knowledge was another relevant domain; education produced and delivered by autistic people was posited to increase health check uptake and quality. Overall, participants were enthusiastic about autism-specific annual health checks but were concerned about the practical aspects of implementation. We identified specific barriers and facilitators that can be addressed prior to policy adoption to maximise chances of success

Improving mental health in autistic young adults : a qualitative study exploring help-seeking barriers in UK primary care

Background Autistic people are at increased risk of developing mental health problems. To reduce the negative impact of living with autism in a non-autistic world, efforts to improve take-up and access to care, and support in early years, which will typically start with a GP appointment, must be grounded in the accounts of autistic young adults. Aim To explore how autistic young adults understand and manage mental health problems; and to consider help seeking as a focus. Design and setting A cross-sectional, qualitative study. Autistic participants were purposively selected to represent a range of mental health conditions including anxiety and depression. A subsample were recruited from a population cohort screened for autism in childhood. The study concerns access to primary care. Method Nineteen autistic young adults without learning disabilities, aged 23 or 24 years, were recruited. In-depth, semi-structured interviews explored how they understood and managed mental health problems. Data were analysed thematically. Results Young adults preferred self-management strategies. Multiple factors contributed to a focus on self-management, including: beliefs about the aetiology of mental health difficulties and increased vulnerability with the context of a diagnosis of autism, knowledge of self-management, and a view that formal support was unavailable or inadequate. Families had limited awareness of professional support. Conclusion Young autistic adults without learning disabilities, and their families, may hold erroneous beliefs about autism and mental health. This may affect help seeking and contribute to an exacerbation of symptoms. GPs need to be alert to the fact that autistic young adults in their care may be experiencing mental health difficulties but may not recognise them as such

Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of contextualised grammar teaching and small group teaching to improve the writing skills of 11 year old children

Introduction: We evaluated two interventions: a contextualised grammar teaching intervention – Grammar for Writing - to assess whether it improved 11 year old children’s writing skills; and a small group literacy intervention to assess whether or not this was effective. Design and method: We used a pragmatic cluster randomised trial with partial split plot design. Independent concealed randomisation was undertaken at the class level, and, within the intervention group, children were also individually randomised to receive the whole class intervention plus a small group intervention or to receive the intervention in a whole class setting only. The main outcomes were writing and reading assessed by the Progress in English 11 (Long Form) test (GL Assessment). Results: In 2013, 55 schools in England, each with two classes, were recruited and randomised. Within each school, the two classes were randomly allocated to receive either the intervention or the control condition. After randomisation, 2 schools withdrew, leaving 53 schools, 106 classes and 2510 pupils. We observed an effect size (ES) of 0.10 favouring the Grammar for Writing classes; however, this was not statistically significant (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 to 0.31). Pupils randomised to the small groups had an increased literacy score when compared with the control classes (ES = 0.24, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.49) and when compared with the intervention children taught in the whole class (ES = 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.38). Conclusion: There is little evidence that this form of contextualised grammar teaching had an effect on 11 year old children’s writing skills. There was some evidence of an effect for small group teaching

Co-design of an NHS Primary Care Health Check for Autistic Adults

Autistic people experience more health conditions and earlier mortality. This study investigated views about a primary care health check for autistic adults to inform its design. Fifty-one people participated in consultation groups and interviews, comprising autistic adults (some with co-occurring intellectual disabilities), adults with intellectual disabilities, supporters and health professionals. Participants wanted the health check to cover physical and mental health and social functioning. They emphasised the importance of sharing information about individual needs and associated adjustments before the health check. They highlighted the need to change the way healthcare services communicate with autistic people, such as reducing phone contact and booking appointments online. They wanted individual choice in how the health check was completed, with video call or email offered alongside face-to-face. Participants raised the need for further training of primary care staff on autism, to highlight the diversity of experiences of autistic people and ways in which difficulties, such as pain, may present differently. Clinicians raised questions about the capacity of mental health and social care services to meet the additional needs potentially identified through the health check. This study represents a key step in the development and co-design of a UK primary care health check for autistic people

Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol and 2-AG decreases neurite outgrowth and differentially affects ERK1/2 and Akt signaling in hiPSC-derived cortical neurons

Endocannabinoids regulate different aspects of neurodevelopment. In utero exposure to the exogenous psychoactive cannabinoid Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), has been linked with abnormal cortical development in animal models. However, much less is known about the actions of endocannabinoids in human neurons. Here we investigated the effect of the endocannabinoid 2-arachidonoyl glycerol (2AG) and Δ9-THC on the development of neuronal morphology and activation of signaling kinases, in cortical neurons derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs). Our data indicate that the cannabinoid type 1 receptor (CB1R), but not the cannabinoid 2 receptor (CB2R), GPR55 or TRPV1 receptors, is expressed in young, immature hiPSC-derived cortical neurons. Consistent with previous reports, 2AG and Δ9-THC negatively regulated neurite outgrowth. Interestingly, acute exposure to both 2AG and Δ9-THC inhibited phosphorylation of serine/threonine kinase extracellular signal-regulated protein kinases (ERK1/2), whereas Δ9-THC also reduced phosphorylation of Akt (aka PKB). Moreover, the CB1R inverse agonist SR 141716A attenuated the decrease in neurite outgrowth and ERK1/2 phosphorylation induced by 2AG and Δ9-THC. Taken together, our data suggest that hiPSC-derived cortical neurons express CB1Rs and are responsive to exogenous cannabinoids. Thus, hiPSC-neurons may represent a good cellular model for investigating the role of the endocannabinoid system in regulating cellular processes in developing human neurons

Identity ambiguity and the promises and practices of hybrid e-HRM project teams

The role of IS project team identity work in the enactment of day-to-day relationships with their internal clients is under-researched. We address this gap by examining the identity work undertaken by an electronic human resource management (e-HRM) 'hybrid' project team engaged in an enterprise-wide IS implementation for their multi-national organisation. Utilising social identity theory, we identify three distinctive, interrelated dimensions of project team identity work (project team management, team 'value propositions' (promises) and the team's 'knowledge practice'). We reveal how dissonance between two perspectives of e-HRM project identity work (clients' expected norms of project team's service and project team's expected norms of themselves) results in identity ambiguity. Our research contributions are to identity studies in the IS project management, HR and hybrid literatures and to managerial practice by challenging the assumption that hybrid experts are the panacea for problems associated with IS projects

Cognitive behavioural therapy for adults with dissociative seizures (CODES): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dissociative seizures are paroxysmal events resembling epilepsy or syncope with characteristic features that allow them to be distinguished from other medical conditions. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) plus standardised medical care with standardised medical care alone for the reduction of dissociative seizure frequency. METHODS: In this pragmatic, parallel-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial, we initially recruited participants at 27 neurology or epilepsy services in England, Scotland, and Wales. Adults (≥18 years) who had dissociative seizures in the previous 8 weeks and no epileptic seizures in the previous 12 months were subsequently randomly assigned (1:1) from 17 liaison or neuropsychiatry services following psychiatric assessment, to receive standardised medical care or CBT plus standardised medical care, using a web-based system. Randomisation was stratified by neuropsychiatry or liaison psychiatry recruitment site. The trial manager, chief investigator, all treating clinicians, and patients were aware of treatment allocation, but outcome data collectors and trial statisticians were unaware of treatment allocation. Patients were followed up 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcome was monthly dissociative seizure frequency (ie, frequency in the previous 4 weeks) assessed at 12 months. Secondary outcomes assessed at 12 months were: seizure severity (intensity) and bothersomeness; longest period of seizure freedom in the previous 6 months; complete seizure freedom in the previous 3 months; a greater than 50% reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline; changes in dissociative seizures (rated by others); health-related quality of life; psychosocial functioning; psychiatric symptoms, psychological distress, and somatic symptom burden; and clinical impression of improvement and satisfaction. p values and statistical significance for outcomes were reported without correction for multiple comparisons as per our protocol. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population with multiple imputation for missing observations. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, ISRCTN05681227, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325544. FINDINGS: Between Jan 16, 2015, and May 31, 2017, we randomly assigned 368 patients to receive CBT plus standardised medical care (n=186) or standardised medical care alone (n=182); of whom 313 had primary outcome data at 12 months (156 [84%] of 186 patients in the CBT plus standardised medical care group and 157 [86%] of 182 patients in the standardised medical care group). At 12 months, no significant difference in monthly dissociative seizure frequency was identified between the groups (median 4 seizures [IQR 0-20] in the CBT plus standardised medical care group vs 7 seizures [1-35] in the standardised medical care group; estimated incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·78 [95% CI 0·56-1·09]; p=0·144). Dissociative seizures were rated as less bothersome in the CBT plus standardised medical care group than the standardised medical care group (estimated mean difference -0·53 [95% CI -0·97 to -0·08]; p=0·020). The CBT plus standardised medical care group had a longer period of dissociative seizure freedom in the previous 6 months (estimated IRR 1·64 [95% CI 1·22 to 2·20]; p=0·001), reported better health-related quality of life on the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-5 Level Health Today visual analogue scale (estimated mean difference 6·16 [95% CI 1·48 to 10·84]; p=0·010), less impairment in psychosocial functioning on the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (estimated mean difference -4·12 [95% CI -6·35 to -1·89]; p<0·001), less overall psychological distress than the standardised medical care group on the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-10 scale (estimated mean difference -1·65 [95% CI -2·96 to -0·35]; p=0·013), and fewer somatic symptoms on the modified Patient Health Questionnaire-15 scale (estimated mean difference -1·67 [95% CI -2·90 to -0·44]; p=0·008). Clinical improvement at 12 months was greater in the CBT plus standardised medical care group than the standardised medical care alone group as reported by patients (estimated mean difference 0·66 [95% CI 0·26 to 1·04]; p=0·001) and by clinicians (estimated mean difference 0·47 [95% CI 0·21 to 0·73]; p<0·001), and the CBT plus standardised medical care group had greater satisfaction with treatment than did the standardised medical care group (estimated mean difference 0·90 [95% CI 0·48 to 1·31]; p<0·001). No significant differences in patient-reported seizure severity (estimated mean difference -0·11 [95% CI -0·50 to 0·29]; p=0·593) or seizure freedom in the last 3 months of the study (estimated odds ratio [OR] 1·77 [95% CI 0·93 to 3·37]; p=0·083) were identified between the groups. Furthermore, no significant differences were identified in the proportion of patients who had a more than 50% reduction in dissociative seizure frequency compared with baseline (OR 1·27 [95% CI 0·80 to 2·02]; p=0·313). Additionally, the 12-item Short Form survey-version 2 scores (estimated mean difference for the Physical Component Summary score 1·78 [95% CI -0·37 to 3·92]; p=0·105; estimated mean difference for the Mental Component Summary score 2·22 [95% CI -0·30 to 4·75]; p=0·084), the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 scale score (estimated mean difference -1·09 [95% CI -2·27 to 0·09]; p=0·069), and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scale depression score (estimated mean difference -1·10 [95% CI -2·41 to 0·21]; p=0·099) did not differ significantly between groups. Changes in dissociative seizures (rated by others) could not be assessed due to insufficient data. During the 12-month period, the number of adverse events was similar between the groups: 57 (31%) of 186 participants in the CBT plus standardised medical care group reported 97 adverse events and 53 (29%) of 182 participants in the standardised medical care group reported 79 adverse events. INTERPRETATION: CBT plus standardised medical care had no statistically significant advantage compared with standardised medical care alone for the reduction of monthly seizures. However, improvements were observed in a number of clinically relevant secondary outcomes following CBT plus standardised medical care when compared with standardised medical care alone. Thus, adults with dissociative seizures might benefit from the addition of dissociative seizure-specific CBT to specialist care from neurologists and psychiatrists. Future work is needed to identify patients who would benefit most from a dissociative seizure-specific CBT approach. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment programme

"If we use the strength of diversity among researchers we can only improve the quality and impact of our research": Issues of equality, diversity, inclusion, and transparency in the process of applying for research funding

This paper sets out the recommendations that have emerged from a six-month-long exploration and discussion of the processes that take place before research is submitted for funding: the ‘pre-award’ environment. Our work concentrated on how this environment is experienced by researchers at all career stages and from a variety of backgrounds, demographics, and disciplines, as well as by research managers and research support professionals. In the later stages of our exploration, representatives from research funders were also involved in the discussions. The primary component of this project was an analysis of pre-award activities and processes at UK universities, using information collated from workshops with researchers and research management and support staff. The findings of this analysis were presented as a workflow diagram, which was then used to surface issues relating to equality, diversity, inclusion, and transparency in context. The workflow diagram and the issues highlighted by it were used to structure discussions at a symposium for a range of research stakeholders, held in Bristol, UK, in January 2023. The recommendations set out in this paper are drawn from discussions that took place at that event. This paper is not an exhaustive landscape analysis, nor a review of existing research and practice in the area of pre-award processes or of recent thinking on the topics of equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). Instead, it aims to summarise and encapsulate the suggestions put forward by the stakeholders during the symposium. These recommendations, from experienced professionals working in the field, are based on their encounters with the issues raised in the project. They do not solely relate to those working on pre-award processes, but may also apply to funders, policymakers, university leaders, and professional associations, since many of the challenges flagged in our research are systemic and cultural, and reach far beyond the research office

Efficacy and Safety of Pacritinib vs Placebo for Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: The morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 remain high despite advances in standard of care therapy, and the role of anti-inflammatory agents that inhibit the interleukin 6/JAK2 pathway is still being elucidated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the oral JAK2/IRAK1 inhibitor pacritinib vs placebo in the treatment of adults with severe COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial enrolled hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19 at 21 centers across the US between June 2020 and February 2021, with approximately 1.5 months of safety follow-up per patient. Data analysis was performed from September 2021 to July 2022. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to standard of care plus pacritinib (400 mg per os on day 1 followed by 200 mg twice daily on days 2-14) vs placebo, for 14 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was death or need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) by day 28. All-cause mortality and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were randomized to pacritinib (99 patients; 56 men [56.6%]; median [range] age, 60 [19-87] years) or placebo (101 patients; 64 men [63.4%]; median [range] age 59 [28-94] years). The percentage requiring supplementary oxygen was 99.0% (98 patients) in the pacritinib group vs 98.0% (99 patients) in the placebo group. The percentage who progressed to IMV, ECMO, or death was 17.2% (17 patients) in the pacritinib group vs 22.8% (23 patients) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.28-1.35; P = .23). Among patients with elevated interleukin 6, the rate was 17.5% (11 of 63 patients) in the pacritinib group vs 30.4% (21 of 96 patients) in the placebo group. The adverse event rate was similar for pacritinib vs placebo (78.1% [75 patients] vs 80.2% [81 patients]), with no excess in infection (14.6% [14 patients] vs 19.8% [20 patients]), bleeding (8.3% [8 patients] vs 10.9% [11 patients]), or thrombosis (8.3% [8 patients] vs 7.9% [8 patients]). Rates of grade 3 or higher adverse events were lower with pacritinib than placebo (29.2% [28 patients] vs 40.6% [41 patients]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The study did not meet its primary end point in patients with severe COVID-19. Subgroup analyses may indicate specific populations with hyperinflammation that could benefit from pacritinib, although further clinical trials would be needed to confirm these effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04404361