Cost-effectiveness of an extended-role general practitioner clinic for persistent physical symptoms: results from the Multiple Symptoms Study 3 (MSS3) pragmatic randomised controlled trial

ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an extended-role general practitioner (GP) symptoms clinic (SC), added to usual care (UC) for patients with multiple persistent physical symptoms (sometimes known as "medically unexplained symptoms").MethodsA 52-week within-trial cost-utility analysis of a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing SC+UC (n=178) against UC alone (n=176), conducted from the primary perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal and social services (PSS). Base-case quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were measured using EQ-5D-5L. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation (MI). Cost-effectiveness results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental net monetary benefits (INMBs). Uncertainty was explored using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (using 1000 non-parametric bootstrapped samples) and sensitivity analysis (including societal costs, using SF-6D and capability ICECAP-A outcomes to estimate QALYs and years of full capability (YFC) respectively, varying intervention costs, missing data mechanism assumptions).ResultsMultiple imputation analysis showed that, compared to UC alone, SC+UC was more expensive [(adjusted mean cost difference: 704; 95% CI:£605, £807)] and more effective [(adjusted mean QALY difference: 0.0447 (95% CI:0.0067, 0.0826)] yielding an ICER of £15,765/QALY, INMB of £189.22 (95% CI:−£573.62, £948.28) and a 69% probability of the SC+UC intervention arm being cost-effective at a threshold of £20000 per QALY. Results were robust to most sensitivity analyses, but sensitive to missing data assumptions (2 of the 8 scenarios investigated), SF-6D and ICECAP-A quality of life outcomes.ConclusionsA Symptoms Clinic is likely to be a potentially cost-effective treatment for patients with persistent physical symptoms.<br/

Preventing and Lessening Exacerbations of Asthma in School-aged children Associated with a New Term (PLEASANT): recruiting primary care research sites - the PLEASANT experience

Background: Recruitment of general practices and their patients into research studies is frequently reported as a challenge. The Preventing and Lessening Exacerbations of Asthma in School-aged children Associated with a New Term (PLEASANT) trial recruited 142 general practices, across England and Wales and delivered the study intervention to time and target. Aims: To describe the process of recruitment used within the cluster randomised PLEASANT trial and present results on factors that influenced recruitment. Methods: Data were collected on the number of and types of contact used to gain expression of interest and subsequent randomisation into the PLEASANT trial. Practice size and previous research experience were also collected. Results: The mean number of contacts required to gain expression of interest were m=3.01 (s.d. 1.6) and total number of contacts from initial invitation to randomisation m=6.8 (s.d. 3.5). Previous randomised controlled trial involvement (hazard ratio (HR)=1.81 (confidence interval (CI) 95%, 1.55–2.11) P<0.001) and number of studies a practice had previously engaged in (odds ratio (OR) 1.91 (CI 95%, (1.52–2.42)) P<0.001), significantly influenced whether a practice would participate in PLEASANT. Practice size was not a significant deciding factor (OR=1.04 (95% CI 0.99–1.08) P=0.137). Conclusions: Recruitment to time and target can be achieved in general practice. The amount of resource required for site recruitment should not, however, be underestimated and multiple strategies for contacting practices should be considered. General practitioners with more research experience are more likely to participate in studies

Recording harms in randomized controlled trials of behavior change interventions: a scoping review and map of the evidence

Objectives: Randomized controlled trials evaluate diverse interventions. This can include medical interventions such as drugs or surgical procedures, or behavior change interventions (BCIs) that aim to change a habit, belief, or attitude to improve health, for example, healthy eating, psychological wellbeing. Harms are often recorded poorly or inconsistently within randomized controlled trials of BCIs. This scoping review aimed to collate and describe literature on categories, definitions, and mechanisms of harms from BCIs; methods of identifying plausible harms; and recommendations for recording harms. Study Design and Setting: A scoping review was conducted. Three databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) were searched. Reference list checking and citation searching were performed. Articles were included if they discussed (1) interventions that aimed to modify behavior, (2) categories or mechanisms of harms, and (3) methods or recommendations for recording harms. All research designs were included. One reviewer reviewed titles, abstracts, and full texts; queries were checked with another reviewer. Data were extracted and synthesized descriptively by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer. A thematic map was constructed to summarize the review findings. Harms described from specific BCIs were identified, and examples were selected and summarized. Results: The review included 37 articles. Nineteen of 37 articles contributed to a thematic review. Three articles described categories of harms; categories of harm included physical, psychological, group and social interactions, cultural, equity, opportunity cost, environmental, and economic. Seven articles included mechanisms or underlying factors for harms including feelings of failure leading to shame or stigma, and group interventions enabling knowledge exchange on unhealthy behaviors. Twelve articles provided recommendations for recording harms, including taking a proportionate approach by focusing on the most plausible and important harms, collecting different perspectives on whether harms had occurred (eg, caregivers and family members), and using qualitative research methods to identify harms. One article described a three-step method to identify plausible harms from an intervention, and six articles supported aspects of the method. Eighteen of 37 articles contributed to a review which collated harms arising from specific interventions, for example, a peer support intervention in inflammatory bowel disease caused distressing conversations which might lead to anxiety and confrontation with a possible negative future. Conclusion: BCIs can cause harm. This review identified categories and proposed mechanisms of harms, as well as methods and recommendations for identifying and recording harms in BCIs for inclusion in forthcoming recommendations

Study protocol for the Multiple Symptoms Study 3: a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial of a clinic for patients with persistent (medically unexplained) physical symptoms

Introduction: Persistent physical symptoms (which cannot be adequately attributed to physical disease) affect around 1 million people (2% of adults) in the UK. They affect patients’ quality of life and account for at least one third of referrals from General Practitioners (GPs) to specialists. These referrals give patients little benefit but have a real cost to health services time and diagnostic resources. The symptoms clinic has been designed to help people make sense of persistent physical symptoms (especially if medical tests have been negative) and to reduce the impact of symptoms on daily life. Methods and analysis: This pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the symptoms clinic intervention plus usual care compared with usual care alone. Patients were identified through GP searches and mail-outs and recruited by the central research team. 354 participants were recruited and individually randomised (1:1). The primary outcome is the self-reported Physical Health Questionnaire-15 at 52 weeks postrandomisation. Secondary outcome measures include the EuroQol 5 dimension 5 level and healthcare resource use. Outcome measures will also be collected at 13 and 26 weeks postrandomisation. A process evaluation will be conducted including consultation content analysis and interviews with participants and key stakeholders. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval has been obtained via Greater Manchester Central Research Ethics Committee (Reference 18/NW/0422). The results of the trial will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, presented at relevant conferences and disseminated to trial participants and patient interest groups. Trial registration number: ISRCTN57050216

Effectiveness of a symptom-clinic intervention delivered by general practitioners with an extended role for people with multiple and persistent physical symptoms in England:the Multiple Symptoms Study 3 pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: People with multiple and persistent physical symptoms have impaired quality of life and poor experiences of health care. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a community-based symptom-clinic intervention in people with multiple and persistent physical symptoms, hypothesising that this symptoms clinic plus usual care would be superior to usual care only.METHODS: The Multiple Symptoms Study 3 was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial conducted in 108 general practices in the UK National Health Service in four regions of England between Dec 6, 2018, and June 30, 2023. Participants were individually randomised (1:1) to the symptom-clinic intervention plus usual care or to usual care only via a computer-generated, pseudo-random list stratified by trial centre. Allocation was done by the trial statistician and concealed with a centralised, web-based randomisation system; masking participants was not possible due to the nature of the intervention. The symptom-clinic intervention was a sequence of up to four medical consultations that aimed to elicit a detailed clinical history, fully hear and validate the participant, offer rational explanations for symptoms, and assist the participant to develop ways of managing their symptoms; it was delivered by general practitioners with an extended role. The primary outcome was Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) score 52 weeks after randomisation, analysed by intention to treat. The trial is registered on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN57050216).FINDINGS: 354 participants were randomly assigned; 178 (50%) were assigned to receive the community-based symptoms clinic plus usual care and 176 (50%) were assigned to receive usual care only. At the primary-outcome point of 52 weeks, PHQ-15 scores were 14·1 (SD 3·7) in the group receiving usual care and 12·2 (4·5) in the group receiving the intervention. The adjusted between-group difference of -1·82 (95% CI -2·67 to -0·97) was statistically significantly in favour of the intervention group (p&lt;0·0001). There were 39 adverse events in the group receiving usual care and 36 adverse events in the group receiving the intervention. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in the proportion of participants who had non-serious adverse events (-0·03, 95% CI -0·11 to 0·05) or serious adverse events (0·02, -0·02 to 0·07). No serious adverse event was deemed to be related to the trial intervention.INTERPRETATION: Our symptom-clinic intervention, which focused on explaining persistent symptoms to participants in order to support self-management, led to sustained improvement in multiple and persistent physical symptoms.FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.</p

Study protocol for the Multiple Symptoms Study 3:A pragmatic, randomised controlled trial of a clinic for patients with persistent (medically unexplained) physical symptoms

Introduction: Persistent physical symptoms (which cannot be adequately attributed to physical disease) affect around 1 million people (2 of adults) in the UK. They affect patients’ quality of life and account for at least one third of referrals from GPs to specialists. These referrals give patients little benefit but have a real cost to health services time and diagnostic resources. The Symptoms Clinic has been designed to help people make sense of persistent physical symptoms (especially if medical tests have been negative) and to reduce the impact of symptoms on daily life.Methods and analysis:This pragmatic, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Symptoms Clinic intervention plus usual care compared with usual care alone. Patients were identified through GP searches and mail-outs and recruited by the central research team. 354 participants were recruited and individually randomised (1:1). The primary outcome is the self-reported PHQ-15 at 52 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcome measures include the EQ-5D-5L and health care resource use. Outcome measures will also be collected at 13 and 26 weeks post-randomisation. A process evaluation will be conducted including consultation content analysis and interviews with participants and key stakeholders.Ethics and dissemination:Ethics approval has been obtained via Greater Manchester Central Research Ethics Committee (Reference 18/NW/0422). The results of the trial will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, presented at relevant conferences and disseminated to trial participants and patient interest groups.Trial Registration ISRCTN5705021

A systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the contribution of mr imaging to the diagnosis of foetal brain abnormalities In Utero.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review was undertaken to define the diagnostic performance of in utero MR (iuMR) imaging when attempting to confirm, exclude or provide additional information compared with the information provided by prenatal ultrasound scans (USS) when there is a suspicion of foetal brain abnormality. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched as well as relevant journals and conference proceedings. Reference lists of applicable studies were also explored. Data extraction was conducted by two reviewers independently to identify relevant studies for inclusion in the review. Inclusion criteria were original research that reported the findings of prenatal USS and iuMR imaging and findings in terms of accuracy as judged by an outcome reference diagnosis for foetal brain abnormalities. RESULTS: 34 studies met the inclusion criteria which allowed diagnostic accuracy to be calculated in 959 cases, all of which had an outcome reference diagnosis determined by postnatal imaging, surgery or autopsy. iuMR imaging gave the correct diagnosis in 91 % which was an increase of 16 % above that achieved by USS alone. CONCLUSION: iuMR imaging makes a significant contribution to the diagnosis of foetal brain abnormalities, increasing the diagnostic accuracy achievable by USS alone. KEY POINTS: • Ultrasound is the primary modality for monitoring foetal brain development during pregnancy • iuMRI used together with ultrasound is more accurate for detecting foetal brain abnormalities • iuMR imaging is most helpful for detecting midline brain abnormalities • The moderate heterogeneity of reviewed studies may compromise findings