Gambling problems and military- and health-related behaviour in UK Armed Forces veterans

Internationally, problem gambling is elevated in Armed Forces veterans compared to the general population. Here, we re-examined the prevalence of problem gambling in veterans and non-veterans residing in England using an established large dataset and investigated whether gambling was associated with length of service, common mental health disorders, substance abuse, or financial management history. Using the 2007 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, 257 post-national service veterans and 514 age- and sex-matched controls were compared. Veterans had significantly higher rates of problem gambling than non-veterans. Male veterans were more likely than non-veterans to have experienced a traumatic event. The relationship between veteran status and problem gambling was not explained by differences in mental health conditions, substance abuse, or financial management. No differences were found for length of service. Further research is required with larger samples targeting problem gambling and Armed Forces experience in the United Kingdom population using contemporary diagnostic criteria

How to promote, improve and test adherence to scientific evidence in clinical practice

BACKGROUND: Negative variation in the management of patients with the same clinical condition is frequent, and affects quality of care. Recent studies indicate that single interventions are not an effective solution. We aim to demonstrate that a multifaceted strategy can favor the introduction of research into practice, and to assess its long-term effects on a set of common medical conditions exhibiting significant negative variation at our institution. METHODS: The strategy, devised and agreed upon by a multidisciplinary group, was first applied to one relevant medical condition – cerebral ischemic stroke. To test its effectiveness a quasi-experimental study was conducted, comparing an intervention group with historical controls. After validation the strategy was extended to other pathologies, and its long-term effect measured using evidence-based quality indicators. Adherence to each indicator was determined prospectively on a six-month basis for a period of at least two consecutive years. Measures are expressed as proportions with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Validation findings demonstrated that the strategy improved compliance with scientific evidence: the percentage of patients who received a CT scan within 24 hours of hospital presentation rose from 56% to 75%, (χ(2 )= 7.43 p < 0.01); admissions to selected wards increased from 45% to 64%, (χ(2 )= 7.81 p < 0.01); the number of physical medicine visits within 24 hours of the request grew from 59% to 91% (χ(2 )= 14,40 p < 0.001). Over a four-year period the program was gradually applied to 14 medical conditions. Except for 3 cases, compliance with the pathway, i.e. number of eligible patients for whom data on the care process is collected, was above the minimum requirement of 75%. Indicator adherence generally exhibited a positive trend, though variability was observed both among different conditions and between different semesters for the same pathology. CONCLUSION: According to our experience, incorporation of research into practice can be favored by systematically applying a shared, multifaceted strategy, involving multidisciplinary teams supported by central coordination. Institutions should device a tailor-made approach, should train personnel on implementation strategies, and create cultural acceptance of change. Just like for experimental trials, human and economic resources should be allocated within health care services to allow the achievement of this objective

Pragmatic randomised controlled trial of guided self-help versus individual cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus for post-traumatic stress disorder (RAPID)

This is the final version. Available on open access from the NIHR Journals Library via the DOI in this recordData availability: All available data can be obtained from the corresponding author.BACKGROUND: Guided self-help has been shown to be effective for other mental conditions and, if effective for post-traumatic stress disorder, would offer a time-efficient and accessible treatment option, with the potential to reduce waiting times and costs. OBJECTIVE: To determine if trauma-focused guided self-help is non-inferior to individual, face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event. DESIGN: Multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with economic evaluation to determine cost-effectiveness and nested process evaluation to assess fidelity and adherence, dose and factors that influence outcome (including context, acceptability, facilitators and barriers, measured qualitatively). Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary analysis was intention to treat using multilevel analysis of covariance. SETTING: Primary and secondary mental health settings across the United Kingdom's National Health Service. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and ninety-six adults with a primary diagnosis of mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder were randomised with 82% retention at 16 weeks and 71% at 52 weeks. Nineteen participants and ten therapists were interviewed for the process evaluation. INTERVENTIONS: Up to 12 face-to-face, manualised, individual cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus sessions, each lasting 60-90 minutes, or to guided self-help using Spring, an eight-step online guided self-help programme based on cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus, with up to five face-to-face meetings of up to 3 hours in total and four brief telephone calls or e-mail contacts between sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes: included severity of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms at 52 weeks, and functioning, symptoms of depression, symptoms of anxiety, alcohol use and perceived social support at both 16 and 52 weeks post-randomisation. Those assessing outcomes were blinded to group assignment. RESULTS: Non-inferiority was demonstrated at the primary end point of 16 weeks on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition [mean difference 1.01 (one-sided 95% CI -∞ to 3.90, non-inferiority p = 0.012)]. Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, score improvements of over 60% in both groups were maintained at 52 weeks but the non-inferiority results were inconclusive in favour of cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus at this timepoint [mean difference 3.20 (one-sided 95% confidence interval -∞ to 6.00, non-inferiority p = 0.15)]. Guided self-help using Spring was not shown to be more cost-effective than face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus although there was no significant difference in accruing quality-adjusted life-years, incremental quality-adjusted life-years -0.04 (95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.01) and guided self-help using Spring was significantly cheaper to deliver [£277 (95% confidence interval £253 to £301) vs. £729 (95% CI £671 to £788)]. Guided self-help using Spring appeared to be acceptable and well tolerated by participants. No important adverse events or side effects were identified. LIMITATIONS: The results are not generalisable to people with post-traumatic stress disorder to more than one traumatic event. CONCLUSIONS: Guided self-help using Spring for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event appears to be non-inferior to individual face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus and the results suggest it should be considered a first-line treatment for people with this condition. FUTURE WORK: Work is now needed to determine how best to effectively disseminate and implement guided self-help using Spring at scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN13697710. FUNDING: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/192/97) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 26. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR