CRIMINALIZING CORRUPTION: THE GLOBAL INITIATIVES

THE CHAPTER REVIEWS THE UNITED NATIONAL CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION (UNCAC)AND THE ANTI-CORRUPTION INITIATIVES IN AFRICA, EUROPE, THE AMERICAS AND ASIA-PACIFIC REGION. IT CRITICALLY REVIEWS THE SCOPE OF THE KEY PROVISIONS OF THE UNCAC AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MONITORING PROCEDURES

Exploring the costs and outcomes of sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening interventions targeting men in football club settings: preliminary cost-consequence analysis of the SPORTSMART pilot randomised controlled trial

Background: The objective of this study was to compare the costs and outcomes of two sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening interventions targeted at men in football club settings in England, including screening promoted by team captains. Methods: A comparison of costs and outcomes was undertaken alongside a pilot cluster randomised control trial involving three trial arms: (1) captain-led and poster STI screening promotion; (2) sexual health advisor-led and poster STI screening promotion and (3) poster-only STI screening promotion (control/comparator). For all study arms, resource use and cost data were collected prospectively. Results: There was considerable variation in uptake rates between clubs, but results were broadly comparable across study arms with 50% of men accepting the screening offer in the captain-led arm, 67% in the sexual health advisor-led arm and 61% in the poster-only control arm. The overall costs associated with the intervention arms were similar. The average cost per player tested was comparable, with the average cost per player tested for the captain-led promotion estimated to be £88.99 compared with £88.33 for the sexual health advisor-led promotion and £81.87 for the poster-only (control) arm. Conclusions: Costs and outcomes were similar across intervention arms. The target sample size was not achieved, and we found a greater than anticipated variability between clubs in the acceptability of screening, which limited our ability to estimate acceptability for intervention arms. Further evidence is needed about the public health benefits associated with screening interventions in non-clinical settings so that their cost-effectiveness can be fully evaluated

What do the JAMA editors say when they discuss manuscripts that they are considering for publication? Developing a schema for classifying the content of editorial discussion

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In an effort to identify previously unrecognized aspects of editorial decision-making, we explored the words and phrases that one group of editors used during their meetings.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed an observational study of discussions at manuscript meetings at <it>JAMA</it>, a major US general medical journal. One of us (KD) attended 12 editorial meetings in 2003 as a visitor and took notes recording phrases from discussion surrounding 102 manuscripts. In addition, editors attending the meetings completed a form for each manuscript considered, listing the reasons they were inclined to proceed to the next step in publication and reasons they were not (DR attended 4/12 meetings). We entered the spoken and written phrases into NVivo 2.0. We then developed a schema for classifying the editors' phrases, using an iterative approach.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our classification schema has three main themes: science, journalism, and writing. We considered 2,463 phrases, of which 87 related mainly to the manuscript topic and were not classified (total 2,376 classified). Phrases related to science predominated (1,274 or 54%). The editors, most of whom were physicians, also placed major weight on goals important to JAMA's mission (journalism goals) such as importance to medicine, strategic emphasis for the journal, interest to the readership, and results (729 or 31% of phrases). About 16% (n = 373) of the phrases used related to writing issues, such as clarity and responses to the referees' comments.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Classification of editorial discourse provides insight into editorial decision making and concepts that need exploration in future studies.</p

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation of memory in brain injury: the ReMemBrIn RCT

Background People with traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) commonly report memory impairments. These are persistent, debilitating, and reduce quality of life, but patients do not routinely receive memory rehabilitation after discharge from hospital. Objectives To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a group memory rehabilitation programme for people with TBI. Design Multi-centre, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Qualitative and health economic evaluations were also undertaken. Setting Community settings in nine sites in England. Participants Participants were aged 18-69 years, with TBI more than 3 months prior to recruitment, reported memory problems, who were able to travel to a site to attend group sessions, communicate in English, and gave informed consent. Randomisation and blinding Clusters of 4 to 6 participants were randomised to intervention or control on a 1:1 ratio. Randomisation was based on a computer generated pseudo-random code using random permuted blocks of randomly varying size, stratified by study site. Participants and therapists were aware of the treatment allocation; outcome assessors were blinded. Interventions Ten weekly sessions of a manualised memory rehabilitation programme were provided in addition to usual care. Participants were taught restitution strategies to retrain impaired memory functions and compensation strategies to enable them to cope with memory problems. The control arm received usual care only. Outcomes Outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Primary: Patient-completed Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ-p) at 6-month follow-up. Secondary: Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test-3, General Health Questionnaire-30, European Brain Injury Questionnaire, Everyday Memory Questionnaire-relative version, individual goal attainment. Costs (based on a UK NHS and PSS perspective) were collected using a service use questionnaire, with the EQ-5D 5L used to derive Quality Adjusted Life Years. A Markov model was developed to explore cost-effectiveness at 5 and 10 years, with 3.5% discount applied. Results We randomised 328 participants (intervention: n=171; control: n=157), with 129 in the intervention arm and 122 in the control arm included in the primary analysis. We found no clinically important difference on the EMQ-p between the two arms at 6-month follow-up (adjusted difference in means -2.1, 95% CI -6.7 to 2.5, p=0.37). For secondary outcomes, differences favouring the intervention arm were observed at 6-month follow-up for RBMT and goal attainment, but remained only for goal attainment at 12-month follow-up. There were no differences between arms in mood or quality of life. Qualitative results suggested positive experiences of participating in the trial and of attending the groups. Participants reported that memory rehabilitation was not routinely accessible in usual care. The primary health economics outcome at 12-months found memory rehabilitation to be £26.89 cheaper than usual care but less effective with an incremental QALY loss of 0.007. Differences in costs and effects were not statistically significant and non-parametric bootstrapping demonstrated considerable uncertainty in these findings. No safety concerns were raised and no deaths reported. Limitations As a pragmatic trial, we had broad inclusion criteria, therefore there was considerable heterogeneity within the sample. The study was not powered to perform further sub-group analyses. Participants and therapists could not be blinded to treatment allocation. Conclusions The group memory rehabilitation delivered in this trial is very unlikely to lead to clinical benefits or to be a cost-effective treatment for people with TBI in the community. Future work Future studies should examine the inclusion and selection of participants who may benefit most from memory rehabilitation. Registration ISRCTN65792154 Funding National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessmen

Cost-effectiveness of financial incentives to promote adherence to depot antipsychotic medication: economic evaluation of a cluster-randomised controlled trial

Background: Offering a modest financial incentive to people with psychosis can promote adherence to depot antipsychotic medication, but the cost-effectiveness of this approach has not been examined. Methods: Economic evaluation within a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. 141 patients under the care of 73 teams (clusters) were randomised to intervention or control; 138 patients with diagnoses of schizophrenia, schizo-affective disorder or bipolar disorder participated. Intervention participants received £15 per depot injection over 12 months, additional to usual acute, mental and community primary health services. The control group received usual health services. Main outcome measures: incremental cost per 20% increase in adherence to depot antipsychotic medication; incremental cost of ‘good’ adherence (defined as taking at least 95% of the prescribed number of depot medications over the intervention period). Findings: Economic and outcome data for baseline and 12-month follow-up were available for 117 participants. The adjusted difference in adherence between groups was 12.2% (73.4% control vs. 85.6% intervention); the adjusted costs difference was £598 (95% CI -£4 533, £5 730). The extra cost per patient to increase adherence to depot medications by 20% was £982 (95% CI -£8 020, £14 000). The extra cost per patient of achieving 'good' adherence was £2 950 (CI -£19 400, £27 800). Probability of cost-effectiveness exceeded 97.5%at willingness-to-pay values of £14 000 for a 20% increase in adherence and £27 800 for good adherence. Interpretation: Offering a modest financial incentive to people with psychosis is cost-effective in promoting adherence to depot antipsychotic medication. Direct healthcare costs (including costs of the financial incentive) are unlikely to be increased by this intervention. Trial Registration: ISRCTN.com 7776928

Development of an occupational advice intervention for patients undergoing lower limb arthroplasty (the OPAL study)

Background: There are an increasing number of patients of working age undergoing hip and knee replacements. Currently there is variation in the advice and support given about sickness absence, recovery to usual activities and return to work after these procedures. Earlier, sustainable, return to work improves the health of patients and benefits their employers and society. An intervention that encourages and supports early recovery to usual activities, including work, has the potential to reduce the health and socioeconomic burden of hip and knee replacements. Methods/design: A two-phase research programme delivered over 27 months will be used to develop and subsequently test the feasibility of an occupational advice intervention to facilitate return to work and usual activities in patients undergoing lower limb arthroplasty. The 2 phases will incorporate a six-stage intervention mapping process: Phase 1: Intervention mapping stages 1–3: 1 Needs assessment (including rapid evidence synthesis, prospective cohort analysis and structured stakeholder interviews) 2 Identification of intended outcomes and performance objectives 3 Selection of theory-based methods and practical strategies Phase 2: Intervention mapping stages 4–6: 4 Development of components and materials for the occupational advice intervention using a modified Delphi process 5 Adoption and implementation of the intervention 6 Evaluation and feasibility testing The study will be undertaken in four National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in the United Kingdom and two Higher Education Institution. Discussion: OPAL (Occupational advice for Patients undergoing Arthroplasty of the Lower limb) aims to develop an occupational advice intervention to support early recovery to usual activities including work, which is tailored to the requirements of patients undergoing hip and knee replacements. The developed intervention will then be assessed with a specific focus on evaluating its feasibility as a potential trial intervention to improve speed of recovery to usual activities including work

Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) after local treatment of brain metastases in melanoma patients: Statistical Analysis Plan

Background: The WBRTMel trial is a multinational, open-label, phase III randomised controlled trial comparing whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) to observation following local treatment of one to three melanoma brain metastases with surgery and/or stereotactic irradiation. The primary trial endpoint was to determine the effect of adding WBRT to local treatment on distant intracranial control, and the secondary endpoints were neurocognitive function, quality of life (QoL), performance status, overall survival, death from intracranial causes, death from melanoma and cost-effectiveness. Objective: The objective of this update is to outline and publish the pre-determined statistical analysis plan (SAP) before the database lock and the start of analysis. Methods: The SAP describes basic analysis principles, methods for dealing with a range of commonly encountered data analysis issues and the specific statistical procedures for analysing efficacy and safety outcomes. The SAP was approved after closure of recruitment and before completion of patient follow-up. It outlines the planned primary analyses and a range of subgroup and sensitivity analyses regarding the clinical and QoL outcomes. Health economic outcomes are not included in this plan but will be analysed separately. The SAP will be adhered to for the final data analysis of this trial to avoid analysis bias arising from knowledge of the data. Results: The resulting SAP is consistent with best practice and will allow open and transparent reporting. Conclusion: We have developed a SAP for the WBRTMel trial which will be followed to ensure high-quality standards of internal validity to minimise analysis bias

A group memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injuries: the ReMemBrIn RCT

Main outcome measures: Outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Primary outcome: patient-completed Everyday Memory Questionnaire – patient version (EMQ-p) at 6 months’ follow-up. Secondary outcomes: Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test – third edition (RBMT-3), General Health Questionnaire 30-item version, European Brain Injury Questionnaire, Everyday Memory Questionnaire – relative version and individual goal attainment. Costs (based on a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective) were collected using a service use questionnaire, with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, used to derive quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A Markov model was developed to explore cost-effectiveness at 5 and 10 years, with a 3.5% discount applied.Results: We randomised 328 participants (memory rehabilitation, n = 171; usual care, n = 157), with 129 in the memory rehabilitation arm and 122 in the usual-care arm included in the primary analysis. We found no clinically important difference on the EMQ-p between the two arms at 6 months’ follow-up (adjusted difference in mean scores –2.1, 95% confidence interval –6.7 to 2.5; p = 0.37). For secondary outcomes, differences favouring the memory rehabilitation arm were observed at 6 months’ follow-up for the RBMT-3 and goal attainment, but remained only for goal attainment at 12 months’ follow-up. There were no differences between arms in mood or quality of life. The qualitative results suggested positive experiences of participating in the trial and of attending the groups. Participants reported that memory rehabilitation was not routinely accessible in usual care. The primary health economics outcome at 12 months found memoryrehabilitation to be £26.89 cheaper than usual care but less effective, with an incremental QALY loss of 0.007. Differences in costs and effects were not statistically significant and non-parametric bootstrapping demonstrated considerable uncertainty in these findings. No safety concerns were raised and no deaths were reported.Limitations: As a pragmatic trial, we had broad inclusion criteria and, therefore, there was considerable heterogeneity within the sample. The study was not powered to perform further subgroup analyses.Participants and therapists could not be blinded to treatment allocation.Conclusions: The group memory rehabilitation delivered in this trial is very unlikely to lead to clinical benefits or to be a cost-effective treatment for people with TBI in the community. Future studies should examine the selection of participants who may benefit most from memory rehabilitation

Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of a group-based memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injury.DESIGN:Multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial in England.SETTING:Community.PARTICIPANTS:People with memory problems following traumatic brain injury, aged 18-69 years, able to travel to group sessions, communicate in English, and give consent.INTERVENTIONS:A total of 10 weekly group sessions of manualized memory rehabilitation plus usual care (intervention) vs. usual care alone (control).MAIN MEASURES:The primary outcome was the patient-reported Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ-p) at six months post randomization. Secondary outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months post randomization.RESULTS:We randomized 328 participants. There were no clinically important differences in the primary outcome between arms at six-month follow-up (mean EMQ-p score: 38.8 (SD 26.1) in intervention and 44.1 (SD 24.6) in control arms, adjusted difference in means: -2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): -6.7 to 2.5, p = 0.37) or 12-month follow-up. Objectively assessed memory ability favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at the 6-month, but not at the 12-month outcome. There were no between-arm differences in mood, experience of brain injury, or relative/friend assessment of patient's everyday memory outcomes, but goal attainment scores favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at both outcome time points. Health economic analyses suggested that the intervention was unlikely to be cost effective. No safety concerns were raised.CONCLUSION:This memory rehabilitation programme did not lead to reduced forgetting in daily life for a heterogeneous sample of people with traumatic brain injury. Further research will need to examine who benefits most from such interventions

Using Classical Population Genetics Tools with Heterochroneous Data: Time Matters!

BACKGROUND:New polymorphism datasets from heterochroneous data have arisen thanks to recent advances in experimental and microbial molecular evolution, and the sequencing of ancient DNA (aDNA). However, classical tools for population genetics analyses do not take into account heterochrony between subsets, despite potential bias on neutrality and population structure tests. Here, we characterize the extent of such possible biases using serial coalescent simulations. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:We first use a coalescent framework to generate datasets assuming no or different levels of heterochrony and contrast most classical population genetic statistics. We show that even weak levels of heterochrony ( approximately 10% of the average depth of a standard population tree) affect the distribution of polymorphism substantially, leading to overestimate the level of polymorphism theta, to star like trees, with an excess of rare mutations and a deficit of linkage disequilibrium, which are the hallmark of e.g. population expansion (possibly after a drastic bottleneck). Substantial departures of the tests are detected in the opposite direction for more heterochroneous and equilibrated datasets, with balanced trees mimicking in particular population contraction, balancing selection, and population differentiation. We therefore introduce simple corrections to classical estimators of polymorphism and of the genetic distance between populations, in order to remove heterochrony-driven bias. Finally, we show that these effects do occur on real aDNA datasets, taking advantage of the currently available sequence data for Cave Bears (Ursus spelaeus), for which large mtDNA haplotypes have been reported over a substantial time period (22-130 thousand years ago (KYA)). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE:Considering serial sampling changed the conclusion of several tests, indicating that neglecting heterochrony could provide significant support for false past history of populations and inappropriate conservation decisions. We therefore argue for systematically considering heterochroneous models when analyzing heterochroneous samples covering a large time scale