A usability and feasibility study of a computerized version of the Bath Adolescent Pain Questionnaire: the BAPQ-C.

Background Pain is a common experience in adolescence, with up to 44% of adolescents reporting chronic pain. For a significant minority, severe pain becomes an ongoing disabling problem. Treatment of adolescent chronic pain aims to reduce the impact of pain on adolescents’ lives. Efficient, accurate assessment of the impact of pain is essential to treatment. The ‘Bath Adolescent Pain Questionnaire’ (BAPQ) is a psychometrically robust multidimensional self-report measure of adolescent functioning. Whilst widely used, the paper-based format of the BAPQ can present completion difficulties for adolescents experiencing chronic pain. To increase the accessibility and clinical utility of the BAPQ, an electronic version of the measure is needed. This study assesses the usability and feasibility of a computerized version of this measure (BAPQ-C) in an adolescent chronic pain population. Methods Fourteen adolescents (13 females; 13–16 years) were recruited from a hospital-based residential pain management programme. Participants completed a qualitative ‘thinking aloud task’ whilst completing the BAPQ-C. and, an acceptability questionnaire regarding the BAPQ-C. Data were analysed using thematic analysis, a widely used qualitative method of data analysis. ResultsTwo themes labelled ‘engagement and technological appeal’ and ‘accessibility and independence’ were generated. Themes revealed numerous factors contributing to participants’ preference for the BAPQ-C compared with the paper version of the BAPQ. Participants reported that the BAPQ-C was ‘quicker’ and ‘easier’ to complete than the BAPQ. Functional aspects of the BAPQ-C which included use of a touch screen rather than a pen and paper, font colours/styles, the zoom function and the spellchecker, provided participants with improved access. This subsequently increased participants’ independence and confidence when completing the measure. ConclusionThe BAPQ-C is a feasible multidimensional tool for the assessment of functioning in adolescents who experience chronic pain. It was well-received by participants who were able to complete the measure more quickly, independently and confidently than the paper-based BAPQ. Increased speed, ease and accuracy of completion make the BAPQ-C an ideal tool for use in busy clinical and research settings. Findings highlight the potential benefits of adopting the BAPQ-C when assessing the impact of chronic pain on adolescents in clinic and home-based settings

REMCARE : pragmatic multi-centre randomised trial of reminiscence groups for people with dementia and their family carers : effectiveness and economic analysis

Background Joint reminiscence groups, involving people with dementia and family carers together, are popular, but the evidence-base is limited. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of joint reminiscence groups as compared to usual care. Methods This multi-centre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial had two parallel arms: intervention group and usual-care control group. A restricted dynamic method of randomisation was used, with an overall allocation ratio of 1:1, restricted to ensure viable sized intervention groups. Assessments, blind to treatment allocation, were carried out at baseline, three months and ten months (primary end-point), usually in the person's home. Participants were recruited in eight centres, mainly through NHS Memory Clinics and NHS community mental health teams. Included participants were community resident people with mild to moderate dementia (DSM-IV), who had a relative or other care-giver in regular contact, to act as informant and willing and able to participate in intervention. 71% carers were spouses. 488 people with dementia (mean age 77.5) were randomised: 268 intervention, 220 control; 350 dyads completed the study (206 intervention, 144 control). The intervention evaluated was joint reminiscence groups (with up to 12 dyads) weekly for twelve weeks; monthly maintenance sessions for further seven months. Sessions followed a published treatment manual and were held in a variety of community settings. Two trained facilitators in each centre were supported by volunteers. Primary outcome measures were self-reported quality of life for the person with dementia (QoL-AD), psychological distress for the carer (General Health Questionnaire, GHQ-28). Secondary outcome measures included: autobiographical memory and activities of daily living for the person with dementia; carer stress for the carer; mood, relationship quality and service use and costs for both. Results The intention to treat analysis (ANCOVA) identified no differences in outcome between the intervention and control conditions on primary or secondary outcomes (self-reported QoL-AD mean difference 0.07 (-1.21 to 1.35), F = 0.48, p = 0.53). Carers of people with dementia allocated to the reminiscence intervention reported a significant increase in anxiety on a General Health Questionnaire-28 sub-scale at the ten month end-point (mean difference 1.25 (0.25 to 2.26), F = 8.28, p = 0.04). Compliance analyses suggested improved autobiographical memory, quality of life and relationship quality for people with dementia attending more reminiscence sessions, however carers attending more groups showed increased care-giving stress. Economic analyses from a public sector perspective indicated that joint reminiscence groups are unlikely to be cost-effective. There were no significant adverse effects attributed to the intervention. Potential limitations of the study include less than optimal attendance at the group sessions—only 57% of participants attended at least half of the intervention sessions over the 10 month period, and a higher rate of study withdrawal in the control group. Conclusions This trial does not support the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of joint reminiscence groups. Possible beneficial effects for people with dementia who attend sessions as planned are offset by raised anxiety and stress in their carers. The reasons for these discrepant outcomes need to be explored further, and may necessitate reappraisal of the movement towards joint interventions

A social return on investment evaluation of the pilot social prescribing EmotionMind Dynamic coaching programme to improve mental wellbeing and self-confidence

The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to longer waiting lists for people seeking to access mental health services. The NHS Five Year Forward View encourages the development of empowerment-based social prescribing interventions to supplement existing mental health programmes. Based in South Wales, EmotionMind Dynamic (EMD) is a lifestyle coaching programme that supports individuals suffering from anxiety or depression. In this evaluation of lifestyle coaching, a mixed-method social return on investment (SROI) methodology was used to value quantitative and qualitative data from face-to-face and online participants. Data collection took place between June 2021 and January 2022. Participants included both self-referred clients and those referred from health services. Mental wellbeing data were collected at baseline and at the end of the programme using the short Warwick−Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS) and the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES). Baseline and follow-up data were available for 15 face-to-face participants and 17 online clients. Wellbeing valuation quantified and valued outcomes from participants. Results indicated that for every GBP 1 invested, lifestyle coaching generated social values ranging from GBP 4.12−GBP 7.08 for face-to-face clients compared with GBP 2.37−GBP 3.35 for online participants. Overall, lifestyle coaching generated positive social value ratios for both face-to-face and online clients

Standardised self-management kits for children with type 1 diabetes: pragmatic randomised trial of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness:pragmatic randomised trial of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

Objective To estimate the effectiveness of standardised self-management kits for children with type 1 diabetes. Design Pragmatic trial with randomisation ratio of two intervention: one control. Qualitative process evaluation. Setting 11 diabetes clinics in England and Wales. Participants Between February 2010 and August 2011, we validly randomised 308 children aged 6–18 years; 201 received the intervention. Intervention We designed kits to empower children to achieve glycaemic control, notably by recording blood glucose and titrating insulin. The comparator was usual treatment. Outcome measures at 3 and 6 months Primary: Diabetes Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). Secondary: HbA1c; General PedsQL; EQ-5D; healthcare resource use. Results Of the five Diabetes PedsQL dimensions, Worry showed adjusted scores significantly favouring self-management kits at 3 months (mean child-reported difference =+5.87; Standard error[SE]=2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]) from +1.57 to +10.18; p=0.008); but Treatment Adherence significantly favoured controls at 6 months (mean child-reported difference=−4.68; SE=1.74; 95%CI from −8.10 to −1.25; p=0.008). Intervention children reported significantly worse changes between 3 and 6 months on four of the five Diabetes PedsQL dimensions and on the total score (mean difference=−3.20; SE=1.33; 95% CI from −5.73 to −0.67; p=0.020). There was no evidence of change in HbA1c; only 18% of participants in each group achieved recommended levels at 6 months. No serious adverse reactions attributable to the intervention or its absence were reported. Use of kits was poor. Few children or parents associated blood glucose readings with better glycaemic control. The kits, costing £185, alienated many children and parents. Conclusions Standardised kits showed no evidence of benefit, inhibited diabetes self-management and increased worry. Future research should study relationships between children and professionals, and seek new methods of helping children and parents to manage diabetes

Economic evaluation alongside pragmatic randomised trials: developing a standard operating procedure for clinical trials units

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is wide recognition that pragmatic randomised trials are the best vehicle for economic evaluation. This is because trials provide the best chance of ensuring internal validity, not least through the rigorous prospective collection of patient-specific data. Furthermore the marginal cost of collecting economic data alongside clinical data is typically modest. UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) does not require a standard operating procedure (SOP) for economic evaluation as a prerequisite for trial unit registration. We judge that such a SOP facilitates the integration of health economics into trials.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A collaboration between health economists and trialists at Bangor University led to the development of a SOP for economic evaluation alongside pragmatic trials, in addition to the twenty SOPs required by UKCRC for registration, which include randomisation, data management and statistical analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our recent telephone survey suggests that no other UKCRC-registered trials unit currently has an economic SOP.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We argue that UKCRC should require, from all Trials Units undertaking economic evaluation and seeking registration or re-registration, a SOP for economic evaluation as one of their portfolio of supporting SOPs.</p

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of the Dental RECUR Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial: Evaluating a Goal-oriented Talking Intervention to Prevent Reoccurrence of Dental Caries in Children

BACKGROUND: The formation of dental caries is the most common chronic disease in children, and is preventable. The oral health-related quality of life has an immense impact on an individual’s daily functioning, well-being or overall quality of life. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the cost effectiveness of the Dental RECUR Brief Negotiated Interview for Oral Health (DR-BNI). This 30-minute therapeutic “talk” by a dental nurse with a parent/guardian was compared with a placebo-controlled intervention in preventing reoccurrence of dental caries in children who have had a primary tooth extracted. METHODS: An economic model was developed to simulate the clinical progression of dental caries among children who have previously had a primary tooth extracted. The analysis was conducted using the UK NHS perspective. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) based on the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Estimates of costs and probabilities were obtained from the DR-BNI multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT), while QALY values were obtained from published literature. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the result and robustness of the model. Affordability and risk-aversion of the intervention were investigated to help decision makers make the best possible choices. RESULTS: With an intervention cost of £6.47, the results from the RCT showed the healthcare cost for the DR-BNI intervention was £115.90 per child while the control had a healthcare cost of £119.46 per child. The QALYs gained for the prevention of reoccurrence of dental caries was higher in the DR-BNI intervention arm by 0.023 QALYs; thus, the DR-BNI was the dominant intervention. At willingness to pay threshold of £3500/QALY gained, a maximum probability of being cost effectiveness is achieved at 86%. The secondary analysis showed a cost-savings of £20.94 per participant for the prevention of at least one filling or extraction. Affordability results showed that the DR-BNI programme is affordable to the UK health system at a moderately low budget. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the proactive talking intervention to have a very moderate cost and to be effective in providing better health related quality-of-life gains. The intervention is cost savings with a dominant ICER even with a 200% increase in the cost of intervention. The NHS will be providing better oral health for children at a better net monetary benefit-to-risk ratio by adopting the DR-BNI intervention in preventing the reoccurrence of dental fillings and extractions for each participant. Trial Registration: This trial was registered prospectively on 27th September 2013 with the trial registration number ISRCTN 24958829. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40258-022-00720-5

Depression in Visual Impairment Trial (DEPVIT): A Randomized Clinical Trial of Depression Treatments in People With Low Vision

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare two interventions for depression, problem solving treatment (PST) and referral to the patient\u27s physician, with a waiting-list control group in people with sight loss and depressive symptoms. Methods: This was an assessor-masked, exploratory, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, with concurrent economic analysis. Of 1008 consecutive attendees at 14 low-vision rehabilitation centers in Britain, 43% (n = 430) screened positive for depressive symptoms on the Geriatric Depression Scale and 85 of these attendees participated in the trial. Eligible participants were randomized in the ratio 1:1:1 to PST, referral to their physician, or a waiting-list control arm. PST is a manualized talking intervention delivered by a trained therapist who teaches people over six to eight sessions to implement a seven-step method for solving their problems. Referral to the physician involved sending a referral letter to the person\u27s physician, encouraging him or her to consider treatment according to the stepped care protocol recommended by the U.K.\u27s National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. The primary outcome was change in depressive symptoms (6 months after baseline) as determined by the Beck Depression Inventory. Results: At 6 months, Beck Depression Inventory scores reduced by 1.05 (SD 8.85), 2.11 (SD 7.60), and 2.68 (SD 7.93) in the waiting-list control, referral, and PST arms, respectively. The cost per patient of the PST intervention was £1176 in Wales and £1296 in London. Conclusions: Depressive symptoms improved most in the PST group and least in the control group. However, the change was small and the uncertainty of the measurements relatively large

The depression in visual impairment trial (DEPVIT): trial design and protocol

&lt;b&gt;Background&lt;/b&gt; The prevalence of depression in people with a visual disability is high but screening for depression and referral for treatment is not yet an integral part of visual rehabilitation service provision. One reason for this may be that there is no good evidence about the effectiveness of treatments in this patient group. This study is the first to evaluate the effect of depression treatments on people with a visual impairment and co morbid depression.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Methods/design&lt;/b&gt; The study is an exploratory, multicentre, individually randomised waiting list controlled trial. Participants will be randomised to receive Problem Solving Therapy (PST), a ‘referral to the GP’ requesting treatment according to the NICE’s ‘stepped care’ recommendations or the waiting list arm of the trial. The primary outcome measure is change (from randomisation) in depressive symptoms as measured by the Beck’s Depression Inventory (BDI-II) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include change in depressive symptoms at 3 months, change in visual function as measured with the near vision subscale of the VFQ-48 and 7 item NEI-VFQ at 3 and 6 months, change in generic health related quality of life (EQ5D), the costs associated with PST, estimates of incremental cost effectiveness, and recruitment rate estimation.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Discussion&lt;/b&gt; Depression is prevalent in people with disabling visual impairment. This exploratory study will establish depression screening and referral for treatment in visual rehabilitation clinics in the UK. It will be the first to explore the efficacy of PST and the effectiveness of NICE’s ‘stepped care’ approach to the treatment of depression in people with a visual impairment.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt

Menstrual cups and sanitary pads to reduce school attrition, and sexually transmitted and reproductive tract infections: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility study in rural Western Kenya

Objectives: Conduct a feasibility study on the effect of menstrual hygiene on schoolgirls’ school and health (reproductive/sexual) outcomes. Design: 3-arm single-site open cluster randomised controlled pilot study. Setting: 30 primary schools in rural western Kenya, within a Health and Demographic Surveillance System. Participants: Primary schoolgirls 14–16 years, experienced 3 menses, no precluding disability, and resident in the study area. Interventions: 1 insertable menstrual cup, or monthly sanitary pads, against ‘usual practice’ control. All participants received puberty education preintervention, and hand wash soap during intervention. Schools received hand wash soap. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary: school attrition (drop-out, absence); secondary: sexually transmitted infection (STI) (Trichomonas vaginalis, Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoea), reproductive tract infection (RTI) (bacterial vaginosis, Candida albicans); safety: toxic shock syndrome, vaginal Staphylococcus aureus. Results: Of 751 girls enrolled 644 were followed-up for a median of 10.9 months. Cups or pads did not reduce school dropout risk (control=8.0%, cups=11.2%, pads=10.2%). Self-reported absence was rarely reported and not assessable. Prevalence of STIs in the end-of-study survey among controls was 7.7% versus 4.2% in the cups arm (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) 0.48, 0.24 to 0.96, p=0.039), 4.5% with pads (aPR=0.62; 0.37 to 1.03, p=0.063), and 4.3% with cups and pads pooled (aPR=0.54, 0.34 to 0.87, p=0.012). RTI prevalence was 21.5%, 28.5% and 26.9% among cup, pad and control arms, 71% of which were bacterial vaginosis, with a prevalence of 14.6%, 19.8% and 20.5%, per arm, respectively

A cluster randomised controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the 'Girls Active' intervention: a study protocol

Background: Despite the health benefits of physical activity, data from the UK suggest that a large proportion of adolescents do not meet the recommended levels of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). This is particularly evident in girls, who are less active than boys across all ages and may display a faster rate of decline in physical activity throughout adolescence. The ‘Girls Active’ intervention has been designed by the Youth Sport Trust to target the lower participation rates observed in adolescent girls. ‘Girls Active’ uses peer leadership and marketing to empower girls to influence decision making in their school, develop as role models and promote physical activity to other girls. Schools are provided with training and resources to review their physical activity, sport and PE provision, culture and practices to ensure they are relevant and attractive to adolescent girls. Methods/Design: This study is a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) aiming to recruit 20 secondary schools. Clusters will be randomised at the school level (stratified by school size and proportion of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) pupils) to receive either the ‘Girls Active’ intervention or carry on with usual practice (1:1). The 20 secondary schools will be recruited from state secondary schools within the Midlands area. We aim to recruit 80 girls aged 11 –14 years in each school. Data will be collected at three time points; baseline and seven and 14 months after baseline. Our primary aim is to investigate whether ‘Girls Active’ leads to higher objectively measured (GENEActiv) moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in adolescent girls at 14 months after baseline assessment compared to the control group. Secondary outcomes include other objectively measured physical activity variables, adiposity, physical activity-related psychological factors and the cost-effectiveness of the ‘Girls Active’ intervention. A thorough process evaluation will be conducted during the course of the intervention delivery. Discussion: The findings of this study will provide valuable information on whether this type of school-based approach to increasing physical activity in adolescent girls is both effective and cost-effective in the U