Understanding the role of peace of mind in childhood vaccination: A qualitative study with members of the general public.

BACKGROUND: Recent debates on the introduction of new childhood vaccines in the UK have suggested that 'peace of mind' (PoM) might influence decision making. The aim of this study is to ascertain the importance of 'PoM' in individuals' decision making. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted in the UK. Participants were 22 females and 2 males, aged 18-74 years, with a selection of non-parents, parents, guardians and foster carers. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic framework approach and conceptualised using the Health Belief Model, which provided an overview of participants' perceptions and behaviours about childhood vaccinations. RESULTS: Vaccine associated PoM was associated with individuals' perceptions of disease severity, with individuals feeling more reassurance after obtaining vaccinations against diseases that they considered to be severe compared to relatively mild diseases. Conversely, concerns about vaccination side-effects reduced participants PoM, but the duration of this effect varied between individuals. Other factors, such as social pressure and the emotional anxiety related to children's feelings, or physical reactions, to vaccinations also negatively impacted on participants' vaccine associated PoM. CONCLUSION: Vaccine associated PoM was a consideration for some participants seeking vaccinations but was only a minor motivating factor for these individuals. These differences stemmed from whether participants received PoM from the uptake of a vaccination because they perceived some intrinsic benefit from it or, conversely, they considered vaccinations as a routine health intervention. Overall, vaccine related PoM varied between participants in magnitude and fluctuated over time, even in the same individuals

Bristol girls dance project feasibility study: Using a pilot economic evaluation to inform design of a full trial

Background: There is currently little guidance for pilot trial economic evaluation where health outcomes and costs are influenced by a range of wider determinants and factors. Objectives: This article presents the findings of a pilot economic evaluation study running alongside the Bristol Girls Dance Project (BGDP) feasibility study. Design: 3-arm, cluster randomised, controlled pilot trial and economic evaluation. 7 schools (n=210) from the Bristol and greater Bristol area, UK were randomly allocated to the intervention arm 3 schools (n=90) and the control arm 4 schools (n=120). Intervention: Girls aged 11-12 years with parental consent were provided with two, 90 min dance sessions per week for 9 weeks at school facilities. Economic outcome measures: Programme costs and girls' preferences for attributes of dance and preferences for competing leisure time activities were measured. Results: The mainstream average cost of the BGDP programme (not including research, control and dance teacher training costs) per school was $2126.40, £1329 and €1555 and per participant was$70.90, £44.31 and €51.84 in 2010-2011 prices. Discrete choice experiment (DCE) methods are acceptable to girls of this age indicating time available for other leisure activities on dance class days is the attribute girls valued most and 2 h leisure time remaining preferred to 3 h. Conclusions: This pilot study indicates that providing full cost data for a future trial of the BGDP programme is feasible and practical. There is no evidence from preference data to support adjustment to intervention design. A future economic evaluation is likely to be successful utilising the resource use checklist developed. The importance of categorising separately resources used to develop, prepare, deliver and maintain the programme to estimate mainstream costs accurately is demonstrated

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for treatment-resistant depression in primary care: the CoBalT randomised controlled trial

Background: Only one-third of patients with depression respond fully to treatment with antidepressant medication. However, there is little robust evidence to guide the management of those whose symptoms are 'treatment resistant'.<p></p> Objective: The CoBalT trial examined the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) as an adjunct to usual care (including pharmacotherapy) for primary care patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) compared with usual care alone.<p></p> Design: Pragmatic, multicentre individually randomised controlled trial with follow-up at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. A subset took part in a qualitative study investigating views and experiences of CBT, reasons for completing/not completing therapy, and usual care for TRD.<p></p> Setting: General practices in Bristol, Exeter and Glasgow, and surrounding areas.<p></p> Participants: Patients aged 18-75 years who had TRD [on antidepressants for 6 weeks, had adhered to medication, Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd version (BDI-II) score of 14 and fulfilled the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth edition criteria for depression]. Individuals were excluded who (1) had bipolar disorder/psychosis or major alcohol/substance abuse problems; (2) were unable to complete the questionnaires; or (3) were pregnant, as were those currently receiving CBT/other psychotherapy/secondary care for depression, or who had received CBT in the past 3 years.<p></p> Interventions: Participants were randomised, using a computer-generated code, to usual care or CBT (12-18 sessions) in addition to usual care.<p></p> Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was 'response', defined as 50% reduction in depressive symptoms (BDI-II score) at 6 months compared with baseline. Secondary outcomes included BDI-II score as a continuous variable, remission of symptoms (BDI-II score of < 10), quality of life, anxiety and antidepressant use at 6 and 12 months. Data on health and social care use, personal costs, and time off work were collected at 6 and 12 months. Costs from these three perspectives were reported using a cost-consequence analysis. A cost-utility analysis compared health and social care costs with quality adjusted life-years.<p></p> Results: A total of 469 patients were randomised (intervention: n = 234; usual care: n = 235), with 422 participants (90%) and 396 (84%) followed up at 6 and 12 months. Ninety-five participants (46.1%) in the intervention group met criteria for 'response' at 6 months compared with 46 (21.6%) in the usual-care group {odds ratio [OR] 3.26 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.10 to 5.06], p < 0.001}. In repeated measures analyses using data from 6 and 12 months, the OR for 'response' was 2.89 (95% CI 2.03 to 4.10, p < 0.001) and for a secondary 'remission' outcome (BDI-II score of < 10) 2.74 (95% CI 1.82 to 4.13, p < 0.001). The mean cost of CBT per participant was £910, the incremental health and social care cost £850, the incremental QALY gain 0.057 and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £14,911. Forty participants were interviewed. Patients described CBT as challenging but helping them to manage their depression; listed social, emotional and practical reasons for not completing treatment; and described usual care as mainly taking medication.<p></p> Conclusions: Among patients who have not responded to antidepressants, augmenting usual care with CBT is effective in reducing depressive symptoms, and these effects, including outcomes reflecting remission, are maintained over 12 months. The intervention was cost-effective based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. Patients may experience CBT as difficult but effective. Further research should evaluate long-term effectiveness, as this would have major implications for the recommended treatment of depression.<p></p&gt

Economic evaluation of the OSAC randomised controlled trial:oral corticosteroids for non-asthmatic adults with acute lower respiratory tract infection in primary care

ObjectiveTo estimate the costs and outcomes associated with treating non-asthmatic adults (nor suffering from other lung-disease) presenting to primary care with acute lower respiratory tract infection (ALRTI) with oral corticosteroids compared with placebo.DesignCost-consequence analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. Perspectives included the healthcare provider, patients and productivity losses associated with time off work.SettingFifty-four National Health Service (NHS) general practices in England.Participants398 adults attending NHS primary practices with ALRTI but no asthma or other chronic lung disease, followed up for 28 days.Interventions2× 20 mg oral prednisolone per day for 5 days versus matching placebo tablets.Outcome measuresQuality-adjusted life years using the 5-level EuroQol-5D version measured weekly; duration and severity of symptom. Direct and indirect resources related to the disease and its treatment were also collected. Outcomes were measured for the 28-day follow-up.Results198 (50%) patients received the intervention (prednisolone) and 200 (50%) received placebo. NHS costs were dominated by primary care contacts, higher with placebo than with prednisolone (£13.11 vs £10.38) but without evidence of a difference (95% CI £3.05 to £8.52). The trial medication cost of £1.96 per patient would have been recouped in prescription charges of £4.30 per patient overall (55% participants would have paid £7.85), giving an overall mean ‘profit’ to the NHS of £7.00 (95% CI £0.50 to £17.08) per patient. There was a quality adjusted life years gain of 0.03 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.05) equating to half a day of perfect health favouring the prednisolone patients; there was no difference in duration of cough or severity of symptoms.ConclusionsThe use of prednisolone for non-asthmatic adults with ALRTI, provided small gains in quality of life and cost savings driven by prescription charges. Considering the results of the economic evaluation and possible side effects of corticosteroids, the short-term benefits may not outweigh the long-term harms.Trial registration numbersEudraCT 2012-000851-15 and ISRCTN57309858; Pre-results

Design and management considerations for control groups in hybrid effectiveness-implementation trials: Narrative review & case studies.

Hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies allow researchers to combine study of a clinical intervention's effectiveness with study of its implementation with the aim of accelerating the translation of evidence into practice. However, there currently exists limited guidance on how to design and manage such hybrid studies. This is particularly true for studies that include a comparison/control arm that, by design, receives less implementation support than the intervention arm. Lack of such guidance can present a challenge for researchers both in setting up but also in effectively managing participating sites in such trials. This paper uses a narrative review of the literature (Phase 1 of the research) and comparative case study of three studies (Phase 2 of the research) to identify common themes related to study design and management. Based on these, we comment and reflect on: (1) the balance that needs to be struck between fidelity to the study design and tailoring to emerging requests from participating sites as part of the research process, and (2) the modifications to the implementation strategies being evaluated. Hybrid trial teams should carefully consider the impact of design selection, trial management decisions, and any modifications to implementation processes and/or support on the delivery of a controlled evaluation. The rationale for these choices should be systematically reported to fill the gap in the literature

Effect of oral prednisolone on symptom duration and severity in nonasthmatic adults with acute lower respiratory tract infection: a randomized clinical trial

Importance: Acute lower respiratory tract infection is common and often treated inappropriately in primary care with antibiotics. Corticosteroids are increasingly used but without sufficient evidence. Objective: To assess the effects of oral corticosteroids for acute lower respiratory tract infection in adults without asthma. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized trial (July 2013 to final follow-up October 2014) conducted in 54 family practices in England among 401 adults with acute cough and at least 1 lower respiratory tract symptom not requiring immediate antibiotic treatment and with no history of chronic pulmonary disease or use of asthma medication in the past 5 years. Interventions: Two 20-mg prednisolone tablets (n = 199) or matched placebo (n = 202) once daily for 5 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were duration of moderately bad or worse cough (0 to 28 days; minimal clinically important difference, 3.79 days) and mean severity of symptoms on days 2 to 4 (scored from 0 [not affected] to 6 [as bad as it could be]; minimal clinically important difference, 1.66 units). Secondary outcomes were duration and severity of acute lower respiratory tract infection symptoms, duration of abnormal peak flow, antibiotic use, and adverse events. Results: Among 401 randomized patients, 2 withdrew immediately after randomization, and 1 duplicate patient was identified. Among the 398 patients with baseline data (mean age, 47 [SD, 16.0] years; 63% women; 17% smokers; 77% phlegm; 70% shortness of breath; 47% wheezing; 46% chest pain; 42% abnormal peak flow), 334 (84%) provided cough duration and 369 (93%) symptom severity data. Median cough duration was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3-8 days) in the prednisolone group and 5 days (IQR, 3-10 days) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.39; P = .36 at an α = .05). Mean symptom severity was 1.99 points in the prednisolone group and 2.16 points in the placebo group (adjusted difference, −0.20; 95% CI, −0.40 to 0.00; P = .05 at an α = .001). No significant treatment effects were observed for duration or severity of other acute lower respiratory tract infection symptoms, duration of abnormal peak flow, antibiotic use, or nonserious adverse events. There were no serious adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: Oral corticosteroids should not be used for acute lower respiratory tract infection symptoms in adults without asthma because they do not reduce symptom duration or severity

Economic evaluation of the OSAC randomised controlled trial: Oral corticosteroids for non-asthmatic adults with acute lower respiratory tract infection in primary care

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. Objective To estimate the costs and outcomes associated with treating non-asthmatic adults (nor suffering from other lung-disease) presenting to primary care with acute lower respiratory tract infection (ALRTI) with oral corticosteroids compared with placebo. Design Cost-consequence analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. Perspectives included the healthcare provider, patients and productivity losses associated with time off work. Setting Fifty-four National Health Service (NHS) general practices in England. Participants 398 adults attending NHS primary practices with ALRTI but no asthma or other chronic lung disease, followed up for 28 days. Interventions 2× 20 mg oral prednisolone per day for 5 days versus matching placebo tablets. Outcome measures Quality-adjusted life years using the 5-level EuroQol-5D version measured weekly; duration and severity of symptom. Direct and indirect resources related to the disease and its treatment were also collected. Outcomes were measured for the 28-day follow-up. Results 198 (50%) patients received the intervention (prednisolone) and 200 (50%) received placebo. NHS costs were dominated by primary care contacts, higher with placebo than with prednisolone (£13.11 vs £10.38) but without evidence of a difference (95% CI £3.05 to £8.52). The trial medication cost of £1.96 per patient would have been recouped in prescription charges of £4.30 per patient overall (55% participants would have paid £7.85), giving an overall mean 'profit' to the NHS of £7.00 (95% CI £0.50 to £17.08) per patient. There was a quality adjusted life years gain of 0.03 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.05) equating to half a day of perfect health favouring the prednisolone patients; there was no difference in duration of cough or severity of symptoms. Conclusions The use of prednisolone for non-asthmatic adults with ALRTI, provided small gains in quality of life and cost savings driven by prescription charges. Considering the results of the economic evaluation and possible side effects of corticosteroids, the short-term benefits may not outweigh the long-term harms. Trial registration numbers EudraCT 2012-000851-15 and ISRCTN57309858; Pre-results