Feasibility study of early outpatient review and early cardiac rehabilitation after cardiac surgery: mixed-methods research design-a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Following cardiac surgery, patients currently attend an outpatient review 6 weeks after hospital discharge, where recovery is assessed and suitability to commence cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is determined. CR is then started from 8 weeks. Following a median sternotomy, cardiac surgery patients are required to refrain from upper body exercises, lifting of heavy objects and other strenuous activities for 12 weeks. A delay in starting CR can prolong the recovery process, increase dependence on family/carers and can cause frustration. However, current guidelines for activity and exercise after median sternotomy have been described as restrictive, anecdotal and increasingly at odds with modern clinical guidance for CR. This study aims to examine the feasibility of bringing forward outpatient review and starting CR earlier. METHODS AND ANALYSES: This is a multicentre, randomised controlled, open feasibility trial comparing postoperative outpatient review 6 weeks after hospital discharge, followed by CR commencement from 8 weeks (control arm) versus, postoperative outpatient review 3 weeks after hospital discharge, followed by commencement of CR from 4 weeks (intervention arm). The study aims to recruit 100 eligible patients, aged 18-80 years who have undergone elective or urgent cardiac surgery involving a full median sternotomy, over a 7-month period across two centres. Feasibility will be measured by consent, recruitment, retention rates and attendance at appointments and CR sessions. Qualitative interviews with trial participants and staff will explore issues around study processes and acceptability of the intervention and the findings integrated with the feasibility trial outcomes to inform the design of a future full-scale randomised controlled trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was granted by East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee on 10 January 2019. The findings will be presented at relevant conferences disseminated via peer-reviewed research publications, and to relevant stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN80441309

Covid‑19 Coping Survey: an In‑depth Qualitative Analysis of Free‑Text Responses from People With and Without Existing Health Conditions in the UK

BACKGROUND: There is currently a lack of qualitative research exploring how cognitive and emotional reactions to the threat of SARS-CoV-2 affected the health behaviours of people living with and without pre-existing mental and physical health conditions. We aimed to investigate how the threat of SARS-CoV-2 influenced the thoughts, feelings and health behaviours of people with and without pre-existing health conditions in the UK. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey of UK adults (aged 18 and over). Free-text responses were analysed using a qualitative framework approach guided by the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation. RESULTS: Of the 9110 respondents, 2763 participants provided at least one free-text response. Three main themes were derived from the data. Theme one, locus of control, reports on the extent to which people felt in control during the first wave of the pandemic. Theme two, emotional impact, conveys how individuals felt and how people’s personal circumstances made them more vulnerable to experiencing negative emotions during the pandemic. Theme three, coping strategies, describes common health-protective and health-threatening behaviours performed by individuals, as well as the importance of social connectedness, the social context and the need for collective action during the first national lockdown. CONCLUSION: Complex psychological interventions including behaviour change are required to mitigate the psychological burden of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and increase autonomy in people with and without pre-existing conditions during this highly uncertain time. Behavioural scientists can support governments and public health agencies to develop evidence-based communication and behaviour change strategies that support people to address unhelpful beliefs and emotions and strengthen coping abilities as the UK moves through and beyond the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12529-022-10055-z

Implementation of blinded outcome assessment in the Effective Verruca Treatments trial (EverT) – lessons learned

Trials using inadequate levels of blinding may report larger effect sizes than blinded studies. It has been suggested that blinded outcome assessment in open trials may in some cases be undertaken by assessments of photographs. The aim of this paper is to explore the effect of using different methods to assess the primary outcome in the EVerT (Effective Verruca Treatments) trial. It also aims to give an overview of the experiences of using digital photographs within the trial. Methods We undertook a secondary analysis to explore the effect of using three different methods to assess the primary outcome in the EVerT trial: assessment of digital photographs by blinded healthcare professionals; blinded healthcare professional assessment at the recruiting site and patient self-report. The verruca clearance rates were calculated using the three different methods of assessment. A Cohen’s kappa measure of inter-rater agreement was used to assess the agreement between the methods. We also investigated the experiences of healthcare professionals using digital photographs within the trial. Results Digital photographs for 189 out of 240 (79 %) patients in the trial were received for outcome assessment. Of the 189 photographs, 30 (16 %) were uninterpretable. The overall verruca clearance rates were 21 % (43/202,) using the unblinded patient self-reported outcome, 6 % (9/159,) using blinded assessment of digital photographs and 14 % (30/210,) using blinded outcome assessment at the site. Conclusions Despite differences in the clearance rates found using different methods of outcome assessment, this did not change the original conclusion of the trial, that there is no evidence of a difference in effectiveness between cryotherapy and salicylic acid. Future trials using digital photographs should consider individual training needs at sites and have a backup method of assessment agreed a priori

Online survey comparing coping responses to SARS-CoV-2 by people with and without existing health conditions in the UK

Objectives To investigate the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on self-reported mood, coping and health behaviours of people living with existing health conditions in the UK to understand how to improve coping responses to the threat of SARS-CoV-2. Design Quantitative design using a cross-sectional survey. Setting Online survey in the UK. Participants UK adults (18+ years) were eligible to participate. A total of 9110 people participated. Of these, 4377 (48%) reported at least one existing health condition, 874 (10%) reported having two or more existing conditions, and 715 (8%) reported having an existing mental health condition. Primary and secondary outcome measures Multivariable linear regression and sequential multiple mediation analysis were used to estimate differences in average scores for active and avoidant coping response scores due to pre-existing health conditions, and to investigate the extent to which these differences are explained by differences in perceptions, beliefs, concerns and mood. Results People with pre-existing physical (+1.11 higher; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.34) and especially mental health conditions (3.06 higher; 95% CI 2.65 to 3.48) reported poorer health and used more avoidant coping compared with healthy participants. Under some strong untestable assumptions, we estimate that experiencing low mood or concern related to SARS-CoV-2 mostly explained the relationship between existing health conditions and avoidant coping. Conclusion Psychological support and interventions including behaviour change are required to mitigate the psychological burden of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and increase autonomy in people with and without pre-existing conditions during this highly uncertain time. Psychologists are well placed to support clinicians and people with existing health conditions to minimise the psychological impact of SARS-CoV-2, in order to alleviate the subsequent strain on healthcare services

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for falls prevention in older people : a multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial (the REducing Falls with ORthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention trial)

BACKGROUND: Falls are a serious cause of morbidity and cost to individuals and society. Evidence suggests that foot problems and inappropriate footwear may increase the risk of falling. Podiatric interventions could help reduce falls; however, there is limited evidence regarding their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for preventing falls in community-dwelling older people at risk of falling, relative to usual care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentred, cohort randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and qualitative study. SETTING: Nine NHS trusts in the UK and one site in Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 1010 participants aged ≥ 65 years were randomised (intervention, n = 493; usual care, n = 517) via a secure, remote service. Blinding was not possible. INTERVENTIONS: All participants received a falls prevention leaflet and routine care from their podiatrist and general practitioner. The intervention also consisted of footwear advice, footwear provision if required, foot orthoses and foot- and ankle-strengthening exercises. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incidence rate of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of fallers and multiple fallers, time to first fall, fear of falling, fracture rate, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The primary analysis consisted of 484 (98.2%) intervention and 507 (98.1%) usual-care participants. There was a non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group [adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.05; p = 0.16]. The proportion of participants experiencing a fall was lower (50% vs. 55%, adjusted odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00; p = 0.05). No differences were observed in key secondary outcomes. No serious, unexpected and related adverse events were reported. The intervention costs £252.17 more per participant (95% CI -£69.48 to £589.38) than usual care, was marginally more beneficial in terms of HRQoL measured via the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions [mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) difference 0.0129, 95% CI -0.0050 to 0.0314 QALYs] and had a 65% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. The intervention was generally acceptable to podiatrists and trial participants. LIMITATIONS: Owing to the difficulty in calculating a sample size for a count outcome, the sample size was based on detecting a difference in the proportion of participants experiencing at least one fall, and not the primary outcome. We are therefore unable to confirm if the trial was sufficiently powered for the primary outcome. The findings are not generalisable to patients who are not receiving podiatry care. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was safe and potentially effective. Although the primary outcome measure did not reach significance, a lower fall rate was observed in the intervention group. The reduction in the proportion of older adults who experienced a fall was of borderline statistical significance. The economic evaluation suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: Further research could examine whether or not the intervention could be delivered in group sessions, by physiotherapists, or in high-risk patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68240461. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

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

Cohort Randomised Controlled Trial of a Multifaceted Podiatry Intervention for the Prevention of Falls in Older People (The REFORM Trial)

BACKGROUND: Falls are a major cause of morbidity among older people. A multifaceted podiatry intervention may reduce the risk of falling. This study evaluated such an intervention. DESIGN: Pragmatic cohort randomised controlled trial in England and Ireland. 1010 participants were randomised (493 to the Intervention group and 517 to Usual Care) to either: a podiatry intervention, including foot and ankle exercises, foot orthoses and, if required, new footwear, and a falls prevention leaflet or usual podiatry treatment plus a falls prevention leaflet. The primary outcome was the incidence rate of self-reported falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. Secondary outcomes included: proportion of fallers and those reporting multiple falls, time to first fall, fear of falling, Frenchay Activities Index, Geriatric Depression Scale, foot pain, health related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In the primary analysis were 484 (98.2%) intervention and 507 (98.1%) control participants. There was a small, non statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05, p = 0.16). The proportion of participants experiencing a fall was lower (49.7 vs 54.9%, adjusted odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00, p = 0.05) as was the proportion experiencing two or more falls (27.6% vs 34.6%, adjusted odds ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.90, p = 0.01). There was an increase (p = 0.02) in foot pain for the intervention group. There were no statistically significant differences in other outcomes. The intervention was more costly but marginally more beneficial in terms of health-related quality of life (mean quality adjusted life year (QALY) difference 0.0129, 95% CI -0.0050 to 0.0314) and had a 65% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: There was a small reduction in falls. The intervention may be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN68240461

A Nested Randomised Controlled Trial of a Newsletter and Post-it Note Did not Increase Postal Questionnaire Response Rates in a Falls Prevention Trial

Background: Attrition (i.e. when participants do not return the questionnaires)is a problem for many randomised controlled trials. The resultant loss of dataleads to a reduction in statistical power and can lead to bias. The aim of thisstudy was to assess whether a pre-notification newsletter and/or a handwrittenor printed Post-it® note sticker, as a reminder, increased postal questionnaireresponse rates for participants of randomised controlled trials.Method: This study was a factorial trial embedded within a trial of afalls-prevention intervention among men and women aged ≥65 years underpodiatric care. Participants were randomised into one of six groups: newsletterplus handwritten Post-it®; newsletter plus printed Post-it®; newsletter only;handwritten Post-it® only; printed Post-it® only; or no newsletter or Post-it®.The results were combined with those from previous embedded randomisedcontrolled trials in a meta-analysis.Results: The 12-month response rate was 803/826 (97.2%) (newsletter 95.1%,no newsletter 99.3%, printed Post-it® 97.5%, handwritten Post-it® 97.1%, noPost-it® 97.1%). Pre-notification with a newsletter had a detrimental effect onresponse rates (adjusted odds ratio (OR), 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.48; p<0.01)and time to return the questionnaire (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75to 0.99; p=0.04). No other statistically significant differences were observedbetween the intervention groups on response rates, time to response, and theneed for a reminder.Conclusions: Post-it® notes have been shown to be ineffective in threeembedded trials, whereas the evidence for newsletter reminders is stilluncertain.KeywordsRandomised controlled trial; randomisation; embedded trial; newsletter;Post-it® note; response rat

Effectiveness of offering tailored text message, self-help smoking cessation support to pregnant women who want information on stopping smoking: MiQuit3 randomised controlled trial and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To test the efficacy of 'MiQuit', a tailored, self-help, text message stop smoking programme for pregnancy, as an adjunct to usual care (UC) for smoking cessation in pregnancy. DESIGN: Multicentre, open, two-arm, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial (RCT) and a trial sequential analysis (TSA) meta-analysis combining trial findings with two previous ones. SETTING: Twenty-four English hospital antenatal clinics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1002 pregnant women who were ≥16 years old, were ≤25 weeks gestation and smoked ≥1 daily cigarette and accepted information on cessation with no requirement to set quit dates. INTERVENTIONS: UC or UC plus 'MiQuit': 12 weeks of tailored, smoking cessation text messages focussed on inducing and aiding cessation. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome: biochemically validated cessation between 4 weeks after randomisation and late pregnancy. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: shorter and non-validated abstinence periods, pregnancy outcomes and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. FINDINGS: RCT: cessation was 5.19% (26/501) and 4.59% (23/501) in MiQuit and UC groups (adjusted odds ratio [adj OR] for quitting with MiQuit versus UC, 95% CI = 1.15 [0.65-2.04]); other abstinence findings were similar, with higher point estimates. Primary outcome ascertainment was 61.7% (309) and 67.3% (337) in MiQuit and UC groups with 71.1% (54/76) and 69.5% (41/59) abstinence validation rates, respectively. Pregnancy outcomes were similar and the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year was -£1118 (95% CI = -£4806-£1911). More MiQuit group women reported making at least one quit attempt (adj OR [95% CI]) for making an attempt, 1.50 (1.07-2.09). TSA meta-analysis: this found no significant difference in prolonged abstinence between MiQuit and UC (pooled OR = 1.49, adjusted 95% CI = 0.62-3.60). CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of whether they want to try quitting, when offered a tailored, self-help, text message stop smoking programme for pregnancy (MiQuit) as an adjunct to usual care, pregnant women are not more likely to stop smoking until childbirth but they report more attempts at stopping smoking