The acceptability and impact of a randomised controlled trial of welfare rights advice accessed via primary health care: qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research is increasingly used alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to study a range of factors including participants' experiences of a trial. The need for a sound evidence base within public health will increase the need for RCTs of non-clinical interventions. Welfare rights advice has been proposed as an intervention with potential to reduce health inequalities. This qualitative study, nested within an RCT of the impact of welfare rights advice, examined the acceptability of the intervention, the acceptability of the research process and the perceived impact of the intervention. METHODS: 25 men and women aged 60 years or over were recruited from four general practices in Newcastle upon Tyne (UK), a sub-sample of those who consented to be contacted (n = 96) during the RCT baseline interview. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken and analysed using the Framework Method. RESULTS: Participants viewed the trial positively although, despite agreeing that the information leaflet was clear, some had agreed to participate without being fully aware of what was involved. Some participants were unaware of the implications of randomisation. Most thought it fair, but a few concerns were raised about the control condition. The intervention was acceptable and made participants feel confident about applying for benefit entitlements. 14 out of 25 participants received some financial award; median weekly income gain was £57 (€84, $101). The perceived impact of additional finances was considerable and included: increased affordability of necessities and occasional expenses; increased capacity to deal with emergencies; and a reduction in stress related to financial worries. Overall, perceived independence and ability to participate in society increased. Most participants perceived benefits to their mental well-being, but no-one reported an improvement in physical health. The RCT showed little or no effect on a wide range of outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Participation in the trial and the intervention was acceptable to participants. Welfare rights advice targeted at people aged 60 years or over and accessed via primary care had a positive impact on quality of life and resulted in increased social participation. The divergence of qualitative and quantitative findings suggests that both methods make important contributions to the evaluation of complex social interventions

Using quantitative and qualitative data in health services research - what happens when mixed method findings conflict? [ISRCTN61522618].

BACKGROUND: In this methodological paper we document the interpretation of a mixed methods study and outline an approach to dealing with apparent discrepancies between qualitative and quantitative research data in a pilot study evaluating whether welfare rights advice has an impact on health and social outcomes among a population aged 60 and over. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative data were collected contemporaneously. Quantitative data were collected from 126 men and women aged over 60 within a randomised controlled trial. Participants received a full welfare benefits assessment which successfully identified additional financial and non-financial resources for 60% of them. A range of demographic, health and social outcome measures were assessed at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 month follow up. Qualitative data were collected from a sub-sample of 25 participants purposively selected to take part in individual interviews to examine the perceived impact of welfare rights advice. RESULTS: Separate analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data revealed discrepant findings. The quantitative data showed little evidence of significant differences of a size that would be of practical or clinical interest, suggesting that the intervention had no impact on these outcome measures. The qualitative data suggested wide-ranging impacts, indicating that the intervention had a positive effect. Six ways of further exploring these data were considered: (i) treating the methods as fundamentally different; (ii) exploring the methodological rigour of each component; (iii) exploring dataset comparability; (iv) collecting further data and making further comparisons; (v) exploring the process of the intervention; and (vi) exploring whether the outcomes of the two components match. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates how using mixed methods can lead to different and sometimes conflicting accounts and, using this six step approach, how such discrepancies can be harnessed to interrogate each dataset more fully. Not only does this enhance the robustness of the study, it may lead to different conclusions from those that would have been drawn through relying on one method alone and demonstrates the value of collecting both types of data within a single study. More widespread use of mixed methods in trials of complex interventions is likely to enhance the overall quality of the evidence base

Does Particulate Air Pollution Contribute to Infant Death? A Systematic Review

There is now substantial evidence that both short- and long-term increases in ambient air pollution are associated with increased mortality and morbidity in adults and children. Children’s health is particularly vulnerable to environmental pollution, and infant mortality is still a major contributor to childhood mortality. In this systematic review we summarize and evaluate the current level of epidemiologic evidence of an association between particulate air pollution and infant mortality. We identified relevant publications using database searches with a comprehensive list of search terms and other established search methods. We included articles in the review according to specified inclusion criteria. Fifteen studies met our inclusion criteria. Evidence of an association between particulate air pollution and infant mortality in general was inconsistent, being reported from locations with largely comparable pollution levels. There was some evidence that the strength of association with particulate matter differed by subgroups of infant mortality. It was more consistent for post-neonatal mortality due to respiratory causes and sudden infant death syndrome. Differential findings for various mortality subgroups within studies suggest a stronger association of particulate air pollution with some causes of infant death. Research is needed to confirm and clarify these links, using the most appropriate methodologies for exposure assessment and control of confounders

Intervention to reduce excessive alcohol consumption and improve comorbidity outcomes in hypertensive or depressed primary care patients: two parallel cluster randomized feasibility trials

Wilson, G. B. Wray, C. McGovern, R. Newbury-Birch, D. McColl, E. Crosland, A. Background Many primary care patients with raised blood pressure or depression drink potentially hazardous levels of alcohol. Brief interventions (BI) to reduce alcohol consumption may improve comorbid conditions and reduce the risk of future alcohol problems. However,research has not established their effectiveness in this patient population. This study aimed to establish the feasibility of definitive trials of BI to reduce excessive drinking in primary care patients with hypertension or mild to moderate depression. Methods Thirteen general practices in North East England were randomized to the intervention or control arm of one of two parallel pilot trials. Adult patients drinking excessively and diagnosed with hypertension or mild-to-moderate depression received the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) by postal survey. Consenting respondents scoring more than 7 on AUDIT (score range 0 to 40) received brief alcohol consumption advice plus an information leaflet (intervention) or an information leaflet alone(control) with follow-up at six months. Measurements included the numbers of patients eligible, recruited, and retained, and the AUDIT score and systolic/diastolic blood pressure of each patient or the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) score. Acceptability was assessed via practitioner feedback and patient willingness to be screened, recruited, and retained at follow-up. Results In the hypertension trial, 1709 of 33,813 adult patients(5.1%) were eligible and were surveyed. Among the eligible patients, 468 (27.4%) returned questionnaires; 166 (9.6% of those surveyed) screened positively on AUDIT and 83 (4.8% of those surveyed) were recruited (50.0% of positive screens). Sixty-seven cases (80.7% of recruited patients)completed follow-up at six months. In the depression trial, 1,044 of 73,146 adult patients(1.4%)were eligible and surveyed. Among these eligible patients, 215(20.6%)responded;104(10.0% of those surveyed)screened positively on AUDIT and 29 (2.8% of those surveyed) were recruited (27.9% of positive screens). Nineteen cases(65.5% of recruited patients)completed follow-up at six months. Conclusions Recruitment and retention rates were higher in the hypertension trial than in the depression trial. A full brief intervention trial appears feasible for primary care patients with hypertension who drink excessively. High AUDIT scores in the depression trial suggest the importance of alcohol intervention in this group. However, future work may require alternative screening and measurement procedures

Developing an Intervention for Fall-Related Injuries in Dementia (DIFRID): an integrated, mixed-methods approach

Background Falls in people with dementia can result in a number of physical and psychosocial consequences. However, there is limited evidence to inform how best to deliver services to people with dementia following a fall. The aim of the DIFRID study was to determine the feasibility of developing and implementing a new intervention to improve outcomes for people with dementia with fall-related injuries; this encompasses both short-term recovery and reducing the likelihood of future falls. This paper details the development of the DIFRID intervention. Methods The intervention was designed using an integrated, mixed-methods approach. This involved a realist synthesis of the literature and qualitative data gathered through interviews and focus groups with health and social care professionals (n=81). An effectiveness review and further interviews and observation were also conducted and are reported elsewhere. A modified Delphi panel approach with 24 experts was then used to establish a consensus on how the findings should translate into a new intervention. After feedback from key stakeholders (n=15) on the proposed model, the intervention was manualised and training developed. Results We identified key components of a new intervention covering three broad areas: • Ensuring that the circumstances of rehabilitation are optimised for people with dementia • Compensating for the reduced ability of people with dementia to self-manage • Equipping the workforce with the necessary skills and information to care for this patient group Consensus was achieved on 54 of 69 statements over two rounds of the Delphi surveys. The statements were used to model the intervention and finalise the accompanying manual and protocol for a feasibility study. Stakeholder feedback was generally positive and the majority of suggested intervention components were approved. The proposed outcome was a 12-week complex multidisciplinary intervention primarily based at the patient’s home. Conclusions A new intervention has been developed to improve outcomes for people with dementia following a fall requiring healthcare attention. The feasibility of this intervention is currently being tested. Trial registration ISRCTN41760734 (16/11/2015

A pilot feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of screening and brief alcohol intervention to prevent hazardous drinking in young people aged 14-15 years in a high school setting (SIPS JR-HIGH)

Background: Approximately 33% of 15- to 16-year-olds in England report alcohol intoxication in the past month. This present work builds on the evidence base by focusing on Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention (ASBI) to reduce hazardous drinking in younger adolescents. Objectives: To explore the feasibility and acceptability of a future definitive cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) of ASBI in a school setting to staff, young people and parents; to explore the fidelity of the interventions as delivered by school learning mentors; to estimate the parameters for the design of a definitive cRCT of brief alcohol intervention, including rates of eligibility, consent, participation and retention at 12 months; and to pilot the collection of cost and resource-use data to inform the cost-effectiveness/utility analysis in a definitive trial. Setting: Seven schools across one geographical area in North East England. Methods: Feasibility of trial processes, recruitment and retention and a qualitative evaluation examined facilitators and barriers to the use of ASBI approaches in the school setting in this age group. A three-arm pilot cRCT (with randomisation at the school level) with qualitative evaluation to assess the feasibility of a future definitive cRCT of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ASBI in a school setting, with an integrated qualitative component. The trial ran in parallel with a repeated cross-sectional survey, which facilitated screening for the trial. Participants: Year 10 school pupils (aged 14–15 years). Interventions: Young people who screened positive on a single alcohol screening question, and consented to take part, were randomised to one of three groups: (1) feedback that their drinking habits may be risky and provision of an advice leaflet (control condition, n?=?two schools); (2) feedback as for the control condition plus a 30-minute brief interactive session, which combined structured advice and motivational interviewing techniques, delivered by the school learning mentor (intervention 1, n?=?two schools); or (3) feedback as for the control condition plus a 30-minute brief interactive session as for intervention 1 plus a 60-minute session involving family members delivered by the school learning mentor (intervention 2, n?=?three schools). Young people were followed up at 12 months. Main outcome measures: Feasibility and acceptability. Randomisation: Randomisation was carried out at the school level. Randomisation achieved balance on two school-level variables (numbers of pupils in school year and proportion receiving free school meals). Blinding: School staff, young people and researchers were not blind to the intervention allocated. Results: A total of 229 young people were eligible for the trial; 182 (79.5%) were randomised (control, n?=?53; intervention 1, n?=?54; intervention 2, n?=?75). Of the 75 randomised to intervention 2, 67 received intervention 1 (89%). Eight received both intervention 1 and intervention 2 (11%). In total, 160 out of 182 were successfully followed up at 12 months (88%). Interviews were carried out with six school lead liaisons, 13 learning mentors, 27 young people and seven parents (n?=?53). Analysis shows that the school setting is a feasible and acceptable place to carry out ASBI, with learning mentors seen as suitable people to do this. Intervention 2 was not seen as feasible or acceptable by school staff, parents or young people. Outcomes/conclusions: It is feasible and acceptable to carry out a trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of single-session ASBI with young people in the school setting, with learning mentors delivering the intervention. Future work should include a definitive study that does not include a parental arm

Evaluation of an Extended Stroke Rehabilitation Service (EXTRAS): A Randomized Controlled Trial and Economic Analysis

Background and Purpose— There is limited evidence to guide rehabilitation to meet the longer term needs of stroke survivors. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS) provided following early supported discharge were determined. Methods— EXTRAS was a pragmatic parallel-group observer-blind randomized controlled trial involving 19 UK centers. Patients with stroke were individually randomized to receive EXTRAS or usual care at discharge from early supported discharge. Five EXTRAS reviews were provided by an early supported discharge team member between one and 18 months, usually by telephone. Reviews consisted of a semi-structured interview assessing progress, rehabilitation needs, and service provision, with goal setting and action planning. The primary outcome was performance in extended activities of daily living (Nottingham EADL Scale) at 24 months post-randomization. The Nottingham EADL Scale is scored 0 to 66, with higher scores indicating better performance in these activities. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using resource utilization costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years. Analyses were intention to treat. Results— Between January 9, 2013 and October 26, 2015, 573 participants were randomized (EXTRAS, n=285; usual care, n=288). Mean 24 month Nottingham EADL Scale scores were EXTRAS (n=219) 40.0 (SD 18.1) and usual care (n=231) 37.2 (SD 18.5) giving an adjusted mean difference of 1.8 (95% CI, –0.7 to 4.2). 1155/1338 (86%) of expected EXTRAS reviews were undertaken. Over 24 months, the mean cost of resource utilization was lower in the intervention group: –£311 (–$450 [95$4764 to $4033]). EXTRAS provided more Quality Adjusted Life Years (0.07 [95$28 940] per Quality Adjusted Life Years), there was a 90% chance that EXTRAS could be considered cost-effective. Conclusions— EXTRAS did not significantly improve stroke survivors’ performance in extended activities of daily living. However, given the impact on costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years, EXTRAS may be an affordable addition to improve stroke care

Feasibility trial of an early therapy in perinatal stroke (eTIPS)

Background: Perinatal stroke (PS) affects up to 1/2300 infants and frequently leads to unilateral cerebral palsy (UCP). Preterm-born infants affected by unilateral haemorrhagic parenchymal infarction (HPI) are also at risk of UCP. To date no standardised early therapy approach exists, yet early intervention could be highly effective, by positively influencing processes of activity-dependent plasticity within the developing nervous system including the corticospinal tract. Our aim was to test feasibility and acceptability of an "early Therapy In Perinatal Stroke" (eTIPS) intervention, aiming ultimately to improve motor outcome. Methods: Design: Feasibility trial, North-East England, August 2015-September 2017. Participants were infants with PS or HPI, their carers and therapists. The intervention consisted of a parent-delivered lateralised therapy approach starting from term equivalent age and continuing until 6 months corrected age. The outcome measures were feasibility (recruitment and retention rates) and acceptability of the intervention (parental questionnaires including the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEBWMS), qualitative observations and in-depth interviews with parents and therapists). We also reviewed clinical imaging data and undertook assessments of motor function, including the Hand Assessment for Infants (HAI). Assessments were also piloted in typically developing (TD) infants, to provide further information on their ease of use and acceptability. Results: Over a period of 18 months we screened 20 infants referred as PS/HPI: 14 met the inclusion criteria and 13 took part. At 6 months, 11 (85%) of those enrolled had completed the final assessment. Parents valued the intervention and found it acceptable and workable. There were no adverse events related to the intervention. We recruited 14 TD infants, one of whom died prior to undertaking any assessments and one of whom was subsequently found to have a condition affecting neurodevelopmental progress: thus, data for 12 TD infants was analysed to 6 months. The HAI was well tolerated by infants and highly valued by parents. Completion rates for the WEBWMS were high and did not suggest any adverse effect of engagement in eTIPS on parental mental wellbeing. Conclusion: The eTIPS intervention was feasible to deliver and acceptable to families. We plan to investigate efficacy in a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Does domiciliary welfare rights advice improve health-related quality of life in independent-living, socio-economically disadvantaged people aged ≥60 years? Randomised controlled trial, economic and process evaluations in the North East of England.

BACKGROUND: There are major socio-economic gradients in health that could be influenced by increasing personal resources. Welfare rights advice can enhance resources but has not been rigorously evaluated for health-related impacts. METHODS: Randomised, wait-list controlled trial with individual allocation, stratified by general practice, of welfare rights advice and assistance with benefit entitlements, delivered in participants' homes by trained advisors. Control was usual care. Participants were volunteers sampled from among all those aged ≥60 years registered with general practices in socio-economically deprived areas of north east England. Outcomes at 24 months were: CASP-19 score (primary), a measure of health-related quality of life; changes in income, social and physical function, and cost-effectiveness (secondary). Intention to treat analysis compared outcomes using multiple regression, with adjustment for stratification and key covariates. Qualitative interviews with purposive samples from both trial arms were thematically analysed. FINDINGS: Of 3912 individuals approached, 755 consented and were randomised (381 Intervention, 374 Control). Results refer to outcomes at 24 months, with data available on 562 (74.4%) participants. Intervention was received as intended by 335 (88%), with 84 (22%) awarded additional benefit entitlements; 46 did not receive any welfare rights advice, and none of these were awarded additional benefits. Mean CASP-19 scores were 42.9 (Intervention) and 42.4 (Control) (adjusted mean difference 0.3 [95%CI -0.8, 1.5]). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes except Intervention participants reported receiving more care at home at 24m (53.7 (Intervention) vs 42.0 (Control) hours/week (adjusted mean difference 26.3 [95%CIs 0.8, 56.1]). Exploratory analyses did not support an intervention effect and economic evaluation suggested the intervention was unlikely to be cost-effective. Qualitative data from 50 interviews suggested there were improvements in quality of life among those receiving additional benefits. CONCLUSIONS: We found no effects on health outcomes; fewer participants than anticipated received additional benefit entitlements, and participants were more affluent than expected. Our findings do not support delivery of domiciliary welfare rights advice to achieve the health outcomes assessed in this population. However, better intervention targeting may reveal worthwhile health impacts.All authors received a grant of £798,884 from the UK National Institute of Health Research, Public Health Research Programme (No. 09/3009/ 02). www.nihr.ac.uk. All authors received a grant of £28,000 from the North East Strategic Health Authority in 2012 to cover the costs of delivering the intervention, associated training and other nonresearch costs of this study. North East SHA no longer exists. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript