A LOGIT ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPATION IN TENNESSEE'S FOREST STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

This study determines the likely effect of cost-share incentives on participation in the Tennessee Forest Stewardship Program and identifies other factors that may contribute to participation. A random utility model is used to determine the probability that a landowner will choose to participate in the program. A binary choice model is specified to represent the dichotomous decision and a logit procedure is used to fit the model. Data are obtained from mail surveys of 4,000 randomly selected landowners. Results indicate that attitudes and knowledge of forestry programs may be more influential in a landowner's decision to participate than monetary incentives.Cost-share incentive, Stewardship Incentive Program, Logit, Nonindustrial private forest, NIPF, Participation, Forestry, Trees, Resource /Energy Economics and Policy,

An occupational therapy intervention for residents with stroke related disabilities in UK care homes (OTCH): cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy of an established programme of occupational therapy in maintaining functional activity and reducing further health risks from inactivity in care home residents living with stroke sequelae. Design Pragmatic, parallel group, cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting 228 care homes (>10 beds each), both with and without the provision of nursing care, local to 11 trial administrative centres across the United Kingdom. Participants 1042 care home residents with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack, including those with language and cognitive impairments, not receiving end of life care. 114 homes (n=568 residents, 64% from homes providing nursing care) were allocated to the intervention arm and 114 homes (n=474 residents, 65% from homes providing nursing care) to standard care (control arm). Participating care homes were randomised between May 2010 and March 2012. Intervention Targeted three month programme of occupational therapy, delivered by qualified occupational therapists and assistants, involving patient centred goal setting, education of care home staff, and adaptations to the environment. Main outcome measures Primary outcome at the participant level: scores on the Barthel index of activities of daily living at three months post-randomisation. Secondary outcome measures at the participant level: Barthel index scores at six and 12 months post-randomisation, and scores on the Rivermead mobility index, geriatric depression scale-15, and EuroQol EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, at all time points. Results 64% of the participants were women and 93% were white, with a mean age of 82.9 years. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups for all measures, personal characteristics, and diagnostic tests. Overall, 2538 occupational therapy visits were made to 498 participants in the intervention arm (mean 5.1 visits per participant). No adverse events attributable to the intervention were recorded. 162 (11%) died before the primary outcome time point, and 313 (30%) died over the 12 months of the trial. The primary outcome measure did not differ significantly between the treatment arms. The adjusted mean difference in Barthel index score at three months was 0.19 points higher in the intervention arm (95% confidence interval −0.33 to 0.70, P=0.48). Secondary outcome measures also showed no significant differences at all time points. Conclusions This large phase III study provided no evidence of benefit for the provision of a routine occupational therapy service, including staff training, for care home residents living with stroke related disabilities. The established three month individualised course of occupational therapy targeting stroke related disabilities did not have an impact on measures of functional activity, mobility, mood, or health related quality of life, at all observational time points. Providing and targeting ameliorative care in this clinically complex population requires alternative strategies

A prospective cohort study assessing clinical referral management & workforce allocation within a UK regional medical genetics service

Abstract Ensuring patient access to genomic information in the face of increasing demand requires clinicians to develop innovative ways of working. This paper presents the first empirical prospective observational cohort study of UK multi-disciplinary genetic service delivery. It describes and explores collaborative working practices including the utilisation and role of clinical geneticists and non-medical genetic counsellors. Six hundred and fifty new patients referred to a regional genetics service were tracked through 850 clinical contacts until discharge. Referral decisions regarding allocation of lead health professional assigned to the case were monitored, including the use of initial clinical contact guidelines. Significant differences were found in the cases led by genetic counsellors and those led by clinical geneticists. Around a sixth, 16.8% (109/650) of referrals were dealt with by a letter back to the referrer or re-directed to another service provider and 14.8% (80/541) of the remaining patients chose not to schedule an appointment. Of the remaining 461 patients, genetic counsellors were allocated as lead health professional for 46.2% (213/461). A further 61 patients did not attend. Of those who did, 86% (345/400) were discharged after one or two appointments. Genetic counsellors contributed to 95% (784/825) of total patient contacts. They provided 93.7% (395/432) of initial contacts and 26.8% (106/395) of patients were discharged at that point. The information from this study informed a planned service re-design. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of different models of collaborative multi-disciplinary working within genetics services. Keywords (MeSH terms) Genetic Services, Genetic Counseling, Interdisciplinary Communication, Cohort Studies, Delivery of Healthcare, Referral and Consultation

Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus NHS Speech and Language Therapy versus control for dysarthria in Parkinson’s disease (PD COMM):a UK, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

Objectives: We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of two speech and language therapy (SLT) approaches versus no speech and language therapy for dysarthria in people with Parkinson’s disease. Design: This was a pragmatic, UK-wide, multicentre, three-arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned using minimisation in a 1:1:1 ratio to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®), NHS SLT, or no SLT. Analyses were based on the intention to treat principle.Setting: The speech and language therapy interventions were delivered in outpatient or home settings.Participants: Between September 2016 and March 2020, 388 people with Parkinson’s disease and dysarthria were randomised into the trial: 130 to LSVT LOUD®, 129 to NHS SLT, and 129 to no SLT.Interventions: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®) consisted of four, face-to-face or remote, 50-minute sessions each week delivered over 4 weeks. Home-based practice activities were set for up to 5 to 10 minutes daily on treatment days and 15 minutes twice daily on non-treatment days. NHS Speech and language therapy (NHS SLT) dosage was determined by the local therapist in response to individual participants’ needs. Prior research suggested that NHS SLT participants would receive an average of one session per week over 6 to 8 weeks. Local practices for NHS SLT were accepted, except for those within the LSVT LOUD® protocol. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the self-reported Voice Handicap Index (VHI) total score at 3 months.Results: People randomised to LSVT LOUD® reported lower VHI scores at 3 months post-randomisation than those who were randomised to no SLT (-8·0 points (99%CI: -13·3 to -2·6); p = 0·0001). There was no evidence of a difference in VHI scores between NHS SLT and no SLT (1·7 points; (99%Cl: -3·8 to 7·1); p = 0·43). Patients randomised to LSVT LOUD® also reported lower VHI scores than those randomised to NHS SLT (-9·6 points; (99%CI: -14·9 to -4·4); p &lt; 0.0001). There were 93 adverse events (predominately vocal strain) in the LSVT LOUD® group, 46 in the NHS SLT group, and none in the no SLT group. There were no serious adverse events. Conclusions: LSVT LOUD® was more effective at reducing the participant reported impact of voice problems than no SLT and NHS SLT. NHS SLT showed no evidence of benefit compared to no SLT. Trial registration: The completed trial registration is ISRCTN12421382. Funding: NIHR HTA Programme, project number HTA 10/135/02. <br/

Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus NHS Speech and Language Therapy versus control for dysarthria in Parkinson’s disease (PD COMM):a UK, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

Objectives: We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of two speech and language therapy (SLT) approaches versus no speech and language therapy for dysarthria in people with Parkinson’s disease. Design: This was a pragmatic, UK-wide, multicentre, three-arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned using minimisation in a 1:1:1 ratio to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®), NHS SLT, or no SLT. Analyses were based on the intention to treat principle.Setting: The speech and language therapy interventions were delivered in outpatient or home settings.Participants: Between September 2016 and March 2020, 388 people with Parkinson’s disease and dysarthria were randomised into the trial: 130 to LSVT LOUD®, 129 to NHS SLT, and 129 to no SLT.Interventions: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®) consisted of four, face-to-face or remote, 50-minute sessions each week delivered over 4 weeks. Home-based practice activities were set for up to 5 to 10 minutes daily on treatment days and 15 minutes twice daily on non-treatment days. NHS Speech and language therapy (NHS SLT) dosage was determined by the local therapist in response to individual participants’ needs. Prior research suggested that NHS SLT participants would receive an average of one session per week over 6 to 8 weeks. Local practices for NHS SLT were accepted, except for those within the LSVT LOUD® protocol. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the self-reported Voice Handicap Index (VHI) total score at 3 months.Results: People randomised to LSVT LOUD® reported lower VHI scores at 3 months post-randomisation than those who were randomised to no SLT (-8·0 points (99%CI: -13·3 to -2·6); p = 0·0001). There was no evidence of a difference in VHI scores between NHS SLT and no SLT (1·7 points; (99%Cl: -3·8 to 7·1); p = 0·43). Patients randomised to LSVT LOUD® also reported lower VHI scores than those randomised to NHS SLT (-9·6 points; (99%CI: -14·9 to -4·4); p &lt; 0.0001). There were 93 adverse events (predominately vocal strain) in the LSVT LOUD® group, 46 in the NHS SLT group, and none in the no SLT group. There were no serious adverse events. Conclusions: LSVT LOUD® was more effective at reducing the participant reported impact of voice problems than no SLT and NHS SLT. NHS SLT showed no evidence of benefit compared to no SLT. Trial registration: The completed trial registration is ISRCTN12421382. Funding: NIHR HTA Programme, project number HTA 10/135/02. <br/

A cluster randomised controlled trial of an occupational therapy intervention for residents with stroke living in UK care homes (OTCH): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The occupational therapy (OT) in care homes study (OTCH) aims to investigate the effect of a targeted course of individual OT (with task training, provision of adaptive equipment, minor environmental adaptations and staff education) for stroke survivors living in care homes, compared to usual care. METHODS/DESIGN: A cluster randomised controlled trial of United Kingdom (UK) care homes (n = 90) with residents (n = 900) who have suffered a stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), and who are not receiving end-of-life care. Homes will be stratified by centre and by type of care provided and randomised (50:50) using computer generated blocked randomisation within strata to receive either the OT intervention (3 months intervention from an occupational therapist) or control (usual care). Staff training on facilitating independence and mobility and the use of adaptive equipment, will be delivered to every home, with control homes receiving this after the 12 month follow-up.Allocation will be concealed from the independent assessors, but the treating therapists, and residents will not be masked to the intervention. Measurements are taken at baseline prior to randomisation and at 3, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. The primary outcome measure is independence in self-care activities of daily living (Barthel Activities of Daily Living Index). Secondary outcome measures are mobility (Rivermead Mobility Index), mood (Geriatric Depression Scale), preference based quality of life measured from EQ-5D and costs associated with each intervention group. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) will be derived based on the EQ-5D scores. Cost effectiveness analysis will be estimated and measured by incremental cost effectiveness ratio. Adverse events will be recorded. DISCUSSION: This study will be the largest cluster randomised controlled trial of OT in care homes to date and will clarify the currently inconclusive literature on the efficacy of OT for stroke and TIA survivors residing in care homes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN00757750.RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are