iSupport for Young Carers: An Adaptation of an e-Health Intervention for Young Dementia Carers

Young dementia carers need to be recognised and supported in their role. They need help to understand the illness, what changes are expected and how it can affect their family member. Many support services, partly due to the COVID pandemic, have moved online and have been shown to be acceptable as they are low cost and reduce access barriers. iSupport is an evidence-informed e-health training programme developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) to support adult dementia carers. This paper reports on the co-design of an adapted version of iSupport for young carers. A theoretically driven co-design approach, drawing on the lived experiences of young dementia carers and experts who work with this target group was followed. As a result of this study iSupport for Young Carers was created. It is the first e-health intervention of its kind and aims to support the mental health, knowledge and skills of young dementia carers. In turn, it could improve the quality of the support that service providers can offer, and this can result in increased levels of identification of these young people. The work presented also provides opportunities for other countries and demographic groups to translate and adapt iSupport for Young Carers to their specific cultural context

The PD COMM trial: A protocol for the process evaluation of a randomised trial assessing the effectiveness of two types of SLT for people with Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND: The PD COMM trial is a phase III multi-centre randomised controlled trial whose aim is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two approaches to speech and language therapy (SLT) compared with no SLT intervention (control) for people with Parkinson's disease who have self-reported or carer-reported problems with their speech or voice. Our protocol describes the process evaluation embedded within the outcome evaluation whose aim is to evaluate what happened at the time of the PD COMM intervention implementation and to provide findings that will assist in the interpretation of the PD COMM trial results. Furthermore, the aim of the PD COMM process evaluation is to investigate intervention complexity within a theoretical model of how the trialled interventions might work best and why. METHODS/DESIGN: Drawing from the Normalization Process Theory and frameworks for implementation fidelity, a mixed method design will be used to address process evaluation research questions. Therapists' and participants' perceptions and experiences will be investigated via in-depth interviews. Critical incident reports, baseline survey data from therapists, treatment record forms and home practice diaries also will be collected at relevant time points throughout the running of the PD COMM trial. Process evaluation data will be analysed independently of the outcome evaluation before the two sets of data are then combined. DISCUSSION: To date, there are a limited number of published process evaluation protocols, and few are linked to trials investigating rehabilitation therapies. Providing a strong theoretical framework underpinning design choices and being tailored to meet the complex characteristics of the trialled interventions, our process evaluation has the potential to provide valuable insight into which components of the interventions being delivered in PD COMM worked best (and what did not), how they worked well and why

Staff’s views on delivering patient-led therapy during inpatient stroke rehabilitation: a focus group study with lessons for trial fidelity

Background; Fidelity to the treatment protocol is key to successful trials but often problematic. This article reports the staff’s views on delivering a complex rehabilitation intervention: patient-led therapy during inpatient stroke care. Methods; An exploratory qualitative study using focus groups with staff involved in a multicenter (n = 12) feasibility trial of patient-led therapy (the MAESTRO trial) was undertaken as part of the evaluation process. Purposive sampling ensured that participants represented all recruiting sites, relevant professions and levels of seniority. Data analysis used a Framework Approach. Results; Five focus groups were held involving 30 participants. Five main themes emerged: the effect of the interventions, practical problems, patient-related factors, professional dilemmas, and skills. Staff felt the main effect of the therapies was on patients’ autonomy and occupation; the main practical problems were the patients’ difficulties in achieving the correct position and a lack of space. Staff clearly identified characteristics that made patient-led therapy unsuitable for some patients. Most staff experienced dilemmas over how to prioritize the trial interventions compared to their usual therapy and other clinical demands. Staff also lacked confidence about how to deliver the interventions, particularly when adapting the interventions to individual needs. For each barrier to implementation, possible solutions were identified. Of these, involving other people and establishing a routine were the most common. Conclusions; Delivering rehabilitation interventions within a trial is complex. Staff require time and support to develop the skills, strategies and confidence to identify suitable patients, deliver new treatments, adapt the new treatments to individuals’ needs and balance the demands of delivering the trial intervention according to the treatment protocol with other clinical and professional priorities

Improving the development, monitoring and reporting of stroke rehabilitation research: consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR)

Recent reviews have demonstrated that the quality of stroke rehabilitation research has continued to improve over the last four decades but despite this progress there are still many barriers in moving the field forward. Rigorous development, monitoring and complete reporting of interventions in stroke trials are essential in providing rehabilitation evidence that is robust, meaningful and implementable. An international partnership of stroke rehabilitation experts committed to develop consensus-based core recommendations with a remit of addressing the issues identified as limiting stroke rehabilitation research in the areas of developing, monitoring and reporting stroke rehabilitation interventions. Work exploring each of the three areas took place via multiple teleconferences and a two-day meeting in Philadelphia in May 2016. A total of 15 recommendations were made. To validate the need for the recommendations the group reviewed all stroke rehabilitation trials published in 2015 (n=182 papers). Our review highlighted that the majority of publications did not clearly describe how interventions were developed or monitored during the trial. In particular, under-reporting of the theoretical rationale for the intervention and the components of the intervention calls into question many interventions that have been evaluated for efficacy. More trials were found to have addressed the reporting of interventions recommendations than those related to development or monitoring. Nonetheless the majority of reporting recommendations were still not adequately described. To progress the field of stroke rehabilitation research and to ensure stroke patients receive optimal evidence based clinical care we urge the research community to endorse and adopt our recommendations

Effective health care for older people living and dying in care homes: A realist review

Background: Care home residents in England have variable access to health care services. There is currently no coherent policy or consensus about the best arrangements to meet these needs. The purpose of this review was to explore the evidence for how different service delivery models for care home residents support and/or improve wellbeing and health-related outcomes in older people living and dying in care homes. Methods: We conceptualised models of health care provision to care homes as complex interventions. We used a realist review approach to develop a preliminary understanding of what supported good health care provision to care homes. We completed a scoping of the literature and interviewed National Health Service and Local Authority commissioners, providers of services to care homes, representatives from the Regulator, care home managers, residents and their families. We used these data to develop theoretical propositions to be tested in the literature to explain why an intervention may be effective in some situations and not others. We searched electronic databases and related grey literature. Finally the findings were reviewed with an external advisory group. Results: Strategies that support and sustain relational working between care home staff and visiting health care professionals explained the observed differences in how health care interventions were accepted and embedded into care home practice. Actions that encouraged visiting health care professionals and care home staff jointly to identify, plan and implement care home appropriate protocols for care, when supported by ongoing facilitation from visiting clinicians, were important. Contextual factors such as financial incentives or sanctions, agreed protocols, clinical expertise and structured approaches to assessment and care planning could support relational working to occur, but of themselves appeared insufficient to achieve change. Conclusion: How relational working is structured between health and care home staff is key to whether health service interventions achieve health related outcomes for residents and their respective organisations. The belief that either paying clinicians to do more in care homes and/or investing in training of care home staff is sufficient for better outcomes was not supported.This research was funded by National Institute of Health Research Health Service Delivery and Research programme (HSDR 11/021/02)

A multicentre, randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard NHS Speech and Language Therapy versus control in Parkinson’s disease: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Abstract: Background: Parkinson’s disease (PD) affects approximately 145,519 people in the UK. Speech impairments are common with a reported prevalence of 68%, which increase physical and mental demands during conversation, reliance on family and/or carers, and the likelihood of social withdrawal reducing quality of life. In the UK, two approaches to Speech and Language Therapy (SLT) intervention are commonly available: National Health Service (NHS) SLT or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®). NHS SLT is tailored to the individuals’ needs per local practice typically consisting of six to eight weekly sessions; LSVT LOUD® comprises 16 sessions of individual treatment with home-based practice over 4 weeks. The evidence-base for their effectiveness is inconclusive. Methods/design: PD COMM is a phase III, multicentre, three-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Five hundred and forty-six people with idiopathic PD, reporting speech or voice problems will be enrolled. We will exclude those with a diagnosis of dementia, laryngeal pathology or those who have received SLT for speech problems in the previous 2 years. Following informed consent and completion of baseline assessments, participants will be randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to no-intervention control, NHS SLT or LSVT LOUD® via a central computer-generated programme, using a minimisation procedure with a random element, to ensure allocation concealment. Participants randomised to the intervention groups will start treatment within 4 (NHS SLT) or 7 (LSVT LOUD®) weeks of randomisation. Primary outcome: Voice Handicap Index (VHI) total score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include: VHI subscales, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39; Questionnaire on Acquired Speech Disorders; EuroQol-5D-5 L; ICECAP-O; resource utilisation; adverse events and carer quality of life. Mixed-methods process and health economic evaluations will take place alongside the trial. Assessments will be completed before randomisation and at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The trial started in December 2015 and will run for 77 months. Recruitment will take place in approximately 42 sites around the UK. Discussion: The trial will test the hypothesis that SLT is effective for the treatment of speech or voice problems in people with PD compared to no SLT. It will further test whether NHS SLT or LSVT LOUD® provide greater benefit and determine the cost-effectiveness of both interventions. Trial registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry, ID: 12421382. Registered on 18 April 2016

A multicentre, randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard NHS Speech and Language Therapy versus control in Parkinson’s disease: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Abstract: Background: Parkinson’s disease (PD) affects approximately 145,519 people in the UK. Speech impairments are common with a reported prevalence of 68%, which increase physical and mental demands during conversation, reliance on family and/or carers, and the likelihood of social withdrawal reducing quality of life. In the UK, two approaches to Speech and Language Therapy (SLT) intervention are commonly available: National Health Service (NHS) SLT or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®). NHS SLT is tailored to the individuals’ needs per local practice typically consisting of six to eight weekly sessions; LSVT LOUD® comprises 16 sessions of individual treatment with home-based practice over 4 weeks. The evidence-base for their effectiveness is inconclusive. Methods/design: PD COMM is a phase III, multicentre, three-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Five hundred and forty-six people with idiopathic PD, reporting speech or voice problems will be enrolled. We will exclude those with a diagnosis of dementia, laryngeal pathology or those who have received SLT for speech problems in the previous 2 years. Following informed consent and completion of baseline assessments, participants will be randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to no-intervention control, NHS SLT or LSVT LOUD® via a central computer-generated programme, using a minimisation procedure with a random element, to ensure allocation concealment. Participants randomised to the intervention groups will start treatment within 4 (NHS SLT) or 7 (LSVT LOUD®) weeks of randomisation. Primary outcome: Voice Handicap Index (VHI) total score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include: VHI subscales, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39; Questionnaire on Acquired Speech Disorders; EuroQol-5D-5 L; ICECAP-O; resource utilisation; adverse events and carer quality of life. Mixed-methods process and health economic evaluations will take place alongside the trial. Assessments will be completed before randomisation and at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The trial started in December 2015 and will run for 77 months. Recruitment will take place in approximately 42 sites around the UK. Discussion: The trial will test the hypothesis that SLT is effective for the treatment of speech or voice problems in people with PD compared to no SLT. It will further test whether NHS SLT or LSVT LOUD® provide greater benefit and determine the cost-effectiveness of both interventions. Trial registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry, ID: 12421382. Registered on 18 April 2016

The generation of consensus guidelines for carrying out process evaluations in rehabilitation research

Background: Although in recent years there has been a strong increase in published research on theories (e.g. realist evaluation, normalization process theory) driving and guiding process evaluations of complex interventions, there is limited guidance to help rehabilitation researchers design and carry out process evaluations. This can lead to the risk of process evaluations being unsystematic. This paper reports on the development of new consensus guidelines that address the specific challenges of conducting process evaluations alongside clinical trials of rehabilitation interventions. Methods: A formal consensus process was carried out based on a modified nominal group technique, which comprised two phases. Phase I was informed by the findings of a systematic review, and included a nominal group meeting with an expert panel of participants to rate and discuss the proposed statements. Phase II was an in depth semi-structured telephone interviews with expert panel participants in order to further discuss the structure and contents of the revised guidelines. Frequency of rating responses to each statement was calculated and thematic analysis was carried out on all qualitative data. Results: The guidelines for carrying out process evaluations within complex intervention rehabilitation research were produced by combining findings from Phase I and Phase II. The consensus guidelines include recommendations that are grouped in seven sections. These sections are theoretical work, design and methods, context, recruitment and retention, intervention staff, delivery of the intervention and results. These sections represent different aspects or stages of the evaluation process. Conclusion: The consensus guidelines here presented can play a role at assisting rehabilitation researchers at the time of designing and conducting process evaluations alongside trials of complex interventions. The guidelines break new ground in terms of concepts and theory and works towards a consensus in regards to how rehabilitation researchers should go about carrying out process evaluations and how this evaluation should be linked into the proposed trials. These guidelines may be used, adapted and tested by rehabilitation researchers depending on the research stage or study design (e.g. feasibility trial, pilot trial, etc.)

Process evaluations in neurological rehabilitation: a mixed-evidence systematic review and recommendations for future research

Objective: To systematically review how process evaluations are currently designed, what methodologies are used and how are they developed alongside or within neurological rehabilitation trials. Methods: This mixed-methods systematic review had two evidence streams: stream I, studies reporting process evaluations alongside neurorehabilitation trials research and stream II, methodological guidance on process evaluation design and methodology. A search strategy was designed for each evidence stream. Data regarding process evaluation core concepts and design issues were extracted using a bespoke template. Evidence from both streams was analysed separately and then synthesised in a final overarching synthesis proposing a number of recommendations for future research. Results: A total of 124 process evaluation studies, reporting on 106 interventions, were included in stream I evidence. 30 studies were included as stream II evidence. Synthesis 1 produced 9 themes, and synthesis 2 identified a total of 8 recommendations for process evaluation research. The overall synthesis resulted in 57 ‘synthesis recommendations’ about process evaluation methodology grouped into 9 research areas, including the use of theory, the investigation of context, intervention staff characteristics and the delivery of the trial intervention. Conclusions: There remains no consensus regarding process evaluation terminology within the neurological rehabilitation field. There is a need for process evaluations to address the nature and influence of context over time. Process evaluations should clearly describe what intervention staff bring to a trial, including skills and experience prior to joining the research. Process evaluations should monitor intervention staff's learning effects and the possible impact that these may have on trial outcomes

Towards a programme theory for fidelity in the evaluation of complex interventions.

Rationale, aims and objectives: This paper addresses the challenge of investigating fidelity in the implementation of a complex rehabilitation intervention designed to increase the level of independence in personal activities of daily living of stroke patients living in UK care homes. A programme theory of intervention fidelity was constructed to underpin a process evaluation running alongside a cluster randomized trial of the rehabilitation intervention. Methods: The programme theory has been constructed drawing on principles of realist evaluation. Using data from in-depth semi-structured interviews (n = 17) with all occupational therapists (OTs) and critical incident reports from the trial (n = 20), and drawing from frameworks for implementation, the programme theory was developed. Results: The programme theory incorporates four potential mechanisms through which fidelity within the trial can be investigated. These four programme theory areas are (1) the balancing of research and professional requirements that therapists performed in a number of areas while delivering the study interventions; (2) the OTs rapport building with care home staff; (3) the work focused on re-engineering the personal environments of care home patients; and (4) the learning about the intervention within the context of the trial and its impacts over time. Conclusions: These findings characterize the real-world nature of fidelity within intervention research, and specifically the negotiated nature of implementation within clinical settings, including individual patients' needs. This research adds to the evidence base because current frameworks for fidelity neglect the importance of learning over time of individuals and across the time span of a trial