Protocol for an HTA report: Does therapeutic writing help people with long-term conditions? Systematic review, realist synthesis and economic modelling

This article is made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/Introduction: Long-term medical conditions (LTCs) cause reduced health-related quality of life and considerable health service expenditure. Writing therapy has potential to improve physical and mental health in people with LTCs, but its effectiveness is not established. This project aims to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of therapeutic writing in LTCs by systematic review and economic evaluation, and to evaluate context and mechanisms by which it might work, through realist synthesis. Methods: Included are any comparative study of therapeutic writing compared with no writing, waiting list, attention control or placebo writing in patients with any diagnosed LTCs that report at least one of the following: relevant clinical outcomes; quality of life; health service use; psychological, behavioural or social functioning; adherence or adverse events. Searches will be conducted in the main medical databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library and Science Citation Index. For the realist review, further purposive and iterative searches through snowballing techniques will be undertaken. Inclusions, data extraction and quality assessment will be in duplicate with disagreements resolved through discussion. Quality assessment will include using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Data synthesis will be narrative and tabular with meta-analysis where appropriate. De novo economic modelling will be attempted in one clinical area if sufficient evidence is available and performed according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) reference case.National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programm

Does therapeutic writing help people with long-term conditions? Systematic review, realist synthesis and economic considerations

Background Writing therapy to improve physical or mental health can take many forms. The most researched model of therapeutic writing (TW) is unfacilitated, individual expressive writing (written emotional disclosure). Facilitated writing activities are less widely researched. Data sources Databases including: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, AMED, and CINHAL were searched from inception to March 2013. Review methods Four TW practitioners provided expert advice. Study procedures were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies were included. Quality was appraised using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Unfacilitated and facilitated TW studies were analysed separately under ICD-10 chapter headings. Meta-analyses were performed where possible using Revman 5.2. Costs were estimated from an NHS perspective and three cost-consequence case studies were prepared. Realist synthesis followed RAMESES guidelines. Objectives To review the clinical and cost-effectiveness of TW for people with long-term health conditions (LTCs) compared to no writing, or other controls, reporting any relevant clinical outcomes. To conduct a realist synthesis to understand how TW might work, and for whom. Results From 14,658 unique citations, 284 full text papers were reviewed and 64 studies (58 RCTs) were included in the final effectiveness reviews. Five studies examined facilitated TW, these were extremely heterogeneous with unclear or high risk of bias, but suggested that facilitated TW interventions may be beneficial in individual LTCs. Unfacilitated expressive writing was examined in 59 studies of variable, or unreported, quality. Overall there was very little or no evidence of any benefit reported in the following conditions (number of studies): HIV (six); breast cancer (eight); gynaecological and genitourinary cancers (five); mental health (five); asthma (four); psoriasis (three); chronic pain (four). In inflammatory arthropathies (six) there was a reduction in disease severity (n= 191, standardised mean difference (SMD) - 0.61 [95% confidence intervals (95% CI) -0.96, -0.26]) in the short term on meta-analysis of four studies. For all other LTCs there was either no, or sparse, data with no, or inconsistent, evidence of benefit. Meta-analyses conducted across all the LTCs provided no evidence that unfacilitated EW had any effect on depression at short term (n= 1,563, SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.17, substantial heterogeneity), or long term (n= 778, SMD-0.04 95% CI -0.18 to 0.10, little heterogeneity) follow up, or on anxiety, physiological or biomarker-based outcomes. One study reported costs, none reported cost-effectiveness, twelve reported resource use; meta-analysis suggested reduced medication use but no impact on health centre visits. Estimated costs of intervention were low, but there was insufficient evidence to judge cost-effectiveness. Realist review findings suggested that facilitated TW is a complex intervention and group interaction contributes to the perception of benefit. It was unclear from the available data who might benefit most from facilitated TW. Limitations Difficulties with developing realist review programme theory meant that mechanisms operating during TW remain obscure. Conclusions Overall there is little evidence to support the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of unfacilitated expressive writing interventions in people with LTCs. Further research focussed on facilitated TW in people with LTCs could be informative.The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Effectiveness of first and second-line empirical treatment in Italy: Results of the European registry on Helicobacter pylori management.

Background and aims: The optimal management of naïve and not naïve Helicobacter pylori patients remains unclear. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate whether the actual clinical practice mirrors the indications suggested by the guidelines. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and the safety of the empirical first- and second-line treatments prescribed to patients enroled at Italian centres participating in the European Registry on H. pylori Management (Hp-EuReg). Methods: The Hp-EuReg is an international multicentre prospective non-interventional registry starting in 2013 aiming to evaluate the management of H. pylori infection by European gastroenterologists. Patients were registered in an e-CRF by AEG-REDCap. Variables assessed included demographics, previous eradication attempts, treatment regimen, effectiveness, and tolerance. Results: Overall, 3723 patients from 2013 to February 2021 were included: 2996 and 727 received an empirical first- and second-line treatment, respectively. According to the modified ITT analysis, among the first-line regimens, only the bismuth quadruple therapy with three-in-one-single capsule (BQT-TSC), the concomitant, and the sequential treatment - all lasting 10 days - achieved an eradication rate >90%. Among the second-line regimens, only the 10-day BQT-TSC reported an effectiveness >90%. High-dose PPI twice daily also significantly increased the effectiveness of some therapies. The BQT-TSC was the regimen with the highest incidence of adverse events. Conclusions: Only quadruple therapies lasting at least 10 days achieved over 90% eradication rates among the empirical first- and second-line regimens. It remains unclear whether high-dose PPI twice daily can improve the efficacy of quadruple treatment

Creative writing for health and wellbeing

Creative writing for health and wellbeing has emerged from a constellation of arts-based practices which have been explicitly linked to health and wellbeing, that is, a set of practices which are recognised as having a role in “resolving the social and cultural challenges facing today’s world” (UNESCO, 2010, p.8). With a burgeoning empirical base of evidence of the role and impacts of arts-based practices for health and wellbeing, there is an increasing acknowledgment that such practices can help “keep us well, aid our recovery and support longer lives better lived [and] help meet major challenges facing health and social care… ageing, long term conditions, loneliness and mental health” (APPG, 2017, p.4)..