Developing a framework for evaluation: a Theory of Change for complex workplace mental health interventions

Background There is a gap between the necessity of effective mental health interventions in the workplace and the availability of evidence-based information on how to evaluate them. The available evidence outlines that mental health interventions should follow integrated approaches combining multiple components related to different levels of change. However, there is a lack of robust studies on how to evaluate multicomponent workplace interventions which target a variety of outcomes at different levels taking into account the influence of different implementation contexts. Method We use the MENTUPP project as a research context to develop a theory-driven approach to facilitate the evaluation of complex mental health interventions in occupational settings and to provide a comprehensive rationale of how these types of interventions are expected to achieve change. We used a participatory approach to develop a ToC involving a large number of the project team representing multiple academic backgrounds exploiting in tandem the knowledge from six systematic reviews and results from a survey among practitioners and academic experts in the field of mental health in SMEs. Results The ToC revealed four long-term outcomes that we assume MENTUPP can achieve in the workplace: 1) improved mental wellbeing and reduced burnout, 2) reduced mental illness, 3) reduced mental illness-related stigma, and 4) reduced productivity losses. They are assumed to be reached through six proximate and four intermediate outcomes according to a specific chronological order. The intervention consists of 23 components that were chosen based on specific rationales to achieve change on four levels (employee, team, leader, and organization). Conclusions The ToC map provides a theory of how MENTUPP is expected to achieve its anticipated long-term outcomes through intermediate and proximate outcomes assessing alongside contextual factors which will facilitate the testing of hypotheses. Moreover, it allows for a structured approach to informing the future selection of outcomes and related evaluation measures in either subsequent iterations of complex interventions or other similarly structured programs. Hence, the resulting ToC can be employed by future research as an example for the development of a theoretical framework to evaluate complex mental health interventions in the workplace

Implementation and evaluation of a multi-level mental health promotion intervention for the workplace (MENTUPP): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background Well-organised and managed workplaces can be a source of wellbeing. The construction, healthcare and information and communication technology sectors are characterised by work-related stressors (e.g. high workloads, tight deadlines) which are associated with poorer mental health and wellbeing. The MENTUPP intervention is a flexibly delivered, multi-level approach to supporting small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in creating mentally healthy workplaces. The online intervention is tailored to each sector and designed to support employees and leaders dealing with mental health difficulties (e.g. stress), clinical level anxiety and depression, and combatting mental health-related stigma. This paper presents the protocol for the cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) of the MENTUPP intervention in eight European countries and Australia. Methods Each intervention country will aim to recruit at least two SMEs in each of the three sectors. The design of the cRCT is based on the experiences of a pilot study and guided by a Theory of Change process that describes how the intervention is assumed to work. SMEs will be randomly assigned to the intervention or control conditions. The aim of the cRCT is to assess whether the MENTUPP intervention is effective in improving mental health and wellbeing (primary outcome) and reducing stigma, depression and suicidal behaviour (secondary outcome) in employees. The study will also involve a process and economic evaluation. Conclusions At present, there is no known multi-level, tailored, flexible and accessible workplace-based intervention for the prevention of non-clinical and clinical symptoms of depression, anxiety and burnout, and the promotion of mental wellbeing. The results of this study will provide a comprehensive overview of the implementation and effectiveness of such an intervention in a variety of contexts, languages and cultures leading to the overall goal of delivering an evidence-based intervention for mental health in the workplace

LEARN: A multi-centre, cross-sectional evaluation of Urology teaching in UK medical schools

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the status of UK undergraduate urology teaching against the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Undergraduate Syllabus for Urology. Secondary objectives included evaluating the type and quantity of teaching provided, the reported performance rate of General Medical Council (GMC)-mandated urological procedures, and the proportion of undergraduates considering urology as a career. MATERIALS AND METHODS: LEARN was a national multicentre cross-sectional study. Year 2 to Year 5 medical students and FY1 doctors were invited to complete a survey between 3rd October and 20th December 2020, retrospectively assessing the urology teaching received to date. Results are reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). RESULTS: 7,063/8,346 (84.6%) responses from all 39 UK medical schools were included; 1,127/7,063 (16.0%) were from Foundation Year (FY) 1 doctors, who reported that the most frequently taught topics in undergraduate training were on urinary tract infection (96.5%), acute kidney injury (95.9%) and haematuria (94.4%). The most infrequently taught topics were male urinary incontinence (59.4%), male infertility (52.4%) and erectile dysfunction (43.8%). Male and female catheterisation on patients as undergraduates was performed by 92.1% and 73.0% of FY1 doctors respectively, and 16.9% had considered a career in urology. Theory based teaching was mainly prevalent in the early years of medical school, with clinical skills teaching, and clinical placements in the later years of medical school. 20.1% of FY1 doctors reported no undergraduate clinical attachment in urology. CONCLUSION: LEARN is the largest ever evaluation of undergraduate urology teaching. In the UK, teaching seemed satisfactory as evaluated by the BAUS undergraduate syllabus. However, many students report having no clinical attachments in Urology and some newly qualified doctors report never having inserted a catheter, which is a GMC mandated requirement. We recommend a greater emphasis on undergraduate clinical exposure to urology and stricter adherence to GMC mandated procedures

The United States COVID-19 Forecast Hub dataset

Academic researchers, government agencies, industry groups, and individuals have produced forecasts at an unprecedented scale during the COVID-19 pandemic. To leverage these forecasts, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) partnered with an academic research lab at the University of Massachusetts Amherst to create the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub. Launched in April 2020, the Forecast Hub is a dataset with point and probabilistic forecasts of incident cases, incident hospitalizations, incident deaths, and cumulative deaths due to COVID-19 at county, state, and national, levels in the United States. Included forecasts represent a variety of modeling approaches, data sources, and assumptions regarding the spread of COVID-19. The goal of this dataset is to establish a standardized and comparable set of short-term forecasts from modeling teams. These data can be used to develop ensemble models, communicate forecasts to the public, create visualizations, compare models, and inform policies regarding COVID-19 mitigation. These open-source data are available via download from GitHub, through an online API, and through R packages

Evaluation of individual and ensemble probabilistic forecasts of COVID-19 mortality in the United States

Short-term probabilistic forecasts of the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States have served as a visible and important communication channel between the scientific modeling community and both the general public and decision-makers. Forecasting models provide specific, quantitative, and evaluable predictions that inform short-term decisions such as healthcare staffing needs, school closures, and allocation of medical supplies. Starting in April 2020, the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org/) collected, disseminated, and synthesized tens of millions of specific predictions from more than 90 different academic, industry, and independent research groups. A multimodel ensemble forecast that combined predictions from dozens of groups every week provided the most consistently accurate probabilistic forecasts of incident deaths due to COVID-19 at the state and national level from April 2020 through October 2021. The performance of 27 individual models that submitted complete forecasts of COVID-19 deaths consistently throughout this year showed high variability in forecast skill across time, geospatial units, and forecast horizons. Two-thirds of the models evaluated showed better accuracy than a naïve baseline model. Forecast accuracy degraded as models made predictions further into the future, with probabilistic error at a 20-wk horizon three to five times larger than when predicting at a 1-wk horizon. This project underscores the role that collaboration and active coordination between governmental public-health agencies, academic modeling teams, and industry partners can play in developing modern modeling capabilities to support local, state, and federal response to outbreaks

2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Thoracic Aortic Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Radiology, American Stroke Association, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and Society for Vascular Medicine

The writing committee conducted a comprehensive search of the medical and scientific literature through the use of PubMed/MEDLINE. Searches were limited to publications written in the English language. Compiled reports were reviewed and additional articles were provided by committee members. Specifically targeted searches were conducted on the following subtopics: acute aortic dissection, ankylosing spondylitis, aortic dissection and litigation, aortic neoplasm, aortic tumors, Behçet disease, bicuspid aortic valve, calcified aorta, chronic dissection, coarctation of the aorta, D-dimer, dissecting aneurysm, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, endovascular and aortic aneurysms, medial degeneration, porcelain aorta, giant cell arteritis, imaging and thoracic aortic disease, inflammatory disease, intramural hematoma, Loeys-Dietz syndrome, Marfan syndrome, Noonan syndrome, penetrating aortic ulcer, polycystic kidney disease, thoracic and aortic aneurysms, thoracic aortic disease and patient care, thoracic aortic disease and surgery, thoracic aorta and Kawasaki disease, Takayasu arteritis, thoracoabdominal and aorta or aortic disease, and Turner syndrome. More than 850 references were reviewed, with 830 used as the primary evidence base for the final guideline. The ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines methodology processes were followed to write the text and recommendations. In general, published manuscripts appearing in journals listed in Index Medicus were used as the evidence base. Published abstracts were used only for emerging information but were not used in the formulation of recommendations

Albiglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Harmony Outcomes): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial

Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action, and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of albiglutide in preventing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 610 sites across 28 countries. We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years and older with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (at a 1:1 ratio) to groups that either received a subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30–50 mg, based on glycaemic response and tolerability) or of a matched volume of placebo once a week, in addition to their standard care. Investigators used an interactive voice or web response system to obtain treatment assignment, and patients and all study investigators were masked to their treatment allocation. We hypothesised that albiglutide would be non-inferior to placebo for the primary outcome of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. If non-inferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% CI for a hazard ratio of less than 1·30, closed testing for superiority was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02465515. Findings: Patients were screened between July 1, 2015, and Nov 24, 2016. 10 793 patients were screened and 9463 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups: 4731 patients were assigned to receive albiglutide and 4732 patients to receive placebo. On Nov 8, 2017, it was determined that 611 primary endpoints and a median follow-up of at least 1·5 years had accrued, and participants returned for a final visit and discontinuation from study treatment; the last patient visit was on March 12, 2018. These 9463 patients, the intention-to-treat population, were evaluated for a median duration of 1·6 years and were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 (7%) of 4731 patients at an incidence rate of 4·6 events per 100 person-years in the albiglutide group and in 428 (9%) of 4732 patients at an incidence rate of 5·9 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·68–0·90), which indicated that albiglutide was superior to placebo (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority; p=0·0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (ten patients in the albiglutide group and seven patients in the placebo group), pancreatic cancer (six patients in the albiglutide group and five patients in the placebo group), medullary thyroid carcinoma (zero patients in both groups), and other serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups. There were three (<1%) deaths in the placebo group that were assessed by investigators, who were masked to study drug assignment, to be treatment-related and two (<1%) deaths in the albiglutide group. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. Evidence-based glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists should therefore be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline