PAin SoluTions In the Emergency Setting (PASTIES)—patientcontrolled analgesia versus routine care in emergency department patients with pain from traumatic injuries: Randomised trial

Objective To determine whether patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than routine care in patients presenting to emergency departments with moderate to severe pain from traumatic injuries.Design Pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial.Setting Five English hospitals.Participants 200 adults (71% (n=142) male), aged 18 to 75 years, who presented to the emergency department requiring intravenous opioid analgesia for the treatment of moderate to severe pain from traumatic injuries and were expected to be admitted to hospital for at least 12 hours.Interventions PCA (n=99) or nurse titrated analgesia (treatment as usual; n=101).Main outcome measures The primary outcome was total pain experienced over the 12 hour study period, derived by standardised area under the curve (scaled from 0 to 100) of each participant’s hourly pain scores, captured using a visual analogue scale. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included total morphine use, percentage of study period in moderate/severe pain, percentage of study period asleep, length of hospital stay, and satisfaction with pain management.Results 200 participants were included in the primary analyses. Mean total pain experienced was 47.2 (SD 21.9) for the treatment as usual group and 44.0 (24.0) for the PCA group. Adjusted analyses indicated slightly (but not statistically significantly) lower total pain experienced in the PCA group than in the routine care group (mean difference 2.7, 95% confidence interval −2.4 to 7.8). Participants allocated to PCA used more morphine in total than did participants in the treatment as usual group (mean 44.3 (23.2) v 27.2 (18.2) mg; mean difference 17.0, 11.3 to 22.7). PCA participants spent, on average, less time in moderate/severe pain (36.2% (31.0) v 44.1% (31.6)), but the difference was not statistically significant. A higher proportion of PCA participants reported being perfectly or very satisfied compared with the treatment as usual group (86% (78/91) v 76% (74/98)), but this was also not statistically significant.Conclusions PCA provided no statistically significant reduction in pain compared with routine care for emergency department patients with traumatic injuries.Trial registration European Clinical Trials Database EudraCT2011-000194-31; Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25343280

The Healthy Lifestyles Programme (HeLP), a novel school-based intervention to prevent obesity in school children: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background: Over the last three decades there has been a substantial increase in the proportion of children who are overweight or obese. The Healthy Lifestyles Programme (HeLP) is a novel school-based intervention, using highly interactive and creative delivery methods to prevent obesity in children. Methods/Design: We describe a cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of HeLP. The intervention has been developed using intervention mapping (involving extensive stakeholder involvement) and has been guided by the Information, Motivation, Behavioural Skills model. HeLP includes creating a receptive environment, drama activities, goal setting and reinforcement activities and runs over three school terms. Piloting showed that 9 to 10 year olds were the most receptive and participative. This study aims to recruit 1,300 children from 32 schools (over half of which will have ≥19% of pupils eligible for free school meals) from the southwest of England. Participating schools will be randomised to intervention or control groups with baseline measures taken prior to randomisation. The primary outcome is change in body mass index standard deviation score (BMI SDS) at 24 months post baseline. Secondary outcomes include, waist circumference and percent body fat SDS and proportion of children classified as overweight or obese at 18 and 24 months and objectively measured physical activity and food intake at 18 months. Between-group comparisons will be made using random effects regression analysis taking into account the hierarchical nature of the study design. An economic evaluation will estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of HeLP, compared to control, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS)/third party payer. An in-depth process evaluation will provide insight into how HeLP works, and whether there is any differential uptake or engagement with the programme. Discussion: The results of the trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the Healthy Lifestyles Programme in affecting the weight status of children

Intervention fidelity in the definitive cluster randomised controlled trial of the Healthy Lifestyles Programme (HeLP) trial: findings from the process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The Healthy Lifestyles Programme (HeLP) was a novel school-located intervention for 9-10 year olds, designed to prevent obesity by changing patterns of child behaviour through the creation of supportive school and home environments using dynamic and creative delivery methods. This paper reports on both the quantitative and qualitative data regarding the implementation of the HeLP intervention in the definitive cluster randomised controlled trial, which was part of the wider process evaluation. METHODS: Mixed methods were used to collect data on intervention uptake, fidelity of delivery in terms of content and quality of delivery of the intervention, as well as school and child engagement with the programme. Data were collected using registers of attendance, observations and checklists, field notes, focus groups with children and semi-structured interviews with teachers. Qualitative data were analysed thematically and quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: All 16 intervention schools received a complete or near complete programme (94-100%), which was delivered in the spirit in which it had been designed. Of the 676 children in the intervention schools, over 90% of children participated in each phase of HeLP; 92% of children across the socio-economic spectrum were deemed to be engaged with HeLP and qualitative data revealed a high level of enjoyment by all children, particularly to the interactive drama workshops. Further evidence of child engagment with the programme was demonstrated by children's clear understanding of programme messages around marketing, moderation and food labelling. Thirteen of the intervention schools were deemed to be fully engaged with HeLP and qualitative data revealed a high level of teacher 'buy in', due to the programme's compatability with the National Curriculum, level of teacher support and use of innovative and creative delivery methods by external drama practitioners. CONCLUSION: Our trial shows that it is possible to successfully scale up complex school-based interventions, engage schools and children across the socio-economic spectrum and deliver an intervention as designed. As programme integrity was maintained throughout the HeLP trial, across all intervention schools, we can be confident that the trial findings are a true reflection of the effectiveness of the intervention, enabling policy recommendations to be made. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15811706

Evaluation of a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS2) for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar, or other psychoses: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

YesCurrent NHS policy encourages an integrated approach to provision of mental and physical care for individuals with long term mental health problems. The 'PARTNERS2' complex intervention is designed to support individuals with psychosis in a primary care setting. The trial will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PARTNERS2 intervention. This is a cluster randomised controlled superiority trial comparing collaborative care (PARTNERS2) with usual care, with an internal pilot to assess feasibility. The setting will be primary care within four trial recruitment areas: Birmingham & Solihull, Cornwall, Plymouth, and Somerset. GP practices are randomised 1:1 to either (a) the PARTNERS2 intervention plus modified standard care ('intervention'); or (b) standard care only ('control'). PARTNERS2 is a flexible, general practice-based, person-centred, coaching-based intervention aimed at addressing mental health, physical health, and social care needs. Two hundred eligible individuals from 39 GP practices are taking part. They were recruited through identification from secondary and primary care databases. The primary hypothesis is quality of life (QOL). Secondary outcomes include: mental wellbeing, time use, recovery, and process of physical care. A process evaluation will assess fidelity of intervention delivery, test hypothesised mechanisms of action, and look for unintended consequences. An economic evaluation will estimate its cost-effectiveness. Intervention delivery and follow-up have been modified during the COVID-19 pandemic. The overarching aim is to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the model for adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar, or other types of psychoses.PARTNERS2 is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grant for Applied Research Programme (grant number: RP-PG- 200625). This research was also supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula at the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust

Trial baseline characteristics of a cluster randomised controlled trial of a school-located obesity prevention programme; the Healthy Lifestyles Programme (HeLP) trial

This is the final version of the article. Available from BioMed Central via the DOI in this record.Background We have developed a healthy lifestyles programme (HeLP) for primary school aged children (9–10 years), currently being evaluated in a definitive cluster randomised controlled trial. This paper descriptively presents the baseline characteristics of trial children (BMI, waist circumference, % body fat, diet and physical activity) by gender, cluster level socio-economic status, school size and time of recruitment into the trial. Methods Schools were recruited from across the South West of England and allocated 1:1 to either intervention (HeLP) or control (usual practice) stratified by the proportion of children eligible for free school meals (FSM, 1 Year 5 class). The primary outcome is change in body mass index standard deviation score (BMI sds) at 24 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes are BMI sds at 18 months, waist circumference and percentage body fat sds at 18 and 24 months, proportion of children classified as underweight, overweight and obese at 18 and 24 months, physical activity (for a sub-sample) and food intake at 18 months. Results At baseline 11.4% and 13.6% of children were categorised as overweight or obese respectively. A higher percentage of girls than boys (25.3% vs 24.8%) and children from schools in FSM category 2 (28.2% vs 23.2%) were overweight or obese. Children were consuming a mean (range) of 4.15 (0–13) energy dense snacks (EDS) and 3.23 (0–9) healthy snacks (HS) per day with children from schools in FSM category 2 consuming more EDS and negative food markers and less HS and positive food markers. Children spent an average 53.6 min per day (11.9 to 124.8) in MVPA and thirteen hours (779.3 min) per day (11 h to 15 h) doing less than ‘light’ intensity activity. Less than 5% of children achieved the Departments of Health’s recommendation of 60 min of MVPA every day. Conclusion We have excellent completeness of baseline data for all measures and have achieved compliance to accelerometry not seen before in other large scale studies. Our anthropometric baseline data is representative of local and national data for children this age and reflects the gender and socio-economic variations expected of children this age in relation to physical activity and weight status.The definitive trial of HeLP is funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research Programme (10/3010/01) and a full report will be published on the NIHR website. Intervention materials and delivery was funded by the Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry. PenCLAHRC provided methodological support during the transition from the exploratory trial to the definitive evaluation

The effectiveness of a primary care based collaborative care model to improve quality of life in people with severe mental illness: the PARTNERS2 cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: Individuals living with severe mental illness can have significant emotional, physical and social challenges. Collaborative Care combines clinical and organisational components. Aim: We tested whether a primary care-based Collaborative Care model (PARTNERS) would improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other psychoses compared to usual care. Methods: A general practice-based cluster randomised controlled superiority trial (ISRCTN 95702682). Practices were recruited from four English regions and allocated (1:1) to intervention or control. Individuals receiving limited input in secondary care or who were under primary care only were eligible. The 12-month PARTNERS intervention incorporated person centred coaching support and liaison work. The primary outcome was change in Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). Results: We allocated 39 general practices, with 198 participants, to the PARTNERS intervention (20 practices; 116 participants) or control (19 practices; 82 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 99 (85.3%) intervention and 71 (86.6%) control participants. Mean change in overall MANSA score did not differ between the groups (0.25 (s.d. 0.73) for intervention vs 0.21 (s.d. 0.86) for control); estimated fully adjusted between-group difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.31; p=0.819. Acute mental health episodes (safety outcome) included three crises among those receiving the intervention and four among those not. Conclusion: There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life, as measured with the MANSA, between those receiving the PARTNERS intervention and usual care. Shifting care to primary care was not associated with increased adverse outcomes.</p