IMPlementation of an Online Relatives’ Toolkit for Psychosis or Bipolar (IMPART Study): Iterative Multiple Case Study to Identify Key Factors Impacting on Staff Uptake and Use

Background: Despite the potential of digital health interventions to improve the delivery of psychoeducation to people with mental health problems and their relatives, and substantial investment in their development, there is little evidence of successful implementation into clinical practice. We report the first implementation study of a digital health intervention: Relatives Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT), into routine mental healthcare. Our main aim was to identify critical factors affecting staff uptake and use of this online self-management tool for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar. Methods: A mixed-methods, theory-driven (Normalisation Process Theory), iterative multiple case study approach using qualitative analysis of interviews with staff and quantitative reporting of uptake. Carer researchers were part of the research team. Results: In all, 281 staff and 159 relatives from Early Intervention teams across six catchment areas (cases) in England registered on REACT; 129 staff took part in qualitative interviews. Staff were positive about REACT helping services improve support and meet clinical targets. Implementation was hindered by: high staff caseloads and difficulties prioritising carers; perception of REACT implementation as research; technical difficulties using REACT; poor interoperability with trust computer systems and care pathways; lack of access to mobile technology and training; restricted forum populations; staff fears of risk, online trolling, and replacement by technology; and uncertainty around REACT’s long-term availability

An online supported self-management toolkit for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar experiences: the IMPART multiple case study

Background Digital health interventions have the potential to improve the delivery of psychoeducation to people with mental health problems and their relatives. Despite substantial investment in the development of digital health interventions, successful implementation into routine clinical practice is rare. Objectives Use the implementation of the Relatives’ Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT) for psychosis/bipolar disorder to identify critical factors affecting uptake and use, and develop an implementation plan to support the delivery of REACT. Design This was an implementation study using a mixed-methods, theory-driven, multiple case study approach. A study-specific implementation theory for REACT based on normalisation process theory was developed and tested, and iterations of an implementation plan to address the key factors affecting implementation were developed. Setting Early-intervention teams in six NHS mental health trusts in England (three in the north and three in the south). Participants In total, 281 staff accounts and 159 relatives’ accounts were created, 129 staff and 23 relatives took part in qualitative interviews about their experiences, and 132 relatives provided demographic data, 56 provided baseline data, 21 provided data at 12 weeks’ follow-up and 20 provided data at 24 weeks’ follow-up. Interventions REACT is an online supported self-management toolkit, offering 12 evidence-based psychoeducation modules and support via a forum, and a confidential direct messaging service for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder. The implementation intervention was developed with staff and iteratively adapted to address identified barriers. Adaptations included modifications to the toolkit and how it was delivered by teams. Main outcome measures The main outcome was factors affecting implementation of REACT, assessed primarily through in-depth interviews with staff and relatives. We also assessed quantitative measures of delivery (staff accounts and relatives’ invitations), use of REACT (relatives’ logins and time spent on the website) and the impact of REACT [relatives’ distress (General Health Questionnaire-28), and carer well-being and support (Carer Well-being and Support Scale questionnaire)]. Results Staff and relatives were generally positive about the content of REACT, seeing it as a valuable resource that could help services improve support and meet clinical targets, but only within a comprehensive service that included face-to-face support, and with some additional content. Barriers to implementation included high staff caseloads and difficulties with prioritising supporting relatives; technical difficulties of using REACT; poor interoperability with trust information technology systems and care pathways; lack of access to mobile technology and information technology training; restricted forum populations leading to low levels of use; staff fears of managing risk, online trolling, or replacement by technology; and uncertainty around REACT’s long-term availability. There was no evidence that REACT would reduce staff time supporting relatives (which was already very low), and might increase it by facilitating communication. In all, 281 staff accounts were created, but only 57 staff sent relatives invitations. In total, 355 relatives’ invitations were sent to 310 unique relatives, leading to the creation of 159 relatives’ accounts. The mean number of logins for relatives was 3.78 (standard deviation 4.43), but with wide variation from 0 to 31 (median 2, interquartile range 1–8). The mean total time spent on the website was 40.6 minutes (standard deviation 54.54 minutes), with a range of 0–298 minutes (median 20.1 minutes, interquartile range 4.9–57.5 minutes). There was a pattern of declining mean scores for distress, social dysfunction, depression, anxiety and insomnia, and increases in relatives’ well-being and eHealth literacy, but no changes were statistically significant. Conclusions Digital health interventions, such as REACT, should be iteratively developed, evaluated, adapted and implemented, with staff and service user input, as part of a long-term strategy to develop integrated technology-enabled services. Implementation strategies must instil a sense of ownership for staff and ensure that they have adequate training, risk protocols and resources to deliver the technology. Cost-effectiveness and impact on workload and inequalities in accessing health care need further testing, along with the generalisability of our findings to other digital health interventions. Limitations REACT was offered by the same team running the IMPlementation of A Relatives’ Toolkit (IMPART) study, and was perceived by staff and relatives as a time-limited research study rather than ongoing clinical service, which affected engagement. Access to observational data was limited. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16267685. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

The P_33(1232) resonance contribution into the amplitudes M_{1+}^{3/2},E_{1+}^{3/2},S_{1+}^{3/2} from an analysis of the p(e,e'p)\pi^0 data at Q^2 = 2.8, 3.2, and 4 (GeV/c)^2 within dispersion relation approach

Within the fixed-t dispersion relation approach we have analysed the TJNAF and DESY data on the exclusive p(e,e'p)\pi^0 reaction in order to find the P_{33}(1232) resonance contribution into the multipole amplitudes M_{1+}^{3/2},E_{1+}^{3/2},S_{1+}^{3/2}. As an input for the resonance and nonresonance contributions into these amplitudes the earlier obtained solutions of the integral equations which follow from dispersion relations are used. The obtained values of the ratio E2/M1 for the \gamma^* N \to P_{33}(1232) transition are: 0.039\pm 0.029, 0.121\pm 0.032, 0.04\pm 0.031 for Q^2= 2.8, 3.2, and 4 (GeV/c)^2, respectively. The comparison with the data at low Q^2 shows that there is no evidence for the presence of the visible pQCD contribution into the transition \gamma N \to P_{33}(1232) at Q^2=3-4 GeV^2. The ratio S_{1+}^{3/2}/M_{1+}^{3/2} for the resonance parts of multipoles is: -0.049\pm 0.029, -0.099\pm 0.041, -0.085\pm 0.021 for Q^2= 2.8, 3.2, and 4 (GeV/c)^2, respectively. Our results for the transverse form factor G_T(Q^2) of the \gamma^* N \to P_{33}(1232) transition are lower than the values obtained from the inclusive data. With increasing Q^2, Q^4G_T(Q^2) decreases, so there is no evidence for the presence of the pQCD contribution here too

The experience of foot problems and decisions to access foot care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A qualitative study

© 2017 The Author(s). Background: Although foot problems are common in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the consequences of foot problems from the patient perspective have not been fully explored. The aims of this study were to explore the experience of foot problems and decisions to access foot care services or not in patients with RA. Methods: Semi structured, one-to-one interviews with patients recruited from 2 UK rheumatology units, purposively sampled for self-reported foot problems and a range of personal/disease characteristics. Inductive thematic analysis was used, with rigour provided by multiple independent analysers. Emerging themes were discussed and agreed by all authors. Results: Twelve patients participated: 7 female mean age 56 years (29-72); mean disease duration 12 years (2-27), 5 had accessed foot care services. The 'Impact' of foot problems was substantial and formed the underpinning theme, comprising three organising themes: 'Foot symptoms'; 'Consequences'; and 'Cost'. Foot symptoms such as pain and numbness required self-management, and affected daily life (walking, working) leading to social and emotional costs. The global theme, 'Decision to access foot care or not', also comprised three organising themes: 'Access perceived unnecessary' (no problem, can cope); 'Access hindered by patients' perception'; and 'Access supported by patient and clinician'. Decisions to access foot care or not were complex and influenced by patient beliefs regarding possible treatments and how to access these, and hindered by patient perceptions that their feet were ignored by rheumatology clinicians. Positive experience of foot care encouraged continued utilisation but negative experiences contributed to patients' decisions to discontinue foot care services. Conclusions: Foot problems are important issues for patients and impact on many aspects of their physical, social and emotional lives. Patients who had accessed foot care services prioritised their foot problems as an important health care need. However, for others who would like foot care services, personal knowledge and values, and perceived barriers in clinical practice, appear to interact to inhibit foot care access. The extent which these interactions affect overall access to foot care in RA patients in general now needs to be quantified to help to inform and improve the effectiveness of the organisation and delivery of foot care

Leptonic Production of Baryon Resonances

In these lectures, the author focuses on the electromagnetic transition between non-strange baryon states. This sector received much attention in the early 1970's after the development of the first dynamical quark models. However, experimental progress was slow, partly because of the low rates associated with electromagnetic interactions, and partly because of the lack of guidance by theoretical models that went beyond the simplest quark models. It was also difficult for experiments to achieve the precision needed for a detailed analysis of the entire resonance region in terms of the fundamental photocoupling amplitudes over a large range in momentum transfer

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome