The Good Behaviour Game intervention to improve behavioural and other outcomes for children aged 7–8 years: a cluster RCT

BackgroundUniversal, school-based behaviour management interventions can produce meaningful improvements in children’s behaviour and other outcomes. However, the UK evidence base for these remains limited.ObjectiveThe objective of this trial was to investigate the impact, value for money and longer-term outcomes of the Good Behaviour Game. Study hypotheses centred on immediate impact (hypothesis 1); subgroup effects (at-risk boys, hypothesis 2); implementation effects (dosage, hypothesis 3); maintenance/sleeper effects (12- and 24-month post-intervention follow-ups, hypothesis 4); the temporal association between mental health and academic attainment (hypothesis 5); and the health economic impact of the Good Behaviour Game (hypothesis 6).DesignThis was a two-group, parallel, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Primary schools (n = 77) were randomly assigned to implement the Good Behaviour Game for 2 years or continue their usual practice, after which there was a 2-year follow-up period.SettingThe trial was set in primary schools across 23 local authorities in England.ParticipantsParticipants were children (n = 3084) aged 7–8 years attending participating schools.InterventionThe Good Behaviour Game is a universal behaviour management intervention. Its core components are classroom rules, team membership, monitoring behaviour and positive reinforcement. It is played alongside a normal classroom activity for a set time, during which children work in teams to win the game to access the agreed rewards. The Good Behaviour Game is a manualised intervention delivered by teachers who receive initial training and ongoing coaching.Main outcome measuresThe measures were conduct problems (primary outcome; teacher-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores); emotional symptoms (teacher-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores); psychological well-being, peer and social support, bullying (i.e. social acceptance) and school environment (self-report Kidscreen survey results); and school absence and exclusion from school (measured using National Pupil Database records). Measures of academic attainment (reading, standardised tests), disruptive behaviour, concentration problems and prosocial behaviour (Teacher Observation of Child Adaptation Checklist scores) were also collected during the 2-year follow-up period.ResultsThere was no evidence that the Good Behaviour Game improved any outcomes (hypothesis 1). The only significant subgroup moderator effect identified was contrary to expectations: at-risk boys in Good Behaviour Game schools reported higher rates of bullying (hypothesis 2). The moderating effect of the amount of time spent playing the Good Behaviour Game was unclear; in the context of both moderate (≥ 1030 minutes over 2 years) and high (≥ 1348 minutes over 2 years) intervention compliance, there were significant reductions in children’s psychological well-being, but also significant reductions in their school absence (hypothesis 3). The only medium-term intervention effect was for peer and social support at 24 months, but this was in a negative direction (hypothesis 4). After disaggregating within- and between-individual effects, we found no temporal within-individual associations between children’s mental health and their academic attainment (hypothesis 5). Last, our cost–consequences analysis indicated that the Good Behaviour Game does not provide value for money (hypothesis 6).LimitationsLimitations included the post-test-only design for several secondary outcomes; suboptimal implementation dosage (mitigated by complier-average causal effect estimation); and moderate child-level attrition (18.5% for the primary outcome analysis), particularly in the post-trial follow-up period (mitigated by the use of full information maximum likelihood procedures).Future workQuestions remain regarding programme differentiation (e.g. how distinct is the Good Behaviour Game from existing behaviour management practices, and does this makes a difference in terms of its impact?) and if the Good Behaviour Game is impactful when combined with a complementary preventative intervention (as has been the case in several earlier trials).ConclusionThe Good Behaviour Game cannot be recommended based on the findings reported here

Estimating the cost impact of dressing choice in the context of a mass burns casualty event

SUMMARY. Mass casualty burn events (MCBs) require intense and complex management. Silver-infused longer use dressingsmight help optimise management of burns in an MCB setting. We developed a model estimating the impact of dressing choice inthe context of an MCB. The model was developed in Excel in collaboration with experienced emergency response clinicians. Themodel compares use of silver-infused dressings with use of traditional dressings in patients with partial thickness burns covering30% of their body. Costs were estimated from a UK perspective as a proxy for a funded emergency response team and limitedto cost of dressings, bandages, padding, analgesia and staff time. Expected patient costs and resource use were summarised overan acute 2-week intervention period and extrapolated to estimate possible time savings in a hypothetical MCB. Per patient costswere estimated at £2,002 (silver) and £1,124 (traditional) (a daily additional spend of £63). Per patient staff time was estimatedat 864 minutes (silver) and 1,200 minutes (traditional) (a daily time saving of 24 minutes). Multiplying up to a possible MCBpopulation of 20 could result in a saving equivalent to 9 staff shifts over the 2-week intervention period. The model was sensitiveto type of silver dressing, frequency of dressing change and staff costs. We found increased costs through use of silver dressingsbut time savings that might help optimise burns management in an MCB. Exploring the balance between costs and staff timemight help future MCB response preparation.Keywords: mass casualty incident, burns, silver dressing, SSD, cost mode

The Good Behaviour Game intervention to improve behavioural and other outcomes for children aged 7-8 years: A cluster RCT

Background. Universal, school-based behaviour management interventions can produce meaningful improvements in children’s behaviour and other outcomes. However, the UK evidence base for these remains limited. Objective. The objective of this trial was to investigate the impact, value for money and longer-term outcomes of the Good Behaviour Game. Study hypotheses centred on immediate impact (hypothesis 1); subgroup effects (at-risk boys, hypothesis 2); implementation effects (dosage, hypothesis 3); maintenance/sleeper effects (12- and 24-month post-intervention follow-ups, hypothesis 4); the temporal association between mental health and academic attainment (hypothesis 5); and the health economic impact of the Good Behaviour Game (hypothesis 6). Design. This was a two-group, parallel, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Primary schools (n = 77) were randomly assigned to implement the Good Behaviour Game for 2 years or continue their usual practice, after which there was a 2-year follow-up period. Setting. The trial was set in primary schools across 23 local authorities in England. Participants. Participants were children (n = 3084) aged 7–8 years attending participating schools. Intervention. The Good Behaviour Game is a universal behaviour management intervention. Its core components are classroom rules, team membership, monitoring behaviour and positive reinforcement. It is played alongside a normal classroom activity for a set time, during which children work in teams to win the game to access the agreed rewards. The Good Behaviour Game is a manualised intervention delivered by teachers who receive initial training and ongoing coaching. Main outcome measures. The measures were conduct problems (primary outcome; teacher-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores); emotional symptoms (teacher-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores); psychological well-being, peer and social support, bullying (i.e. social acceptance) and school environment (self-report Kidscreen survey results); and school absence and exclusion from school (measured using National Pupil Database records). Measures of academic attainment (reading, standardised tests), disruptive behaviour, concentration problems and prosocial behaviour (Teacher Observation of Child Adaptation Checklist scores) were also collected during the 2-year follow-up period. Results. There was no evidence that the Good Behaviour Game improved any outcomes (hypothesis 1). The only significant subgroup moderator effect identified was contrary to expectations: at-risk boys in Good Behaviour Game schools reported higher rates of bullying (hypothesis 2). The moderating effect of the amount of time spent playing the Good Behaviour Game was unclear; in the context of both moderate (≥ 1030 minutes over 2 years) and high (≥ 1348 minutes over 2 years) intervention compliance, there were significant reductions in children’s psychological well-being, but also significant reductions in their school absence (hypothesis 3). The only medium-term intervention effect was for peer and social support at 24 months, but this was in a negative direction (hypothesis 4). After disaggregating within- and between-individual effects, we found no temporal within-individual associations between children’s mental health and their academic attainment (hypothesis 5). Last, our cost–consequences analysis indicated that the Good Behaviour Game does not provide value for money (hypothesis 6). Limitations. Limitations included the post-test-only design for several secondary outcomes; suboptimal implementation dosage (mitigated by complier-average causal effect estimation); and moderate child-level attrition (18.5% for the primary outcome analysis), particularly in the post-trial follow-up period (mitigated by the use of full information maximum likelihood procedures). Future work. Questions remain regarding programme differentiation (e.g. how distinct is the Good Behaviour Game from existing behaviour management practices, and does this makes a difference in terms of its impact?) and if the Good Behaviour Game is impactful when combined with a complementary preventative intervention (as has been the case in several earlier trials). Conclusion. The Good Behaviour Game cannot be recommended based on the findings reported here

Peripheral elimination of the sympathetic nervous system stimulates immunocyte retention in lymph nodes and ameliorates collagen type II arthritis

Objectives: In collagen type H-induced arthritis (CIA), early activation of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) is proinflammatory. Here, we wanted to find new target organs contributing to proinflammatory SNS effects. In addition, we wanted to clarify the importance of SNS-modulated immunocyte migration. Methods: A new technique termed spatial energy expenditure configuration (SEEC) was developed to demonstrate bodily areas of high energy demand (to find new targets). We studied homing of labeled cells in vivo, lymphocyte expression of CCR7, supernatant concentration of CCL21, and serum levels of sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) in sympathectomized control/arthritic animals. Results: During the course of arthritis, SEEC identified an early marked increase of energy expenditure in draining lymph nodes and spleen (nowhere else!). Although early sympathectomy ameliorated later disease, early sympathectomy increased energy consumption, organ weight, and cell numbers in arthritic secondary lymphoid organs, possibly a sign of lymphocyte retention (also in controls). Elimination of the SNS retained lymph node cells, elevated expression of CCR7 on lymph node cells, and increased CCL21. Serum levels of SIP, an important factor for lymphocyte egress, were higher in arthritic than control animals. Sympathectomy decreased SIP levels in arthritic animals to control levels. Transfer of retained immune cells from draining lymph nodes of sympathectomized donors to sympathectomized recipients markedly increased arthritis severity over weeks. Conclusions: By using the SEEC technique, we identified draining lymph nodes and spleen as major target organs of the SNS. The data show that the SNS increases egress of lymphocytes from draining lymph nodes to stimulate arthritic inflammation. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

The Economic Potential of Smoking Cessation Interventions at the Point of Diagnosis of Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Stopping smoking has proven benefits in nearly all illnesses but the impact and health economic benefits of stopping smoking following a diagnosis of lung cancer are less well defined. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation (SC) services for newly diagnosed lung cancer patients against current usual care, where patients are unlikely to receive SC service referral. A health economic model was constructed in Excel. The modelled population comprised patients with a new diagnosis of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data from the LungCast dataset (Clinical Trials Identifier NCT01192256) were used to estimate model inputs. A structured search of published literature identified inputs not represented in LungCast, including healthcare resource use and costs. Costs were estimated from a 2020/21 UK NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective. The model estimated the incremental quality-adjusted adjusted life year (QALY) gained in newly diagnosed NSCLC patients receiving targeted SC intervention compared to those receiving no intervention. Extensive one-way sensitivity analyses (SA) explored input and dataset uncertainty.Results: In the five-year base-case, the model estimated an incremental cost of £14,904 per QALY gained through SC intervention. Sensitivity analysis estimated an outcome range of between £9,935 and £32,246 per QALY gained. The model was most sensitive to the estimates of relative quit rates and expected healthcare resource use

Cost of unintended pregnancy in Norway: a role for long-acting reversible contraception

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to quantify the cost burden of unintended pregnancies (UPs) in Norway, and to estimate the proportion of costs due to imperfect contraceptive adherence. Potential cost savings that could arise from increased uptake of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) were also investigated. METHODS: An economic model was constructed to estimate the total number of UPs and associated costs in women aged 15–24 years. Adherence-related UP was estimated using ‘perfect use’ and ‘typical use’ contraceptive failure rates. Potential savings from increased use of LARC were projected by comparing current costs to projected costs following a 5% increase in LARC uptake. RESULTS: Total costs from UP in women aged 15–24 years were estimated to be 164 million Norwegian Kroner (NOK), of which 81.7% were projected to be due to imperfect contraceptive adherence. A 5% increase in LARC uptake was estimated to generate cost savings of NOK 7.2 million in this group. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of UP in Norway is substantial, with a large proportion of this cost arising from imperfect contraceptive adherence. Increased LARC uptake may reduce the UP incidence and generate cost savings for both the health care payer and contraceptive user

A cost-effectiveness analysis of levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel compared to standard care in late stage Parkinson's disease in the UK

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of cost-effectiveness of levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG), compared to standard care (SC) in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease (aPD) in the UK. DESIGN: Markov model to quantify costs and outcomes associated with LCIG versus SC in aPD patients at Hoehn and Yahr (H&Y) stages 3, 4 or 5 experiencing >50% OFF time per day. Time horizon was lifetime, LCIG treatment was assumed to last maximal 5 years after which patients revert to SC. Model comprised 12 aPD health states according to H&Y status and daily time spent in OFF state. Cost analyses are reported from a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. Uncertainties were assessed through one-way sensitivity analyses. COMPARATORS: LCIG, providing patients with continuous dopaminergic stimulation to maximise functional ON time during the day and SC, defined as medically determined best available oral medication. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness, based on quality adjusted life years gained, presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: Lifetime analysis yields an incremental cost per QALY of £36,024 for LCIG compared to SC (incremental cost £39,644, QALY gain 1.1). Results were sensitive to time on treatment, health state on treatment initiation, and estimates of long term benefit (OWSA results from £32,127 to £66,421 per QALY). Findings must be considered in the context of the study limitations which were mainly due to data availability constraints. CONCLUSIONS: LCIG is an effective treatment, reducing OFF time and improving quality of life in advanced PD. It provides value for money in levodopa-responsive aPD patients with severe motor fluctuations when no other treatment options are effective or suitable. Given LCIG is an orphan drug, it is reasonable to suggest that it may be considered cost-effective in the UK setting. However, further research is needed to complete current data gaps and increase robustness of the model