Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionAttendees of emergency departments (EDs) have a higher than expected prevalence of smoking. ED attendance may be a good opportunity to prompt positive behaviour change, even for smokers not currently motivated to quit. This study aims to determine whether an opportunist smoking cessation intervention delivered in the ED can help daily smokers attending the ED quit smoking and is cost-effective.Methods and analysisA two-arm pragmatic, multicentred, parallel-group, individually randomised, controlled superiority trial with an internal pilot, economic evaluation and mixed methods process evaluation. The trial will compare ED-based brief smoking cessation advice, including provision of an e-cigarette and referral to local stop smoking services (intervention) with the provision of contact details for local stop smoking services (control). Target sample size is 972, recruiting across 6 National Health Service EDs in England and Scotland. Outcomes will be collected at 1, 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome at 6 months is carbon monoxide verified continuous smoking abstinence.Ethics and disseminationThe trial was approved by the South Central—Oxford B Research Committee (21/SC/0288). Dissemination will include the publication of outcomes, and the process and economic evaluations in peer-reviewed journals. The findings will also be appropriately disseminated to relevant practice, policy and patient representative groups.Trial registration numberNCT04854616; protocol V.4.2.

IntroductionProactive deprescribing is the process of stopping a medicine and comprises four steps: (1) identify a patient for potential stop of a medicine, (2) evaluate a patient for potential stop of a medicine, (3) stop a medicine and (4) monitor after stopping.The CHARMER (CompreHensive geriAtRician-led MEdication Review) trial is a stepped-wedge design to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a behaviour change intervention to increase proactive deprescribing in hospitals. The CHARMER intervention comprises a deprescribing action plan, deprescribing briefings, videos of successful deprescribing consultations, deprescribing case studies workshop and a deprescribing performance dashboard. The process evaluation will explore trial processes, CHARMER intervention implementation, CHARMER behavioural mechanisms of action and contextual factors influencing these aspects.Methods and analysisThe convergent parallel design process evaluation will follow the UK Medical Research Council guidance. We will interview: staff involved in CHARMER implementation, geriatricians and pharmacists who receive the intervention and research delivery staff involved in patient/carer recruitment and data collection. We will also interview patients/carers and primary care practitioners. Interviews will be supplemented with recordings of implementation activities and completed implementation manuals. Questionnaires will capture the extent to which the four proactive deprescribing steps are enacted by intervention recipients, measure the behavioural mechanisms by which the CHARMER intervention operates and capture the patient experience of proactive deprescribing. Qualitative data will be analysed thematically and then mapped to Normalisation Process Theory to explore implementation and the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore behaviour change. Most quantitative data will be analysed descriptively; however, changes in staff questionnaire responses preintervention and postintervention will be analysed using a Mann-Whitney test. We will triangulate qualitative and quantitative findings to explain intervention effects.Ethics and disseminationEthical and governance approvals have been obtained by the Wales 2 Research Ethics Committee and the Health Research Authority, respectively. The dissemination strategy will be underpinned by the evidence-based Guide to Disseminating Research (GuiDiR) targeting healthcare practitioners, policy makers and patient-facing organisations.Trial registration numberISRCTN13248281.

BackgroundWhile almost half of older adults admitted to hospital are prescribed potentially inappropriate medicines, less than 1% have a medicine proactively deprescribed during admission in the UK. The CompreHensive geriAtRician-led MEdication Review (CHARMER) intervention is designed to address geriatricians’ and pharmacists’ barriers and enablers to deprescribing. The CHARMER definitive trial will evaluate effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety.MethodsA stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted in 20 hospitals in England, with four hospitals in reserve. All hospitals will collect baseline data. Every 3 months, five hospitals will be randomised to receive the intervention. The intervention, implemented by a local project manager, comprises a hospital action plan to set deprescribing as an organisational goal; workshops for pharmacists and geriatricians to change beliefs about deprescribing; weekly briefings between geriatricians and pharmacists to discuss opportunities for deprescribing; benchmarking reports to compare deprescribing performance across participating hospitals. With an average of 200 patients admitted and discharged during each step, the study will have 89.5% power at 5% significance level and intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.05 to detect a 3% difference in 90-day re-admission rate from 16.7% versus 13.7%. Anonymised routinely collected data, including readmissions, will be obtained for all patients admitted during the study period. Enhanced data collection periods of 1 month during control and intervention periods will be used to recruit patients and data for secondary outcomes and process evaluation.DiscussionA stepped-wedge design enabled a smaller number of hospitals and patients to be included than a traditional cluster-randomised design. The complexity of intervention implementation necessitated a project manager in addition to the principal investigator responsible for trial conduct. Using routinely collected data for the primary outcome measure should ensure that the trial has sufficient power on completion. Planned enhanced data collection for short periods of time improves trial efficiency.Trial registration numberISRCTN13248281.

ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a pain management training intervention to support people with persistent musculoskeletal pain and their informal carers.DesignTwo-arm, multicentre, pragmatic, open, feasibility RCT with embedded qualitative study.SettingNational Health Service (NHS) providers in four English hospitals.ParticipantsAdults receiving NHS care for persistent musculoskeletal pain and their informal carers.InterventionControl: usual NHS care. Experimental: usual NHS care plus a carer-patient pain management training intervention (JOINT SUPPORT), comprising five, 1-hour, group-based sessions for patients and carers, delivered by trained physiotherapists or occupational therapists. Content included understanding pain, pacing, graded activity, fear avoidance, goal-setting, understanding the benefits of physical activity and medication management. This was re-enforced with a workbook. After the group-based sessions, patients and carers were supported through three telephone sessions.RandomisationCentral randomisation was computer-generated (2:1 Experimental:Control), stratified by hospital and patient-participant age (≤65 years). There was no blinding.Main outcome measuresData collected at baseline and 3 months post-randomisation included screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists and clinical outcomes on quality of life, physical and emotional outcomes, adverse events and resource use. Interviews with 14 patient-carer participants and six health professionals who delivered the intervention.ResultsA total of 76 participants (38 patients; 38 carers) were enrolled. Sixty per cent (312/480) of patients screened were eligible with 12% consenting to be randomised (38/312). Fifty-four per cent (13/24) of the experimental group reached minimal compliance with the JOINT SUPPORT intervention. There was no evidence of treatment contamination. For patient-participant outcomes, within-group differences from baseline to 3 months favoured the control group when assessed by EQ-5D and Generalised Self-Efficacy total score, but favoured the intervention group when assessed by numerical rating scale pain, fatigue and Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scaletotal score. Qualitative data demonstrated the acceptability of the trial design and JOINT SUPPORT intervention with modifications to improve trial processes.ConclusionsThe JOINT SUPPORT intervention was acceptable to patient-carer dyads and health professionals. Modifications to trial design, particularly enhanced recruitment strategies, are required.Trial registration numberISRCTN78169443.Data availability statementThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author (TS) on reasonable request. This includes access to the full protocol, anonymised participant-level dataset and statistical code.

IntroductionChronic musculoskeletal (bone, joint or muscle) pain is disabling. People with it frequently have difficulties in managing everyday activities. Individuals may rely on family members or friends to support them. These people are known as informal caregivers. No interventions have previously addressed the health needs of people with chronic musculoskeletal pain and their caregivers. In response, the JOINT SUPPORT programme was developed. In this study, we will assess the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the JOINT SUPPORT programme to support these individuals.Methods and analysisThis will be a mixed-methods feasibility RCT. We will recruit 80 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain with their informal caregivers. Patients will be randomised to usual National Health Service (NHS) care OR usual NHS care plus a caregiver–patient dyad training programme (JOINT SUPPORT). This programme comprises of five, 1-hour, group-based sessions for patients and caregivers, delivered by trained physiotherapists or occupational therapists. It includes developing skills in: understanding pain, pacing, graded activity, fear avoidance and goal-setting, understanding benefits of physical activity and skills in medication management. This will be re-enforced with a workbook. After the group-based sessions, patients and caregivers will be supported through three telephone sessions with a therapist. Data collected at baseline and 3 months will include: screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists and clinical outcomes on quality of life, physical and emotional outcomes, adverse events and resource use. Qualitative research with 24 patient–caregiver dyads and 12 healthcare professionals will explore the acceptability of trial processes. Stop–go criteria will inform the progression to a full trial.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained on 22 February 2022 (National Research Ethics Committee Number: 22/NW/0015). Results will be reported at conferences, peer-review publications and across social media channels.Trial registration numberISRCTN78169443.

IntroductionIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic progressive fibrotic lung disease frequently complicated by gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Although several observational studies and a pilot study have investigated the role of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in IPF, their efficacy is unknown and there is much debate in international IPF guidelines on their use. We aim to undertake an adequately powered double-blind placebo-controlled randomised multicentre clinical trial to assess the change in forced vital capacity (FVC), cough and other important patient-reported outcomes, following 12-month therapy with PPIs in people with IPF.Methods and analysisA total of 298 patients with IPF diagnosed by a multidisciplinary team according to international guidelines who are not receiving PPIs will be enrolled. Patients are randomised equally to receive two capsules of lansoprazole or two placebo capsules, two times per day for 12 months. The primary outcome for the trial is change in FVC, measured at home, between the first week and last week of the study period. Secondary assessments include cough frequency (in a subgroup) measured using the VitaloJAK cough monitor, the King’s Brief Interstitial Lung Disease questionnaire, the Raghu Scale for Pulmonary Fibrosis, Medical Research Council dyspnoea score, EQ-5D-5L, Leicester Cough Questionnaire, modified DeMeester reflux symptoms questionnaire and opportunistically captured routine lung function measurements. High-resolution CT scoring will be undertaken in a subgroup. The trial is designed to determine whether treating people with IPF with lansoprazole will reduce the reduction in FVC over a year. The COVID-19 pandemic required the study to be undertaken as a remote trial.Ethics and disseminationThis study received ethical approval from the East of England Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Research Ethics Committee (reference 20/EE/0043; integrated research application system number 269050). Trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal upon completion.Trial registration numberISRCTN13526307; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04965298.

Purpose: To validate the Identification of Medication Adherence Barriers Questionnaire (IMAB-Q) as a tool to guide practitioners to identify patients who require support to take their medicines as prescribed, their key barriers to adherence and select relevant behaviour change techniques. Patients and Methods: Adults prescribed medication for cardiovascular disease prevention were recruited from nine community pharmacies in England. Participants completed the IMAB-Q comprising 30 items representing potential barriers to adherence developed from our previous mixed methods study (scoping review and focus groups) underpinned by the Theoretical Domains Framework. Participants also self-reported their adherence on a visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from perfect adherence (100) to non-adherence (1). A subgroup of 30 participants completed the IMAB-Q twice to investigate test-retest reliability using weighted Kappa. Mokken scaling was used to investigate IMAB-Q structure. Spearman correlation was used to investigate IMAB-Q criterion validity compared to the VAS score. Results: From 1407 invitations, 608 valid responses were received. Respondents had a mean (SD) age of 70.12 (9.9) years and were prescribed a median (IQ) 4 (3, 6) medicines. Worry about unwanted effects (n = 212, 34.5%) and negative emotions evoked by medicine taking (n = 99, 16.1%) were most frequently reported. Mokken scaling did not organise related IMAB-Q items according to the TDF domains (scalability coefficient H = 0.3 to 0.6). Lower VAS self-reported adherence correlated with greater IMAB-Q reported barriers (rho = -0.14, p = 0.001). Test-retest reliability of IMAB-Q items ranged from kappa co-efficient 0.9 to 0.3 (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The IMAB-Q is valid and reliable for identifying people not adhering and their barriers to adherence. Each IMAB-Q item is linked to a TDF domain which in turn is linked to relevant behaviour change techniques. The IMAB-Q can therefore guide patients and practitioners to select strategies tailored to a patient's identified barriers. Keywords: theoretical domains framework, psychometrics, questionnaire, behaviour change, determinant, compliance

ObjectivesTo determine if a newer design of total knee replacement (TKR) (Journey II BCS) produces superior patient-reported outcomes scores and biomechanical outcomes than the older, more established design (Genesis II).SettingPatients were recruited from an NHS University Hospital between July 2018 and October 2019 with surgery at two sites. Biomechanical and functional capacity measurements were at a University Movement and Exercise Laboratory.Participants80 participants undergoing single-stage TKR.InterventionsPatients were randomised to receive either the Journey II BCS (JII-BCS) or Genesis II TKR.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome was the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were: OKS Activity and Participation Questionnaire, EQ-5D-5L and UCLA Activity scores, Timed Up and Go Test, 6 min walk test, lower limb kinematics and lower limb muscle activity during walking and balance.ResultsThis study found no difference in the OKS between groups. The OKS scores for the JII-BCS and Genesis II groups were mean (SD) 42.97 (5.21) and 43.13 (5.20) respectively, adjusted effect size 0.35 (-2.01,2.71) p=0.771In secondary outcome measures, the Genesis II group demonstrated a significantly greater walking range-of-movement (50.62 (7.33) vs 46.07 (7.71) degrees, adjusted effect size, 3.14 (0.61,5.68) p=0.02) and higher peak knee flexion angular velocity during walking (mean (SD) 307.69 (38.96) vs 330.38 (41.40) degrees/second, adjusted effect size was 21.75 (4.54,38.96), p=0.01) and better postural control (smaller resultant centre of path length) during quiet standing than the JII-BCS group (mean (SD) 158.14 (65.40) vs 235.48 (176.94) mm, adjusted effect size, 59.91 (–105.98, –13.85) p=0.01.).ConclusionsIn this study population, the findings do not support the hypothesis that the Journey II BCS produces a better outcome than the Genesis II for the primary outcome of the OKS at 6 months after surgery.Trial registration numberISRCTN32315753.

IntroductionMany people quit smoking during pregnancy, but postpartum smoking relapse is common. Maintaining smoking abstinence achieved during pregnancy is key to improving maternal and child health. There are no evidence-based interventions for preventing postpartum smoking relapse. This trial aims to determine whether an intervention to prevent postpartum relapse is effective and cost-effective.Methods and analysisA randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention to prevent postpartum smoking relapse (BabyBreathe), with internal pilot, economic and process evaluations. Participants are adults who are pregnant and who report having quit smoking in the 12 months before, or during pregnancy. Participants are eligible if they read and understand English, and provide informed consent. Following consent and biochemical validation of smoking abstinence, participants are randomised to intervention or usual care/control (no specific relapse prevention support). The BabyBreathe intervention consists of manualised advice from a trained member of the health visiting service, health information leaflets for participants and partners, access to the BabyBreathe website and app. At the time of birth, participants are posted the BabyBreathe box and support is provided by text message for up to 12 months postpartum. Target sample size is 880, recruiting across midwifery services at four hubs in England and Scotland and through remote advertising in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Outcomes are collected at 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is self-reported sustained smoking abstinence at 12 months, carbon monoxide verified. Secondary outcomes include self-reported abstinence, time to relapse, partner smoking status and quality of life.Ethics and disseminationThe trial was approved by the North West Preston Research Ethics committee (21/NW/0017). Dissemination will include publication in peer-reviewed journals, presentation at academic and public conferences including patient and public involvement and to policymakers and practitioners.Trial registration numberISRCTN70307341

IntroductionOver 50% of older adults are prescribed a medicine where the risk of harm outweighs the chances of benefit. During a hospital admission, older adults and carers expect medicines to be reviewed for appropriateness and any inappropriate medicines proactively deprescribed. While the principle of proactive deprescribing is an expectation of good prescribing practice, it is yet to become routine. The CompreHensive geriAtRician-led MEdication Review (CHARMER) study aims to develop and test a five-component behaviour change intervention to equip geriatricians and pharmacists to proactively deprescribe inappropriate medicines with older adults in hospital. This study aims to test the feasibility and acceptability of study processes and CHARMER implementation.Methods and analysisA two-arm purposive allocation feasibility study is being undertaken at four acute hospitals in England, UK (three intervention and one control). The target sample is 400 patients across all hospitals. Primary outcome measures are: (1) participant recruitment rate and (2) participant attrition rate. Secondary outcome measures are: (1) hospital readmission rate; (2) mortality rate and (3) quality of life. Quantitative data will be checked for completeness and quality, and practitioner and patient demographics descriptively analysed. We will undertake a rapid qualitative analysis on observations, interviews and study meeting minutes data. A subsequent thematic analysis will be undertaken with codes mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and Normalisation Process Theory. Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data will be undertaken.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from Wales Research Ethics Committee 1 (IRAS ID 312494) and study approval from the Health Research Authority (22/WA/0087). Informed consent will be sought from all hospital staff involved in data collection activities and for patients involved in enhanced data collection activities. The findings of this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.Trial registrationISRCTN11899506.