Explore the vast range of titles available.

The management of people with multiple chronic conditions challenges health-care systems designed around single conditions. There is international consensus that care for multimorbidity should be patient-centred, focus on quality of life, and promote self-management towards agreed goals. However, there is little evidence about the effectiveness of this approach. Our hypothesis was that the patient-centred, so-called 3D approach (based on dimensions of health, depression, and drugs) for patients with multimorbidity would improve their health-related quality of life, which is the ultimate aim of the 3D intervention. We did this pragmatic cluster-randomised trial in general practices in England and Scotland. Practices were randomly allocated to continue usual care (17 practices) or to provide 6-monthly comprehensive 3D reviews, incorporating patient-centred strategies that reflected international consensus on best care (16 practices). Randomisation was computer-generated, stratified by area, and minimised by practice deprivation and list size. Adults with three or more chronic conditions were recruited. The primary outcome was quality of life (assessed with EQ-5D-5L) after 15 months' follow-up. Participants were not masked to group assignment, but analysis of outcomes was blinded. We analysed the primary outcome in the intention-to-treat population, with missing data being multiply imputed. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN06180958. Between May 20, 2015, and Dec 31, 2015, we recruited 1546 patients from 33 practices and randomly assigned them to receive the intervention (n=797) or usual care (n=749). In our intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between trial groups in the primary outcome of quality of life (adjusted difference in mean EQ-5D-5L 0·00, 95% CI −0·02 to 0·02; p=0·93). 78 patients died, and the deaths were not considered as related to the intervention. To our knowledge, this trial is the largest investigation of the international consensus about optimal management of multimorbidity. The 3D intervention did not improve patients' quality of life. National Institute for Health Research.

ObjectiveTo develop and validate a new scale to assess treatment burden (the effort of looking after one’s health) for patients with multimorbidity.DesignMixed-methods.SettingUK primary care.ParticipantsContent of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) was based on a literature review and views from a patient and public involvement group. Face validity was assessed through cognitive interviews. The scale was piloted and the final version was tested in 1546 adults with multimorbidity (mean age 71 years) who took part in the 3D Study, a cluster randomised controlled trial. For each question, we examined the proportion of missing data and the distribution of responses. Factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha, Spearman’s rank correlations and longitudinal regression assessed dimensional structure, internal consistency reliability, construct validity and responsiveness, respectively. We assessed interpretability by grouping the global MTBQ scores into zero and tertiles (>0) and comparing participant characteristics across these categories.ResultsCognitive interviews found good acceptability and content validity. Factor analysis supported a one-factor solution. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.83, indicating internal consistency reliability. The MTBQ score had a positive association with a comparator treatment burden scale (rs 0.58, P<0.0001) and with self-reported disease burden (rs 0.43, P<0.0001), and a negative association with quality of life (rs−0.36, P<0.0001) and self-rated health (rs−0.36, P<0.0001). Female participants, younger participants and participants with mental health conditions were more likely to have high treatment burden scores. Changes in MTBQ score over 9-month follow-up were associated, as expected, with changes in measures of quality of life (EuroQol five dimensions, five level questionnaire) and patient-centred care (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care).ConclusionThe MTBQ is a 10-item measure of treatment burden for patients with multimorbidity that has demonstrated good content validity, construct validity, reliability and responsiveness. It is a useful research tool for assessing the impact of interventions on treatment burden.Trial registration numberISRCTN06180958.

Background There is a need for robust evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of domestic abuse perpetrator programmes in reducing abusive behaviour and improving wellbeing for victim/survivors. While any randomised controlled trial can present difficulties in terms of recruitment and retention, conducting such a trial with domestic abuse perpetrators is particularly challenging. This paper reports the pilot and feasibility trial of a voluntary domestic abuse perpetrator group programme in the United Kingdom. Methods This was a pragmatic individually randomised pilot and feasibility trial with an integrated qualitative study in one site (covering three local-authority areas) in England. Male perpetrators were randomised to either the intervention or usual care. The intervention was a 23-week group programme for male perpetrators in heterosexual relationships, with an average of three one-to-one sessions, and one-to-one support for female current- or ex-partners delivered by third sector organisations. There was no active control treatment for men, and partners of control men were signposted towards domestic abuse support services. Data were collected at three-monthly intervals for nine months from male and female participants. The main objectives assessed were recruitment, randomisation, retention, data completeness, fidelity to the intervention model, and acceptability of the trial design. Results This study recruited 36 men (22 randomly allocated to attend the intervention group programme, 14 to usual care), and 15 current- or ex-partners (39% of eligible partners). Retention and completeness of data were high: 67% of male (24/36), and 80% (12/15) of female participants completed the self-reported questionnaire at nine months. A framework for assessing fidelity to the intervention was developed. In interviews, men who completed all or most of the intervention gave positive feedback and reported changes in their own behaviour. Partners were also largely supportive of the trial and were positive about the intervention. Participants who were not allocated to the intervention group reported feeling disappointed but understood the rationale for the trial. Conclusions It was feasible to recruit, randomise and retain male perpetrators and female victim/survivors of abuse and collect self-reported outcome data. Participants were engaged in the intervention and reported positive benefits. The trial design was seen as acceptable. Trial registration ISRCTN71797549, submitted 03/08/2017, retrospectively registered 27/05/2022.

ObjectivesDuring a cluster randomised trial, (the 3D study) of an intervention enacting recommended care for people with multimorbidity, including continuity of care and comprehensive biennial reviews, we examined implementation fidelity to interpret the trial outcome and inform future implementation decisions.DesignMixed-methods process evaluation using cross-trial data and a sample of practices, clinicians, administrators and patients. Interviews, focus groups and review observations were analysed thematically and integrated with quantitative data about implementation. Analysis was blind to trial outcomes and examined context, intervention adoption, reach and maintenance, and delivery of reviews to patients.SettingThirty-three UK general practices in three areas.ParticipantsThe trial included 1546 people with multimorbidity. 11 general practitioners, 14 nurses, 7 administrators and 38 patients from 9 of 16 intervention practices were sampled for an interview.ResultsStaff loss, practice size and different administrative strategies influenced implementation fidelity. Practices with whole administrative team involvement and good alignment between the intervention and usual care generally implemented better. Fewer reviews than intended were delivered (49% of patients receiving both intended reviews, 30% partially reviewed). In completed reviews >90% of intended components were delivered, but review observations and interviews with patients and clinicians found variation in style of component delivery, from ‘tick-box’ to patient-centred approaches. Implementation barriers included inadequate skills training to implement patient-centred care planning, but patients reported increased patient-centredness due to comprehensive reviews, extra time and being asked about their health concerns.ConclusionsImplementation failure contributed to lack of impact of the 3D intervention on the trial primary outcome (quality of life), but so did intervention failure since modifiable elements of intervention design were partially responsible. When a decisive distinction between implementation failure and intervention failure cannot be made, identifying potentially modifiable reasons for suboptimal implementation is important to enhance potential for impact and effectiveness of a redesigned intervention.Trial registration number ISRCTN06180958

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.

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

ObjectivePatients with multiple chronic health conditions are often managed in a disjointed fashion in primary care, with annual review clinic appointments offered separately for each condition. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of the 3D intervention, which was developed to improve the system of care.DesignEconomic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial.SettingGeneral practices in three centres in England and Scotland.Participants797 adults with three or more chronic conditions were randomised to the 3D intervention, while 749 participants were randomised to receive usual care.InterventionThe 3D approach: comprehensive 6-monthly general practitioner consultations, supported by medication reviews and nurse appointments.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary economic evaluation assessed the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS). Costs were related to changes in a range of secondary outcomes (QALYs accrued by both participants and carers, and deaths) in a cost–consequences analysis from the perspectives of the NHS/PSS, patients/carers and productivity losses.ResultsVery small increases were found in both QALYs (adjusted mean difference 0.007 (−0.009 to 0.023)) and costs (adjusted mean difference £126 (£−739 to £991)) in the intervention arm compared with usual care after 15 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £18 499, with a 50.8% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY (55.8% at £30 000 per QALY).ConclusionsThe small differences in costs and outcomes were consistent with chance, and the uncertainty was substantial; therefore, the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of the 3D approach from the NHS/PSS perspective should be considered equivocal.Trial registration numberISCRTN06180958

Plain English summary Including patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is thought to improve research but it is hard to be clear exactly how it helps. This is because PPI takes many forms, is sometimes only token and is not always reported clearly. This makes it difficult to combine the evidence so that clear conclusions can be reached about the ingredients of successful PPI and what PPI achieves. Previous research that has tried to combine the evidence has led to several guidelines for researchers to use in setting up and reporting PPI. This paper was written jointly by researchers and PPI contributors as a reflection on our experiences. The aim was to add to the evidence, by giving detail about the use of PPI in a large randomised controlled trial and the effect it had. We were guided by published PPI reporting guidelines. The effects on the trial are shown in a table of changes made because of suggestions from the PPI group. A survey was used to ask PPI contributors and researchers about their experience and effects they had noticed. Three themes were noted: impact on the trial, the effect of involvement on individual researchers and group members, and group environment. The PPI work affected the trial in many ways, including changes to documents used in the trial and advice on qualitative data collection methods and analysis. Individuals reported positive effects, including enjoying being in the group, gaining confidence, and learning how to share views. Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) is believed to enhance health care delivery research, and is widely required in research proposals. Detailed, standardised reporting of PPI is needed so that strategies to implement more than token PPI that achieves impact can be identified, properly evaluated and reproduced. Impact includes effects on the research, PPI contributors and researchers. Using contributor and researcher perspectives and drawing on published guidelines for reporting PPI, we aimed to reflect on our experience and contribute evidence relevant to two important questions: ‘What difference does PPI make?’ and ‘What’s the best way to do it?’ Methods Fourteen people living with multiple long-term conditions (multimorbidity) were PPI contributors to a randomised controlled trial to improve care for people with multimorbidity. Meetings took place approximately four times a year throughout the trial, beginning at grant application stage. Meeting notes were recorded and a log of PPI involvement was kept. At the end of the trial, seven PPI contributors and four researchers completed free-text questionnaires about their experience of PPI involvement and their perception of PPI impact. The responses were analysed thematically by two PPI contributors and one researcher. The PPI group proposed writing this report, which was co-authored by three PPI contributors and two researchers. Results Meeting attendance averaged nine PPI contributors and three to four researchers. The involvement log and meeting notes recorded a wide range of activities and impact including changes to participant documentation, advice on qualitative data collection, contribution to data analysis and dissemination advice. Three themes were identified from the questionnaires: impact on the study, including keeping the research grounded in patient experience; impact on individuals, including learning from group diversity and feeling valued; and an environment that facilitated participation. The size of the group influenced impact. Researchers and PPI contributors described a rewarding interaction that benefitted them and the research. Conclusions PPI was wide-ranging and had impact on the trial, contributors and researchers. The group environment facilitated involvement. Feedback and group interactions benefitted individuals. The insights gained from this study will postitively influence the researchers’ and contributors’ future involvement with PPI.

Background In contrast to evidence for interventions supporting victim/survivors of domestic violence and abuse (DVA), the effectiveness of perpetrator programmes for reduction of abuse is uncertain. This study aims to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a perpetrator programme for men. Methods Pragmatic two-group individually randomised controlled trial (RCT) with embedded process and economic evaluation. Five centres in southwest England and South Wales aim to recruit 316 (reduced from original target of 366) male domestic abuse perpetrators. These will be randomised 2:1 to a community-based domestic abuse perpetrator programme (DAPP) or usual care comparator with 12-month follow-up. Female partners/ex-partners will be invited to join the study. The intervention for men comprises 23 weekly sessions of a group programme delivered in voluntary sector domestic abuse services. The intervention for female partners/ex-partners is one-to-one support from a safety worker. Men allocated to usual care receive no intervention; however, they are free to access other services. Their partners/ex-partners will be signposted to support services. Data is collected at baseline, and 4, 8 and 12 months’ follow-up. The primary outcome is men’s self-reported abusive behaviour measured by the Abusive Behaviour Inventory (ABI-29) at 12 months. Secondary measures include physical and mental health status and resource use alongside the abuse measure ABI (ABI-R) for partners/ex-partners and criminal justice contact for men. A mixed methods process evaluation and qualitative study will explore mechanisms of effectiveness, judge fidelity to the intervention model using interviews and group observations. The economic evaluation, over a 1-year time horizon from three perspectives (health and social care, public sector and society), will employ a cost-consequences framework reporting costs alongside economic outcomes (Quality-Adjusted Life Years derived from EQ-5D-5L, SF-12 and CHU-9D, and ICECAP-A) as well as the primary and other secondary outcomes. Discussion This trial will provide evidence of the (cost)effectiveness of a DAPP. The embedded process evaluation will further insights in the experiences and contexts of participants and their journey through a perpetrator programme, and the study will seek to address the omission in other studies of economic evaluations. Trial registration ISRCTN15804282, April 1, 2019

Background Smoking is one of the major modifiable risk factors contributing to early mortality for people with serious mental illness. However, only a minority of service users access smoking cessation interventions and there are concerns about the appropriateness of generic stop-smoking services for this group. The SCIMITAR (Smoking Cessation Intervention for Severe Mental Ill-Health Trial) feasibility study explored the effectiveness of a bespoke smoking cessation intervention delivered by mental health workers. This paper reports on the nested qualitative study within the trial. Methods Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 service users receiving the intervention and 3 of the MHSCPs (mental health smoking cessation practitioners) delivering the intervention. Topic guides explored the perceived acceptability of the intervention particularly in contrast to generic stop-smoking services, and perceptions of the implementation of the intervention in practice. Transcripts were analysed using the Constant Comparative Method. Results Generic services were reported to be inappropriate for this group, due to concerns over stigma and a lack of support from health professionals. The bespoke intervention was perceived positively, with both practitioners and service users emphasising the benefits of flexibility and personalisation in delivery. The mental health background of the practitioners was considered valuable not only due to their increased understanding of the service users’ illness but also due to the more collaborative relationship style they employed. Challenges involved delays in liaising with general practitioners and patient struggles with organisation and motivation, however the MHSCP was considered to be well placed to address these problems. Conclusion The bespoke smoking cessation intervention was acceptable to service users and the both service users and practitioners reported the value of a protected mental health worker role for delivering smoking cessation to this group. The results have wider implications for understanding how to achieve integrated and personalised care for this high-risk population and further underscore the need for sensitised smoking cessation support for people with serious mental illness. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN79497236 . Registered 3 rd July 2009.