Explore the vast range of titles available.

Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) has profound quality of life and economic consequences for individuals, their family, formal services and wider society. Little is known about which therapeutic interventions are more cost-effective. A systematic review was carried out to identify and critically appraise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of CFS/ME interventions. The review protocol was prespecified (PROSPERO: CRD42018118731). Searches were carried out across two databases-MEDLINE (1946-2020) and EMBASE (1974-2020). Additional studies were identified by searching reference lists. Only peer-reviewed journal articles of full economic evaluations examining CFS/ME interventions were included. Trial- and/or model-based economic evaluations were eligible. Data extraction and screening were carried out independently by two reviewers. The methodological quality of the economic evaluation and trial were assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria checklist (CHEC-list) and Risk of Bias-2 (RoB-2) tool, respectively. A narrative synthesis was used to summarise the economic evidence for interventions for adults and children in primary and secondary care settings. Ten economic evaluations, all based on data derived from randomised controlled trials, met our eligibility criteria. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was evaluated across five studies, making it the most commonly evaluated intervention. There was evidence from three trials to support CBT as a cost-effective treatment option for adults; however, findings on CBT were not uniform, suggesting that cost-effectiveness may be context-specific. A wide array of other interventions were evaluated in adults, including limited evidence from two trials supporting the cost effectiveness of graded exercise therapy (GET). Just one study assessed intervention options for children. Our review highlighted the importance of informal care costs and productivity losses in the evaluation of CFS/ME interventions. We identified a limited patchwork of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions for CFS/ME. Evidence supports CBT as a cost-effective treatment option for adults; however, cost-effectiveness may depend on the duration and frequency of sessions. Limited evidence supports the cost effectiveness of GET. Key weaknesses in the literature included small sample sizes and short duration of follow-up. Further research is needed on pharmacological interventions and therapies for children.

Older adults frequently attend the emergency department (ED) and experience high rates of adverse events following ED presentation. This randomised controlled trial evaluated the impact of early assessment and intervention by a dedicated team of health and social care professionals (HSCPs) in the ED on the quality, safety, and clinical effectiveness of care of older adults in the ED. This single-site randomised controlled trial included a sample of 353 patients aged ≥65 years (mean age = 79.6, SD = 7.01; 59.2% female) who presented with lower urgency complaints to the ED a university hospital in the Mid-West region of Ireland, during HSCP operational hours. The intervention consisted of early assessment and intervention carried out by a HSCP team comprising a senior medical social worker, senior occupational therapist, and senior physiotherapist. The primary outcome was ED length of stay. Secondary outcomes included rates of hospital admissions from the ED; hospital length of stay for admitted patients; patient satisfaction with index visit; ED revisits, mortality, nursing home admission, and unscheduled hospital admission at 30-day and 6-month follow-up; and patient functional status and quality of life (at index visit and follow-up). Demographic information included the patient's gender, age, marital status, residential status, mode of arrival to the ED, source of referral, index complaint, triage category, falls, and hospitalisation history. Participants in the intervention group (n = 176) experienced a significantly shorter ED stay than the control group (n = 177) (6.4 versus 12.1 median hours, p < 0.001). Other significant differences (intervention versus control) included lower rates of hospital admissions from the ED (19.3% versus 55.9%, p < 0.001), higher levels of satisfaction with the ED visit (p = 0.008), better function at 30-day (p = 0.01) and 6-month follow-up (p = 0.03), better mobility (p = 0.02 at 30 days), and better self-care (p = 0.03 at 30 days; p = 0.009 at 6 months). No differences at follow-up were observed in terms of ED re-presentation or hospital admission. Study limitations include the inability to blind patients or ED staff to allocation due to the nature of the intervention, and a focus on early assessment and intervention in the ED rather than care integration following discharge. Early assessment and intervention by a dedicated ED-based HSCP team reduced ED length of stay and the risk of hospital admissions among older adults, as well as improving patient satisfaction. Our findings support the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary model of care for key ED outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03739515; registered on 12 November 2018.

Over 65s are frequent attenders to the Emergency Department (ED) and more than half are admitted for overnight stays. Early assessment and intervention by a dedicated ED-based Health and Social Care Professionals (HSCP) team reduces ED length of stay and the risk of hospital admissions among older adults while improving patient health-related quality-of-life and satisfaction with care. This study aims to evaluate whether augmenting the treatment as usual for older adults admitted to ED is cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), conducted alongside the OPTI-MEND randomised controlled trial of 353 patients aged ≥65 with lower urgency complaints compared the effectiveness of early assessment and intervention by a dedicated HSCP team in the ED to treatment as usual (TAU). An economic analysis estimated the average cost per older adults randomised to the HSCP team, and compared to TAU, how contact with HSCP team changed health care use, and associated total costs, and estimated the effect of HSCP on Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Within the OPTI-MEND trial, the average cost of a contact with the HSCP team during ED attendance is estimated to be €801 per patient. Compared to TAU, the incremental QALY of intervention is 0.053 (95% CI: 0.023 to 0.0826, p<0.0001). Accounting for cost savings because of contact with HSCP team, the average incremental saving in the total cost, compared to TAU, is -€6,128 (95% CI: -€9,217 to -€3,038, p<0.0001). Given the incremental health gains and significant cost savings, bootstrapped cost CEA suggests that dedicated HSCP care dominates over TAU for low urgency older adults attending the ED. A dedicated HSCP team in the ED significantly improves overall health for lower acuity older adults and, by reducing inpatient length of stay, results in staggering cost savings. This economic evaluation conducted on the OPTI-MEND trial provides convincing evidence that HSCP should be adopted as part of treatment as usual in Irish EDs. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03739515; registered on 12th November 2018. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03739515.

ObjectivesComputer-administered cognitive–behavioural therapy (CCBT) may be a promising treatment for adolescents with depression, particularly due to its increased availability and accessibility. The feasibility of delivering a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing a CCBT program (Stressbusters) with an attention control (self-help websites) for adolescent depression was evaluated.DesignSingle centre RCT feasibility study.SettingThe trial was run within community and clinical settings in York, UK.ParticipantsAdolescents (aged 12–18) with low mood/depression were assessed for eligibility, 91 of whom met the inclusion criteria and were consented and randomised to Stressbusters (n=45) or websites (n=46) using remote computerised single allocation. Those with comorbid physical illness were included but those with psychosis, active suicidality or postnatal depression were not.InterventionsAn eight-session CCBT program (Stressbusters) designed for use with adolescents with low mood/depression was compared with an attention control (accessing low mood self-help websites).Primary and secondary outcome measuresParticipants completed mood and quality of life measures and a service Use Questionnaire throughout completion of the trial and 4 months post intervention. Measures included the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (primary outcome measure), Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ), Spence Children's Anxiety Scale (SCAS), the EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (youth) (EQ-5D-Y) and Health Utility Index Mark 2 (HUI-2). Changes in self-reported measures and completion rates were assessed by treatment group.ResultsFrom baseline to 4 months post intervention, BDI scores and MFQ scores decreased for the Stressbusters group but increased in the website group. Quality of life, as measured by the EQ-5D-Y, increased for both groups while costs at 4 months were similar to baseline. Good feasibility outcomes were found, suggesting the trial process to be feasible and acceptable for adolescents with depression.ConclusionsWith modifications, a fully powered RCT is achievable to investigate a promising treatment for adolescent depression in a climate where child mental health service resources are limited.Trial registration numberISRCTN31219579.

Introduction Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) has profound quality of life and economic consequences for individuals, their family, formal services and wider society. Little is known about which therapeutic interventions are more cost-effective. Objective A systematic review was carried out to identify and critically appraise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of CFS/ME interventions. Methods The review protocol was prespecified (PROSPERO: CRD42018118731). Searches were carried out across two databases—MEDLINE (1946–2020) and EMBASE (1974–2020). Additional studies were identified by searching reference lists. Only peer-reviewed journal articles of full economic evaluations examining CFS/ME interventions were included. Trial- and/or model-based economic evaluations were eligible. Data extraction and screening were carried out independently by two reviewers. The methodological quality of the economic evaluation and trial were assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria checklist (CHEC-list) and Risk of Bias-2 (RoB-2) tool, respectively. A narrative synthesis was used to summarise the economic evidence for interventions for adults and children in primary and secondary care settings. Results Ten economic evaluations, all based on data derived from randomised controlled trials, met our eligibility criteria. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was evaluated across five studies, making it the most commonly evaluated intervention. There was evidence from three trials to support CBT as a cost-effective treatment option for adults; however, findings on CBT were not uniform, suggesting that cost-effectiveness may be context-specific. A wide array of other interventions were evaluated in adults, including limited evidence from two trials supporting the cost effectiveness of graded exercise therapy (GET). Just one study assessed intervention options for children. Our review highlighted the importance of informal care costs and productivity losses in the evaluation of CFS/ME interventions. Conclusions We identified a limited patchwork of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions for CFS/ME. Evidence supports CBT as a cost-effective treatment option for adults; however, cost-effectiveness may depend on the duration and frequency of sessions. Limited evidence supports the cost effectiveness of GET. Key weaknesses in the literature included small sample sizes and short duration of follow-up. Further research is needed on pharmacological interventions and therapies for children.

Background Obesity is a rising global threat to health and a major contributor to health inequalities. Weight management programmes that are effective, economical and reach underprivileged groups are needed. We examined whether a multi-modal group intervention structured to cater for clients from disadvantaged communities (Weight Action Programme; WAP) has better one-year outcomes than a primary care standard weight management intervention delivered by practice nurses (PNI). Methods In this randomised controlled trial, 330 obese adults were recruited from general practices in London and allocated (2:1) to WAP ( N  = 221) delivered over eight weekly group sessions or PNI ( N  = 109) who received four sessions over eight weeks. Both interventions covered diet, physical activity and self-monitoring. The primary outcome was the change in weight from baseline at 12 months. To indicate value to the NHS, a cost effectiveness analysis estimated group differences in cost and Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) related to WAP. Results Participants were recruited from September 2012 to January 2014 with follow-up completed in February 2015. Most participants were not in paid employment and 60% were from ethnic minorities. 88% of participants in each study arm provided at least one recorded outcome and were included in the primary analysis. Compared with the PNI, WAP was associated with greater weight loss overall (− 4·2 kg vs. − 2·3 kg; difference = − 1·9 kg, 95% CI: -3·7 to − 0·1; P  = 0·04) and was more likely to generate a weight loss of at least 5% at 12 months (41% vs. 27%, OR = 14·61 95% CI: 2·32 to 91·96, P  = 0·004). With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £7742/QALY, WAP would be considered highly cost effective compared to PNI. Conclusions The task-based programme evaluated in this study can provide a template for an effective and economical approach to weight management that can reach clients from disadvantaged communities. Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN45820471 . Registered 12/10/2012 (retrospectively registered).

Older adults frequently attend the emergency department (ED) and experience high rates of subsequent adverse outcomes including functional decline, ED re-presentation and unplanned hospital admission. The development of effective interventions to prevent such outcomes is a key priority for research and service provision. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of a physiotherapy-led integrated care intervention for older adults discharged from the ED (ED PLUS). Older adults presenting to the ED of a university teaching hospital with undifferentiated medical complaints and discharged within 72 hours were computer randomised in a ratio of 1:1:1 to deliver usual care, Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) in the ED, or ED PLUS. ED PLUS is an evidence-based and stakeholder-informed intervention to bridge the care transition between the ED and community by initiating a CGA in the ED and implementing a six-week, multi-component, self-management programme in the patient's home. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed quantitatively and qualitatively. All clinical and process outcomes were assessed by a research nurse blinded to group allocation. Data analyses were primarily descriptive. Twenty-nine participants were recruited indicating a 67% recruitment rate. At 6 months, there was 100% retention in the usual care group, 88% in the CGA group and 90% in the ED PLUS group. ED PLUS participants expressed positive feedback, and there was a trend towards improved function and quality of life and less ED revisits and unscheduled hospitalisations in the ED PLUS group. ED PLUS bridges the transition of care between the index visit to the ED and the community and is feasible using systematic recruitment strategies. Despite recruitment challenges in the context of COVID-19, the intervention was successfully delivered and well received by participants. There was a lower incidence of functional decline and improved quality of life in the ED PLUS group. The trial was registered in Clinical Trials Protocols and Results System as of 21st July 2021, with registration number NCT04983602.

Older adults frequently attend the emergency department (ED) and experience high rates of adverse outcomes following ED presentation including functional decline, ED re-presentation and unplanned hospital admission. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of a physiotherapy-led integrated care intervention for older adults discharged from the ED (ED-PLUS). Older adults presenting to the ED with undifferentiated medical complaints and discharged within 72 hours were computer randomised in a ratio of 1:1:1 to deliver usual care, Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) in the ED, or ED-PLUS (trial registration: NCT04983602). ED-PLUS is an evidence-based and stakeholder-informed intervention to bridge the care transition between the ED and community by initiating a CGA in the ED and implementing a 6-week, multi-component, self-management programme in the patient's own home. Feasibility (recruitment and retention rates) and acceptability of the programme were assessed quantitatively and qualitatively. Functional decline was examined post-intervention using the Barthel Index. All outcomes were assessed by a research nurse blinded to group allocation. Twenty-nine participants were recruited, indicating 97% of our recruitment target; 90% of participants completed the ED-PLUS intervention. All participants expressed positive feedback about the intervention. The incidence of functional decline at 6 weeks was 10% in the ED-PLUS group versus 70%-89% in the usual care and CGA-only groups. High adherence and retention rates were observed among participants and preliminary findings indicate a lower incidence of functional decline in the ED-PLUS group. Recruitment challenges existed in the context of COVID-19. Data collection is ongoing for 6-month outcomes.

Background Hearing and vision loss is highly prevalent in residents with dementia (RwD) living in long-term care (LTC) facilities. Sensory loss often has a negative impact on quality of life and other dementia-related outcomes. Optimising sensory function may improve dementia-related outcomes in LTC facilities. The SENSE-Cog Residential Care pilot trial will evaluate whether a multi-faceted hearing and vision intervention for RwD and concurrent sensory loss is suitable for definitive testing in a large-scale cluster-randomised control trial (RCT) in Ireland and how this can best be achieved. Methods This is a 6-month feasibility-pilot, multicentre, cluster RCT. Between eight and 15 LTC facilities (with an average of 5 RwD recruited per home) will be randomly assigned to receive either ‘care as usual’ (CAU) or a multi-component sensory intervention comprising (1) personalised resident hearing and vision support, (2) staff training in sensory health, (3) fostering a ‘sensory friendly’ environment, and (4) mapping sensory care provision with community-based audiologists and opticians. The intervention’s feasibility, acceptability, and tolerability for residents and staff will be examined. In addition, a battery of exploratory outcome measures will be evaluated for suitability for the definitive trial and to inform the choice of primary and secondary outcome measures. Discussion If the SENSE-Cog Residential Care pilot trial demonstrates that the sensory support intervention for residential care is feasible and tolerated in LTC facilities in Ireland, a larger definitive trial to evaluate its effectiveness in improving dementia-related outcomes will be conducted. Training materials, resources, and information will be made available to health and social care providers to enable the implementation of sensory support for RwD in routine LTC, potentially improving the quality of such care in Ireland. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN14462472. Registered 24 February 2022, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN14462472

Background Depression accounts for the greatest disease burden of all mental health disorders, contributes heavily to healthcare costs, and by 2020 is set to become the second largest cause of global disability. Although 10% to 16% of people aged 65 years and over are likely to experience depressive symptoms, the condition is under-diagnosed and often inadequately treated in primary care. Later-life depression is associated with chronic illness and disability, cognitive impairment and social isolation. With a progressively ageing population it becomes increasingly important to refine strategies to identity and manage depression in older people. Currently, management may be limited to the prescription of antidepressants where there may be poor concordance; older people may lack awareness of psychosocial interventions and general practitioners may neglect to offer this treatment option. Methods/design CASPER Plus is a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of a collaborative care intervention for individuals aged 65 years and over experiencing moderate to severe depression. Selected practices in the North of England identify potentially eligible patients and invite them to participate in the study. A diagnostic interview is carried out and participants with major depressive disorder are randomised to either collaborative care or usual care. The recruitment target is 450 participants. The intervention, behavioural activation and medication management in a collaborative care framework, has been adapted to meet the complex needs of older people. It is delivered over eight to 10 weekly sessions by a case manager liaising with general practitioners. The trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of collaborative care in addition to usual GP care versus usual GP care alone. The primary clinical outcome, depression severity, will be measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at baseline, 4, 12 and 18 months. Cost effectiveness analysis will assess health-related quality of life using the SF-12 and EQ-5D and will examine cost-consequences of collaborative care. A qualitative process evaluation will be undertaken to explore acceptability, gauge the extent to which the intervention is implemented and to explore sustainability beyond the clinical trial. Discussion Results will add to existing evidence and a positive outcome may lead to the commissioning of this model of service in primary care. Trial registration ISRCTN45842879 (24 July 2012).