Hyperargininemia: effect of ornithine and lysine supplementation.

S. S. Kang,P. Wong,M. Melyn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3476(83)80481-8

IF: 2.99

1983-11-01

Jornal de Pediatria

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Effect of pinealectomy on the 3H-5HT uptake of mast cells in the thyroid gland of the rat.

G. Csaba,P. Baráth

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000144305

Acta Anatomica

Abstract:
Behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms in primary care: systematic reviews and economic evaluation

Joanna Leaviss,Sarah Davis,Shijie Ren,Jean Hamilton,Alison Scope,Andrew Booth,Anthea Sutton,Glenys Parry,Marta Buszewicz,Rona Moss-Morris,Peter White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/hta24460

Abstract:Background: The term 'medically unexplained symptoms' is used to cover a wide range of persistent bodily complaints for which adequate examination and appropriate investigations do not reveal sufficiently explanatory structural or other specified pathologies. A wide range of interventions may be delivered to patients presenting with medically unexplained symptoms in primary care. Many of these therapies aim to change the behaviours of the individual who may have worsening symptoms. Objectives: An evidence synthesis to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms delivered in primary care settings was undertaken. Barriers to and facilitators of the effectiveness and acceptability of these interventions from the perspective of patients and service providers were evaluated through qualitative review and realist synthesis. Data sources: Full search strategies were developed to identify relevant literature. Eleven electronic sources were searched. Eligibility criteria - for the review of clinical effectiveness, randomised controlled trials were sought. For the qualitative review, UK studies of any design were included. For the cost-effectiveness review, papers were restricted to UK studies reporting outcomes as quality-adjusted life-year gains. Clinical searches were conducted in November 2015 and December 2015, qualitative searches were conducted in July 2016 and economic searches were conducted in August 2016. The databases searched included MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO and EMBASE. Updated searches were conducted in February 2019 and March 2019. Participants: Adult participants meeting the criteria for medically unexplained symptoms, including somatoform disorders, chronic unexplained pain and functional somatic syndromes. Interventions: Behavioural interventions were categorised into types. These included psychotherapies, exercise-based interventions, multimodal therapies (consisting of more than one intervention type), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support, guided self-help and general practitioner interventions, such as reattribution. Evidence synthesis: a network meta-analysis was conducted to allow a simultaneous comparison of all evaluated interventions in a single coherent analysis. Separate network meta-analyses were performed at three time points: end of treatment, short-term follow-up (< 6 months since the end of treatment) and long-term follow-up (≥ 6 months after the end of treatment). Outcomes included physical and psychological symptoms, physical functioning and impact of the illness on daily activities. Economic evaluation: within-trial estimates of cost-effectiveness were generated for the subset of studies where utility values (or quality-adjusted life-years) were reported or where these could be estimated by mapping from Short Form questionnaire-36 items or Short Form questionnaire-12 items outcomes. Results: Fifty-nine studies involving 9077 patients were included in the clinical effectiveness review. There was a large degree of heterogeneity both between and within intervention types, and the networks were sparse across all outcomes. At the end of treatment, behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects when compared with usual care, in particular for improvement of specific physical symptoms [(1) pain: high-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBTHI) standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.54 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.28 to 0.84], multimodal SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.19 to 0.89); and (2) fatigue: low-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBTLI) SMD 0.72 (95% CrI 0.27 to 1.21), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.87 (95% CrI 0.20 to 1.55), graded activity SMD 0.51 (95% CrI 0.14 to 0.93), multimodal SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.14 to 0.92)] and psychological outcomes [(1) anxiety CBTHI SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.06 to 0.96); (2) depression CBTHI SMD 0.80 (95% CrI 0.26 to 1.38); and (3) emotional distress other psychotherapy SMD 0.58 (95% CrI 0.05 to 1.13), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.66 (95% CrI 0.18 to 1.28) and sport/exercise SMD 0.49 (95% CrI 0.03 to 1.01)]. At short-term follow-up, behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects for specific physical symptoms [(1) pain: CBTHI SMD 0.73 (95% CrI 0.10 to 1.39); (2) fatigue: CBTLI SMD 0.62 (95% CrI 0.11 to 1.14), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.51 (95% CrI 0.06 to 1.00)] and psychological outcomes [(1) anxiety: CBTHI SMD 0.74 (95% CrI 0.14 to 1.34); (2) depression: CBTHI SMD 0.93 (95% CrI 0.37 to 1.52); and (3) emotional distress: relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.82 (95% CrI 0.02 to 1.65), multimodal SMD 0.43 (95% CrI 0.04 to 0.91)]. For physical functioning, only multimodal therapy showed beneficial effects: end-of-treatment SMD 0.33 (95% CrI 0.09 to 0.59); and short-term follow-up SMD 0.78 (95% CrI 0.23 to 1.40). For impact on daily activities, CBTHI was the only behavioural intervention to show beneficial effects [end-of-treatment SMD 1.30 (95% CrI 0.59 to 2.00); and short-term follow-up SMD 2.25 (95% CrI 1.34 to 3.16)]. Few effects remained at long-term follow-up. General practitioner interventions showed no significant beneficial effects for any outcome. No intervention group showed conclusive beneficial effects for measures of symptom load (somatisation). A large degree of heterogeneity was found across individual studies in the assessment of cost-effectiveness. Several studies suggested that the interventions produce fewer quality-adjusted life-years than usual care. For those interventions that generated quality-adjusted life-year gains, the mid-point incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from £1397 to £129,267, but, where the mid-point ICER fell below £30,000, the exploratory assessment of uncertainty suggested that it may be above £30,000. Limitations: Sparse networks meant that it was not possible to conduct a metaregression to explain between-study differences in effects. Results were not consistent within intervention type, and there were considerable differences in characteristics between studies of the same type. There were moderate to high levels of statistical heterogeneity. Separate analyses were conducted for three time points and, therefore, analyses are not repeated-measures analyses and do not account for correlations between time points. Conclusions: Behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects for specific medically unexplained symptoms, but no one behavioural intervention was effective across all medically unexplained symptoms. There was little evidence that these interventions are effective for measures of symptom load (somatisation). General practitioner-led interventions were not shown to be effective. Considerable heterogeneity in interventions, populations and sparse networks mean that results should be interpreted with caution. The relationship between patient and service provider is perceived to play a key role in facilitating a successful intervention. Future research should focus on testing the therapeutic effects of the general practitioner-patient relationship within trials of behavioural interventions, and explaining the observed between-study differences in effects within the same intervention type (e.g. with more detailed reporting of defined mechanisms of the interventions under study). Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015025520. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Effectiveness of a time-limited cognitive behavior therapy type intervention among primary care patients with medically unexplained symptoms

Javier I Escobar,Michael A Gara,Angelica M Diaz-Martinez,Alejandro Interian,Melissa Warman,Lesley A Allen,Robert L Woolfolk,Eric Jahn,Denise Rodgers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.702

Abstract:Purpose: Patients seeking care for medically unexplained physical symptoms pose a major challenge at primary care sites, and there are very few well-accepted and properly evaluated interventions to manage such patients. Methods: We tested the effectiveness of a cognitive behavior therapy (CBT)-type intervention delivered in primary care for patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either the intervention plus a consultation letter or usual clinical care plus a consultation letter. Physical and psychiatric symptoms were assessed at baseline, at the end of treatment, and at a 6-month follow-up. All treatments and assessments took place at the same primary care clinic where patients sought care. Results: A significantly greater proportion of patients in the intervention group had physical symptoms rated by clinicians as "very much improved" or "much improved" compared with those in the usual care group (60% vs 25.8%; odds ratio = 4.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-8.8; P<.001). The intervention's effect on unexplained physical symptoms was greatest at treatment completion, led to relief of symptoms in more than one-half of the patients, and persisted months after the intervention, although its effectiveness gradually diminished. The intervention also led to significant improvements in patient-reported levels of physical symptoms, patient-rated severity of physical symptoms, and clinician-rated depression, but these effects were no longer noticeable at follow-up. Conclusions: This time-limited, CBT-type intervention significantly ameliorated unexplained physical complaints of patients seen in primary care and offers an alternative for managing these common and problematic complaints in primary care settings.
Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: the TRIUMPH cluster RCT

Jo Worthington,Jessica Frost,Emily Sanderson,Madeleine Cochrane,Jessica Wheeler,Nikki Cotterill,Stephanie J MacNeill,Sian Noble,Miriam Avery,Samantha Clarke,Mandy Fader,Hashim Hashim,Lucy McGeagh,Margaret Macaulay,Jonathan Rees,Luke Robles,Gordon Taylor,Jodi Taylor,Joanne Thompson,J Athene Lane,Matthew J Ridd,Marcus J Drake,TRIUMPH study group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/GVBC3182

Abstract:Background: Conservative therapies are recommended as initial treatment for male lower urinary tract symptoms. However, there is a lack of evidence on effectiveness and uncertainty regarding approaches to delivery. Objective: The objective was to determine whether or not a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for lower urinary tract symptoms to usual care. Design: This was a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: The trial was set in 30 NHS general practice sites in England. Participants: Participants were adult men (aged ≥ 18 years) with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms. Interventions: Sites were randomised 1 : 1 to deliver the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions trial intervention or usual care to all participants. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions intervention comprised a standardised advice booklet developed for the trial from the British Association of Urological Surgeons' patient information sheets, with patient and expert input. Patients were directed to relevant sections by general practice or research nurses/healthcare assistants following urinary symptom assessment, providing the manualised element. The healthcare professional provided follow-up contacts over 12 weeks to support adherence to the intervention. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the validated patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score 12 months post consent. Rather than the minimal clinically important difference of 3.0 points for overall International Prostate Symptom Score, the sample size aimed to detect a difference of 2.0 points, owing to the recognised clinical impact of individual symptoms. Results: A total of 1077 men consented to the study: 524 in sites randomised to the intervention arm (n = 17) and 553 in sites randomised to the control arm (n = 13). A difference in mean International Prostate Symptom Score at 12 months was found (adjusted mean difference of -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95 points), with a lower score in the intervention arm, indicating less severe symptoms. Secondary outcomes of patient-reported urinary symptoms, quality of life specific to lower urinary tract symptoms and perception of lower urinary tract symptoms all showed evidence of a difference between the arms favouring the intervention. No difference was seen between the arms in the proportion of urology referrals or adverse events. In qualitative interviews, participants welcomed the intervention, describing positive effects on their symptoms, as well as on their understanding of conservative care and their attitude towards the experience of lower urinary tract symptoms. The interviews highlighted that structured, in-depth self-management is insufficiently embedded within general practitioner consultations. From an NHS perspective, mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years were similar between trial arms. The intervention arm had slightly lower mean costs (adjusted mean difference of -£29.99, 95% confidence interval -£109.84 to £22.63) than the usual-care arm, and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (adjusted mean difference of 0.001, 95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.014). Conclusions: The intervention showed a small, sustained benefit for men's lower urinary tract symptoms and quality of life across a range of outcome measures in a UK primary care setting. Qualitative data showed that men highly valued the intervention. Intervention costs were marginally lower than usual-care costs. Limitations of the study included that trial participants were unmasked, with limited diversity in ethnicity and deprivation level. Additional research is needed to assess the applicability of the intervention for a more ethnically diverse population.. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11669964. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/90/03) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Integrated primary care for patients with mental and physical multimorbidity: cluster randomised controlled trial of collaborative care for patients with depression comorbid with diabetes or cardiovascular disease

Peter Coventry,Karina Lovell,Chris Dickens,Peter Bower,Carolyn Chew-Graham,Damien McElvenny,Mark Hann,Andrea Cherrington,Charlotte Garrett,Chris J Gibbons,Clare Baguley,Kate Roughley,Isabel Adeyemi,David Reeves,Waquas Waheed,Linda Gask,P. Coventry,K. Lovell,C. Dickens,P. Bower,C. Chew-Graham,D. McElvenny,M. Hann,A. Cherrington,C. Garrett,C. J. Gibbons,C. Baguley,K. Roughley,I. Adeyemi,D. Reeves,W. Waheed,L. Gask

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h638

2015-02-16

BMJ

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of an integrated collaborative care model for people with depression and long term physical conditions.DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial.SETTING: 36 general practices in the north west of England.PARTICIPANTS: 387 patients with a record of diabetes or heart disease, or both, who had depressive symptoms (≥ 10 on patient health questionaire-9 (PHQ-9)) for at least two weeks. Mean age was 58.5 (SD 11.7). Participants reported a mean of 6.2 (SD 3.0) long term conditions other than diabetes or heart disease; 240 (62%) were men; 360 (90%) completed the trial.INTERVENTIONS: Collaborative care included patient preference for behavioural activation, cognitive restructuring, graded exposure, and/or lifestyle advice, management of drug treatment, and prevention of relapse. Up to eight sessions of psychological treatment were delivered by specially trained psychological wellbeing practitioners employed by Improving Access to Psychological Therapy services in the English National Health Service; integration of care was enhanced by two treatment sessions delivered jointly with the practice nurse. Usual care was standard clinical practice provided by general practitioners and practice nurses.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was reduction in symptoms of depression on the self reported symptom checklist-13 depression scale (SCL-D13) at four months after baseline assessment. Secondary outcomes included anxiety symptoms (generalised anxiety disorder 7), self management (health education impact questionnaire), disability (Sheehan disability scale), and global quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF).RESULTS: 19 general practices were randomised to collaborative care and 20 to usual care; three practices withdrew from the trial before patients were recruited. 191 patients were recruited from practices allocated to collaborative care, and 196 from practices allocated to usual care. After adjustment for baseline depression score, mean depressive scores were 0.23 SCL-D13 points lower (95% confidence interval -0.41 to -0.05) in the collaborative care arm, equal to an adjusted standardised effect size of 0.30. Patients in the intervention arm also reported being better self managers, rated their care as more patient centred, and were more satisfied with their care. There were no significant differences between groups in quality of life, disease specific quality of life, self efficacy, disability, and social support.CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care that incorporates brief low intensity psychological therapy delivered in partnership with practice nurses in primary care can reduce depression and improve self management of chronic disease in people with mental and physical multimorbidity. The size of the treatment effects were modest and were less than the prespecified effect but were achieved in a trial run in routine settings with a deprived population with high levels of mental and physical multimorbidity.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN80309252.
Effectiveness of an adaptive, multifaceted intervention to enhance care for patients with complex multimorbidity in general practice: protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (the MM600 trial)

Holm,A.,Lyhnebeck,A. B.,Rozing,M.,Buhl,S. F.,Willadsen,T. G.,Prior,A.,Christiansen,A.-K. L.,Kristensen,J.,Andersen,J. S.,Waldorff,F. B.,Siersma,V.,Brodersen,J. B.,Reventlow,S.,The MM600 project team,Prior,Stockmarr,Guassora,Lyhnebeck,Frolich,Holm,Moller,Christiansen,Barrett,Merrild,Nicolaisdottir,Waldorff,Larsen,Aamann,Thomsen,Sondergard,Nielsen,Kristensen,Brodersen,Andersen,Jensen,Bissenbakker,Pedersen,Kristensen,Nielsen,Kousgaard,Risor,Rozing,Kallestrup,Lundstrom,Böcher,Lau,Hansen,Reventlow,Buhl,Willadsen,Siersma,Kamper-Jorgensen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077441

IF: 3.006

2024-02-04

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction Patients with complex multimorbidity face a high treatment burden and frequently have low quality of life. General practice is the key organisational setting in terms of offering people with complex multimorbidity integrated, longitudinal, patient-centred care. This protocol describes a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of an adaptive, multifaceted intervention in general practice for patients with complex multimorbidity. Methods and analysis In this study, 250 recruited general practices will be randomly assigned 1:1 to either the intervention or control group. The eligible population are adult patients with two or more chronic conditions, at least one contact with secondary care within the last year, taking at least five repeat prescription drugs, living independently, who experience significant problems with their life and health due to their multimorbidity. During 2023 and 2024, intervention practices are financially incentivised to provide an extended consultation based on a patient-centred framework to eligible patients. Control practices continue care as usual. The primary outcome is need-based quality of life. Outcomes will be evaluated using linear and logistic regression models, with clustering considered. The analysis will be performed as intention to treat. In addition, a process evaluation will be carried out and reported elsewhere. Ethics and dissemination The trial will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, the Helsinki Declaration in its most recent form and good clinical practice recommendations, as well as the regulation for informed consent. The study was submitted to the Danish Capital Region Ethical Committee (ref: H-22041229). As defined by Section 2 of the Danish Act on Research Ethics in Research Projects, this project does not constitute a health research project but is considered a quality improvement project that does not require formal ethical approval. All results from the study (whether positive, negative or inconclusive) will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT05676541.

medicine, general & internal
Evaluating a volunteer 'Health Champions' intervention supporting people with severe mental illness to manage their physical health: feasibility hybrid randomised controlled trial

Julie Williams,Ray McGrath,Karen Ang,Ioannis Bakolis,Andy Healey,Jorge Arias de la Torre,Isabel Mdudu,Fiona Gaughran,Euan Sadler,Mariana Pinto da Costa,Errol Green,Natalia Stepan,Gracie Tredget,Zarnie Khadjesari,Sean Cross,Nick Sevdalis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2024.746

2024-10-04

BJPsych Open

Abstract:Background: People with severe mental illness (SMI) have worse physical health than the general population. There is evidence that support from volunteers can help the mental health of people with SMI, but little evidence regarding the support they can give for physical health. Aims: To evaluate the feasibility of an intervention where volunteer 'Health Champions' support people with SMI in managing their physical health. Method: A feasibility hybrid randomised controlled trial conducted in mental health teams with people with SMI. Volunteers delivered the Health Champions intervention. We collected data on the feasibility of delivering the intervention, and clinical and cost-effectiveness. Participants were randomised by a statistician independent of the research team, to either having a Health Champion or treatment as usual. Blinding was not done. Results: We recruited 48 participants: 27 to the intervention group and 21 to the control group. Data were analysed for 34 participants. No changes were found in clinical effectiveness for either group. Implementation outcomes measures showed high acceptability, feasibility and appropriateness, but with low response rates. No adverse events were identified in either group. Interviews with participants found they identified changes they had made to their physical health. The cost of implementing the intervention was £312 per participant. Conclusions: The Health Champion intervention was feasible to implement, but the implementation of the study measures was problematic. Participants found the intervention acceptable, feasible and appropriate, and it led them to make changes in their physical health. A larger trial is recommended, with tailored implementation outcome measures.
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a telehealth intervention to support the management of long-term conditions: study protocol for two linked randomized controlled trials

Clare L Thomas,Mei-See Man,Alicia O’Cathain,Sandra Hollinghurst,Shirley Large,Louisa Edwards,Jon Nicholl,Alan A Montgomery,Chris Salisbury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-36

IF: 2.728

2014-01-24

Trials

Abstract:BackgroundAs the population ages, more people are suffering from long-term health conditions (LTCs). Health services around the world are exploring new ways of supporting people with LTCs and there is great interest in the use of telehealth: technologies such as the Internet, telephone and home self-monitoring.Methods/DesignThis study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a telehealth intervention delivered by NHS Direct to support patients with LTCs. Two randomized controlled trials will be conducted in parallel, recruiting patients with two exemplar LTCs: depression or raised cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. A total of 1,200 patients will be recruited from approximately 42 general practices near Bristol, Sheffield and Southampton, UK. Participants will be randomly allocated to either usual care (control group) or usual care plus the NHS Direct Healthlines Service (intervention group). The intervention is based on a conceptual model incorporating promotion of self-management, optimisation of treatment, coordination of care and engagement of patients and general practitioners. Participants will be provided with tailored help, combining telephone advice from health information advisors with support to use a range of online resources. Participants will access the service for 12 months. Outcomes will be collected at baseline, four, eight and 12 months for the depression trial and baseline, six and 12 months for the CVD risk trial. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients responding to treatment, defined in the depression trial as a PHQ-9 score <10 and an absolute reduction in PHQ-9 ≥5 after 4 months, and in the CVD risk trial as maintenance or reduction of 10-year CVD risk after 12 months. The study will also assess whether the intervention is cost-effective from the perspective of the NHS and personal social services. An embedded qualitative interview study will explore healthcare professionals’ and patients’ views of the intervention.DiscussionThis study evaluates a complex telehealth intervention which combines evidence-based components and is delivered by an established healthcare organisation. The study will also analyse health economic information. In doing so, the study hopes to address some of the limitations of previous research by demonstrating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a real world telehealth intervention.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials: Depression trial ISRCTN14172341 and cardiovascular disease risk trial ISRCTN27508731.

medicine, research & experimental
Collaborative care intervention for individuals with severe mental illness: the PARTNERS2 programme including complex intervention development and cluster RCT

Humera Plappert,Richard Byng,Siobhan Theresa Reilly,Charley Hobson-Merrett,Jon Allard,Elina Baker,Nicky Britten,Melanie Calvert,Michael Clark,Siobhan Creanor,Linda Davies,Rebecca Denyer,Julia Frost,Linda Gask,Bliss Gibbons,John Gibson,Laura Gill,Ruth Gwernan-Jones,Joanne Hosking,Peter Huxley,Alison Jeffery,Benjamin Jones,Tom Keeley,Richard Laugharne,Steven Marwaha,Claire Planner,Tim Rawcliffe,Ameeta Retzer,Debra Richards,Ruth Sayers,Lynsey Williams,Vanessa Pinfold,Maximillian Birchwood

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/yaet7368

2024-07-01

Programme Grants for Applied Research

Abstract:Background and aims Individuals living with severe mental illness such as schizophrenia and bipolar can have significant emotional, cognitive, physical and social challenges. Most people with severe mental illness in the United Kingdom do not receive specialist mental health care. Collaborative care is a system of support that combines clinical and organisational components to provide integrated and person-centred care. It has not been tested for severe mental illness in the United Kingdom. We aimed to develop and evaluate a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) designed to improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar or other psychoses when compared with usual care. Methods Phase 1 included studies to (1) understand context: an observational retrospective study of primary and secondary care medical records and an update of the Cochrane review ‘Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness’; (2) develop and formatively evaluate the PARTNERS intervention: a review of literature on collaborative care and recovery, interviews with key leaders in collaborative care and recovery, focus groups with service users and a formative evaluation of a prototype intervention model; and (3) develop trial science work in this area: a core outcome set for bipolar and recruitment methods. In phase 2 we conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial measuring quality of life using the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life and secondary outcomes including time use, recovery and mental well-being; a cost-effectiveness study; and a mixed-methods process evaluation. Public involvement underpinned all of the workstream activity through the study Lived Experience Advisory Panel and the employment of service user researchers in the project team. Results phase 1 The study of records showed that care for individuals under secondary care is variable and substantial and that people are seen every 2 weeks on average. The updated Cochrane review showed that collaborative care interventions were highly variable, and no reliable conclusions can be drawn about effectiveness. The PARTNERS model incorporated change at organisational, practitioner and individual levels. Coaching was selected as the main form of support for individuals’ personal goals. In the formative evaluation, we showed that more intensive supervision and ‘top-up’ training were needed to achieve the desired shifts in practice. A core outcome set was developed for bipolar, and measures were selected for the trial. We developed a stepped approach to recruitment including initial approach and appointment. Results phase 2 The trial was conducted in four areas. In total, 198 participants were recruited from 39 practices randomised. Participants received either the PARTNERS intervention or usual care. The follow-up rate was 86% at 9–12 months. The mean change in overall Manchester Short Assessment Quality of Life score did not differ between the groups [0.25 (standard deviation 0.73) for intervention vs. 0.21 (standard deviation 0.86) for control]. We also found no difference for any secondary measures. Safety outcomes (e.g. crises) did not differ between those receiving and those not receiving the intervention. Although the costs of intervention and usual care were similar, there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the overall cost-effectiveness of PARTNERS. The mixed-methods process evaluation demonstrated that a significant proportion of individuals did not receive the full intervention. This was partly due to care partner absence and participant choice. The in-depth realist informed case studies showed that participants generally appreciated the support, with some describing having a ‘professional friend’ as very important. For some people there was evidence that delivery of the intervention had led to specific personal changes. Strengths and limitations The phase 1 records study provided insights into usual care that had not been previously documented. The realist informed complex intervention development was both theoretical and pragmatic. The trial continued through the COVID-19 pandemic with high levels of follow-up. The process evaluation had the depth to explore individual changes in participants’ response to the intervention. Weaknesses in the trial methodology included suboptimal implementation, outcome measures that may not have been sensitive to changes patients most appreciated and difficulties collecting some outcomes. Conclusions While PARTNERS was not shown to be superior to usual care, the change to PARTNERS care was not shown to be unsafe. Full intervention implementation was challenging, but this is to be expected in studies of care that include those with psychosis. Some individuals responded well to the intervention when psychological support in the form of individualised goal setting was flexibly deployed, with evidence that having access to a ‘professional friend’ was experienced as particularly helpful for some individuals. Future work Key components of the PARTNERS model could be developed further and tested, along with improved supervision in the context of ongoing community mental health care change. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN95702682. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR200625) and is published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research ; Vol. 12, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Primary outcomes of the enhanced, EHR-facilitated cancer symptom control (E2C2) cluster-randomized, stepped wedge, pragmatic trial.

Andrea L. Cheville,Deirdre R. Pachman,Kurt Kroenke,Jeph Herrin,Veronica Grzegorczyk,Sandra A. Mitchell,Joan M. Griffin,Jennifer Ridgeway,Jessica Austin,Ashley Wilder Smith,Linda L. Chlan,Cindy Tofthagen,Kathryn Jean Ruddy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.17_suppl.lba12006

IF: 45.3

2024-06-06

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:LBA12006 Background: Symptom burden and functional decline are prevalent, inconsistently treated, and associated with adverse health outcomes in patients with cancer. Symptom monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) has yielded mixed results due, in part, to care teams’ variable bandwidth and resourcing for symptom management. The collaborative care model (CCM) offers a validated means to address these issues and potentially improve clinical and health services outcomes. Capturing ePROMS through the electronic health record (EHR) for use in CCM delivery provides a potentially scalable approach to manage symptoms at the population level. Methods: E2C2 is a cluster-randomized, population-level, stepped wedge pragmatic trial that compares a bundled, EHR-facilitated, CCM-based intervention to improve control of SPPADE symptoms (Sleep interference, Pain, impaired Physical function, Anxiety, Depression, and Energy deficit/fatigue) with usual care. All patients, regardless of cancer type or stage, treated in the medical oncology clinics of a multi-state health system, were assigned to one of fifteen clusters. Control and intervention conditions monitored SPPADE symptoms with Epic EHR administered 11-point numerical rating scales (NRSs). Moderate and severe symptoms were defined as 4-6/10 and >7/10, respectively. The intervention added EHR clinician decision support; automated delivery of symptom self-management information; and options to address severe symptoms with a dedicated symptom care manager. The primary outcome was post-baseline SPPADE scores assessed using multivariate regression of six cluster-period mean SPPADE symptom scores against E2C2 exposure, fixed cluster and secular time effects. Results: From March 2019 to January 2023, 50,559 patients were assigned to E2C2 clusters and 40,295 completed at least one ePROM. At first assessment, participants’ mean age was 63.3 years; 58% were female; 26% were rural, and the prevalences of moderate or worse symptoms were fatigue 42%, impaired function 34%, sleep disturbance 34%, anxiety 27%, pain 26%, and depression 23%. The intervention significantly reduced mean composite SPPADE symptom scores, p 1 moderate or worse symptom. All mean symptom scores were lower in the intervention group, with the largest effects detected among patients with fatigue -0.2 (-0.4, -0.07), anxiety -0.14 (-0.2, -0.03), and depression -0.1 (-0.2, -0.002). Conclusions: In this large cluster-randomized trial, an EHR-facilitated, bundled intervention that scaled CCM-based surveillance and management of SPPADE symptoms significantly reduced population-level symptom burden, particularly for fatigue, anxiety, and depression. This study provides real world evidence and the foundation for future national efforts aimed at controlling symptoms in patients with cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT03892967 .

oncology
Communication interventions for medically unexplained symptom conditions in general practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Ailish Katherine Byrne,Arabella Scantlebury,Katherine Jones,Laura Doherty,David J Torgerson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277538

IF: 3.7

2022-11-14

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background: Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) account for 3-50% of all General Practitioner (GP) consultations and are difficult to diagnose due to their unknown aetiology, symptom overlap between conditions, and lack of effective treatment options. MUS patients' and primary care clinicians frequently face challenges during consultations, with GPs reporting difficulty identifying and classifying MUS, whilst patients report stigma and feeling illegitimised by clinicians. Communication interventions have been proposed as a method to facilitate the doctor-patient relationship and aid the management of MUS. Aim: This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of primary care based communication interventions at improving MUS patients' and/or clinician outcomes. Method: Four electronic databases were searched from inception to November 2021. Two researchers independently undertook screening, data extraction and quality appraisal. Given the heterogeneous nature of the studies identified, narrative syntheses were conducted, along with meta-analyses where possible to pool data. Results: 9 papers from 10 Randomised Controlled Trials were included. The included studies displayed considerable risk of bias and poor reporting. Some limited evidence suggests that communication interventions tailored to MUS and not following a pre-specified model (such as reattribution) could improve pain, mental and physical functioning whilst reattribution training may improve clinician confidence treating MUS. However, methodological limitations mean that these findings should be interpreted with caution. Conclusion: A range of interventions for improving communication with MUS patients in primary care have been evaluated. However, the heterogeneous nature of existing evidence and poor study quality mean we cannot conclude whether these interventions are effective. Before considering further randomised controlled trials researchers should focus on developing a new or modified communication intervention for MUS patients and their clinicians. Trail registration: The systematic review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (registration record CRD42020206437).
Providing Emotional Support During the Process of Multiple Sclerosis Diagnosis (PrEliMS): A Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial

Roshan das Nair,Jacqueline R Mhizha-Murira,Gogem Topcu,Tierney Tindall,Clare Bale,Nima Moghaddam,Grit Scheffler-Ansari,Avril Drummond,Deborah Fitzsimmons,Nikos Evangelou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155241284781

2024-09-27

Clinical Rehabilitation

Abstract:Clinical Rehabilitation, Ahead of Print. ObjectivesTo evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of an emotional support programme for newly diagnosed people with multiple sclerosis.DesignThree-arm, mixed methods, randomised controlled trial comparing usual care, versus usual care plus nurse-specialist support, versus usual care plus nurse-specialist support plus peer support.ParticipantsCommunity-dwelling adults within two years of diagnosis or undergoing diagnosis.InterventionsPrEliMS involves information provision, emotional support, and strategies and techniques based on psychoeducation, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy principles, supportive listening. One version of the intervention was provided by nurse-specialists alone and the other was provided by nurse-specialists plus peer support.Main measuresThe main outcome of interest was the feasibility of proceeding to a definitive trial, exploring recruitment rate, acceptability, completion of outcome measures (perceived stress, mood, self-efficacy, psychological impact, and service use), and signal of efficacy.ResultsOf 40 participants randomised (mean age 36.2 years (SD = 14.8); 54% women; 85% with relapsing-remitting MS), 36 and 38 returned 3- and 6-month questionnaires, respectively. Participant interviews suggested the trial was largely feasible, and the intervention acceptable, with some amendments to trial procedures and intervention delivery noted. There were, however, no statistically significant differences between groups at followup for any measures, and effect-size estimates were small.ConclusionA definitive trial combining nurse-specialist and peer support adjustment to diagnosis intervention is warranted, but more work exploring the delivery and fidelity of the intervention is needed before this is pursued

rehabilitation
Specialist physiotherapy for functional motor disorder in England and Scotland (Physio4FMD): a pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial

Glenn Nielsen,Jon Stone,Teresa C Lee,Laura H Goldstein,Louise Marston,Rachael Maree Hunter,Alan Carson,Kate Holt,Jon Marsden,Marie Le Novere,Irwin Nazareth,Hayley Noble,Markus Reuber,Ann-Marie Strudwick,Beatriz Santana Suarez,Mark J Edwards,Physio4FMD study group,Emily Beaves,David Breen,Christine Burness,Simone Caddy,Hannah Callaghan,Andrew Carberry,Luke Chetham,Andrea Clyne,Susie Cobb,Jan Coebergh,Lewis Cook,Patrick Cookson,Paul Cooper,Clare Diamond,Lee Drake,Victoria Dunn,Paula Gardiner,Thomas Gilbertson,Dawn Golder,Rebecca Gregory,Helen Harbinson,Rory Higgins,Ingrid Hoeritzauer,Laura Irvine,Jeremy Isaacs,Emily Jay,Danielle Kearney,Uzma Khan,James Magro,Elizabeth Mallam,Eleanor Harle,Luke Massey,Sarah McRae,Shagun Misra,Steph Mitchell,Cameron Moss,Esther Mountain,Shona Murray,Rachel Newby,Marianne Novak,Annie Ross,Anna Rutherford,Gillian Sare,Rhiannon Sears,Will Sedley,Sumeet Singhal,Biba Stanton,Charlotte Stone,Gillian Szeto,Lauren Tarr,Tiago Teodoro,Volker Teweleit,Michael Walsh,Rhian Warman,Mahinda Yogarajah

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(24)00135-2

Abstract:Background: Functional motor disorder-the motor variant of functional neurological disorder-is a disabling condition that is commonly associated with poor health outcomes. Pathophysiological models have inspired new treatment approaches such as specialist physiotherapy, although evidence from large randomised controlled trials is absent. We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of a specialist physiotherapy intervention for functional motor disorder compared with treatment as usual. Methods: In this pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial at 11 hospitals in England and Scotland, adults with a clinically definite diagnosis of functional motor disorder, diagnosed by a neurologist, were included. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified by site) using a remote web-based application to either specialist physiotherapy (a protocolised intervention of nine sessions plus follow-up) or treatment as usual (referral to local community neurological physiotherapy). Individuals working on data collection and analysis were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the physical functioning domain of the 36-item short form health questionnaire (SF36) at 12 months after randomisation. The primary analysis followed a modified intention-to-treat principle, using a complete case approach; participants who were unable to receive their randomised treatment due to the suspension of health-care services during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the primary analysis. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, ISRCTN56136713, and is completed. Findings: Recruitment occurred between Oct 19, 2018, and March 11, 2020, pausing during the COVID-19 lockdown, and resuming from Aug 3, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022. Of 355 participants who were enrolled, 179 were randomly assigned to specialist physiotherapy and 176 to treatment as usual. 89 participants were excluded from the primary analysis due to COVID-19 interruption to treatment (27 were assigned to specialist physiotherapy and 62 to treatment as usual). After accounting for withdrawals (n=11) and loss to follow-up (n=14), the primary analysis included data from 241 participants (138 [91%] assigned specialist physiotherapy and 103 [90%] assigned treatment as usual). Physical functioning, as assessed by SF36, did not differ significantly between groups (adjusted mean difference 3·5, 95% CI -2·3 to 9·3; p=0·23). There were no serious adverse events related to the trial interventions. 35 serious adverse events were recorded in the specialist physiotherapy group by 24 participants (17·0%), and 24 serious adverse events were recorded in the treatment as usual group by 18 participants (17·0%); one death occurred in the specialist physiotherapy group (cause of death was recorded as suicide). All were considered unrelated to specialist physiotherapy. Interpretation: Although more participants who were assigned specialist physiotherapy self-rated their motor symptoms as improved and had better scores on subjective measures of mental health, the intervention did not result in better self-reported physical functioning at 12 months. Both the specialist and community neurological physiotherapy appeared to be a safe and a valued treatment for selected patients with functional motor disorder. Future research should continue to refine interventions for people with functional motor disorder and develop evidence-based methods to guide treatment triage decisions. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research and Health Technology Assessment Programme.
Effects of care of multimorbid patients in general practices by advanced practice nurses (FAMOUS): study protocol for a nonrandomized controlled trial

Renate Stemmer,Britta Büchler,Matthias Büttner,Christina Dera-Ströhm,Joachim Klein,Emilio Gianicolo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09460-1

2023-05-17

Abstract:Background: Multimorbidity is a common phenomenon among patients treated in general practices. Key challenges within this group include functional difficulties, polypharmacy, treatment burden, fragmentation of care, reduced quality of life and increased health care utilization. These problems cannot be solved in the short consultation time of a general practitioner (GP) since there is an increasing shortage of GPs. In many countries, advanced practice nurses (APNs) are successfully integrated into primary health care for multimorbid patients. The objective of this study is to examine whether the integration of APNs in the primary care of multimorbid patients in Germany leads to optimized care of the target group and to a reduction in the workload of the GPs. Methods: The intervention includes the integration of APNs into the care for multimorbid patients in general practice for twelve months. Qualifications for APNs include a master's level academic degree and 500 hours of project-specific training. Their tasks include in-depth assessment, preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of a person-centred and evidence-based care plan. In this nonrandomized controlled trial, a prospective multicentre mixed methods study will be performed. The main inclusion criterion was the cooccurrence of three chronic diseases. For data collection in the intervention group (n = 817), routine data from health insurance companies and association of statutory health insurance physicians (ASHIP) will be used, as well as qualitative interviews. In addition, the intervention will be assessed through documentation of the care process and standardized questionnaires using a longitudinal design. The control group (n = 1634) will receive standard care. For the evaluation, routine data from health insurance companies are matched at a ratio of 1:2. Outcomes will be measured using emergency contacts and GP visits, treatment costs, health status of the patients and the satisfaction of parties involved. The statistical analyses will include Poisson regression to compare outcomes between the intervention and control groups. Descriptive and analytical statistical methods will be used in the longitudinal analysis of the intervention group data. Cost analysis will compare total costs and subgroup costs between the intervention and control groups. Qualitative data will be analysed using content analysis. Discussion: Challenges to this protocol could include the political and strategic environment as well as the planned number of participants. Trial registration: DRKS00026172 on DRKS.
[Clinical Importance of Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Diseases. Topics: VII. Routine treatment: when referring to specialists].

Y. Sumida,Yuya Seko,Y. Itoh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2169/NAIKA.105.56

2016-01-10

Abstract:
Specialist treatment for persistent depression in secondary care: Sustained effects from a multicentre UK study at 24 and 36 months

Neil Nixon,Boliang Guo,Catherine Kaylor-Hughes,Sandra Simpson,Anne Garland,Tim Dalgleish,Richard Morriss

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2023.10.105

2024-01-15

Abstract:Background: Despite the known health costs of persistent depression, there is no established service framework for the treatment of this disorder and a lack of long-term outcome data to inform commissioning. To address this gap, we report the long-term clinical effectiveness of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) testing a specialist, collaborative model of care for people with persistent moderate to severe unipolar depression. Methods: A multicentre, pragmatic, single-blind, parallel-group randomised controlled trial comparing outcomes from a Specialist Depression Service (SDS) offering collaborative treatment with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and pharmacotherapy for 12 months with treatment as usual (TAU) for persistent, moderate-severe depression in UK secondary care. Participants were initially assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 18 months, with primary endpoints (17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS17], and a Global Assessment of Functioning [GAF]) reported elsewhere (Morriss et al., 2016). Additional long-term, post-treatment, follow-up was made at 24 and 36 months with outcomes presented here. Clinicaltrials: gov (NCT01047124) and ISRCTN registration (ISRCTN 10963342). Results: At 24 months there remained a statistically significant between-group difference in HDRS17-2.69 (-5.14, -0.23) and a non-significant improvement in GAF 2.85 (-1.23, 6.94), both favouring the SDS. Simple statistics are presented at 36 months, due to attrition, showing higher continued response and remission vs TAU across all measures. Limitations: Potential bias through loss to follow-up, particularly beyond 24 months. Conclusions: Compared with standard secondary care, SDS management of persistent moderate-severe depression, produced long-term clinical benefits, sustained following treatment completion, suggesting a model for future specialist care.
Fracture risk after surgery for peptic ulcer disease: a population-based cohort study.

L. J. Melton,C. Crowson,S. Khosla,W. O'Fallon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S8756-3282(99)00097-6

IF: 4.626

1999-07-01

Bone

Abstract:
Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a specialist depression service versus usual specialist mental health care to manage persistent depression: a randomised controlled trial

Richard Morriss,Anne Garland,Neil Nixon,Boliang Guo,Marilyn James,Catherine Kaylor-Hughes,Richard Moore,Rajini Ramana,Christopher Sampson,Timothy Sweeney,Tim Dalgleish,NIHR CLAHRC Specialist Mood Disorder Study Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30143-2

Abstract:Background: Persistent moderate or severe unipolar depression is common and expensive to treat. Clinical guidelines recommend combined pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy. Such treatments can take up to 1 year to show an effect, but no trials of suitable duration have been done. We investigated the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of outpatient-based, specialist depression services (SDS) versus treatment as usual (TAU) on depression symptoms and function. Methods: We did a multicentre, single-blind, patient-level, parallel, randomised controlled trial (RCT), as part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) study, in three mental health outpatient settings in England. Eligible participants were in secondary care, were older than 18 years, had unipolar depression (with a current major depressive episode, a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS17] score of ≥16, and a Global Assessment of Function [GAF] score of ≤60), and had not responded to 6 months or more of treatment for depression. Randomisation was stratified by site with allocation conveyed to a trial administrator, with research assessors masked to outcome. Patients were randomised (1:1) using a computer-generated pseudo-random code with random permuted blocks of varying sizes of two, four, or six to either SDS (collaborative care approach between psychiatrists and cognitive behavioural therapists for 12 months, followed by graduated transfer of care up to 15 months) or to the TAU group. Intention-to-treat primary outcome measures were changes in HDRS17 and GAF scores between baseline and 6, 12, and 18 months' follow-up. We will separately publish follow-up outcomes for months 24 and 36. Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness were examined from health and social care persp ectives at 18 months, as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01047124) and the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN10963342); the trial has ended. Findings: 307 patients were assessed for eligibility between Dec 21, 2009, and Oct 31, 2012. 94 patients were assigned to TAU and 93 patients to SDS, and were included in intention-to-treat analyses. The changes from baseline to 6 months in HDRS17 and GAF scores did not significantly differ between treatment groups (mean change difference in HDRS17 score -1·01 [95% CI -3·30 to 1·28], p=0·385; and in GAF score 1·33 [-2·92 to 5·57], p=0·538). Primary outcome data were available for 134 (72%) patients at 12 months. We noted no differences at 12 months' follow-up between SDS and TAU for mean HDRS17 score (14·8 [SD 7·9] in the SDS group vs 17·2 [7·3] in the TAU group, p=0·056) or GAF score (60·4 [11·7] vs 55·8 [12·7], p=0·064), and the changes from baseline to 12 months in HDRS17 and GAF scores did not significantly differ between treatment groups (mean change difference in HDRS17 score -2·45 [95% CI -5·04 to 0·14], p=0·064; and in GAF score 4·12 [-0·11 to 8·35], p=0·056). The mean change in HDRS17 score from baseline to 18 months was significantly improved in the SDS group compared with the TAU group (13·6 [SD 8·8] in the SDS group vs 16·1 [6·6] in the TAU group; mean change difference -2·96 [95% CI -5·33 to -0·59], p=0·015), but the GAF scores showed no significant differences between the groups (61·2 [SD 13·0] vs 57·7 [11·9]; mean change difference 3·82 [-9·3 to 8·57], p=0·113). We reported no deaths, but one (1%) patient was admitted to hospital for myocardial infarction, and three episodes of self-harm were reported in three (2%) patients (two receiving TAU, one receiving SDS care). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SDS versus TAU was £43 603 per quality-adjusted life-year. Interpretation: Compared with usual specialist mental health secondary care, SDS might improve depression symptoms for patients with persistent moderate to severe depression, but functional outcomes and economic benefits are equivocal. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, UK Medical Research Council, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, University of Nottingham.
Training General Practitioners in the Treatment of Functional Somatic Symptoms: Effects on Patient Health in a Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial (the Functional Illness in Primary Care Study)

Tomas Toft,Marianne Rosendal,Eva Ørnbøl,Frede Olesen,Lisbeth Frostholm,Per Fink

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000313691

2010-01-01

Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Patients with medically unexplained or functional somatic symptoms (FSS) are prevalent in primary care. In this pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial we aimed to test the effect of a training programme (The Extended Reattribution and Management model) for general practitioners (GPs) in the treatment of FSS.METHODS: 38 participating GPs were randomised to the control group or the training group. The GPs included consecutive 18- to 65-year-old patients presenting during a 3-week period for new health complaints. We assessed a stratified subsample with the psychiatric interview Schedules of Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry. Of 701 patients interviewed, 350 fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for any ICD-10 somatoform disorder (SD) and 111 presented FSS without fulfilling these criteria (sub-threshold SD). Patients completed questionnaires at baseline and after 3, 12 and 24 months. The questionnaires included assessment of health status (36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short Form; SF-36), health anxiety (Whiteley-7) and physical symptoms (Symptom Check List-90, somatization subscale).RESULTS: Patients with SD consulting trained GPs improved more on our primary outcome of physical functioning than patients consulting control GPs at the 3-month follow-up (p = 0.004), but the improvement was not statistically significant at later follow-up. We found no significant differences in improvement between patients with SD and those with sub-threshold SD. Results for other SF-36 subscales, physical symptoms and health anxiety only showed statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups for patients with SD; patients consulting trained GPs had less improvement in vitality, health anxiety and physical symptoms at 24 months compared with the control group.CONCLUSIONS: GP training may accelerate improvement in physical functioning for patients with SD. However, the effect is small and may not be clinically significant.

psychiatry,psychology
Early positive approaches to support for families of young children with intellectual disability: the E-PAtS feasibility RCT

Elinor Coulman,Nick Gore,Gwenllian Moody,Melissa Wright,Jeremy Segrott,David Gillespie,Stavros Petrou,Fiona Lugg-Widger,Sungwook Kim,Jill Bradshaw,Rachel McNamara,Andrew Jahoda,Geoff Lindsay,Jacqui Shurlock,Vaso Totsika,Catherine Stanford,Samantha Flynn,Annabel Carter,Christian Barlow,Richard Hastings

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/heyy3556

2022-01-01

Public Health Research

Abstract:Background Parents of children with intellectual disability are 1.5–2 times more likely than other parents to report mental health difficulties. There is a lack of clinically effective and cost-effective group well-being interventions designed for family carers of young children with intellectual disability. Aim To examine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Early Positive Approaches to Support (E-PAtS) intervention. Design A feasibility study (including randomisation of families into a two-arm trial), questionnaires to assess the feasibility of proposed outcome measures (including resource use and health-related quality of life) and practitioner/family carer interviews. An additional question was included in an online UK survey of families, conducted by the research team to assess usual practice, and a survey of provider organisations. Setting Families recruited from community contexts (i.e. third sector, local authority services, special schools) and self-referral. The E-PAtS intervention was delivered by trained community-based providers. Participants Families with at least one child aged 1.5–5 years with an intellectual disability. At least one parent had to have English-language ability (spoken) for E-PAtS programme participation and participants had to provide informed consent. Interventions E-PAtS intervention – two caregivers from each family invited to eight 2.5-hour group sessions with usual practice. Usual practice – other support provided to the family, including other parenting support. Objectives To assess randomisation willingness/feasibility, recruitment of providers/parents, retention, usual practice, adherence, fidelity and feasibility of proposed outcome measures (including the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale as the proposed primary outcome measure, and parent anxiety/depression, parenting, family functioning/relationships, child behavioural/emotional problems and adaptive skills, child and parent quality of life, and family services receipt as the proposed secondary outcome measures). Results Seventy-four families (95 carers) were recruited from three sites (with 37 families allocated to the intervention). From referrals, the recruitment rate was 65% (95% confidence interval 56% to 74%). Seventy-two per cent of families were retained at the 12-month follow-up (95% confidence interval 60% to 81%). Exploratory regression analysis showed that the mean Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale well-being score was 3.96 points higher in the intervention group (95% confidence interval –1.39 to 9.32 points) at 12 months post randomisation. High levels of data completeness were achieved on returned questionnaires. Interviews ( n = 25) confirmed that (1) recruitment, randomisation processes and the intervention were acceptable to family carers, E-PAtS facilitators and community staff; (2) E-PAtS delivery were consistent with the logic model; and (3) researchers requesting consent in future for routine data would be acceptable. Recorded E-PAtS sessions demonstrated good fidelity (96% of components present). Adherence (i.e. at least one carer from the family attending five out of eight E-PAtS sessions) was 76%. Health-related quality-of-life and services receipt data were gathered successfully. An online UK survey to assess usual practice ( n = 673) showed that 10% of families of young children with intellectual disability received any intervention over 12 months. A provider survey ( n = 15) indicated willingness to take part in future research. Limitations Obtaining session recordings for fidelity was difficult. Recruitment processes need to be reviewed to improve diversity and strategies are needed to improve primary outcome completion. Conclusions Study processes were feasible. The E-PAtS intervention was well received and outcomes for families were positive. A barrier to future organisation participation is funding for intervention costs. A definitive trial to test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of E-PAtS would be feasible. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70419473. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research ; Vol. 10, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Hyperargininemia: effect of ornithine and lysine supplementation.

Effect of pinealectomy on the 3H-5HT uptake of mast cells in the thyroid gland of the rat.

Behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms in primary care: systematic reviews and economic evaluation

Effectiveness of a time-limited cognitive behavior therapy type intervention among primary care patients with medically unexplained symptoms

Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: the TRIUMPH cluster RCT

Integrated primary care for patients with mental and physical multimorbidity: cluster randomised controlled trial of collaborative care for patients with depression comorbid with diabetes or cardiovascular disease

Effectiveness of an adaptive, multifaceted intervention to enhance care for patients with complex multimorbidity in general practice: protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (the MM600 trial)

Evaluating a volunteer 'Health Champions' intervention supporting people with severe mental illness to manage their physical health: feasibility hybrid randomised controlled trial

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a telehealth intervention to support the management of long-term conditions: study protocol for two linked randomized controlled trials

Collaborative care intervention for individuals with severe mental illness: the PARTNERS2 programme including complex intervention development and cluster RCT

Primary outcomes of the enhanced, EHR-facilitated cancer symptom control (E2C2) cluster-randomized, stepped wedge, pragmatic trial.

Communication interventions for medically unexplained symptom conditions in general practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Providing Emotional Support During the Process of Multiple Sclerosis Diagnosis (PrEliMS): A Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial

Specialist physiotherapy for functional motor disorder in England and Scotland (Physio4FMD): a pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial

Effects of care of multimorbid patients in general practices by advanced practice nurses (FAMOUS): study protocol for a nonrandomized controlled trial

[Clinical Importance of Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Diseases. Topics: VII. Routine treatment: when referring to specialists].

Specialist treatment for persistent depression in secondary care: Sustained effects from a multicentre UK study at 24 and 36 months

Fracture risk after surgery for peptic ulcer disease: a population-based cohort study.

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a specialist depression service versus usual specialist mental health care to manage persistent depression: a randomised controlled trial

Training General Practitioners in the Treatment of Functional Somatic Symptoms: Effects on Patient Health in a Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial (the Functional Illness in Primary Care Study)

Early positive approaches to support for families of young children with intellectual disability: the E-PAtS feasibility RCT