Health Technology Assessment
ISSN / EISSN : 1366-5278 / 2046-4924
Published by: National Institute for Health Research (10.3310)
Total articles ≅ 1,566
Latest articles in this journal
Published: 1 September 2021
Health Technology Assessment, Volume 25, pp 1-168; https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25520
Background The diagnosis of preterm labour is challenging. False-positive diagnoses are common and result in unnecessary, potentially harmful treatments (e.g. tocolytics, antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulphate) and costly hospital admissions. Measurement of fetal fibronectin in vaginal fluid is a biochemical test that can indicate impending preterm birth. Objectives To develop an externally validated prognostic model using quantitative fetal fibronectin concentration, in combination with clinical risk factors, for the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth and to assess its cost-effectiveness. Design The study comprised (1) a qualitative study to establish the decisional needs of pregnant women and their caregivers, (2) an individual participant data meta-analysis of existing studies to develop a prognostic model for spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days in women with symptoms of preterm labour based on quantitative fetal fibronectin and clinical risk factors, (3) external validation of the prognostic model in a prospective cohort study across 26 UK centres, (4) a model-based economic evaluation comparing the prognostic model with qualitative fetal fibronectin, and quantitative fetal fibronectin with cervical length measurement, in terms of cost per QALY gained and (5) a qualitative assessment of the acceptability of quantitative fetal fibronectin. Data sources/setting The model was developed using data from five European prospective cohort studies of quantitative fetal fibronectin. The UK prospective cohort study was carried out across 26 UK centres. Participants Pregnant women at 22+0–34+6 weeks’ gestation with signs and symptoms of preterm labour. Health technology being assessed Quantitative fetal fibronectin. Main outcome measures Spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days. Results The individual participant data meta-analysis included 1783 women and 139 events of spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days (event rate 7.8%). The prognostic model that was developed included quantitative fetal fibronectin, smoking, ethnicity, nulliparity and multiple pregnancy. The model was externally validated in a cohort of 2837 women, with 83 events of spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days (event rate 2.93%), an area under the curve of 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.84 to 0.93), a calibration slope of 1.22 and a Nagelkerke R 2 of 0.34. The economic analysis found that the prognostic model was cost-effective compared with using qualitative fetal fibronectin at a threshold for hospital admission and treatment of ≥ 2% risk of preterm birth within 7 days. Limitations The outcome proportion (spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days of test) was 2.9% in the validation study. This is in line with other studies, but having slightly fewer than 100 events is a limitation in model validation. Conclusions A prognostic model that included quantitative fetal fibronectin and clinical risk factors showed excellent performance in the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days of test, was cost-effective and can be used to inform a decision support tool to help guide management decisions for women with threatened preterm labour. Future work The prognostic model will be embedded in electronic maternity records and a mobile telephone application, enabling ongoing data collection for further refinement and validation of the model. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027590 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41598423. 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. 25, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Published: 1 September 2021
Health Technology Assessment, Volume 25, pp 1-72; https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25550
Background Measurement can affect the people being measured; for example, asking people to complete a questionnaire can result in changes in behaviour (the ‘question–behaviour effect’). The usual methods of conduct and analysis of randomised controlled trials implicitly assume that the taking of measurements has no effect on research participants. Changes in measured behaviour and other outcomes due to measurement reactivity may therefore introduce bias in otherwise well-conducted randomised controlled trials, yielding incorrect estimates of intervention effects, including underestimates. Objectives The main objectives were (1) to promote awareness of how and where taking measurements can lead to bias and (2) to provide recommendations on how best to avoid or minimise bias due to measurement reactivity in randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve health. Methods We conducted (1) a series of systematic and rapid reviews, (2) a Delphi study and (3) an expert workshop. A protocol paper was published [Miles LM, Elbourne D, Farmer A, Gulliford M, Locock L, McCambridge J, et al. Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance. Trials 2018;19:653]. An updated systematic review examined whether or not measuring participants had an effect on participants’ health-related behaviours relative to no-measurement controls. Three new rapid systematic reviews were conducted to identify (1) existing guidance on measurement reactivity, (2) existing systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes relating to behaviour and affective outcomes and (3) experimental studies that have investigated the effects of exposure to objective measurements of behaviour on health-related behaviour. The views of 40 experts defined the scope of the recommendations in two waves of data collection during the Delphi procedure. A workshop aimed to produce a set of recommendations that were formed in discussion in groups. Results Systematic reviews – we identified a total of 43 studies that compared interview or questionnaire measurement with no measurement and these had an overall small effect (standardised mean difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.09; n = 104,096, I 2 = 54%). The three rapid systematic reviews identified no existing guidance on measurement reactivity, but we did identify five systematic reviews that quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes (all focused on the question–behaviour effect, with all standardised mean differences in the range of 0.09—0.28) and 16 studies that examined reactive effects of objective measurement of behaviour, with most evidence of reactivity of small effect and short duration. Delphi procedure – substantial agreement was reached on the scope of the present recommendations. Workshop – 14 recommendations and three main aims were produced. The aims were to identify whether or not bias is likely to be a problem for a trial, to decide whether or not to collect further quantitative or qualitative data to inform decisions about if bias is likely to be a problem, and to identify how to design trials to minimise the likelihood of this bias. Limitation The main limitation was the shortage of high-quality evidence regarding the extent of measurement reactivity, with some notable exceptions, and the circumstances that are likely to bring it about. Conclusion We hope that these recommendations will be used to develop new trials that are less likely to be at risk of bias. Future work The greatest need is to increase the number of high-quality primary studies regarding the extent of measurement reactivity. Study registration The first systematic review in this study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018102511. Funding Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council–National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research Programme.
Published: 1 September 2021
Health Technology Assessment, Volume 25, pp 1-150; https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25540
Background Generalised anxiety disorder, characterised by excessive anxiety and worry, is the most common anxiety disorder among older people. It is a condition that may persist for decades and is associated with numerous negative outcomes. Front-line treatments include pharmacological and psychological therapy, but many older people do not find these treatments effective. Guidance on managing treatment-resistant generalised anxiety disorder in older people is lacking. Objectives To assess whether or not a study to examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy for older people with treatment-resistant generalised anxiety disorder is feasible, we developed an intervention based on acceptance and commitment therapy for this population, assessed its acceptability and feasibility in an uncontrolled feasibility study and clarified key study design parameters. Design Phase 1 involved qualitative interviews to develop and optimise an intervention as well as a survey of service users and clinicians to clarify usual care. Phase 2 involved an uncontrolled feasibility study and qualitative interviews to refine the intervention. Setting Participants were recruited from general practices, Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services, Community Mental Health Teams and the community. Participants Participants were people aged ≥ 65 years with treatment-resistant generalised anxiety disorder. Intervention Participants received up to 16 one-to-one sessions of acceptance and commitment therapy, adapted for older people with treatment-resistant generalised anxiety disorder, in addition to usual care. Sessions were delivered by therapists based in primary and secondary care services, either in the clinic or at participants’ homes. Sessions were weekly for the first 14 sessions and fortnightly thereafter. Main outcome measures The co-primary outcome measures for phase 2 were acceptability (session attendance and satisfaction with therapy) and feasibility (recruitment and retention). Secondary outcome measures included additional measures of acceptability and feasibility and self-reported measures of anxiety, worry, depression and psychological flexibility. Self-reported outcomes were assessed at 0 weeks (baseline) and 20 weeks (follow-up). Health economic outcomes included intervention and resource use costs and health-related quality of life. Results Fifteen older people with treatment-resistant generalised anxiety disorder participated in phase 1 and 37 participated in phase 2. A high level of feasibility was demonstrated by a recruitment rate of 93% and a retention rate of 81%. A high level of acceptability was found with respect to session attendance (70% of participants attended ≥ 10 sessions) and satisfaction with therapy was adequate (60% of participants scored ≥ 21 out of 30 points on the Satisfaction with Therapy subscale of the Satisfaction with Therapy and Therapist Scale-Revised, although 80% of participants had not finished receiving therapy at the time of rating). Secondary outcome measures and qualitative data further supported the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. Health economic data supported the feasibility of examining cost-effectiveness in a future randomised controlled trial. Although the study was not powered to examine clinical effectiveness, there was indicative evidence of improvements in scores for anxiety, depression and psychological flexibility. Limitations Non-specific therapeutic factors were not controlled for, and recruitment in phase 2 was limited to London. Conclusions There was evidence of high levels of feasibility and acceptability and indicative evidence of improvements in symptoms of anxiety, depression and psychological flexibility. The results of this study suggest that a larger-scale randomised controlled trial would be feasible to conduct and is warranted. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12268776. 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. 25, No. 54. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Published: 1 September 2021
Health Technology Assessment, Volume 25, pp 1-132; https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25570
Background The Medical Research Council published the second edition of its framework in 2006 on developing and evaluating complex interventions. Since then, there have been considerable developments in the field of complex intervention research. The objective of this project was to update the framework in the light of these developments. The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design, and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. Methods There were four stages to the update: (1) gap analysis to identify developments in the methods and practice since the previous framework was published; (2) an expert workshop of 36 participants to discuss the topics identified in the gap analysis; (3) an open consultation process to seek comments on a first draft of the new framework; and (4) findings from the previous stages were used to redraft the framework, and final expert review was obtained. The process was overseen by a Scientific Advisory Group representing the range of relevant National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council research investments. Results Key changes to the previous framework include (1) an updated definition of complex interventions, highlighting the dynamic relationship between the intervention and its context; (2) an emphasis on the use of diverse research perspectives: efficacy, effectiveness, theory-based and systems perspectives; (3) a focus on the usefulness of evidence as the basis for determining research perspective and questions; (4) an increased focus on interventions developed outside research teams, for example changes in policy or health services delivery; and (5) the identification of six ‘core elements’ that should guide all phases of complex intervention research: consider context; develop, refine and test programme theory; engage stakeholders; identify key uncertainties; refine the intervention; and economic considerations. We divide the research process into four phases: development, feasibility, evaluation and implementation. For each phase we provide a concise summary of recent developments, key points to address and signposts to further reading. We also present case studies to illustrate the points being made throughout. Limitations The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. In many of the areas of innovation that we highlight, such as the use of systems approaches, there are still only a few practical examples. We refer to more specific and detailed guidance where available and note where promising approaches require further development. Conclusions This new framework incorporates developments in complex intervention research published since the previous edition was written in 2006. As well as taking account of established practice and recent refinements, we draw attention to new approaches and place greater emphasis on economic considerations in complex intervention research. We have introduced a new emphasis on the importance of context and the value of understanding interventions as ‘events in systems’ that produce effects through interactions with features of the contexts in which they are implemented. The framework adopts a pluralist approach, encouraging researchers and research funders to adopt diverse research perspectives and to select research questions and methods pragmatically, with the aim of providing evidence that is useful to decision-makers. Future work We call for further work to develop relevant methods and provide examples in practice. The use of this framework should be monitored and the move should be made to a more fluid resource in the future, for example a web-based format that can be frequently updated to incorporate new material and links to emerging resources. Funding This project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (Department of Health and Social Care 73514).
Published: 1 September 2021
Health Technology Assessment, Volume 25, pp 1-52; https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25530
Background The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. Objectives To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials. Design To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout. Setting A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines. Results To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Conclusions The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial. Limitations Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS. Future work Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space. Funding Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council–National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.
Published: 1 September 2021
Health Technology Assessment, Volume 25, pp 1-230; https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25560
Background QAngio® XA 3D/QFR® (three-dimensional/quantitative flow ratio) imaging software (Medis Medical Imaging Systems BV, Leiden, the Netherlands) and CAAS® vFFR® (vessel fractional flow reserve) imaging software (Pie Medical Imaging BV, Maastricht, the Netherlands) are non-invasive technologies to assess the functional significance of coronary stenoses, which can be alternatives to invasive fractional flow reserve assessment. Objectives The objectives were to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR. Methods We performed a systematic review of all evidence on QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR, including diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness, implementation and economic analyses. We searched MEDLINE and other databases to January 2020 for studies where either technology was used and compared with fractional flow reserve in patients with intermediate stenosis. The risk of bias was assessed with quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy were performed. Clinical and implementation outcomes were synthesised narratively. A simulation study investigated the clinical impact of using QAngio XA 3D/QFR. We developed a de novo decision-analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR relative to invasive fractional flow reserve or invasive coronary angiography alone. Scenario analyses were undertaken to explore the robustness of the results to variation in the sources of data used to populate the model and alternative assumptions. Results Thirty-nine studies (5440 patients) of QAngio XA 3D/QFR and three studies (500 patients) of CAAS vFFR were included. QAngio XA 3D/QFR had good diagnostic accuracy to predict functionally significant fractional flow reserve (≤ 0.80 cut-off point); contrast-flow quantitative flow ratio had a sensitivity of 85% (95% confidence interval 78% to 90%) and a specificity of 91% (95% confidence interval 85% to 95%). A total of 95% of quantitative flow ratio measurements were within 0.14 of the fractional flow reserve. Data on the diagnostic accuracy of CAAS vFFR were limited and a full meta-analysis was not feasible. There were very few data on clinical and implementation outcomes. The simulation found that quantitative flow ratio slightly increased the revascularisation rate when compared with fractional flow reserve, from 40.2% to 42.0%. Quantitative flow ratio and fractional flow reserve resulted in similar numbers of subsequent coronary events. The base-case cost-effectiveness results showed that the test strategy with the highest net benefit was invasive coronary angiography with confirmatory fractional flow reserve. The next best strategies were QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR (without fractional flow reserve). However, the difference in net benefit between this best strategy and the next best was small, ranging from 0.007 to 0.012 quality-adjusted life-years (or equivalently £140–240) per patient diagnosed at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Limitations Diagnostic accuracy evidence on CAAS vFFR, and evidence on the clinical impact of QAngio XA 3D/QFR, were limited. Conclusions Quantitative flow ratio as measured by QAngio XA 3D/QFR has good agreement and diagnostic accuracy compared with fractional flow reserve and is preferable to standard invasive coronary angiography alone. It appears to have very similar cost-effectiveness to fractional flow reserve and, therefore, pending further evidence on general clinical benefits and specific subgroups, could be a reasonable alternative. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CAAS vFFR are uncertain. Randomised controlled trial evidence evaluating the effect of quantitative flow ratio on clinical and patient-centred outcomes is needed. Future work Studies are required to assess the diagnostic accuracy and clinical feasibility of CAAS vFFR. Large ongoing randomised trials will hopefully inform the clinical value of QAngio XA 3D/QFR. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019154575. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 56. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Health Technology Assessment, Volume 25, pp 1-158; https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25480
Background Rotator cuff-related shoulder pain is very common, but there is uncertainty regarding which modes of exercise delivery are optimal and the long-term benefits of corticosteroid injections. Objectives To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of progressive exercise compared with best-practice physiotherapy advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder. Design This was a pragmatic multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial (with a 2 × 2 factorial design). Setting Twenty NHS primary care-based musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services. Participants Adults aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of rotator cuff-related shoulder pain in the previous 6 months. Interventions A total of 708 participants were randomised (March 2017–May 2019) by a centralised computer-generated 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 allocation ratio to one of four interventions: (1) progressive exercise (n = 174) (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions), (2) best-practice advice (n = 174) (one physiotherapy session), (3) corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (n = 182) (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions) or (4) corticosteroid injection then best-practice advice (n = 178) (one physiotherapy session). Main outcome measures The primary outcome was Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score over 12 months. Secondary outcomes included SPADI subdomains, the EuroQol 5 Dimensions, five-level version, sleep disturbance, fear avoidance, pain self-efficacy, return to activity, Global Impression of Treatment and health resource use. Outcomes were collected by postal questionnaires at 8 weeks and at 6 and 12 months. A within-trial economic evaluation was also conducted. The primary analysis was intention to treat. Results Participants had a mean age of 55.5 (standard deviation 13.1) years and 49.3% were female. The mean baseline SPADI score was 54.1 (standard deviation 18.5). Follow-up rates were 91% at 8 weeks and 87% at 6 and 12 months. There was an overall improvement in SPADI score from baseline in each group over time. Over 12 months, there was no evidence of a difference in the SPADI scores between the progressive exercise intervention and the best-practice advice intervention in shoulder pain and function (adjusted mean difference between groups over 12 months –0.66, 99% confidence interval –4.52 to 3.20). There was also no difference in SPADI scores between the progressive exercise intervention and best-practice advice intervention when analysed at the 8-week and 6- and 12-month time points. Injection resulted in improvement in shoulder pain and function at 8 weeks compared with no injection (adjusted mean difference –5.64, 99% confidence interval –9.93 to –1.35), but not when analysed over 12 months (adjusted mean difference –1.11, 99% confidence interval –4.47 to 2.26), or at 6 and 12 months. There were no serious adverse events. In the base-case analysis, adding injection to best-practice advice gained 0.021 quality-adjusted life-years (p = 0.184) and increased the cost by £10 per participant (p = 0.747). Progressive exercise alone was £52 (p = 0.247) more expensive per participant than best-practice advice, and gained 0.019 QALYs (p = 0.220). At a ceiling ratio of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, injection plus best-practice advice had a 54.93% probability of being the most cost-effective treatment. Limitations Participants and physiotherapists were not blinded to group allocation. Twelve-month follow-up may be insufficient for identifying all safety concerns. Conclusions Progressive exercise was not superior to a best-practice advice session with a physiotherapist. Subacromial corticosteroid injection improved shoulder pain and function, but provided only modest short-term benefit. Best-practice advice in combination with corticosteroid injection was expected to be most cost-effective, although there was substantial uncertainty. Future work Longer-term follow-up, including any serious adverse effects of corticosteroid injection. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16539266 and EudraCT 2016-002991-28. 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. 25, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Health Technology Assessment, Volume 25, pp 1-124; https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25500
Background The NHS Health Check is a national cardiovascular disease prevention programme. There is a lack of evidence on how health checks are conducted, how cardiovascular disease risk is communicated to foster risk-reducing intentions or behaviour, and the impact on communication of using different cardiovascular disease risk calculators. Objectives RIsk COmmunication in Health Check (RICO) study aimed to explore practitioner and patient understanding of cardiovascular disease risk, the associated advice or treatment offered by the practitioner, and the response of the patients in health checks supported by either the QRISK®2 or the JBS3 lifetime risk calculator. Design This was a qualitative study with quantitative process evaluation. Setting Twelve general practices in the West Midlands of England, stratified on deprivation of the local area (bottom 50% vs. top 50%), and with matched pairs randomly allocated to use QRISK2 or JBS3 during health checks. Participants A total of 173 patients eligible for NHS Health Check and 15 practitioners. Interventions The health check was delivered using either the QRISK2 10-year risk calculator (usual practice) or the JBS3 lifetime risk calculator, with heart age, event-free survival age and risk score manipulation (intervention). Results Video-recorded health checks were analysed quantitatively (n = 173; JBS3, n = 100; QRISK2, n = 73) and qualitatively (n = 128; n = 64 per group), and video-stimulated recall interviews were undertaken with 40 patients and 15 practitioners, with 10 in-depth case studies. The duration of the health check varied (6.8–38 minutes), but most health checks were short (60% lasting < 20 minutes), with little cardiovascular disease risk discussion (average < 2 minutes). The use of JBS3 was associated with more cardiovascular disease risk discussion and fewer practitioner-dominated consultations than the use of QRISK2. Heart age and visual representations of risk, as used in JBS3, appeared to be better understood by patients than 10-year risk (QRISK2) and, as a result, the use of JBS3 was more likely to lead to discussion of risk factors and their management. Event-free survival age was not well understood by practitioners or patients. However, a lack of effective cardiovascular disease risk discussion in both groups increased the likelihood of a maladaptive coping response (i.e. no risk-reducing behaviour change). In both groups, practitioners often missed opportunities to check patient understanding and to tailor information on cardiovascular disease risk and its management during health checks, confirming apparent practitioner verbal dominance. Limitations The main limitations were under-recruitment in some general practices and the resulting imbalance between groups. Conclusions Communication of cardiovascular disease risk during health checks was brief, particularly when using QRISK2. Patient understanding of and responses to cardiovascular disease risk information were limited. Practitioners need to better engage patients in discussion of and action-planning for their cardiovascular disease risk to reduce misunderstandings. The use of heart age, visual representation of risk and risk score manipulation was generally seen to be a useful way of doing this. Future work could focus on more fundamental issues of practitioner training and time allocation within health check consultations. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10443908. 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. 25, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Health Technology Assessment, Volume 25, pp 1-130; https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25490
Background Pregnancy is a high-risk time for excessive weight gain. The rising prevalence of obesity in women, combined with excess weight gain during pregnancy, means that there are more women with obesity in the postnatal period. This can have adverse health consequences for women in later life and increases the health risks during subsequent pregnancies. Objective The primary aim was to produce evidence of whether or not a Phase III trial of a brief weight management intervention, in which postnatal women are encouraged by practice nurses as part of the national child immunisation programme to self-monitor their weight and use an online weight management programme, is feasible and acceptable. Design The research involved a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial and two semistructured interview studies with intervention participants and practice nurses who delivered the intervention. Trial data were collected at baseline and 3 months later. The interview studies took place after trial follow-up. Setting The trial took place in Birmingham, UK. Participants Twenty-eight postnatal women who were overweight/obese were recruited via Birmingham Women’s Hospital or general practices. Nine intervention participants and seven nurses were interviewed. Interventions The intervention was delivered in the context of the national child immunisation programme. The intervention group were offered brief support that encouraged self-management of weight when they attended their practice to have their child immunised at 2, 3 and 4 months of age. The intervention involved the provision of motivation and support by nurses to encourage participants to make healthier lifestyle choices through self-monitoring of weight and signposting to an online weight management programme. The role of the nurse was to provide regular external accountability for weight loss. Women were asked to weigh themselves weekly and record this on a record card in their child’s health record (‘red book’) or using the online programme. The behavioural goal was for women to lose 0.5–1 kg per week. The usual-care group received a healthy lifestyle leaflet. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the feasibility of a Phase III trial to test the effectiveness of the intervention, as assessed against three traffic-light stop–go criteria (recruitment, adherence to regular self-weighing and registration with an online weight management programme). Results The traffic-light criteria results were red for recruitment (28/80, 35% of target), amber for registration with the online weight loss programme (9/16, 56%) and green for adherence to weekly self-weighing (10/16, 63%). Nurses delivered the intervention with high fidelity. In the qualitative studies, participants indicated that the intervention was acceptable to them and they welcomed receiving support to lose weight at their child immunisation appointments. Although nurses raised some caveats to implementation, they felt that the intervention was easy to deliver and that it would motivate postnatal women to lose weight. Limitations Fewer participants were recruited than planned. Conclusions Although women and practice nurses responded well to the intervention and adherence to self-weighing was high, recruitment was challenging and there is scope to improve engagement with the intervention. Future work Future research should focus on investigating other methods of recruitment and, thereafter, testing the effectiveness of the intervention. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12209332. 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. 25, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Health Technology Assessment, Volume 25, pp 1-126; https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25470
Background Venous access devices are used for patients receiving long-term chemotherapy. These include centrally inserted tunnelled catheters or Hickman-type devices (Hickman), peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and centrally inserted totally implantable venous access devices (PORTs). Objectives To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of these devices for the central delivery of chemotherapy. Design An open, multicentre, randomised controlled trial to inform three comparisons: (1) peripherally inserted central catheters versus Hickman, (2) PORTs versus Hickman and (3) PORTs versus peripherally inserted central catheters. Pre-trial and post-trial qualitative research and economic evaluation were also conducted. Setting This took place in 18 UK oncology centres. Participants Adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) receiving chemotherapy (≥ 12 weeks) for either a solid or a haematological malignancy were randomised via minimisation. Interventions Hickman, peripherally inserted central catheters and PORTs. Primary outcome A composite of infection (laboratory confirmed, suspected catheter related and exit site infection), mechanical failure, venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, inability to aspirate blood and other complications in the intention-to-treat population. Results Overall, 1061 participants were recruited to inform three comparisons. First, for the comparison of peripherally inserted central catheters (n = 212) with Hickman (n = 212), it could not be concluded that peripherally inserted central catheters were significantly non-inferior to Hickman in terms of complication rate (odds ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.71). The use of peripherally inserted central catheters compared with Hickman was associated with a substantially lower cost (–£1553) and a small decrement in quality-adjusted life-years gained (–0.009). Second, for the comparison of PORTs (n = 253) with Hickman (n = 303), PORTs were found to be statistically significantly superior to Hickman in terms of complication rate (odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.77). PORTs were found to dominate Hickman with lower costs (–£45) and greater quality-adjusted life-years gained (0.004). This was alongside a lower complications rate (difference of 14%); the incremental cost per complication averted was £1.36. Third, for the comparison of PORTs (n = 147) with peripherally inserted central catheters (n = 199), PORTs were found to be statistically significantly superior to peripherally inserted central catheters in terms of complication rate (odds ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.83). PORTs were associated with an incremental cost of £2706 when compared with peripherally inserted central catheters and a decrement in quality-adjusted life-years gained (–0.018) PORTs are dominated by peripherally inserted central catheters: alongside a lower complications rate (difference of 15%), the incremental cost per complication averted was £104. The qualitative work showed that attitudes towards all three devices were positive, with patients viewing their central venous access device as part of their treatment and recovery. PORTs were perceived to offer unique psychological benefits, including a greater sense of freedom and less intrusion in the context of personal relationships. The main limitation was the lack of adequate power (54%) in the non-inferiority comparison between peripherally inserted central catheters and Hickman. Conclusions In the delivery of long-term chemotherapy, peripherally inserted central catheters should be considered a cost-effective option when compared with Hickman. There were significant clinical benefits when comparing PORTs with Hickman and with peripherally inserted central catheters. The health economic benefits were less clear from the perspective of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained. However, dependent on the willingness to pay, PORTs may be considered to be cost-effective from the perspective of complications averted. Future work The deliverability of a PORTs service merits further study to understand the barriers to and methods of improving the service. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN44504648. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NHIR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.