The REFORM study protocol: a cohort randomised controlled trial of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for the prevention of falls in older people

Home environmental assessments and modification delivered by occupational therapists to reduce falls in people aged 65 years and over: the OTIS RCT

BACKGROUND

Falls and fall-related fractures are highly prevalent among older people and are a major contributor to morbidity and costs to individuals and society. Only one small pilot trial has evaluated the effectiveness of a home hazard assessment and environmental modification in the UK. This trial reported a reduction in falls as a secondary outcome, and no economic evaluation was undertaken. Therefore, the results need to be confirmed and a cost-effectiveness analysis needs to be undertaken.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a home hazard assessment and environmental modification delivered by occupational therapists for preventing falls among community-dwelling people aged ≥ 65 years who are at risk of falling, relative to usual care.

DESIGN

This was a pragmatic, multicentre, modified cohort randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and a qualitative study.

SETTING

Eight NHS trusts in primary and secondary care in England.

PARTICIPANTS

In total, 1331 participants were randomised (intervention group, n = 430; usual-care group, n = 901) via a secure, remote service. Blinding was not possible.

INTERVENTIONS

All participants received a falls prevention leaflet and routine care from their general practitioner. The intervention group were additionally offered one home environmental assessment and modifications recommended or provided to identify and manage personal fall-related hazards, delivered by an occupational therapist.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the number of falls per participant during the 12 months from randomisation. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of fallers and multiple fallers, time to fall, fear of falling, fracture rate, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The primary analysis included all 1331 randomised participants and indicated weak evidence of a difference in fall rate between the two groups, with an increase in the intervention group relative to usual care (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.38; p = 0.07). A similar proportion of participants in the intervention group (57.0%) and the usual-care group (56.2%) reported at least one fall over 12 months. There were no differences in any of the secondary outcomes. The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective found that, on average per participant, the intervention was associated with additional costs (£18.78, 95% confidence interval £16.33 to £21.24), but was less effective (mean quality-adjusted life-year loss -0.0042, 95% confidence interval -0.0041 to -0.0043). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated uncertainty in these findings. No serious, related adverse events were reported. The intervention was largely delivered as intended, but recommendations were followed to a varying degree.

LIMITATIONS

Outcome data were self-reported by participants, which may have led to inaccuracies in the reported falls data.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence that an occupational therapist-delivered home assessment and modification reduced falls in this population of community-dwelling participants aged ≥ 65 years deemed at risk of falling. The intervention was more expensive and less effective than usual care, and therefore it does not provide a cost-effective alternative to usual care.

FUTURE WORK

An evaluation of falls prevention advice in a higher-risk population, perhaps those previously hospitalised for a fall, or given by other professional staff could be justified.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22202133.

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. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

PROState Pathway Embedded Comparative Trial: The IP3-PROSPECT study

Introduction

The traditional double blind RCT is the ‘gold standard’ trial design. For a variety of reasons, these designs often fail to accrue enough participants to conclude. This is particularly challenging in localized prostate cancer. The cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) trial design may represent an alternative approach to delivering robust comparative data in prostate cancer.

Patients and methods

IP3-PROSPECT is a cmRCT designed to test multiple prostate cancer interventions from eligible men in one cohort. Key to the design is two points of consent. First, at point of consent one, men referred for prostate cancer investigations are invited to join the cohort. They may then be randomly invited at a later date to consider an intervention at point of consent two. In the pilot phase we will test the acceptability and feasibility of developing the cohort.

Results

Acceptability and feasibility of the study will be measured by a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. The primary outcome measure is the rate of consent to inclusion to the IP3-PROSPECT cohort. Secondary outcome measures include the completeness of data collection at sites and return rates of patient questionnaires. We will also interview patients and healthcare professionals to explore their thoughts on the implementation, practicality and efficiency of IP3-PROSPECT.

Conclusion

The IP3-PROSPECT study will evaluate the cmRCT design in prostate cancer. Initially we will pilot the design, assessing for acceptability and feasibility. The cmRCT is an innovative design that offers potential for building a modern comparative evidence base for prostate cancer.

A Review of the Development and Application of Generic Preference-Based Instruments with the Older Population

Older people (aged 65 years and over) are the fastest growing age cohort in the majority of developed countries, and the proportion of individuals defined as the oldest old (aged 80 years and over) living with physical frailty and cognitive impairment is rising. These population changes put increasing pressure on health and aged care services, thus it is important to assess the cost effectiveness of interventions targeted for older people across health and aged care sectors to identify interventions with the strongest capacity to enhance older peoples' quality of life and provide value for money. Cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a form of economic evaluation that typically uses preference-based instruments to measure and value health-related quality of life for the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYS) to enable comparisons of the cost effectiveness of different interventions. A variety of generic preference-based instruments have been used to measure older people's quality of life, including the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT); Health Utility Index Mark 2 (HUI2); Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI3); Short-Form-6 Dimensions (SF-6D); Assessment of Quality of Life-6 dimensions (AQoL-6D); Assessment of Quality of Life-8 dimensions (AQoL-8D); Quality of Wellbeing Scale-Self-Administered (QWB-SA); 15 Dimensions (15D); EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D); and an older person specific preference-based instrument-the Investigating Choice Experiments Capability Measure for older people (ICECAP-O). This article reviews the development and application of these instruments within the older population and discusses the issues surrounding their use with this population. Areas for further research relating to the development and application of generic preference-based instruments with populations of older people are also highlighted.

Can occupational therapist-led home environmental assessment prevent falls in older people? A modified cohort randomised controlled trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Falls and fall-related injuries are a serious cause of morbidity and cost to society. Environmental hazards are implicated as a major contributor to falls among older people. A recent Cochrane review found an environmental assessment, undertaken by an occupational therapist, to be an effective approach to reducing falls. However, none of the trials included a cost-effectiveness evaluation in the UK setting. This protocol describes a large multicentre trial investigating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of environmental assessment and modification within the home with the aim of preventing falls in older people.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A two-arm, modified cohort randomised controlled trial, conducted within England, with 1299 community-dwelling participants aged 65 years and above, who are at an increased risk of falls. Participants will be randomised 2:1 to receive either usual care or home assessment and modification. The primary outcome is rate of falls (falls/person/time) over 12 months assessed by monthly patient self-report falls calendars. Secondary self-reported outcome measures include: the proportion of single and multiple fallers, time to first fall over a 12-month period, quality of life (EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L) and health service utilisation at 4, 8 and 12 months. A nested qualitative study will examine the feasibility of providing the intervention and explore barriers, facilitators, workload implications and readiness to employ these interventions into routine practice. An economic evaluation will assess value for money in terms of cost per fall averted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study protocol (including the original application and subsequent amendments) received a favourable ethical opinion from National Health Service West of Scotland REC 3. The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and at conference presentations. A summary of the findings will be sent to participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN22202133; Pre-results.

Multifactorial and multiple component interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community

BACKGROUND

Falls and fall-related injuries are common, particularly in those aged over 65, with around one-third of older people living in the community falling at least once a year. Falls prevention interventions may comprise single component interventions (e.g. exercise), or involve combinations of two or more different types of intervention (e.g. exercise and medication review). Their delivery can broadly be divided into two main groups: 1) multifactorial interventions where component interventions differ based on individual assessment of risk; or 2) multiple component interventions where the same component interventions are provided to all people.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of multifactorial interventions and multiple component interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, trial registers and reference lists. Date of search: 12 June 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, individual or cluster, that evaluated the effects of multifactorial and multiple component interventions on falls in older people living in the community, compared with control (i.e. usual care (no change in usual activities) or attention control (social visits)) or exercise as a single intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias and extracted data. We calculated the rate ratio (RaR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for rate of falls. For dichotomous outcomes we used risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. For continuous outcomes, we used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. We pooled data using the random-effects model. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 62 trials involving 19,935 older people living in the community. The median trial size was 248 participants. Most trials included more women than men. The mean ages in trials ranged from 62 to 85 years (median 77 years). Most trials (43 trials) reported follow-up of 12 months or over. We assessed most trials at unclear or high risk of bias in one or more domains.Forty-four trials assessed multifactorial interventions and 18 assessed multiple component interventions. (I² not reported if = 0%).Multifactorial interventions versus usual care or attention controlThis comparison was made in 43 trials. Commonly-applied or recommended interventions after assessment of each participant's risk profile were exercise, environment or assistive technologies, medication review and psychological interventions. Multifactorial interventions may reduce the rate of falls compared with control: rate ratio (RaR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.87; 19 trials; 5853 participants; I² = 88%; low-quality evidence. Thus if 1000 people were followed over one year, the number of falls may be 1784 (95% CI 1553 to 2016) after multifactorial intervention versus 2317 after usual care or attention control. There was low-quality evidence of little or no difference in the risks of: falling (i.e. people sustaining one or more fall) (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 29 trials; 9637 participants; I² = 60%); recurrent falls (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03; 12 trials; 3368 participants; I² = 53%); fall-related hospital admission (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07; 15 trials; 5227 participants); requiring medical attention (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10; 8 trials; 3078 participants). There is low-quality evidence that multifactorial interventions may reduce the risk of fall-related fractures (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.01; 9 trials; 2850 participants) and may slightly improve health-related quality of life but not noticeably (SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.35; 9 trials; 2373 participants; I² = 70%). Of three trials reporting on adverse events, one found none, and two reported 12 participants with self-limiting musculoskeletal symptoms in total.Multifactorial interventions versus exerciseVery low-quality evidence from one small trial of 51 recently-discharged orthopaedic patients means that we are uncertain of the effects on rate of falls or risk of falling of multifactorial interventions versus exercise alone. Other fall-related outcomes were not assessed.Multiple component interventions versus usual care or attention controlThe 17 trials that make this comparison usually included exercise and another component, commonly education or home-hazard assessment. There is moderate-quality evidence that multiple interventions probably reduce the rate of falls (RaR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.91; 6 trials; 1085 participants; I² = 45%) and risk of falls (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; 11 trials; 1980 participants). There is low-quality evidence that multiple interventions may reduce the risk of recurrent falls, although a small increase cannot be ruled out (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.05; 4 trials; 662 participants). Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of multiple component interventions on the risk of fall-related fractures (2 trials) or fall-related hospital admission (1 trial). There is low-quality evidence that multiple interventions may have little or no effect on the risk of requiring medical attention (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.35; 1 trial; 291 participants); conversely they may slightly improve health-related quality of life (SMD 0.77, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.39; 4 trials; 391 participants; I² = 88%). Of seven trials reporting on adverse events, five found none, and six minor adverse events were reported in two.Multiple component interventions versus exerciseThis comparison was tested in five trials. There is low-quality evidence of little or no difference between the two interventions in rate of falls (1 trial) and risk of falling (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10; 3 trials; 863 participants) and very low-quality evidence, meaning we are uncertain of the effects on hospital admission (1 trial). One trial reported two cases of minor joint pain. Other falls outcomes were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Multifactorial interventions may reduce the rate of falls compared with usual care or attention control. However, there may be little or no effect on other fall-related outcomes. Multiple component interventions, usually including exercise, may reduce the rate of falls and risk of falling compared with usual care or attention control.

The cohort multiple randomized controlled trial design was found to be highly susceptible to low statistical power and internal validity biases

Objectives

The “cohort multiple randomized controlled trial” (cmRCT) is a recent innovation by which novel interventions are trialed within large longitudinal cohorts of patients to gain efficiencies and align trials more closely to standard clinical practice. The use of cmRCTs is outpacing its methodological understanding, and more appropriate methods for designing and analyzing such trials are urgently needed.

Study Design and Setting

We established the UK Comprehensive Longitudinal Assessment of Salford Integrated Care cohort of 4,377 patients with long-term conditions within which we are conducting a cmRCT (“Proactive Telephone Coaching and Tailored Support”) of telephone-based health coaching.

Results

We identify some key methodological challenges to the use of the cmRCT in actual practice. Principal are issues around statistical power, sample size, and treatment effect estimation, for which we provide appropriate methods. Sampling procedures commonly applied in conventional RCTs can result in unintentional selection bias. The fixed data collection points that feature in cmRCTs can also threaten validity.

Conclusion

The cmRCT may offer advantages over conventional trial designs. However, a cmRCT requires appropriate power calculation, sampling, and analysis procedures; else, studies may be underpowered or subject to validity biases. We offer solutions to some of the key issues, but further methodological investigations are needed. Cohort multiple RCT–specific Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidance may be indicated.

Ethics and practice of Trials within Cohorts: An emerging pragmatic trial design

BACKGROUND

With increasing emphasis on pragmatic trials, new randomized clinical trial designs are being proposed to enhance the "real world" nature of the data generated. We describe one such design, appropriate for unmasked pragmatic clinical trials in which the control arm receives usual care, called "Trials within Cohorts" that is increasingly used in various countries because of its efficiency in recruitment, advantages in reducing subject burden, and ability to better mimic real-world consent processes.

METHODS

Descriptive, ethical, and US regulatory analysis of the Trials within Cohorts design.

RESULTS

Trials within Cohorts design involves, after recruitment into a cohort, randomization of eligible subjects, followed by an asymmetric treatment of the two arms: those selected for the experimental arm provide informed consent for the intervention trial, while the data from the control arm are used based on prior broad permission. Thus, unlike the traditional Zelen post-randomization consent design, the cohort participants are informed about future research within the cohort; however, the extent of this disclosure currently varies among studies. Thus, ethical analysis is provided for two types of situations: when the pre-randomization disclosure and consent regarding the embedded trials are fairly explicit and detailed versus when they consist of only general statements about future data use. These differing ethical situations could have implications for how ethics review committees apply US research rules regarding waivers and alterations of informed consent.

CONCLUSION

Trials within Cohorts is a promising new pragmatic randomized controlled trial design that is being increasingly used in various countries. Although the asymmetric consent procedures for the experimental versus control arm subjects can initially raise ethical concerns, it is ethically superior to previous post-randomization consent designs and can have important advantages over traditional trial designs.

An optimised patient information sheet did not significantly increase recruitment or retention in a falls prevention study: an embedded randomised recruitment trial

Background

Randomised controlled trials are generally regarded as the ‘gold standard’ experimental design to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. Unfortunately, many trials either fail to recruit sufficient numbers of participants, or recruitment takes longer than anticipated. The current embedded trial evaluates the effectiveness of optimised patient information sheets on recruitment of participants in a falls prevention trial.

Methods

A three-arm, embedded randomised methodology trial was conducted within the National Institute for Health Research-funded REducing Falls with ORthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention (REFORM) cohort randomised controlled trial. Routine National Health Service podiatry patients over the age of 65 were randomised to receive either the control patient information sheet (PIS) for the host trial or one of two optimised versions, a bespoke user-tested PIS or a template-developed PIS. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in each group who went on to be randomised to the host trial.

Results

Six thousand and nine hundred patients were randomised 1:1:1 into the embedded trial. A total of 193 (2.8%) went on to be randomised into the main REFORM trial (control n = 62, template-developed n = 68; bespoke user-tested n = 63). Information sheet allocation did not improve recruitment to the trial (odds ratios for the three pairwise comparisons: template vs control 1.10 (95% CI 0.77–1.56, p = 0.60); user-tested vs control 1.01 (95% CI 0.71–1.45, p = 0.94); and user-tested vs template 0.92 (95% CI 0.65–1.31, p = 0.65)).

Conclusions

This embedded methodology trial has demonstrated limited evidence as to the benefit of using optimised information materials on recruitment and retention rates in the REFORM study.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry, ISRCTN68240461. Registered on 01 July 2011.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1797-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A randomized, embedded trial of pre-notification of trial participation did not increase recruitment rates to a falls prevention trial

OBJECTIVES

To design and evaluate the effectiveness of a pre-notification leaflet about research to increase recruitment to a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

METHODS

A methodological, two-arm, RCT was conducted, embedded within an existing cohort RCT (REFORM). Participants were randomized for the embedded trial, using a 1:2 ratio (intervention : control) before being randomized for REFORM. Controls received a trial recruitment pack. The intervention group received an additional pre-notification leaflet 2-3 weeks before the recruitment pack. Primary and secondary analyses were conducted using relative risk, the Cox proportional hazards model and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

Of the 1436 intervention group participants, 73 (5.1%) were randomized into the REFORM trial compared with 126 (4.4%) of the 2878 control group participants. The associated relative risk (1.16) was not statistically significant [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-1.56]. Return rate was not significantly increased (relative risk 1.10, 95% CI 0.92-1.28) nor time to return decreased (hazard ratio: 1.11, 95% CI 0.93-1.33). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios indicated the intervention may be cost-effective if the true estimate of effect was close to the upper bound of the associated 95% CI.

CONCLUSION

Pre-notification for potential trial participants demonstrated a small difference to randomization (0.7% difference) and return rates (1.1% difference) in favour of the intervention. Results should however be interpreted with caution as CIs for these estimates cross the point of no effect. Nevertheless, this research enhances existing evidence for pre-notification to increase recruitment rates, with further development and assessment of this potentially cost-effective intervention being recommended.

Cohort Randomised Controlled Trial of a Multifaceted Podiatry Intervention for the Prevention of Falls in Older People (The REFORM Trial)

BACKGROUND

Falls are a major cause of morbidity among older people. A multifaceted podiatry intervention may reduce the risk of falling. This study evaluated such an intervention.

DESIGN

Pragmatic cohort randomised controlled trial in England and Ireland. 1010 participants were randomised (493 to the Intervention group and 517 to Usual Care) to either: a podiatry intervention, including foot and ankle exercises, foot orthoses and, if required, new footwear, and a falls prevention leaflet or usual podiatry treatment plus a falls prevention leaflet. The primary outcome was the incidence rate of self-reported falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. Secondary outcomes included: proportion of fallers and those reporting multiple falls, time to first fall, fear of falling, Frenchay Activities Index, Geriatric Depression Scale, foot pain, health related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

In the primary analysis were 484 (98.2%) intervention and 507 (98.1%) control participants. There was a small, non statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05, p = 0.16). The proportion of participants experiencing a fall was lower (49.7 vs 54.9%, adjusted odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00, p = 0.05) as was the proportion experiencing two or more falls (27.6% vs 34.6%, adjusted odds ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.90, p = 0.01). There was an increase (p = 0.02) in foot pain for the intervention group. There were no statistically significant differences in other outcomes. The intervention was more costly but marginally more beneficial in terms of health-related quality of life (mean quality adjusted life year (QALY) difference 0.0129, 95% CI -0.0050 to 0.0314) and had a 65% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

There was a small reduction in falls. The intervention may be cost-effective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN ISRCTN68240461.

Short-term effect of scalpel debridement of plantar callosities versus treatment with salicylic acid patches: The EMEDESCA randomized controlled trial

This study compares scalpel debridement versus salicylic acid patches in the treatment of plantar callosities. A randomized clinical trial (ACTRN12614000591651) was performed with 62 patients, divided into two intervention groups. Group A received treatment with salicylic acid patches (Callívoro Marthand^® ) and group B underwent scalpel debridement of plantar callosities. Pain was measured on a visual analog scale, and foot pain and disability were evaluated using the Manchester Foot Pain Disability Index (MFPDI) questionnaire (Spanish version). Significant differences were observed in pain measured immediately after treatment (P < 0.001) and at 15 days and 6 weeks after treatment. For some components, the MFPDI questionnaire revealed significantly better outcomes by scalpel debridement at 15 days after treatment. The scalpel debridement of plantar callosities relieves pain more effectively than salicylic acid patches, and patients achieve greater functionality in the initial weeks after debridement.

Neuro-Bio-Behavioral Mechanisms of Placebo and Nocebo Responses: Implications for Clinical Trials and Clinical Practice

The placebo effect has often been considered a nuisance in basic and particularly clinical research. This view has gradually changed in recent years due to deeper insight into the neuro-bio-behavioral mechanisms steering both the placebo and nocebo responses, the evil twin of placebo. For the neuroscientist, placebo and nocebo responses have evolved as indispensable tools to understand brain mechanisms that link cognitive and emotional factors with symptom perception as well as peripheral physiologic systems and end organ functioning. For the clinical investigator, better understanding of the mechanisms driving placebo and nocebo responses allow the control of these responses and thereby help to more precisely define the efficacy of a specific pharmacological intervention. Finally, in the clinical context, the systematic exploitation of these mechanisms will help to maximize placebo responses and minimize nocebo responses for the patient's benefit. In this review, we summarize and critically examine the neuro-bio-behavioral mechanisms underlying placebo and nocebo responses that are currently known in terms of different diseases and physiologic systems. We subsequently elaborate on the consequences of this knowledge for pharmacological treatments of patients and the implications for pharmacological research, the training of healthcare professionals, and for the health care system and future research strategies on placebo and nocebo responses.

Quality of Life Impact Related to Foot Health in a Sample of Older People with Hallux Valgus

Hallux Valgus (HV) is a highly prevalent forefoot deformity in older people associated with progressive subluxation and osteoarthritis of the first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint and it is believed to be associated with varying degrees of HV effect on the quality of life related to foot health. The aim of this study is to compare the impact of varying degrees of HV on foot health in a sample of older people. The sample consisted of 115 participants, mean age 76.7 ± 9.1, who attended an outpatient center where self-report data were recorded. The degree of HV deformity was determined in both feet using the Manchester Scale (MS) from stage 1 (mild) to 4 (very severe). Scores obtained on the Foot Health Status Questionnaire (FHSQ) were compared. This has 13 questions that assess 4 health domains of the feet, namely pain, function, general health and footwear. The stage 4 of HV shown lower scores for the footwear domain (11.23 ± 15.6); general foot health (27.62 ± 19.1); foot pain (44.65 ± 24.5); foot function (53.04 ± 27.2); vigour (42.19 ± 16.8); social capacity (44.46 ± 28.1); and general health (41.15 ± 25.5) compared with stage 1 of HV (P<0.05) and there were no differences of physical activity (62.81 ± 24.6). Often, quality of life decreases in the elderly population based in large part on their foot health. There is a progressive reduction in health in general and foot health with increasing severity of hallux valgus deformity which appears to be associated with the presence of greater degree of HV, regardless of gender.

Improving recruitment of older people to clinical trials: use of the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design

There is widespread evidence of under-recruitment of older people to research studies, notably randomised controlled trials of interventions. Study exclusion criteria, ethical dilemmas, patient preference, risk of bias and challenges for treatment comparisons are particular problems faced by researchers. This article describes how more widespread use of the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) design in ageing research may help address many of these problems. The original key features of the cmRCT design are a large observational cohort of people with the condition of interest (e.g. frailty) with regular measurement of outcomes for the whole cohort. For each RCT eligible patients are identified and a random selection offered the trial intervention; their outcomes are compared with those eligible patients not offered the intervention. Relevant assents are obtained at baseline to enable future involvement in a range of potential trials. Where possible, the follow-up schedule is aligned with the key time points for assessment in future trials and includes the key baseline descriptors, and primary and secondary outcomes. The cmRCT approach also enables detailed observational and qualitative research for the chosen condition of interest, and might include the establishment of research biobanks to better align basic science, epidemiological, qualitative and clinical trial research.