The effectiveness and acceptability of multimedia information when recruiting children and young people to trials: the TRECA meta-analysis of SWATs

Background

The information provided to potential trial participants plays a crucial role in their decision-making. Printed participant information sheets for trials have received recurrent criticism as being too long and technical, unappealing and hard to navigate. An alternative is to provide information through multimedia (text, animations, video, audio, diagrams and photos). However, there is limited evidence on the effects of multimedia participant information on research recruitment rates, particularly in children and young people.

Objectives

The study objectives were as follows: 1. to develop template multimedia information resources through participatory design, for use when recruiting children and young people to trials 2. to evaluate the multimedia information resources in a series of Studies Within A Trial, to test their effects on recruitment and retention rates, and participant decision-making, by comparing the provision of multimedia information resources instead of printed participant information sheets, and comparing the provision of multimedia information resources in addition to printed participant information sheets.

Design

Two-phase study: 1. multimedia information resources development including qualitative study; user testing study; readability metrics; enhanced patient and public involvement 2. multimedia information resources' evaluation comprising Studies Within A Trial undertaken within host trials recruiting children and young people.

Setting

United Kingdom trials involving patients aged under 18.

Participants

Development phase: n = 120 (children and young people, parents, clinicians, trial personnel). Evaluation phase: n = 1906 (children and young people being asked to take part in trials).

Interventions

Multimedia information resources (comprising text, audio, 'talking heads' video, trial-specific and trial-generic animations). Printed participant information sheets.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome: trial recruitment rate comparing multimedia information resource-only with printed participant information sheet-only provision. Secondary outcomes: trial recruitment rate comparing combined multimedia information resource and printed participant information sheet with printed participant information sheet-only provision; trial retention rate; quality of participant decision-making. Results for each trial were calculated and combined in a two-stage random-effects meta-analysis.

Results

Phase 1 generated two multimedia information resource templates: (1) for children aged 6-11 years; (2) for children aged 12-18 years and parents. In the Phase 2 Studies Within A Trial the multimedia information resources improved trial recruitment, when compared to printed information alone [odds ratio (OR) = 1.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.28; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%]. When printed participant information sheet-only provision was compared to combined multimedia information resource and printed participant information sheet provision, there was no effect on trial recruitment (OR = 0.89; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.50; I2 = 0%). There were no differences between multimedia information resource and printed participant information sheet on trial retention or participant decision-making quality. In a study within a hypothetical trial setting, multimedia information resource-only provision produced higher ratings of 'information was easy to understand' (Z = 3.03; p = 0.003) and 'I had confidence in decision-making' (Z = 2.00; p = 0.044) than printed participant information sheet-only provision.

Limitations

It was not possible to include data from three Studies Within A Trial in the meta-analysis due to limited sample size, and questionnaire return rates were low, which reduced the strength of the findings.

Conclusions

Use of multimedia information increased the rate of recruitment to trials involving children and young people compared to standard patient information sheets.

Future work

There should be further evaluation of the effects of multimedia information on recruitment to trials involving children and young people. It would be valuable to assess any impacts of multimedia information resources on communication between trial recruiters, children and young people, and parents.

Study registration

This trial is registered as TRECA ISRCTN 73136092 and Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository (SWAT 97).

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 14/21/21) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 24. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

New and emerging technology for adult social care - the example of home sensors with artificial intelligence (AI) technology

Background

Digital technology is a focus within the NHS and social care as a way to improve care and address pressures. Sensor-based technology with artificial intelligence capabilities is one type of technology that may be useful, although there are gaps in evidence that need to be addressed.

Objective

This study evaluates how one example of a technology using home-based sensors with artificial intelligence capabilities (pseudonymised as 'IndependencePlus') was implemented in three case study sites across England. The focus of this study was on decision-making processes and implementation.

Design

Stage 1 consisted of a rapid literature review, nine interviews and three project design groups. Stage 2 involved qualitative data collection from three social care sites (20 interviews), and three interviews with technology providers and regulators.

Results

• It was expected that the technology would improve care planning and reduce costs for the social care system, aid in prevention and responding to needs, support independent living and provide reassurance for those who draw on care and their carers. • The sensors were not able to collect the necessary data to create anticipated benefits. Several technological aspects of the system reduced its flexibility and were complex for staff to use. • There appeared to be no systematic decision-making process in deciding whether to adopt artificial intelligence. In its absence, a number of contextual factors influenced procurement decisions. • Incorporating artificial intelligence-based technology into existing models of social care provision requires alterations to existing funding models and care pathways, as well as workforce training. • Technology-enabled care solutions require robust digital infrastructure, which is lacking for many of those who draw on care and support. • Short-term service pressures and a sense of crisis management are not conducive to the culture that is needed to reap the potential longer-term benefits of artificial intelligence.

Limitations

Significant recruitment challenges (especially regarding people who draw on care and carers) were faced, particularly in relation to pressures from COVID-19.

Conclusions

This study confirmed a number of common implementation challenges, and adds insight around the specific decision-making processes for a technology that has been implemented in social care. We have also identified issues related to managing and analysing data, and introducing a technology focused on prevention into an environment which is focused on dealing with crises. This has helped to fill gaps in the literature and share practical lessons with commissioners, social care providers, technology providers and policy-makers.

Future work

We have highlighted the implications of our findings for future practice and shared these with case study sites. We have also developed a toolkit for others implementing new technology into adult social care based on our findings (https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/documents/college-social-sciences/social-policy/brace/ai-and-social-care-booklet-final-digital-accessible.pdf). As our findings mirror the previous literature on common implementation challenges and a tendency of some technology to 'over-promise and under-deliver', more work is needed to embed findings in policy and practice.

Study registration

Ethical approval from the University of Birmingham Research Ethics Committee (ERN_13-1085AP41, ERN_21-0541 and ERN_21-0541A).

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme (HSDR 16/138/31 - Birmingham, RAND and Cambridge Evaluation Centre).

Total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis for patients aged 50-85 years with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis: the TARVA RCT

Background

We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and complication rates of total ankle replacement with those of arthrodesis (i.e. ankle fusion) in the treatment of end-stage ankle osteoarthritis.

Methods

This was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis who were aged 50-85 years and were suitable for both procedures were recruited from 17 UK hospitals and randomised using minimisation. The primary outcome was the change in the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain scores between the preoperative baseline and 52 weeks post surgery.

Results

Between March 2015 and January 2019, 303 participants were randomised using a minimisation algorithm: 152 to total ankle replacement and 151 to ankle fusion. At 52 weeks, the mean (standard deviation) Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score was 31.4 (30.4) in the total ankle replacement arm (n = 136) and 36.8 (30.6) in the ankle fusion arm (n = 140); the adjusted difference in the change was -5.6 (95% confidence interval -12.5 to 1.4; p = 0.12) in the intention-to-treat analysis. By week 52, one patient in the total ankle replacement arm required revision. Rates of wound-healing issues (13.4% vs. 5.7%) and nerve injuries (4.2% vs. < 1%) were higher and the rate of thromboembolic events was lower (2.9% vs. 4.9%) in the total ankle replacement arm than in the ankle fusion arm. The bone non-union rate (based on plain radiographs) in the ankle fusion arm was 12.1%, but only 7.1% of patients had symptoms. A post hoc analysis of fixed-bearing total ankle replacement showed a statistically significant improvement over ankle fusion in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score (-11.1, 95% confidence interval -19.3 to -2.9; p = 0.008). We estimate a 69% likelihood that total ankle replacement is cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the patient's lifetime.

Limitations

This initial report contains only 52-week data, which must therefore be interpreted with caution. In addition, the pragmatic nature of the study means that there was heterogeneity between surgical implants and techniques. The trial was run across 17 NHS centres to ensure that decision-making streams reflected the standard of care in the NHS as closely as possible.

Conclusions

Both total ankle replacement and ankle fusion improved patients' quality of life at 1 year, and both appear to be safe. When total ankle replacement was compared with ankle fusion overall, we were unable to show a statistically significant difference between the two arms in terms of our primary outcome measure. The total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis (TARVA) trial is inconclusive in terms of superiority of total ankle replacement, as the 95% confidence interval for the adjusted treatment effect includes both a difference of zero and the minimal important difference of 12, but it can rule out the superiority of ankle fusion. A post hoc analysis comparing fixed-bearing total ankle replacement with ankle fusion showed a statistically significant improvement of total ankle replacement over ankle fusion in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score. Total ankle replacement appears to be cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over a patient's lifetime based on long-term economic modelling.

Future work

We recommend long-term follow-up of this important cohort, in particular radiological and clinical progress. We also recommend studies to explore the sensitivity of clinical scores to detect clinically important differences between arms when both have already achieved a significant improvement from baseline.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN60672307 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02128555.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners diagnose cancer. It is unclear whether or not tools expedite diagnosis or affect patient quality of life and/or survival.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the evidence on the validation, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and availability and use of cancer diagnostic tools in primary care.

METHODS

Two systematic reviews were conducted to examine the clinical effectiveness (review 1) and the development, validation and accuracy (review 2) of diagnostic prediction models for aiding general practitioners in cancer diagnosis. Bibliographic searches were conducted on MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) in May 2017, with updated searches conducted in November 2018. A decision-analytic model explored the tools' clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in colorectal cancer. The model compared patient outcomes and costs between strategies that included the use of the tools and those that did not, using the NHS perspective. We surveyed 4600 general practitioners in randomly selected UK practices to determine the proportions of general practices and general practitioners with access to, and using, cancer decision support tools. Association between access to these tools and practice-level cancer diagnostic indicators was explored.

RESULTS

Systematic review 1 - five studies, of different design and quality, reporting on three diagnostic tools, were included. We found no evidence that using the tools was associated with better outcomes. Systematic review 2 - 43 studies were included, reporting on prediction models, in various stages of development, for 14 cancer sites (including multiple cancers). Most studies relate to QCancer^® (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and risk assessment tools.

DECISION MODEL

In the absence of studies reporting their clinical outcomes, QCancer and risk assessment tools were evaluated against faecal immunochemical testing. A linked data approach was used, which translates diagnostic accuracy into time to diagnosis and treatment, and stage at diagnosis. Given the current lack of evidence, the model showed that the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools in colorectal cancer relies on demonstrating patient survival benefits. Sensitivity of faecal immunochemical testing and specificity of QCancer and risk assessment tools in a low-risk population were the key uncertain parameters.

SURVEY

Practitioner- and practice-level response rates were 10.3% (476/4600) and 23.3% (227/975), respectively. Cancer decision support tools were available in 83 out of 227 practices (36.6%, 95% confidence interval 30.3% to 43.1%), and were likely to be used in 38 out of 227 practices (16.7%, 95% confidence interval 12.1% to 22.2%). The mean 2-week-wait referral rate did not differ between practices that do and practices that do not have access to QCancer or risk assessment tools (mean difference of 1.8 referrals per 100,000 referrals, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 10.3 referrals per 100,000 referrals).

LIMITATIONS

There is little good-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools. Many diagnostic prediction models are limited by a lack of external validation. There are limited data on current UK practice and clinical outcomes of diagnostic strategies, and there is no evidence on the quality-of-life outcomes of diagnostic results. The survey was limited by low response rates.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base on the tools is limited. Research on how general practitioners interact with the tools may help to identify barriers to implementation and uptake, and the potential for clinical effectiveness.

FUTURE WORK

Continued model validation is recommended, especially for risk assessment tools. Assessment of the tools' impact on time to diagnosis and treatment, stage at diagnosis, and health outcomes is also recommended, as is further work to understand how tools are used in general practitioner consultations.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068373 and CRD42017068375.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: the TOPKAT RCT

BACKGROUND

Late-stage medial compartment knee osteoarthritis can be treated using total knee replacement or partial (unicompartmental) knee replacement. There is high variation in treatment choice and insufficient evidence to guide selection.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. The findings are intended to guide surgical decision-making for patients, surgeons and health-care providers.

DESIGN

This was a randomised, multicentre, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial that included an expertise component. The target sample size was 500 patients. A web-based randomisation system was used to allocate treatments.

SETTING

Twenty-seven NHS hospitals (68 surgeons).

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis.

INTERVENTIONS

The trial compared the overall management strategy of partial knee replacement treatment with total knee replacement treatment. No specified brand or subtype of implant was investigated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Oxford Knee Score at 5 years was the primary end point. Secondary outcomes included activity scores, global health measures, transition items, patient satisfaction (Lund Score) and complications (including reoperation, revision and composite 'failure' - defined by minimal Oxford Knee Score improvement and/or reoperation). Cost-effectiveness was also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 528 patients were randomised (partial knee replacement, n = 264; total knee replacement, n = 264). The follow-up primary outcome response rate at 5 years was 88% and both operations had good outcomes. There was no significant difference between groups in mean Oxford Knee Score at 5 years (difference 1.04, 95% confidence interval -0.42 to 2.50). An area under the curve analysis of the Oxford Knee Score at 5 years showed benefit in favour of partial knee replacement over total knee replacement, but the difference was within the minimal clinically important difference [mean 36.6 (standard deviation 8.3) (n = 233), mean 35.1 (standard deviation 9.1) (n = 231), respectively]. Secondary outcome measures showed consistent patterns of benefit in the direction of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement although most differences were small and non-significant. Patient-reported improvement (transition) and reflection (would you have the operation again?) showed statistically significant superiority for partial knee replacement only, but both of these variables could be influenced by the lack of blinding. The frequency of reoperation (including revision) by treatment received was similar for both groups: 22 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 28 out of 269 for total knee replacement patients. Revision rates at 5 years were 10 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 8 out of 269 for total knee replacement. There were 28 'failures' of partial knee replacement and 38 'failures' of total knee replacement (as defined by composite outcome). Beyond 1 year, partial knee replacement was cost-effective compared with total knee replacement, being associated with greater health benefits (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and lower health-care costs, reflecting lower costs of the index surgery and subsequent health-care use.

LIMITATIONS

It was not possible to blind patients in this study and there was some non-compliance with the allocated treatment interventions. Surgeons providing partial knee replacement were relatively experienced with the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Both total knee replacement and partial knee replacement are effective, offer similar clinical outcomes and have similar reoperation and complication rates. Some patient-reported measures of treatment approval were significantly higher for partial knee replacement than for total knee replacement. Partial knee replacement was more cost-effective (more effective and cost saving) than total knee replacement at 5 years.

FUTURE WORK

Further (10-year) follow-up is in progress to assess the longer-term stability of these findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03013488 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01352247.

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

Developing a reference protocol for structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Many decisions in health care aim to maximise health, requiring judgements about interventions that may have higher health effects but potentially incur additional costs (cost-effectiveness framework). The evidence used to establish cost-effectiveness is typically uncertain and it is important that this uncertainty is characterised. In situations in which evidence is uncertain, the experience of experts is essential. The process by which the beliefs of experts can be formally collected in a quantitative manner is structured expert elicitation. There is heterogeneity in the existing methodology used in health-care decision-making. A number of guidelines are available for structured expert elicitation; however, it is not clear if any of these are appropriate for health-care decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

The overall aim was to establish a protocol for structured expert elicitation to inform health-care decision-making. The objectives are to (1) provide clarity on methods for collecting and using experts' judgements, (2) consider when alternative methodology may be required in particular contexts, (3) establish preferred approaches for elicitation on a range of parameters, (4) determine which elicitation methods allow experts to express uncertainty and (5) determine the usefulness of the reference protocol developed.

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach was used: systemic review, targeted searches, experimental work and narrative synthesis. A review of the existing guidelines for structured expert elicitation was conducted. This identified the approaches used in existing guidelines (the 'choices') and determined if dominant approaches exist. Targeted review searches were conducted for selection of experts, level of elicitation, fitting and aggregation, assessing accuracy of judgements and heuristics and biases. To sift through the available choices, a set of principles that underpin the use of structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making was defined using evidence generated from the targeted searches, quantities to elicit experimental evidence and consideration of constraints in health-care decision-making. These principles, including fitness for purpose and reflecting individual expert uncertainty, were applied to the set of choices to establish a reference protocol. An applied evaluation of the developed reference protocol was also undertaken.

RESULTS

For many elements of structured expert elicitation, there was a lack of consistency across the existing guidelines. In almost all choices, there was a lack of empirical evidence supporting recommendations, and in some circumstances the principles are unable to provide sufficient justification for discounting particular choices. It is possible to define reference methods for health technology assessment. These include a focus on gathering experts with substantive skills, eliciting observable quantities and individual elicitation of beliefs. Additional considerations are required for decision-makers outside health technology assessment, for example at a local level, or for early technologies. Access to experts may be limited and in some circumstances group discussion may be needed to generate a distribution.

LIMITATIONS

The major limitation of the work conducted here lies not in the methods employed in the current work but in the evidence available from the wider literature relating to how appropriate particular methodological choices are.

CONCLUSIONS

The reference protocol is flexible in many choices. This may be a useful characteristic, as it is possible to apply this reference protocol across different settings. Further applied studies, which use the choices specified in this reference protocol, are required.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This work was also funded by the Medical Research Council (reference MR/N028511/1).

Prognostic models of survival in patients with advanced incurable cancer: the PiPS2 observational study

BACKGROUND

The Prognosis in Palliative care Study (PiPS) prognostic survival models predict survival in patients with incurable cancer. PiPS-A (Prognosis in Palliative care Study - All), which involved clinical observations only, and PiPS-B (Prognosis in Palliative care Study - Blood), which additionally required blood test results, consist of 14- and 56-day models that combine to create survival risk categories: 'days', 'weeks' and 'months+'.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives were to compare PIPS-B risk categories against agreed multiprofessional estimates of survival and to validate PiPS-A and PiPS-B. The secondary objectives were to validate other prognostic models, to assess the acceptability of the models to patients, carers and health-care professionals and to identify barriers to and facilitators of clinical use.

DESIGN

This was a national, multicentre, prospective, observational, cohort study with a nested qualitative substudy using interviews with patients, carers and health-care professionals.

SETTING

Community, hospital and hospice palliative care services across England and Wales.

PARTICIPANTS

For the validation study, the participants were adults with incurable cancer, with or without capacity to consent, who had been recently referred to palliative care services and had sufficient English language. For the qualitative substudy, a subset of participants in the validation study took part, along with informal carers, patients who declined to participate in the main study and health-care professionals.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

For the validation study, the primary outcomes were survival, clinical prediction of survival and PiPS-B risk category predictions. The secondary outcomes were predictions of PiPS-A and other prognostic models. For the qualitative substudy, the main outcomes were participants' views about prognostication and the use of prognostic models.

RESULTS

For the validation study, 1833 participants were recruited. PiPS-B risk categories were as accurate as agreed multiprofessional estimates of survival (61%; p = 0.851). Discrimination of the PiPS-B 14-day model (c-statistic 0.837, 95% confidence interval 0.810 to 0.863) and the PiPS-B 56-day model (c-statistic 0.810, 95% confidence interval 0.788 to 0.832) was excellent. The PiPS-B 14-day model showed some overfitting (calibration in the large -0.202, 95% confidence interval -0.364 to -0.039; calibration slope 0.840, 95% confidence interval 0.730 to 0.950). The PiPS-B 56-day model was well-calibrated (calibration in the large 0.152, 95% confidence interval 0.030 to 0.273; calibration slope 0.914, 95% confidence interval 0.808 to 1.02). PiPS-A risk categories were less accurate than agreed multiprofessional estimates of survival (p < 0.001). The PiPS-A 14-day model (c-statistic 0.825, 95% confidence interval 0.803 to 0.848; calibration in the large -0.037, 95% confidence interval -0.168 to 0.095; calibration slope 0.981, 95% confidence interval 0.872 to 1.09) and the PiPS-A 56-day model (c-statistic 0.776, 95% confidence interval 0.755 to 0.797; calibration in the large 0.109, 95% confidence interval 0.002 to 0.215; calibration slope 0.946, 95% confidence interval 0.842 to 1.05) had excellent or reasonably good discrimination and calibration. Other prognostic models were also validated. Where comparisons were possible, the other prognostic models performed less well than PiPS-B. For the qualitative substudy, 32 health-care professionals, 29 patients and 20 carers were interviewed. The majority of patients and carers expressed a desire for prognostic information and said that PiPS could be helpful. Health-care professionals said that PiPS was user friendly and may be helpful for decision-making and care-planning. The need for a blood test for PiPS-B was considered a limitation.

LIMITATIONS

The results may not be generalisable to other populations.

CONCLUSIONS

PiPS-B risk categories are as accurate as agreed multiprofessional estimates of survival. PiPS-A categories are less accurate. Patients, carers and health-care professionals regard PiPS as potentially helpful in clinical practice.

FUTURE WORK

A study to evaluate the impact of introducing PiPS into routine clinical practice is needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13688211.

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

Fluoxetine to improve functional outcomes in patients after acute stroke: the FOCUS RCT

BACKGROUND

Our Cochrane review of selective serotonin inhibitors for stroke recovery indicated that fluoxetine may improve functional recovery, but the trials were small and most were at high risk of bias.

OBJECTIVES

The Fluoxetine Or Control Under Supervision (FOCUS) trial tested the hypothesis that fluoxetine improves recovery after stroke.

DESIGN

The FOCUS trial was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

This trial took place in 103 UK hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients were eligible if they were aged ≥ 18 years, had a clinical stroke diagnosis, with focal neurological deficits, between 2 and 15 days after onset.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly allocated 20 mg of fluoxetine once per day or the matching placebo for 6 months via a web-based system using a minimisation algorithm.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale at 6 months. Patients, carers, health-care staff and the trial team were masked to treatment allocation. Outcome was assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Patients were analysed by their treatment allocation as specified in a published statistical analysis plan.

RESULTS

Between 10 September 2012 and 31 March 2017, we recruited 3127 patients, 1564 of whom were allocated fluoxetine and 1563 of whom were allocated placebo. The modified Rankin Scale score at 6 months was available for 1553 out of 1564 (99.3%) of those allocated fluoxetine and 1553 out of 1563 (99.4%) of those allocated placebo. The distribution across modified Rankin Scale categories at 6 months was similar in the two groups (common odds ratio adjusted for minimisation variables 0.951, 95% confidence interval 0.839 to 1.079; p = 0.439). Compared with placebo, patients who were allocated fluoxetine were less likely to develop a new episode of depression by 6 months [210 (13.0%) vs. 269 (16.9%), difference -3.78%, 95% confidence interval -1.26% to -6.30%; p = 0.003], but had more bone fractures [45 (2.9%) vs. 23 (1.5%), difference 1.41%, 95% confidence interval 0.38% to 2.43%; p = 0.007]. There were no statistically significant differences in any other recorded events at 6 or 12 months. Health economic analyses showed no differences between groups in health-related quality of life, hospital bed usage or health-care costs.

LIMITATIONS

Some non-adherence to trial medication, lack of face-to-face assessment of neurological status at follow-up and lack of formal psychiatric diagnosis during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

20 mg of fluoxetine daily for 6 months after acute stroke did not improve patients' functional outcome but decreased the occurrence of depression and increased the risk of fractures. These data inform decisions about using fluoxetine after stroke to improve functional outcome or to prevent or treat mood disorders. The Assessment oF FluoxetINe In sTroke recoverY (AFFINITY) (Australasia/Vietnam) and Efficacy oF Fluoxetine - a randomisEd Controlled Trial in Stroke (EFFECTS) (Sweden) trials recruited an additional 2780 patients and will report their results in 2020. These three trials have an almost identical protocol, which was collaboratively developed. Our planned individual patient data meta-analysis will provide more precise estimates of the effects of fluoxetine after stroke and indicate whether or not effects vary depending on patients' characteristics and health-care setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN83290762.

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. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The Stroke Association (reference TSA 2011101) funded the start-up phase.

Patient involvement in decision-making: a cross-sectional study in a Malaysian primary care clinic

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making has been advocated as a useful model for patient management. In developing Asian countries such as Malaysia, there is a common belief that patients prefer a passive role in clinical consultation. As such, the objective of this study was to determine Malaysian patients' role preference in decision-making and the associated factors.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Study was conducted at an urban primary care clinic in Malaysia in 2012.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged >21 years were chosen using systematic random sampling.

METHODS

Consenting patients answered a self-administered questionnaire, which included demographic data and their preferred and actual role before and after consultation. Doctors were asked to determine patients' role preference. The Control Preference Scale was used to assess patients' role preference.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Prevalence of patients' preferred role in decision-making.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

(1) Actual role played by the patient in decision-making. (2) Sociodemographic factors associated with patients' preferred role in decision-making. (3) Doctors' perception of patients' involvement in decision-making.

RESULTS

The response rate was 95.1% (470/494). Shared decision-making was preferred by 51.9% of patients, followed by passive (26.3%) and active (21.8%) roles in decision-making. Higher household income was significantly associated with autonomous role preference (p=0.018). Doctors' perception did not concur with patients' preferred role. Among patients whom doctors perceived to prefer a passive role, 73.5% preferred an autonomous role (p=0.900, κ=0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients attending the primary care clinic preferred and played an autonomous role in decision-making. Doctors underestimated patients' preference to play an autonomous role.

Sexual activity and condom use among people living with HIV in Swaziland

A number of studies have shown strong evidence of the association between HIV testing and an increase in consistent condom use. These studies have shown that HIV testing has contributed to a reduction in risk behaviours, since knowledge of HIV status can motivate both HIV-positive and HIV-negative people to practise safer sex. However, the extent to which knowledge of one's HIV status contributes to behavioural change among people living with HIV (PLHIV) has not been comprehensively documented. Drawing on an analysis of 37 in-depth interviews and five focus group discussions with PLHIV, this paper examines the nature of sexual activity and condom use among PLHIV in Swaziland. The paper explores issues pertaining to behavioural change and safer sex, and how these are influenced by the individual's HIV-positive status and the prevailing social-structural forces. Several factors inhibit the adoption of protective sexual behaviour among HIV-positive sexual partners, some of whom have access to life-saving drug therapy. These factors include a lack of adequate social support structures and prevailing gender power imbalances that deny women control over their sexual lives. To promote behavioural change among PLHIV, the paper proposes the expansion of the scope of information, education and communication strategies to include activities aimed at continually sensitising PLHIV regarding safer sex, as well as activities geared towards improving communication between PLHIV and their health-caregivers with regard to HIV-protective behaviours.