Objective To investigate the decision‐making processes applied by people with dementia and family carers participating in using health economic approaches to value dementia‐specific quality of life states. Methods People with dementia (n = 13) and family carers (n = 14) participated in valuing quality of life states using two health economic approaches: Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) and Best Worst Scaling (BWS). Participants were encouraged to explain their reasoning using a “Think Aloud” approach. Results People with dementia and family carers adopted a range of decision‐making strategies including “anchoring” the presented states against current quality of life, or simplifying the decision‐making by focusing on the sub‐set of attributes deemed most important. Overall, there was strong evidence of task engagement for BWS and DCE. Conclusions Health economic valuation approaches can be successfully applied with people with dementia and family carers. These data can inform the assessment of benefits from their perspectives for incorporation within economic evaluation.

Background: This study uses the RE-AIM framework to provide a process evaluation of a workplace-based cluster randomised trial comparing an ergonomic plus exercise intervention to an ergonomic plus health promotion intervention; and to highlight variations across organisations; and consider the implications of the findings for intervention translation. Method: This study applied the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance) methodology to examine the interventions' implementation and to explore the extent to which differences between participating organisations contributed to the variations in findings. Qualitative and quantitative data collected from individual participants, research team observations and organisations were interrogated to report on the five RE-AIM domains. Results: Overall reach was 22.7% but varied across organisations (range 9 to 83%). Participants were generally representative of the recruitment pool though more females (n = 452 or 59%) were recruited than were in the pool (49%). Effectiveness measures (health-related productivity loss and neck pain) varied across all organisations, with no clear pattern emerging to indicate the source of the variation. Organisation-level adoption (66%) and staffing level adoption (91%) were high. The interventions were implemented with minimal protocol variations and high staffing consistency, but organisations varied in their provision of resources (e.g. training space, seniority of liaisons). Mean adherence of participants to the EET intervention was 56% during the intervention period, but varied from 41 to 71% across organisations. At 12 months, 15% of participants reported regular EET adherence. Overall mean (SD) adherence to EHP was 56% (29%) across organisations during the intervention period (range 28 to 77%), with 62% of participants reporting regular adherence at 12 months. No organisations continued the interventions after the follow-up period.

IntroductionGeneric instruments for assessing health-related quality of life may lack the sensitivity to detect changes in health specific to certain conditions, such as dementia. The Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease (QOL-AD) is a widely used and well-validated condition-specific instrument for assessing health-related quality of life for people living with dementia, but it does not enable the calculation of quality-adjusted life years, the basis of cost utility analysis. This study will generate a preference-based scoring algorithm for a health state classification system -the Alzheimer’s Disease Five Dimensions (AD-5D) derived from the QOL-AD.Methods and analysisDiscrete choice experiments with duration (DCETTO) and best–worst scaling health state valuation tasks will be administered to a representative sample of 2000 members of the Australian general population via an online survey and to 250 dementia dyads (250 people with dementia and their carers) via face-to-face interview. A multinomial (conditional) logistic framework will be used to analyse responses and produce the utility algorithm for the AD-5D.Ethics and disseminationThe algorithms developed will enable prospective and retrospective economic evaluation of any treatment or intervention targeting people with dementia where the QOL-AD has been administered and will be available online. Results will be disseminated through journals that publish health economics articles and through professional conferences. This study has ethical approval.

Background Neck pain is prevalent among office workers. This study evaluated the impact of an ergonomic and exercise training (EET) intervention and an ergonomic and health promotion (EHP) intervention on neck pain intensity among the All Workers and a subgroup of Neck Pain cases at baseline. Methods A 12-month cluster-randomized trial was conducted in 14 public and private organisations. Office workers aged ≥18 years working ≥30 h per week (n = 740) received an individualised workstation ergonomic intervention, followed by 1:1 allocation to the EET group (neck-specific exercise training), or the EHP group (health promotion) for 12 weeks. Neck pain intensity (scale: 0–9) was recorded at baseline, 12 weeks, and 12 months. Participants with data at these three time points were included for analysis (n = 367). Intervention group differences were analysed using generalized estimating equation models on an intention-to-treat basis and adjusted for potential confounders. Subgroup analysis was performed on neck cases reporting pain ≥3 at baseline (n = 96). Results The EET group demonstrated significantly greater reductions in neck pain intensity at 12 weeks compared to the EHP group for All Workers (EET: β = − 0.53 points 95% CI: − 0.84– − 0.22 [36%] and EHP: β = − 0.17 points 95% CI: − 0.47–0.13 [10.5%], p-value = 0.02) and the Neck Cases (EET: β = − 2.32 points 95% CI: − 3.09– − 1.56 [53%] and EHP: β = − 1.75 points 95% CI: − 2.35– − 1.16 [36%], p = 0.04). Reductions in pain intensity were not maintained at 12 months with no between-group differences observed in All Workers (EET: β = − 0.18, 95% CI: − 0.53–0.16 and EHP: β = − 0.14 points 95% CI: − 0.49–0.21, p = 0.53) or Neck Cases, although in both groups an overall reduction was found (EET: β = − 1.61 points 95% CI: − 2.36– − 0.89 and EHP: β = − 1.9 points 95% CI: − 2.59– − 1.20, p = 0.26). Conclusion EET was more effective than EHP in reducing neck pain intensity in All Workers and Neck Cases immediately following the intervention period (12 weeks) but not at 12 months, with changes at 12 weeks reaching clinically meaningful thresholds for the Neck Cases. Findings suggest the need for continuation of exercise to maintain benefits in the longer term. Clinical trial registration hACTRN12612001154897 Date of Registration: 31/10/2012.