Objective To assess the effect of home based telehealth interventions on the use of secondary healthcare and mortality.Design Pragmatic, multisite, cluster randomised trial comparing telehealth with usual care, using data from routine administrative datasets. General practice was the unit of randomisation. We allocated practices using a minimisation algorithm, and did analyses by intention to treat. Setting 179 general practices in three areas in England.Participants 3230 people with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or heart failure recruited from practices between May 2008 and November 2009. InterventionsTelehealth involved remote exchange of data between patients and healthcare professionals as part of patients' diagnosis and management. Usual care reflected the range of services available in the trial sites, excluding telehealth.Main outcome measure Proportion of patients admitted to hospital during 12 month trial period.Results Patient characteristics were similar at baseline. Compared with controls, the intervention group had a lower admission proportion within 12 month follow-up (odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.97, P=0.017). Mortality at 12 months was also lower for intervention patients than for controls (4.6% v 8.3%; odds ratio 0.54, 0.39 to 0.75, P<0.001). These differences in admissions and mortality remained significant after adjustment. The mean number of emergency admissions per head also differed between groups (crude rates, intervention 0.54 v control 0.68); these changes were significant in unadjusted comparisons (incidence rate ratio 0.81, 0.65 to 1.00, P=0.046) and after adjusting for a predictive risk score, but not after adjusting for baseline characteristics. Length of hospital stay was shorter for intervention patients than for controls (mean bed days per head 4.87 v 5.68; geometric mean difference −0.64 days, −1.14 to −0.10, P=0.023, which remained significant after adjustment). Observed differences in other forms of hospital use, including notional costs, were not significant in general. Differences in emergency admissions were greatest at the beginning of the trial, during which we observed a particularly large increase for the control group. ConclusionsTelehealth is associated with lower mortality and emergency admission rates. The reasons for the short term increases in admissions for the control group are not clear, but the trial recruitment processes could have had an effect. Trial registration number International Standard Randomised ControlledTrial Number Register ISRCTN43002091. IntroductionEfforts worldwide are dealing with the increasing prevalence of chronic disease among an ageing population. The past decade RESEARCHhas seen the growing use of telehealth as one possible approach to this problem. Telehealth involves the remote exchange of data between a patient and healthcare professionals as part of the patient's diagnosis and healthcare management. 1 2 Examples include the monitoring of blood pressure and blood glucose. Telehealth m...

Current policy emphasises the importance of 'living well' with dementia, but there has been no comprehensive synthesis of the factors related to quality of life (QoL), subjective well-being or life satisfaction in people with dementia. We examined the available evidence in a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched electronic databases until 7 January 2016 for observational studies investigating factors associated with QoL, well-being and life satisfaction in people with dementia. Articles had to provide quantitative data and include ⩾75% people with dementia of any type or severity. We included 198 QoL studies taken from 272 articles in the meta-analysis. The analysis focused on 43 factors with sufficient data, relating to 37639 people with dementia. Generally, these factors were significantly associated with QoL, but effect sizes were often small (0.1-0.29) or negligible (<0.09). Factors reflecting relationships, social engagement and functional ability were associated with better QoL. Factors indicative of poorer physical and mental health (including depression and other neuropsychiatric symptoms) and poorer carer well-being were associated with poorer QoL. Longitudinal evidence about predictors of QoL was limited. There was a considerable between-study heterogeneity. The pattern of numerous predominantly small associations with QoL suggests a need to reconsider approaches to understanding and assessing living well with dementia.

Objective To examine the costs and cost effectiveness of telehealth in addition to standard support and treatment, compared with standard support and treatment.Design Economic evaluation nested in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting Community based telehealth intervention in three local authority areas in England.Participants 3230 people with a long term condition (heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or diabetes) were recruited into the Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth trial between May 2008 and December 2009. Of participants taking part in the Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study examining acceptability, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness, 845 were randomised to telehealth and 728 to usual care.Interventions Intervention participants received a package of telehealth equipment and monitoring services for 12 months, in addition to the standard health and social care services available in their area. Controls received usual health and social care.Main outcome measure Primary outcome for the cost effectiveness analysis was incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. ResultsWe undertook net benefit analyses of costs and outcomes for 965 patients (534 receiving telehealth; 431 usual care). The adjusted mean difference in QALY gain between groups at 12 months was 0.012. Total health and social care costs (including direct costs of the intervention) for the three months before 12 month interview were £1390 (€1610; $2150) and £1596 for the usual care and telehealth groups, respectively. Cost effectiveness acceptability curves were generated to examine decision uncertainty in the analysis surrounding the value of RESEARCHthe cost effectiveness threshold. The incremental cost per QALY of telehealth when added to usual care was £92 000. With this amount, the probability of cost effectiveness was low (11% at willingness to pay threshold of £30 000; >50% only if the threshold exceeded about £90 000). In sensitivity analyses, telehealth costs remained slightly (non-significantly) higher than usual care costs, even after assuming that equipment prices fell by 80% or telehealth services operated at maximum capacity. However, the most optimistic scenario (combining reduced equipment prices with maximum operating capacity) eliminated this group difference (cost effectiveness ratio £12 000 per QALY). ConclusionsThe QALY gain by patients using telehealth in addition to usual care was similar to that by patients receiving usual care only, and total costs associated with the telehealth intervention were higher. Telehealth does not seem to be a cost effective addition to standard support and treatment.Trial registration ISRCTN43002091.

Effect of telehealth on quality of life and psychological outcomes over 12 months (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested study of patient reported outcomes in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial AbstractObjective To assess the effect of second generation, home based telehealth on health related quality of life, anxiety, and depressive symptoms over 12 months in patients with long term conditions.Design A study of patient reported outcomes (the Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study; baseline n=1573) was nested in a pragmatic, cluster randomised trial of telehealth (the Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth trial, n=3230). General practice was the unit of randomisation, and telehealth was compared with usual care. Data were collected at baseline, four months (short term), and 12 months (long term). Primary intention to treat analyses tested treatment effectiveness; multilevel models controlled for clustering by general practice and a range of covariates. Analyses were conducted for 759 participants who completed questionnaire measures at all three time points (complete case cohort) and 1201 who completed the baseline assessment plus at least one other assessment (available case cohort). Secondary per protocol analyses tested treatment efficacy and included 633 and 1108 participants in the complete case and available case cohorts, respectively.Correspondence to: S P Newman stanton.newman.1@city.ac.uk Extra material supplied by the author (see http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f653?tab=related#webextra)Web appendix 1: Whole Systems Demonstrator (WSD) terminology Web appendix 2: Description of the telehealth intervention Web appendix 3: Per protocol criteria Web figure 1: Provision of peripheral telehealth devices to intervention participants in the WSD Telehealth Questionnaire Study Web figure 2: Early removal of telehealth for reasons other than death across the 12 month trial period Web Main outcome measuresGeneric, health related quality of life (assessed by physical and mental health component scores of the SF-12, and the EQ-5D), anxiety (assessed by the six item Brief State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), and depressive symptoms (assessed by the 10 item Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale). ResultsIn the intention to treat analyses, differences between treatment groups were small and non-significant for all outcomes in the complete case (0.480≤P≤0.904) or available case (0.181≤P≤0.905) cohorts. The magnitude of differences between trial arms did not reach the trial defined, minimal clinically important difference (0.3 standardised mean difference) for any outcome in either cohort at four or 12 months. Per protocol analyses replicated the primary analyses; the main effect of trial arm (telehealth v usual care) was non-significant for any outcome (complete case cohort 0.273≤P≤0.761; available case cohort 0.145≤P≤0.696).Conclusions Second generation, home based telehealth as implemented in the Whole Systems Demonstrator Evaluation was not e...

BackgroundGroup cognitive stimulation therapy programmes can benefit cognition and quality of life for people with dementia. Evidence for home-based, carer-led cognitive stimulation interventions is limited.ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of carer-delivered individual cognitive stimulation therapy (iCST) for people with dementia and their family carers, compared with treatment as usual (TAU).DesignA multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial assessing clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Assessments were at baseline, 13 weeks and 26 weeks (primary end point).SettingParticipants were recruited through Memory Clinics and Community Mental Health Teams for older people.ParticipantsA total of 356 caregiving dyads were recruited and 273 completed the trial.InterventioniCST consisted of structured cognitive stimulation sessions for people with dementia, completed up to three times weekly over 25 weeks. Family carers were supported to deliver the sessions at home.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes for the person with dementia were cognition and quality of life. Secondary outcomes included behavioural and psychological symptoms, activities of daily living, depressive symptoms and relationship quality. The primary outcome for the family carers was mental/physical health (Short Form questionnaire-12 items). Health-related quality of life (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions), mood symptoms, resilience and relationship quality comprised the secondary outcomes. Costs were estimated from health and social care and societal perspectives.ResultsThere were no differences in any of the primary outcomes for people with dementia between intervention and TAU [cognition: mean difference –0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) –2.00 to 0.90;p-value = 0.45; self-reported quality of life: mean difference –0.02, 95% CI –1.22 to 0.82;p-value = 0.97 at the 6-month follow-up]. iCST did not improve mental/physical health for carers. People with dementia in the iCST group experienced better relationship quality with their carer, but there was no evidence that iCST improved their activities of daily living, depression or behavioural and psychological symptoms. iCST seemed to improve health-related quality of life for carers but did not benefit carers’ resilience or their relationship quality with their relative. Carers conducting more sessions had fewer depressive symptoms. Qualitative data suggested that people with dementia and their carers experienced better communication owing to iCST. Adjusted mean costs were not significantly different between the groups. From the societal perspective, both health gains and cost savings were observed.ConclusionsiCST did not improve cognition or quality of life for people with dementia, or carers’ physical and mental health. Costs of the intervention were offset by some reductions in social care and other services. Although there was some evidence of improvement in terms of the caregiving relationship and carers’ health-related quality of life, iCST does not appear to deliver clinical benefits for cognition and quality of life for people with dementia. Most people received fewer than the recommended number of iCST sessions. Further research is needed to ascertain the clinical effectiveness of carer-led cognitive stimulation interventions for people with dementia.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN65945963.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further information.