No abstract

Background People with traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) commonly report memory impairments. These are persistent, debilitating and reduce quality of life, but patients do not routinely receive memory rehabilitation after discharge from hospital. Objective To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group memory rehabilitation programme for people with TBI. Design Multicentre, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Qualitative and health economic evaluations were also undertaken. Setting Community settings in nine sites in England. Participants Participants were aged 18–69 years, had undergone a TBI > 3 months prior to recruitment, reported memory problems, were able to travel to a site to attend group sessions, could communicate in English and gave informed consent. Randomisation and blinding Clusters of four to six participants were randomised to the memory rehabilitation arm or the usual-care arm on a 1 : 1 ratio. Randomisation was based on a computer-generated pseudo-random code using random permuted blocks of randomly varying size, stratified by study site. Participants and therapists were aware of the treatment allocation whereas outcome assessors were blinded. Interventions In the memory rehabilitation arm 10 weekly sessions of a manualised memory rehabilitation programme were provided in addition to usual care. Participants were taught restitution strategies to retrain impaired memory functions and compensation strategies to enable them to cope with memory problems. The usual-care arm received usual care only. Main outcome measures Outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Primary outcome: patient-completed Everyday Memory Questionnaire – patient version (EMQ-p) at 6 months’ follow-up. Secondary outcomes: Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test – third edition (RBMT-3), General Health Questionnaire 30-item version, European Brain Injury Questionnaire, Everyday Memory Questionnaire – relative version and individual goal attainment. Costs (based on a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective) were collected using a service use questionnaire, with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, used to derive quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A Markov model was developed to explore cost-effectiveness at 5 and 10 years, with a 3.5% discount applied. Results We randomised 328 participants (memory rehabilitation, n = 171; usual care, n = 157), with 129 in the memory rehabilitation arm and 122 in the usual-care arm included in the primary analysis. We found no clinically important difference on the EMQ-p between the two arms at 6 months’ follow-up (adjusted difference in mean scores –2.1, 95% confidence interval –6.7 to 2.5; p = 0.37). For secondary outcomes, differences favouring the memory rehabilitation arm were observed at 6 months’ follow-up for the RBMT-3 and goal attainment, but remained only for goal attainment at 12 months’ follow-up. There were no differences between arms in mood or quality of life. The qualitative results suggested positive experiences of participating in the trial and of attending the groups. Participants reported that memory rehabilitation was not routinely accessible in usual care. The primary health economics outcome at 12 months found memory rehabilitation to be £26.89 cheaper than usual care but less effective, with an incremental QALY loss of 0.007. Differences in costs and effects were not statistically significant and non-parametric bootstrapping demonstrated considerable uncertainty in these findings. No safety concerns were raised and no deaths were reported. Limitations As a pragmatic trial, we had broad inclusion criteria and, therefore, there was considerable heterogeneity within the sample. The study was not powered to perform further subgroup analyses. Participants and therapists could not be blinded to treatment allocation. Conclusions The group memory rehabilitation delivered in this trial is very unlikely to lead to clinical benefits or to be a cost-effective treatment for people with TBI in the community. Future studies should examine the selection of participants who may benefit most from memory rehabilitation. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN65792154. 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. 23, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Objective: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation for attention and memory problems in people with multiple sclerosis. Design: Multicentre, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial. Setting: Community Participants: People with multiple sclerosis aged 18–69 years, who reported cognitive problems in daily life and had cognitive problems on standardized assessment. Interventions: A group cognitive rehabilitation programme delivered in 10 weekly sessions in comparison with usual care. Main measures: The primary outcome was the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Psychological subscale at 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes included measures of everyday memory problems, mood, fatigue, cognitive abilities and employment at 6 and 12 months after randomization. Results: In all, 245 participants were allocated to cognitive rehabilitation and 204 to usual care. Mean Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Psychological at 12 months was 22.2 (SD = 6.1) for cognitive rehabilitation and 23.4 (SD = 6.0) for usual care group; adjusted difference −0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −1.5 to 0.3, P = 0.20. No differences were observed in cognitive abilities, fatigue or employment. There were small differences in favour of cognitive rehabilitation for the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Psychological at 6 months and everyday memory and mood at 6 and 12 months. There was no evidence of an effect on costs (−£808; 95% CI = −£2248 to £632) or on quality-adjusted life year gain (0.00; 95% CI = −0.01 to 0.02). Conclusion: This rehabilitation programme had no long-term benefits on the impact of multiple sclerosis on quality of life, but there was some evidence of an effect on everyday memory problems and mood.

ObjectivesThis mixed-method process evaluation underpinned by normalisation process theory aims to measure fidelity to the intervention, understand the social and structural context in which the intervention is delivered and identify barriers and facilitators to intervention implementation.SettingRETurn to work After stroKE (RETAKE) is a multicentre individual patient randomised controlled trial to determine whether Early Stroke Specialist Vocational Rehabilitation (ESSVR) plus usual care is a clinically and cost-effective therapy to facilitate return to work after stroke, compared with usual care alone. This protocol paper describes the embedded process evaluation.Participants and outcome measuresIntervention training for therapists will be observed and use of remote mentor support reviewed through documentary analysis. Fidelity will be assessed through participant questionnaires and analysis of therapy records, examining frequency, duration and content of ESSVR sessions. To understand the influence of social and structural contexts, the process evaluation will explore therapists’ attitudes towards evidence-based practice, competency to deliver the intervention and evaluate potential sources of contamination. Longitudinal case studies incorporating non-participant observations will be conducted with a proportion of intervention and usual care participants. Semistructured interviews with stroke survivors, carers, occupational therapists, mentors, service managers and employers will explore their experiences as RETAKE participants. Analysis of qualitative data will draw on thematic and framework approaches. Quantitative data analysis will include regression models and descriptive statistics. Qualitative and quantitative data will be independently analysed by process evaluation and Clinical Trials Research Unit teams, respectively. Linked data, for example, fidelity and describing usual care will be synthesised by comparing and integrating quantitative descriptive data with the qualitative findings.Ethics and disseminationApproval obtained through the East Midlands—Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 18/EM/0019) and the National Health ServiceResearch Authority. Dissemination via journal publications, stroke conferences, social media and meetings with national Stroke clinical leads.Trial registration numberISRCTN12464275.

Background Little guidance exists regarding how best to upskill and support those delivering complex healthcare interventions to ensure robust trial outcomes and implementation fidelity. Mentoring was provided to occupational therapists (OTs) delivering a complex vocational rehabilitation (VR) intervention to stroke survivors. This study aimed to explore mentors’ roles in supporting OTs with intervention delivery and fidelity, and to describe factors affecting the mentoring process and intervention delivery. Methods Quantitative data (duration, mode and total time of mentoring support) was extracted from mentoring records and emails between mentors and OTs, alongside qualitative data on barriers and facilitators to intervention delivery. Semi-structured interviews with mentors (n = 6) and OTs (n = 19) explored experiences and perceptions of intervention training, delivery and the mentoring process. Mean total and monthly time spent mentoring were calculated per trial site. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Results Forty-one OTs across 16 sites were mentored between March 2018 and April 2020. Most mentoring was provided by phone or Microsoft Teams (range: 88.6–100%), with the remainder via email and SMS (Short Message Service) text messages. Mentors suggested strategies to enhance trial recruitment, improved OTs’ understanding of- and adherence to trial processes, intervention delivery and fidelity, and facilitated independent problem-solving. Barriers to mentoring included OT non-attendance at mentoring sessions and mentors struggling to balance mentoring with clinical roles. Facilitators included support from the trial team and mentors having protected time for mentoring. Conclusions Mentoring supported mentee OTs in various ways, but it remains unclear to what extent the OTS would have been able to deliver the intervention without mentoring support, or how this might have impacted fidelity. Successful implementation of mentoring alongside new complex interventions may increase the likelihood of intervention effectiveness being observed and sustained in real-life contexts. Further research is needed to investigate how mentors could be selected, upskilled, funded and mentoring provided to maximise impact. The clinical- and cost-effectiveness of mentoring as an implementation strategy and its impact on fidelity also requires testing in a future trial. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN12464275. Registered on 13th March 2018.