Jacqueline J Hill

The ''Reading the Mind in Films'' Task: Complex emotion recognition in adults with and without autism spectrum conditions

Abstract Background: Individuals with autism spectrum conditions (ASC) have difficulties recognizing mental states in others. Most research has focused on recognition of basic emotions from faces and voices separately. This study reports the results of a new task, assessing recognition of complex emotions and mental states from social scenes taken from feature films. The film format arguably is more challenging and ecologically closer to real social situations. Sample and method: A group of adults with ASC (n=22) were compared to a group of matched controls from the general population (n=22). Participants were tested individually. Results: Overall, individuals with ASC performed significantly lower than controls. There was a positive correlation between verbal IQ and task scores. Using task scores, more than 90% of the participants were correctly allocated to their group. Item analysis showed that the errors individuals with ASC make when judging socioemotional information are subtle. Conclusions: This new test of complex emotion and mental state recognition reveals that adults with ASC have residual difficulties in this aspect of empathy. The use of language-based compensatory strategies for emotion recognition is discussed.

Clinical effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in UK primary care (CADET): cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness of collaborative care with usual care in the management of patients with moderate to severe depression. Design Cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting 51 primary care practices in three primary care districts in the United Kingdom. Participants 581 adults aged 18 years and older who met ICD-10 (international classification of diseases, 10th revision) criteria for a depressive episode on the revised Clinical Interview Schedule. We excluded acutely suicidal patients and those with psychosis, or with type I or type II bipolar disorder; patients whose low mood was associated with bereavement or whose primary presenting problem was alcohol or drug abuse; and patients receiving psychological treatment for their depression by specialist mental health services. We identified potentially eligible participants by searching computerised case records in general practices for patients with depression. Interventions Collaborative care, including depression education, drug management, behavioural activation, relapse prevention, and primary care liaison, was delivered by care managers. Collaborative care involved six to 12 contacts with participants over 14 weeks, supervised by mental health specialists. Usual care was family doctors’ standard clinical practice. Main outcome measures Depression symptoms (patient health questionnaire 9; PHQ-9), anxiety (generalised anxiety disorder 7; GAD-7), and quality of life (short form 36 questionnaire; SF-36) at four and 12 months; satisfaction with service quality (client satisfaction questionnaire; CSQ-8) at four months. Results 276 participants were allocated to collaborative care and 305 allocated to usual care. At four months, mean depression score was 11.1 (standard deviation 7.3) for the collaborative care group and 12.7 (6.8) for the usual care group. After adjustment for baseline depression, mean depression score was 1.33 PHQ-9 points lower (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 2.31, P=0.009) in participants receiving collaborative care than in those receiving usual care at four months, and 1.36 points lower (0.07 to 2.64, P=0.04) at 12 months. Quality of mental health but not physical health was significantly better for collaborative care than for usual care at four months, but not 12 months. Anxiety did not differ between groups. Participants receiving collaborative care were significantly more satisfied with treatment than those receiving usual care. The number needed to treat for one patient to drop below the accepted diagnostic threshold for depression on the PHQ-9 was 8.4 immediately after treatment, and 6.5 at 12 months. Conclusions Collaborative care has persistent positive effects up to 12 months after initiation of the intervention and is preferred by patients over usual care. Trial registration number ISRCTN32829227.

Factors associated with variability in the assessment of UK doctors’ professionalism: analysis of survey results

Objectives To investigate potential sources of systematic bias arising in the assessment of doctors’ professionalism. Design Linear regression modelling of cross sectional questionnaire survey data. Setting 11 clinical practices in England and Wales. Participants 1065 non-training grade doctors from various clinical specialties and settings, 17 031 of their colleagues, and 30 333 of their patients. Main outcome measures Two measures of a doctor’s professional performance using patient and colleague questionnaires from the United Kingdom’s General Medical Council (GMC). We selected potential predictor variables from the characteristics of the doctors and of their patient and colleague assessors. Results After we adjusted for characteristics of the doctor as well as characteristics of the patient sample, less favourable scores from patient feedback were independently predicted by doctors having obtained their primary medical degree from any non-European country; doctors practising as a psychiatrist; lower proportions of white patients providing feedback; lower proportions of patients rating their consultation as being very important; and lower proportions of patients reporting that they were seeing their usual doctor. Lower scores from colleague feedback were independently predicted by doctors having obtained their primary medical degree from countries outside the UK and South Asia; currently employed in a locum capacity; working as a general practitioner or psychiatrist; being employed in a staff grade, associate specialist, or other equivalent role; and with a lower proportion of colleagues reporting they had daily or weekly professional contact with the doctor. In fully adjusted models, the doctor’s age, sex, and ethnic group were not independent predictors of patient or colleague feedback. Neither the age or sex profiles of the patient or colleague samples were independent predictors of doctors’ feedback scores, and nor was the ethnic group of colleague samples. Conclusions Caution is necessary when considering patient and colleague feedback regarding doctors’ professionalism. Multisource feedback undertaken for revalidation using the GMC patient and colleague questionnaires should, at least initially, be principally formative in nature.

Stepped care treatment delivery for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND In stepped care models patients typically start with a low-intensity evidence-based treatment. Progress is monitored systematically and those patients who do not respond adequately step up to a subsequent treatment of higher intensity. Despite the fact that many guidelines have endorsed this stepped care principle it is not clear if stepped care really delivers similar or better patient outcomes against lower costs compared with other systems. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized trials on stepped care for depression. METHOD We carried out a comprehensive literature search. Selection of studies, evaluation of study quality and extraction of data were performed independently by two authors. RESULTS A total of 14 studies were included and 10 were used in the meta-analyses (4580 patients). All studies used screening to identify possible patients and care as usual as a comparator. Study quality was relatively high. Stepped care had a moderate effect on depression (pooled 6-month between-group effect size Cohens d was 0.34; 95% confidence interval 0.20-0.48). The stepped care interventions varied greatly in number and duration of treatment steps, treatments offered, professionals involved, and criteria to step up. CONCLUSIONS There is currently only limited evidence to suggest that stepped care should be the dominant model of treatment organization. Evidence on (cost-) effectiveness compared with high-intensity psychological therapy alone, as well as with matched care, is required.

Multisource Feedback in Evaluating the Performance of Doctors: The Example of the UK General Medical Council Patient and Colleague Questionnaires

Purpose Internationally, there is increasing interest in monitoring and evaluating doctors’ professional practice. Multisource feedback (MSF) offers one way of collecting information about doctors’ performance. The authors investigated the psychometric properties of two questionnaires developed for this purpose and explored the biases that may exist within data collected via such instruments. Method A cross-sectional study was conducted in 11 UK health care organizations during 2008–2011. Patients (n = 30,333) and colleagues (n = 17,012) rated the professional performance of 1,065 practicing doctors, using the General Medical Council Patient Questionnaire (PQ) and Colleague Questionnaire (CQ). The psychometric properties of the questionnaires were assessed, and regression modeling was used to explore factors that influenced patient and colleague responses on the core questionnaire items. Results Although the questionnaires demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and convergent validity, patient and colleague ratings were highly skewed toward favorable impressions of doctor performance. At least 34 PQs and 15 CQs were required to achieve acceptable reliability (G > 0.70). Item ratings were influenced by characteristics of the patient and colleague respondents and the context in which their feedback was provided. Conclusions The PQ and CQ are acceptable for the provision of formative feedback on a doctor’s professional practice within an appraisal process. However, biases identified in the questionnaire data suggest that caution is required when interpreting and acting on this type of information. MSF derived from these questionnaires should not be used in isolation to inform decisions about a doctor’s fitness to practice medicine.

Surviving cancer; what does it mean for you? An evaluation of a clinic based intervention for survivors of childhood cancer

Background: To evaluate a clinic based intervention designed to improve attitude to follow‐up, increase self‐efficacy or confidence to care for health, and raise awareness of possible vulnerability to future health issues among survivors of childhood cancer. The intervention included an information booklet, treatment summary and separate information sheets, which were explained to survivors as part of routine follow‐up care.

Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression in UK Primary Care: Economic Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial (CADET)

Background Collaborative care is an effective treatment for the management of depression but evidence on its cost-effectiveness in the UK is lacking. Aims To assess the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting. Methods An economic evaluation alongside a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial comparing collaborative care with usual primary care for adults with depression (n = 581). Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 12-month follow-up, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services (i.e. Third Party Payer). Sensitivity analyses are reported, and uncertainty is presented using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and the cost-effectiveness plane. Results The collaborative care intervention had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant. Health and social care service use, excluding collaborative care, indicated a similar profile of resource use between collaborative care and usual care participants. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI: –0.02, 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months, at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI: –202.98, 886.04), and resulted in an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248. Where costs associated with informal care are considered in sensitivity analyses collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective, thereby dominating treatment as usual. Conclusion Collaborative care offers health gains at a relatively low cost, and is cost-effective compared with usual care against a decision-maker willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results here support the commissioning of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting.

Emotion word comprehension from 4 to 16 years old: a developmental survey.

Background: Whilst previous studies have examined comprehension of the emotional lexicon at different ages in typically developing children, no survey has been conducted looking at this across different ages from childhood to adolescence. Purpose: To report how the emotion lexicon grows with age. Method: Comprehension of 336 emotion words was tested in n = 377 children and adolescents, aged 4–16 years old, divided into 6 age-bands. Parents or teachers of children under 12, or adolescents themselves, were asked to indicate which words they knew the meaning of. Results: Between 4 and 11 years old, the size of the emotional lexicon doubled every 2 years, but between 12 and 16 years old, developmental rate of growth of the emotional lexicon leveled off. This survey also allows emotion words to be ordered in terms of difficulty. Conclusions: Studies using emotion terms in English need to be developmentally sensitive, since during childhood there is considerable change. The absence of change after adolescence may be an artifact of the words included in this study. This normative developmental data-set for emotion vocabulary comprehension may be useful when testing for delays in this ability, as might arise for environmental or neurodevelopmental reasons.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in UK primary care (CADET): a cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Collaborative care is effective for depression management in the USA. There is little UK evidence on its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care compared with usual care in the management of patients with moderate to severe depression. DESIGN Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING UK primary care practices (n = 51) in three UK primary care districts. PARTICIPANTS A total of 581 adults aged ≥ 18 years in general practice with a current International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition depressive episode, excluding acutely suicidal people, those with psychosis, bipolar disorder or low mood associated with bereavement, those whose primary presentation was substance abuse and those receiving psychological treatment. INTERVENTIONS Collaborative care: 14 weeks of 6-12 telephone contacts by care managers; mental health specialist supervision, including depression education, medication management, behavioural activation, relapse prevention and primary care liaison. Usual care was general practitioner standard practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Blinded researchers collected depression [Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)], anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7) and quality of life (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions three-level version), Short Form questionnaire-36 items) outcomes at 4, 12 and 36 months, satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8) outcomes at 4 months and treatment and service use costs at 12 months. RESULTS In total, 276 and 305 participants were randomised to collaborative care and usual care respectively. Collaborative care participants had a mean depression score that was 1.33 PHQ-9 points lower [n = 230; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 2.31; p = 0.009] than that of participants in usual care at 4 months and 1.36 PHQ-9 points lower (n = 275; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.64; p = 0.04) at 12 months after adjustment for baseline depression (effect size 0.28, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.52; odds ratio for recovery 1.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.75; number needed to treat 6.5). Quality of mental health but not physical health was significantly better for collaborative care at 4 months but not at 12 months. There was no difference for anxiety. Participants receiving collaborative care were significantly more satisfied with treatment. Differences between groups had disappeared at 36 months. Collaborative care had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant with similar health and social care service use between collaborative care and usual care. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 12 months at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI -£202.98 to £886.04) and had an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248, which is below current UK willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses including informal care costs indicated that collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective. The amount of participant behavioural activation was the only effect mediator. CONCLUSIONS Collaborative care improves depression up to 12 months after initiation of the intervention, is preferred by patients over usual care, offers health gains at a relatively low cost, is cost-effective compared with usual care and is mediated by patient activation. Supervision was by expert clinicians and of short duration and more intensive therapy may have improved outcomes. In addition, one participant requiring inpatient treatment incurred very significant costs and substantially inflated our cost per QALY estimate. Future work should test enhanced intervention content not collaborative care per se. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32829227. FUNDING This project was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) (G0701013) and managed by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) on behalf of the MRC-NIHR partnership.

Researching Complex Interventions in Health : The State of the Art

Table of contentsKEYNOTE PRESENTATIONSK1 Researching complex interventions: the need for robust approachesPeter CraigK2 Complex intervention studies: an important step in developing knowledge for practiceIngalill Rahm-HallbergK3 Public and patient involvement in research: what, why and how?Nicky BrittenK4 Mixed methods in health service research – where do we go from here?Gunilla BorglinSPEAKER PRESENTATIONSS1 Exploring complexity in systematic reviews of complex interventionsGabriele Meyer, Sascha Köpke, Jane Noyes, Jackie ChandlerS2 Can complex health interventions be optimised before moving to a definitive RCT? Strategies and methods currently in useSara LevatiS3 A systematic approach to develop theory based implementation interventionsAnne SalesS4 Pilot studies and feasibility studies for complex interventions: an introductionLehana Thabane, Lora GiangregorioS5 What can be done to pilot complex interventions?Nancy Feeley, Sylvie CossetteS6 Using feasibility and pilot trials to test alternative methodologies and methodological procedures prior to full scale trialsRod TaylorS7 A mixed methods feasibility study in practiceJacqueline Hill, David A Richards, Willem KuykenS8 Non-standard experimental designs and preference designsLouise von EssenS9 Evaluation gone wild: using natural experimental approaches to evaluate complex interventionsAndrew WilliamsS10 The stepped wedge cluster randomised trial: an opportunity to increase the quality of evaluations of service delivery and public policy interventionsKarla Hemming, Richard Lilford, Alan Girling, Monica TaljaardS11 Adaptive designs in confirmatory clinical trials: opportunities in investigating complex interventionsMunyaradzi DimairoS12 Processes, contexts and outcomes in complex interventions, and the implications for evaluationMark PetticrewS13 Processes, contexts and outcomes in complex interventions, and the implications for evaluationJanis Baird, Graham MooreS14 Qualitative evaluation alongside RCTs: what to consider to get relevant and valuable resultsWillem Odendaal, Salla Atkins, Elizabeth Lutge, Natalie Leon, Simon LewinS15 Using economic evaluations to understand the value of complex interventions: when maximising health status is not sufficientKatherine PayneS16 How to arrive at an implementation planTheo van AchterbergS17 Modelling process and outcomes in complex interventionsWalter SermeusS18 Systems modelling for improving health careMartin Pitt, Thomas Monks