Mary Sawtell

Health outcomes of youth development programme in England: prospective matched comparison study

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of youth development in reducing teenage pregnancy, substance use, and other outcomes. Design Prospective matched comparison study. Setting 54 youth service sites in England. Participants Young people (n=2724) aged 13-15 years at baseline deemed by professionals as at risk of teenage pregnancy, substance misuse, or school exclusion or to be vulnerable. Intervention Intensive, multicomponent youth development programme including sex and drugs education (Young People’s Development Programme) versus standard youth provision. Main outcome measures Various, including pregnancy, weekly cannabis use, and monthly drunkenness at 18 months. Results Young women in the intervention group more commonly reported pregnancy than did those in the comparison group (16% v 6%; adjusted odds ratio 3.55, 95% confidence interval 1.32 to 9.50). Young women in the intervention group also more commonly reported early heterosexual experience (58% v 33%; adjusted odds ratio 2.53, 1.09 to 5.92) and expectation of teenage parenthood (34% v 24%; 1.61, 1.07 to 2.43). Conclusions No evidence was found that the intervention was effective in delaying heterosexual experience or reducing pregnancies, drunkenness, or cannabis use. Some results suggested an adverse effect. Although methodological limitations may at least partly explain these findings, any further implementation of such interventions in the UK should be only within randomised trials.

Structured, intensive education maximising engagement, motivation and long-term change for children and young people with diabetes: a cluster randomised controlled trial with integral process and economic evaluation - the CASCADE study.

BACKGROUND Type 1 diabetes (T1D) in children and young people is increasing worldwide with a particular increase in children under the age of 5 years. Fewer than one in six children and young people achieve glycosylated fraction of haemoglobin (HbA1c) values in the range identified as providing best future outcomes. There is an urgent need for clinic-based pragmatic, feasible and effective interventions that improve both glycaemic control and quality of life (QoL). The intervention offers both structured education, to ensure young people know what they need to know, and a delivery model designed to motivate self-management. OBJECTIVE To assess the feasibility of providing a clinic-based structured educational group programme incorporating psychological approaches to improve long-term glycaemic control, QoL and psychosocial functioning in a diverse range of young people. DESIGN The study was a pragmatic, cluster randomised control trial with integral process and economic evaluation. SETTING Twenty-eight paediatric diabetes services across London, south-east England and the Midlands. RANDOMISATION Minimised by clinic size, age (paediatric or adolescent) and specialisation (district general hospital clinic or teaching hospital/tertiary clinic). ALLOCATION Half of the sites were randomised to the intervention arm and half to the control arm. Allocation was concealed until after clinics had consented and the first participant was recruited. Where possible, families were blind to allocation until recruitment finished. PARTICIPANTS Forty-three health-care practitioners (14 teams) were trained in the intervention. The study recruited 362 children aged 8-16 years, diagnosed with T1D for > 12 months, with a mean 12-month HbA1c level of ≥ 8.5%. INTERVENTION Two 1-day workshops taught intervention delivery. A detailed manual and resources were provided. The intervention consists of four group education sessions led by a paediatric diabetes specialist nurse with another team member. OUTCOMES The primary outcome was glycaemic control, assessed at the individual level using venous HbA1c values, measured at baseline, 12 and 24 months. Secondary outcomes were directly and indirectly related to diabetes management, including hypoglycaemic episodes, hospital admissions, diabetes regimen, knowledge, skills and responsibility for diabetes management, intervention compliance, clinic utilisation, emotional and behavioural adjustment, and general and diabetes-specific QoL. PROCESS EVALUATION Questionnaires, semistructured interviews, informal discussion following observation sessions, fieldwork notes and case note review were used to collect qualitative and quantitative data from key stakeholder groups at specific time points in the trial. STATISTICAL ANALYSES Primary and secondary analyses were intention-to-treat comparisons of outcomes at 12 and 24 months, using analysis of covariance with a random effect for clinic. Prespecified subgroup analyses based on age, gender, initial HbA1c value and socioeconomic status were estimated from models that included an interaction term. The economic analysis compared long-term costs and predicted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS The intervention did not improve HbA1c at 12 months [intervention effect 0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28 to 0.50; p = 0.584] or 24 months (intervention effect 0.03; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.41; p = 0.891). A total of 298/362 patients (82.3%) provided blood samples at 12-month follow-up, and 284/362 (78.5%) provided blood samples at 24-month follow-up. Follow-up questionnaires were completed by 307 patients (85.3%) at 12 months and by 295 patients (81.5%) at 24 months. Intervention group parents at 12 months (95% CI 0.74; 0.03 to 1.52) and young people at 24 months (0.85; 95% CI 0.03 to 1.61) had higher scores on the diabetes family responsibility questionnaire. Young people reported reduced happiness with body weight at 12 months (-0.56; 95% CI -1.03 to -0.06). Only 68% of groups were run. Of the 180 families recruited, 96 (53%) attended at least one module. Reasons for low uptake included difficulties organising groups, and work and school commitments. Young people with higher HbA1c levels were less likely to attend. Parents and young people who attended groups described improved family relationships, improved knowledge and understanding, greater confidence and increased motivation to manage diabetes. Twenty-four months after the intervention, nearly half of the young people reported that the groups had made them want to try harder and that they had carried on trying. A high-quality, complex, pragmatic trial of structured education can be delivered alongside standard care in NHS diabetes clinics. Health-care providers benefited from behaviour change skill training and can deliver pragmatic aspects of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)-compliant structured education programme after relatively brief training. The process evaluation provides insight into aspects of the model, and highlights strengths and aspects that may have contributed to the failure to influence primary and secondary outcomes. Current NHS practice dominates CASCADE (Child and Adolescent Structured Competencies Approach to Diabetes Education) in that it achieves the same number of QALYs at a lower cost. The mean cost of providing the intervention was £5098 per site or £683 per child. Members of paediatric diabetes services trained to deliver the CASCADE structured education package using behaviour change techniques did not improve glycaemic control in patients compared with control subjects 1 and 2 years after the intervention. The training workshops for practitioners were well evaluated; however, more intensive training was needed. The intervention cost £683 per patient but was not cost-effective because it did not improve metabolic control. CONCLUSIONS A high-quality, complex, pragmatic trial of structured education can be successfully conducted alongside standard care in NHS diabetes clinics. Pragmatic components of a NICE-compliant structured education programme can be successfully delivered following a relatively brief 2-day training while paediatric health-care professionals benefit from training in behaviour change skills. The study provides invaluable information on barriers and opportunities regarding future, similar interventions. A low dropout rate and good attendance for the subgroup that attended the intervention suggests there might be improved uptake if offered to young people with lower HbA1c. Testing whether this approach can be more successful with a robust ongoing supervisory element should be a target of further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52537669. FUNDING This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Implementing a structured education program for children with diabetes: lessons learnt from an integrated process evaluation.

Background There is recognition of an urgent need for clinic-based interventions for young people with type 1 diabetes mellitus that improve glycemic control and quality of life. The Child and Adolescent Structured Competencies Approach to Diabetes Education (CASCADE) is a structured educational group program, using psychological techniques, delivered primarily by diabetes nurses. Composed of four modules, it is designed for children with poor diabetic control and their parents. A mixed methods process evaluation, embedded within a cluster randomized control trial, aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, fidelity, and perceived impact of CASCADE. Methods 28 pediatric diabetes clinics across England participated and 362 children aged 8–16 years, with type 1 diabetes and a mean glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 8.5 or above, took part. The process evaluation used a wide range of research methods. Results Of the 180 families in the intervention group, only 55 (30%) received the full program with 53% attending at least one module. Only 68% of possible groups were run. Staff found organizing the groups burdensome in terms of arranging suitable dates/times and satisfactory group composition. Some staff also reported difficulties in mastering the psychological techniques. Uptake, by families, was influenced by the number of groups run and by school, work and other commitments. Attendees described improved: family relationships; knowledge and understanding; confidence; motivation to manage the disease. The results of the trial showed that the intervention did not significantly improve HbA1c at 12 or 24 months. Conclusions Clinic-based structured group education delivered by staff using psychological techniques had perceived benefits for parents and young people. Staff and families considered it a valuable intervention, yet uptake was poor and the burden on staff was high. Recommendations are made to inform issues related to organization, design, and delivery in order to potentially enhance the impact of CASCADE and future programs. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52537669.

Effectiveness of a structured educational intervention using psychological delivery methods in children and adolescents with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes: a cluster-randomized controlled trial of the CASCADE intervention

Introduction Type 1 diabetes (T1D) in children and adolescents is increasing worldwide with a particular increase in children <5 years. Fewer than 1 in 6 children and adolescents achieve recommended glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values. Methods A pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial assessed the efficacy of a clinic-based structured educational group incorporating psychological approaches to improve long-term glycemic control, quality of life and psychosocial functioning in children and adolescents with T1D. 28 pediatric diabetes services were randomized to deliver the intervention or standard care. 362 children (8–16 years) with HbA1c≥8.5% were recruited. Outcomes were HbA1c at 12 and 24 months, hypoglycemia, admissions, self-management skills, intervention compliance, emotional and behavioral adjustment, and quality of life. A process evaluation collected data from key stakeholder groups in order to evaluate the feasibility of delivering the intervention. Results 298/362 patients (82.3%) provided HbA1c at 12 months and 284/362 (78.5%) at 24 months. The intervention did not improve HbA1c at 12 months (intervention effect 0.11, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.50, p=0.584), or 24 months (intervention effect 0.03, 95% CI −0.36 to 0.41, p=0.891). There were no significant changes in remaining outcomes. 96/180 (53%) families in the intervention arm attended at least 1 module. The number of modules attended did not affect outcome. Reasons for low uptake included difficulties organizing groups and work and school commitments. Those with highest HbA1cs were less likely to attend. Mean cost of the intervention was £683 per child. Conclusions Significant challenges in the delivery of a structured education intervention using psychological techniques to enhance engagement and behavior change delivered by diabetes nurses and dietitians in routine clinical practice were found. The intervention did not improve HbA1c in children and adolescents with poor control. Trial registration number ISRCTN52537669, results.

Does Teaching Children How to Play Cognitively Demanding Games Improve Their Educational Attainment? Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial of Chess Instruction in England

A number of studies suggest that teaching children how to play chess may have an impact on their educational attainment. Yet the strength of this evidence is undermined by limitations with research design. This paper attempts to overcome these limitations by presenting evidence from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) involving more than 4,000 children in England. In contrast to much of the existing literature, we find no evidence of an effect of chess instruction on children’s mathematics, reading, or science test scores. Our results provide a timely reminder of the need for social scientists to employ robust research designs.

Evaluation of community-level interventions to increase early initiation of antenatal care in pregnancy: protocol for the Community REACH study, a cluster randomised controlled trial with integrated process and economic evaluations

BackgroundThe provision of high-quality maternity services is a priority for reducing inequalities in health outcomes for mothers and infants. Best practice includes women having their initial antenatal appointment within the first trimester of pregnancy in order to provide screening and support for healthy lifestyles, well-being and self-care in pregnancy. Previous research has identified inequalities in access to antenatal care, yet there is little evidence on interventions to improve early initiation of antenatal care. The Community REACH trial will assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of engaging communities in the co-production and delivery of an intervention that addresses this issue.Methods/designThe study design is a matched cluster randomised controlled trial with integrated process and economic evaluations. The unit of randomisation is electoral ward. The intervention will be delivered in 10 wards; 10 comparator wards will have normal practice. The primary outcome is the proportion of pregnant women attending their antenatal booking appointment by the 12th completed week of pregnancy. This and a number of secondary outcomes will be assessed for cohorts of women (n = approximately 1450 per arm) who give birth 2–7 and 8–13 months after intervention delivery completion in the included wards, using routinely collected maternity data. Eight hospitals commissioned to provide maternity services in six NHS trusts in north and east London and Essex have been recruited to the study. These trusts will provide anonymised routine data for randomisation and outcomes analysis. The process evaluation will examine intervention implementation, acceptability, reach and possible causal pathways. The economic evaluation will use a cost-consequences analysis and decision model to evaluate the intervention. Targeted community engagement in the research process was a priority.DiscussionCommunity REACH aims to increase early initiation of antenatal care using an intervention that is co-produced and delivered by local communities. This pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, with integrated process and economic evaluation, aims to rigorously assess the effectiveness of this public health intervention, which is particularly complex due to the required combination of standardisation with local flexibility. It will also answer questions about scalability and generalisability.Trial registrationISRCTN registry: registration number 63066975. Registered on 18 August 2015.

The nuts and bolts of conducting an integrated process evaluation: a presentation on the role and methods of the process evaluation integrated into a trial of a complex educational intervention for young people with diabetes (CASCADE)

The CASCADE study was a pragmatic cluster RCT, with integral process and economic evaluations, of a complex psycho-educational intervention for young people with diabetes. The study was funded by the NIHR-HTA and carried out by a multi-institutional team (UCL, IoE, LSHTM, & School of Pharmacy). The extensive integrated multi-method process evaluation was planned prospectively and ran for the four years of the trial. The aims of the process evaluation were to 1) assess the feasibility and describe the provision of the CASCADE intervention within a standard clinic setting for a diverse range of young people; and 2) build on and help explain trial outcome findings and provide information on how the intervention might be modified. The process evaluation used a range of both qualitative and quantitative methods including observations of education sessions; interviews with a sub sample of young people, parents and staff; questionnaires relating to views of the intervention; attendance data and case note review. Currently there is limited published guidance on how to conduct a high quality integrated process evaluation that improves the usefulness of trial findings. In this presentation, members of the CASCADE process evaluation research team will provide a detailed example of carrying out such an evaluation. The presentation will include; the justifications for the methodological approach used, descriptions of context and sampling, data collection and analysis methods. Attention will be drawn to the specific methodological processes and practical facilitators employed to maximize the integration of trial and process components.