Jess Hugill-Jones

Aims A pilon fracture is a severe ankle joint injury caused by high-energy trauma, typically affecting men of working age. Although relatively uncommon (5% to 7% of all tibial fractures), this injury causes among the worst functional and health outcomes of any skeletal injury, with a high risk of serious complications and long-term disability, and with devastating consequences on patients’ quality of life and financial prospects. Robust evidence to guide treatment is currently lacking. This study aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two surgical interventions that are most commonly used to treat pilon fractures. Methods A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 334 adult patients diagnosed with a closed type C pilon fracture will be conducted. Internal locking plate fixation will be compared with external frame fixation. The primary outcome and endpoint will be the Disability Rating Index (a patient self-reported assessment of physical disability) at 12 months. This will also be measured at baseline, three, six, and 24 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes include the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), the five-level EuroQol five-dimenison score (EQ-5D-5L), complications (including bone healing), resource use, work impact, and patient treatment preference. The acceptability of the treatments and study design to patients and health care professionals will be explored through qualitative methods. Discussion The two treatments being compared are the most commonly used for this injury, however there is uncertainty over which is most clinically and cost-effective. The Articular Pilon Fracture (ACTIVE) Trial is a sufficiently powered and rigorously designed study to inform clinical decisions for the treatment of adults with this injury. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(3):150–163.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is common in older adults and associated with high levels of illness burden and healthcare expenditure. The evidence base for how to manage older adults with multimorbidity is weak. Yoga might be a useful intervention because it has the potential to improve health-related quality of life, physical functioning, and several medical conditions. The British Wheel of Yoga's Gentle Years Yoga© (GYY) programme was developed specifically for older adults, including those with chronic medical conditions. Data from a pilot trial suggested feasibility of using GYY in this population, but its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness remain uncertain. METHODS: This is a multi-site, individually randomised, superiority trial with an embedded process evaluation and an economic analysis of cost-effectiveness. The trial will compare an experimental strategy of offering a 12-week GYY programme against a control strategy of no offer in community-dwelling adults aged 65 or over who have multimorbidity, defined as having two or more chronic conditions from a predefined list. The primary outcome is health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5L, the primary endpoint being the overall difference over 12 months. Both groups will continue to be able to access their usual care from primary, secondary, community, and social services. Participants, care providers, and yoga teachers will not be blinded to the allocated intervention. Outcome measures are primarily self-reported. The analysis will follow intention-to-treat principles. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic randomised controlled trial will demonstrate if the GYY programme is an effective, cost-effective, and viable addition to the management of older adults with multimorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN13567538 . Registered on 18 March 2019.

Background: People with multiple long-term conditions are more likely to have poorer health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Yoga has the potential to improve HRQOL. Gentle Years Yoga© (GYY) is a chair-based yoga programme for older adults. We investigated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the GYY programme in older adults with multiple long-term conditions. Methods: In this pragmatic, multi-site, open, randomised controlled trial, we recruited adults aged ≥65 years with ≥2 long-term conditions from 15 primary care practices in England and Wales. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care control or a 12-week, group-based, GYY programme delivered face-to-face or online by qualified yoga teachers. The primary outcome was HRQOL (EQ-5D-5L) over 12 months. Secondary outcomes included anxiety, depression, falls, loneliness, healthcare resource use, and adverse events. Results: Between October 2019 and October 2021, 454 participants were randomised between the intervention (n=240) and control (n=214) groups. Seven GYY courses were delivered face-to-face and 12 courses were delivered online. The mean number of classes attended among all intervention participants was nine (SD 4, median 10). In our intention-to-treat analysis (n=422), there was no statistically significant difference between trial groups in the primary outcome of HRQOL (adjusted difference in mean EQ-5D-5L = 0.020 [favouring intervention]; 95% CI -0.006 to 0.045, p=0.14). There were also no statistically significant differences in key secondary outcomes. No serious, related adverse events were reported. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £4,546 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and the intervention had a 79% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY. The intervention was acceptable to most participants and perceived as useful by some. Conclusions: The offer of a 12-week chair-based yoga programme in addition to usual care did not improve HRQOL in older adults with multiple long-term conditions. However, the intervention was safe, acceptable, and probably cost-effective.

<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> Monetary and other incentives may increase recruitment to randomised controlled trials. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> 2x2 factorial ‘study within a trial’ of including a pen and/or £5 (GBP) in cash with a postal recruitment pack to increase the number of participants randomised into the host trial (‘Gentle Years Yoga’) for older adults with multimorbidity. Secondary outcomes: return, and time to return, of screening form, and the cost per additional participant randomised. Binary data were analysed using logistic regression and time to return using Cox proportional hazards regression. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results: </ns4:bold> 818 potential host trial participants were included. Between those sent a pen (n=409) and not sent a pen (n=409), there was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants randomised (15 (3.7%) <ns4:italic>versus</ns4:italic> 11 (2.7%); OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.63–3.04), in returning a screening form (66 (16.1%) <ns4:italic>versus</ns4:italic> 61 (14.9%); OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.75–1.61) nor in time to return the screening form (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.77–1.55). Between those sent £5 (n=409) and not sent £5 (n=409), there was no evidence of increased randomisation (14 (3.4%) <ns4:italic>versus</ns4:italic> 12 (2.9%); OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.54–2.57), but more screening forms were returned (77 (18.8%) <ns4:italic>versus</ns4:italic> 50 (12.2%); OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.13–2.45) and there was decreased time to return screening form (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.09–2.22). No significant interaction between the interventions was observed. The cost per additional participant randomised was £32 and £1000 for the pen and £5, respectively. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusion: </ns4:bold> A small, monetary incentive did not result in more participants being randomised into the host trial but did encourage increased and faster response to the recruitment invitation. Since it is relatively costly, we do not recommend this intervention for use to increase recruitment in this population. Pens were cheaper but did not provide evidence of benefit. </ns4:p>

Abstract Background Although considered important, the direct involvement of young children in research design is scarce and to our knowledge its impact has never been measured. We aim to demonstrate impact of young children’s involvement in improving the understanding of a new 3D eye test or stereotest. Methods After a pre-measure of understanding was taken, we explored issues with the test instructions in patient and public involvement (PPI) sessions where children acted as advisers in the test design. Feedback was collected via observations, rating scales and verbal comments. An interdisciplinary panel reviewed the feedback, discussed potential changes to the test design, and decided on the implementation. Subsequently, a post-measure of understanding (Study 1–2) and engagement (Study 3) was collected in a pre-post study design. Six hundred fifty children (2–11.8 years old) took part in the pre-measure, 111 children (1–12 years old) in the subsequent PPI sessions, and 52 children (4–6 years old) in the first post-measure. One hundred twenty-two children (1–12 years old) and unrelated adults took then part in a second series of PPI sessions, and 53 people (2–39 years old) in the final post-measure. Adults were involved to obtain verbal descriptions of the target that could be used to explain the task to children. Results Following feedback in Study 1, we added a frame cue and included a shuffle animation. This increased the percentage of correct practice trials from 76 to 97% (t (231) = 14.29, p &lt; .001), but more encouragements like ‘Keep going!’ were needed (t (64) = 8.25, p &lt; .001). After adding a cardboard demo in Study 2, the percentage of correct trials remained stable but the number of additional instructions given decreased (t (103) = 3.72, p &lt; .001) as did the number of encouragements (t (103) = 8.32, p &lt; .001). Therefore, changes in test design following children’s feedback significantly improved task understanding. Conclusions Our study demonstrates measurable impact of involvement of very young children in research design through accessible activities. The changes implemented following their feedback significantly improved the understanding of our test. Our approach can inform researchers on how to involve young children in research design and can contribute to developing guidelines for involvement of young children in research.