Statistics in Practice is an important international series of texts, which provide detailed coverage of statistical concepts, methods and worked case studies in specific fields of investigation and study.With sound motivation and many worked practical examples, the books show in down-to-earth terms how to select and use an appropriate range of statistical techniques in a particular practical field within each title's special topic area.The books provide statistical support for professionals and research workers across a range of employment fields and research environments. Subject areas covered include medicine and pharmaceutics; industry, finance and commerce; public services; the earth and environmental sciences, and so on.The books also provide support to students studying statistical courses applied to the above areas. The demand for graduates to be equipped for the work environment has led to such courses becoming increasingly prevalent at universities and colleges.It is our aim to present judiciously chosen and well-written workbooks to meet everyday practical needs. The feedback of views from readers will be most valuable to monitor the success of this aim.A complete list of titles in this series appears at the end of the volume.ii

IntroductionData on quality of life beyond 2 years after intensive care discharge are limited and we aimed to explore this area further. Our objective was to quantify quality of life and health utilities in the 5 years after intensive care discharge.MethodsA prospective longitudinal cohort study in a University Hospital in the UK. Quality of life was assessed from the period before ICU admission until 5 years and quality adjusted life years calculated.Results300 level 3 intensive care patients of median age 60.5 years and median length of stay 6.7 days, were recruited. Physical quality of life fell to 3 months (P = 0.003), rose back to pre-morbid levels at 12 months then fell again from 2.5 to 5 years after intensive care (P = 0.002). Mean physical scores were below the population norm at all time points but the mean mental scores after 6 months were similar to those population norms. The utility value measured using the EuroQOL-5D quality of life assessment tool (EQ-5D) at 5 years was 0.677. During the five years after intensive care unit, the cumulative quality adjusted life years were significantly lower than that expected for the general population (P < 0.001).ConclusionsIntensive care unit admission is associated with a high mortality, a poor physical quality of life and a low quality adjusted life years gained compared to the general population for 5 years after discharge. In this group, critical illness associated with ICU admission should be treated as a life time diagnosis with associated excess mortality, morbidity and the requirement for ongoing health care support.

Objectives To test the hypothesis that nurse led follow-up programmes are effective and cost effective in improving quality of life after discharge from intensive care.Design A pragmatic, non-blinded, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.Setting Three UK hospitals (two teaching hospitals and one district general hospital).Participants 286 patients aged ≥18 years were recruited after discharge from intensive care between September 2006 and October 2007.Intervention Nurse led intensive care follow-up programmes versus standard care.Main outcome measure(s) Health related quality of life (measured with the SF-36 questionnaire) at 12 months after randomisation. A cost effectiveness analysis was also performed.Results 286 patients were recruited and 192 completed one year follow-up. At 12 months, there was no evidence of a difference in the SF-36 physical component score (mean 42.0 (SD 10.6) v 40.8 (SD 11.9), effect size 1.1 (95% CI −1.9 to 4.2), P=0.46) or the SF-36 mental component score (effect size 0.4 (−3.0 to 3.7), P=0.83). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes or subgroup analyses. Follow-up programmes were significantly more costly than standard care and are unlikely to be considered cost effective.Conclusions A nurse led intensive care follow-up programme showed no evidence of being effective or cost effective in improving patients' quality of life in the year after discharge from intensive care. Further work should focus on the roles of early physical rehabilitation, delirium, cognitive dysfunction, and relatives in recovery from critical illness. Intensive care units should review their follow-up programmes in light of these results.Trial registration ISRCTN 24294750

Objective To determine whether inclusion of glutamine, selenium, or both in a standard isonitrogenous, isocaloric preparation of parenteral nutrition influenced new infections and mortality among critically ill patients. Design Randomised, double blinded, factorial, controlled trial. Setting Level 2 and 3 (or combined) critical care units in Scotland. All 22 units were invited, and 10 participated. Participants 502 adults in intensive care units and high dependency units for ≥48 hours, with gastrointestinal failure and requiring parenteral nutrition. Interventions Parenteral glutamine (20.2 g/day) or selenium (500 μg/day), or both, for up to seven days. Main outcome measures Primary outcomes were participants with new infections in the first 14 days and mortality. An intention to treat analysis and a prespecified analysis of patients who received ≥5 days of the trial intervention are presented. Secondary outcomes included critical care unit and acute hospital lengths of stay, days of antibiotic use, and modified SOFA (Sepsisrelated Organ Failure Assessment) score. Results Selenium supplementation did not significantly affect patients developing a new infection (126/251 v 139/251, odds ratio 0.81 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.15)), except for those who had received ≥5 days of supplementation (odds ratio 0.53 (0.30 to 0.93)). There was no overall effect of glutamine on new infections (134/250 v 131/ 252, odds ratio 1.07 (0.75 to 1.53)), even if patients received ≥5 days of supplementation (odds ratio 0.99 (0.56 to 1.75)). Six month mortality was not significantly different for selenium (107/251 v 114/251, odds ratio 0.89 (0.62 to 1.29)) or glutamine (115/250 v 106/252, 1.18 (0.82 to 1.70)). Length of stay, days of antibiotic use, and modified SOFA score were not significantly affected by selenium or glutamine supplementation. Conclusions The primary (intention to treat) analysis showed no effect on new infections or on mortality when parenteral nutrition was supplemented with glutamine or selenium. Patients who received parenteral nutrition supplemented with selenium for ≥5 days did show a reduction in new infections. This finding requires confirmation. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN87144826INTRODUCTION Infection and sepsis are major causes of increased mortality, morbidity, and resource use in intensive care units. They are associated with both illness and drug related impairment of the immune system, compounded by malnutrition often observed in patients admitted to critical care. 1The enteral feeding route is preferred for critically ill patients because of its reduced costs and risk of infective complications.2 Parenteral nutrition, however, has an important role because many intensive care patients have gastrointestinal dysfunction. 3Recent systematic reviews have suggested that parenteral administration of glutamine to critically ill patients reduces mortality (risk ratio 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.55 to 0.92)) and new infections (risk ratio 0.76 (0.62 to 0.93)). 4 Selenium supplementati...

ObjectivesTo investigate whether intergroup contact in addition to education is more effective than education alone in reducing stigma of mental illness in adolescents.DesignA pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial compared education alone with education plus contact. Blocking was used to randomly stratify classes within schools to condition. Random allocation was concealed, generated by a computer algorithm, and undertaken after pretest. Data was collected at pretest and 2-week follow-up. Analyses use an intention-to-treat basis.SettingSecondary schools in Birmingham, UK.ParticipantsThe parents and guardians of all students in year 8 (age 12–13 years) were approached to take part.InterventionsA 1-day educational programme in each school led by mental health professional staff. Students in the ‘contact’ condition received an interactive session with a young person with lived experience of mental illness.OutcomesThe primary outcome was students’ attitudinal stigma of mental illness. Secondary outcomes included knowledge-based stigma, mental health literacy, emotional well-being and resilience, and help-seeking attitudes.ResultsParticipants were recruited between 1 May 2011 and 30 April 2012. 769 participants completed the pretest and were randomised to condition. 657 (85%) provided follow-up data. At 2-week follow-up, attitudinal stigma improved in both conditions with no significant effect of condition (95% CI −0.40 to 0.22, p=0.5, d=0.01). Significant improvements were found in the education-alone condition compared with the contact and education condition for the secondary outcomes of knowledge-based stigma, mental health literacy, emotional well-being and resilience, and help-seeking attitudes.ConclusionsContact was found to reduce the impact of the intervention for a number of outcomes. Caution is advised before employing intergroup contact with younger student age groups. The education intervention appeared to be successful in reducing stigma, promoting mental health knowledge, and increasing mental health literacy, as well as improving emotional well-being and resilience. A larger trial is needed to confirm these results.Trial registration numberISRCTN07406026; Results.