The notion that acupuncture is an effective symptomatic treatment for fibromyaligia is not supported by the results from rigorous clinical trials. On the basis of this evidence, acupuncture cannot be recommended for fibromyalgia.

Background Reablement is an intensive, time-limited intervention for people at risk of needing social care or an increased intensity of care. Differing from home care, it seeks to restore functioning and self-care skills. In England, it is a core element of intermediate care. The existing evidence base is limited. Objectives To describe reablement services in England and develop a service model typology; to conduct a mixed-methods comparative evaluation of service models investigating outcomes, factors that have an impact on outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness, and user and practitioner experiences; and to investigate specialist reablement services/practices for people with dementia. Methods Work package (WP) 1, which took place in 2015, surveyed reablement services in England. Data were collected on organisational characteristics, service delivery and practice, and service costs and caseload. WP2 was an observational study of three reablement services, each representing a different service model. Data were collected on health (EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version) and social care related (Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit – self-completed) quality of life, practitioner (Barthel Index of Activities of Daily Living) and self-reported (Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale) functioning, individual and service characteristics, and resource use. They were collected on entry into reablement (n = 186), at discharge (n = 128) and, for those reaching the point on the study timeline, at 6 months post discharge (n = 64). Interviews with staff and service users explored experiences of delivering or receiving reablement and its perceived impacts. In WP3, staff in eight reablement services were interviewed to investigate their experiences of reabling people with dementia. Results A total of 201 services in 139 local authorities took part in the survey. Services varied in their organisational base, their relationship with other intermediate care services, their use of outsourced providers, their skill mix and the scope of their reablement input. These characteristics influenced aspects of service delivery and practice. The average cost per case was £1728. Lower than expected sample sizes meant that a comparison of service models in WP2 was not possible. The findings are preliminary. At discharge (T1), significant improvements in mean score on outcome measures, except self-reported functioning, were observed. Further improvements were observed at 6 months post discharge (T2), but these were significant for self-reported functioning only. There was some evidence that individual (e.g. engagement, mental health) and service (e.g. service structure) characteristics were associated with outcomes and resource use at T1. Staff’s views on factors affecting outcomes typically aligned with, or offered possible explanations for, these associations. However, it was not possible to establish the significance of these findings in terms of practice or commissioning decisions. Service users expressed satisfaction with reablement and identified two core impacts: regained independence and, during reablement, companionship. Staff participating in WP3 believed that people with dementia can benefit from reablement, but objectives may differ and expectations for regained independence may be inappropriate. Furthermore, staff believed that flexibility in practice (e.g. duration of home visits) should be incorporated into delivery models and adequate provision made for specialist training of staff. Conclusions The study contributes to our understanding of reablement, and what the impacts are on outcomes and costs. Staff believe that reablement can be appropriate for people with dementia. Findings will be of interest to commissioners and service managers. Future research should further investigate the factors that have an impact on outcomes, and reabling people with dementia. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Reablement – or restorative care – is a central feature of many western governments’ approaches to supporting and enabling older people to stay in their own homes and minimise demand for social care. Existing evidence supports this approach although further research is required to strengthen the certainty of conclusions being drawn. In countries where reablement has been rolled out nationally, an additional research priority – to develop an evidence base on models of delivery – is emerging. This paper reports a prospective cohort study of individuals referred to three English social care reablement services, each representing a different model of service delivery. Outcomes included healthcare‐ and social care–related quality of life, functioning, mental health and resource use (service costs, informal carer time, out‐of‐pocket costs). In contrast with the majority of other studies, self‐report measures were the predominant source of outcomes and resource use data. Furthermore, no previous evaluation has used a global measure of mental health. Outcomes data were collected on entry to the service, discharge and 6 months post discharge. A number of challenges were encountered during the study and insufficient individuals were recruited in two research sites to allow a comparison of service models. Findings from descriptive analyses of outcomes align with previous studies and positive changes were observed across all outcome domains. Improvements observed at discharge were, for most, retained at 6 months follow‐up. Patterns of change in functional ability point to the importance of assessing functioning in terms of basic and extended activities of daily living. Findings from the economic evaluation highlight the importance of collecting data on informal carer time and also demonstrate the viability of collecting resource use data direct from service users. The study demonstrates challenges, and value, of including self‐report outcome and resource use measures in evaluations of reablement.

Background The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends that every locality has a ‘Specialist Autism Team’: an specialist autism, community-based, multidisciplinary service that is responsible for developing, co-ordinating and delivering care and support. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended that this novel delivery model was evaluated. Objectives The objectives were to identify services fulfilling the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s description of a Specialist Autism Team; to describe practitioner and user experiences; to investigate outcomes; to identify factors associated with these outcomes; and to estimate costs and investigate cost-effectiveness of these services. Design During stage 1, desk-based research and a survey to identify Specialist Autism Teams were carried out. Stage 2 comprised a mixed-methods observational study of a cohort of Specialist Autism Team users, which was followed for up to 2 years from the assessment appointment. The cohort comprised users of a Specialist Autism Team not previously diagnosed with autism (the ‘Diagnosis and Support’ group) and those already diagnosed (the ‘Support-Only’ group). Stage 2 also involved a nested qualitative study of senior practitioners and an exploratory comparison of the Diagnosis and Support group with a cohort who accessed a service which only provided autism diagnostic assessments (‘Diagnosis-Only’ cohort). Setting The setting in stage 2 was nine Specialist Autism Teams; three also provided a regional diagnostic assessment service (used to recruit the Diagnosis-Only cohort). Participants There were 252 participants in the Specialist Autism Team cohort (Diagnosis and Support, n = 164; Support Only, n = 88) and 56 participants in the Diagnosis-Only cohort. Thirty-eight participants (across both cohorts) were recruited to the qualitative evaluation and 11 practitioners to the nested qualitative study. Main outcome measures The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment, abbreviated version (psychological domain) and the General Health Questionnaire (12-item version). Data sources Self-reported outcomes, qualitative interviews with users and focus groups with practitioners. Results A total of 18 Specialist Autism Teams were identified, all for autistic adults without learning disabilities. Services varied in their characteristics. The resources available, commissioner specifications and clinical opinion determined service design. Practitioners working in Specialist Autism Teams recruited to stage 2 reported year-on-year increases in referral rates without commensurate increases in funding. They called for an expansion of Specialist Autism Teams’ consultation/supervision function and resources for low-intensity, ongoing support. For the Specialist Autism Team cohort, there was evidence of prevention of deterioration in outcomes and positive benefit for the Diagnosis and Support group at the 1-year follow-up (T3). Users of services with more professions involved were likely to experience better outcomes; however, such services may not be considered cost-effective. Some service characteristics were not associated with outcomes, suggesting that different structural/organisational models are acceptable. Findings suggest that one-to-one work for mental health problems was cost-effective and an episodic approach to delivering care plans was more cost-effective than managed care. Qualitative findings generally align with quantitative findings; however, users consistently connected a managed-care approach to supporting improvement in outcomes. Among the Diagnosis-Only cohort, no changes in mental health outcomes at T3 were observed. Findings from the interviews with individuals in the Diagnosis and Support group and Diagnosis-Only cohort suggest that extended psychoeducation post diagnosis has an impact on immediate and longer-term adjustment. Limitations Sample size prohibited an investigation of the associations between some service characteristics and outcomes. Comparison of the Diagnosis-Only cohort and the Diagnosis and Support group was underpowered. The economic evaluation was limited by incomplete costs data. Conclusions The study provides first evidence on the implementation of Specialist Autism Teams. There is some evidence of benefit for this model of care. Service characteristics that may affect outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness were identified. Finding suggest that extended psychoeducation post diagnosis is a critical element of Specialist Autism Team provision. Future work We recommend a comparative evaluation of Specialist Autism Teams with diagnosis-only provision, and an evaluation of models of providing consultation/supervision and low-intensity support. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Patient or user engagement with health and social care interventions is receiving increased attention and interest within practice settings and research. An English evaluation of three reablement services wished to include a measure of user‐engagement so as to explore its association with outcomes. As no measure of reablement engagement existed, an existing measure designed for use with physical rehabilitation patients (the Hopkins Rehabilitation Engagement Rating Scale) was adapted and its psychometric properties were tested. The adapted version was completed by reablement staff at the time an individual (n = 129) was discharged from one of the three reablement services. Outcomes data (Barthel Index, Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale, General Health Questionnaire‐12) collected by the evaluation study at baseline (that is, at entry into reablement), discharge and 6 months postdischarge was used for some psychometric testing. Internal consistency and construct, predictive and discriminant validity were investigated. The adapted scale measured a single construct and had good internal consistency. Tests of predictive and discriminant validity were positive. Findings from a separate, small‐scale (n = 31) test–retest study offer an early indication that this is acceptable. There was, however, evidence of a ceiling effect and we consider ways this may be ameliorated. The Hopkins Rehabilitation Engagement Rating Scale – Reablement Version offers a means by which user engagement in reablement can be measured using a staff‐completed instrument. The association between engagement and reablement outcomes, revealed when testing for predictive validity, supports the argument for greater attention and investment in research on user engagement in reablement. More broadly, researching engagement within the context of an intervention often delivered by multiple practitioners offers the opportunity to further understand this concept which, in the past, has particularly focused on interventions delivered by a single practitioner. In addition, future work should include developing a companion measure completed by service users.