IMPORTANCE There is little evidence to guide management of depressive symptoms in older people. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether a collaborative care intervention can reduce depressive symptoms and prevent more severe depression in older people. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial conducted from May 24, 2011, to November 14, 2014, in 32 primary care centers in the United Kingdom among 705 participants aged 65 years or older with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) subthreshold depression; participants were followed up for 12 months. INTERVENTIONS Collaborative care (n=344) was coordinated by a case manager who assessed functional impairments relating to mood symptoms. Participants were offered behavioral activation and completed an average of 6 weekly sessions. The control group received usual primary care (n=361). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was self-reported depression severity at 4-month follow-up on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; score range, 0-27). Included among 10 prespecified secondary outcomes were the PHQ-9 score at 12-month follow-up and the proportion meeting criteria for depressive disorder (PHQ-9 score Ն10) at 4-and 12-month follow-up. RESULTS The 705 participants were 58% female with a mean age of 77 (SD, 7.1) years. Four-month retention was 83%, with higher loss to follow-up in collaborative care (82/344 [24%]) vs usual care (37/361 [10%]). Collaborative care resulted in lower PHQ-9 scores vs usual care at 4-month follow-up. The proportions of participants meeting criteria for depression at 4-month follow-up were 17.2% (45/262) vs 23.5% (76/324), respectively (difference, −6.3% [95% CI, −12.8% to 0.2%]; relative risk, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.61-1.27]; P = .25) and at 12-month follow-up were 15.7% (37/235) vs 27.8% (79/284) (difference, −12.1% [95% CI, −19.1% to −5.1%]; relative risk, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.46-0.91]; P = .01). Collaborative Care Usual Care Difference (95% CI) P Value PHQ-9 score, mean At 4 mo (primary outcome) 5.36 6.67 −1.31 (−1.95 to −0.67) <.001 At 12 mo 5.93 7.25 −1.33 (−2.10 to −0.55) .001 CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among older adults with subthreshold depression, collaborative care compared with usual care resulted in a statistically significant difference in depressive symptoms at 4-month follow-up, of uncertain clinical importance. Although differences persisted through 12 months, findings are limited by attrition, and further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy.

Current interventions need to be adapted to address features other than binge eating. Further research is required to help us understand the effectiveness of GSH in children and young people, invariably high dropout rates and how technology can enhance interventions. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and Eating Disorders Association.

Background Older adults, including those with long-term conditions (LTCs), are vulnerable to social isolation. They are likely to have become more socially isolated during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, often due to advice to “shield” to protect them from infection. This places them at particular risk of depression and loneliness. There is a need for brief scalable psychosocial interventions to mitigate the psychological impacts of social isolation. Behavioural activation (BA) is a credible candidate intervention, but a trial is needed. Methods and findings We undertook an external pilot parallel randomised trial (ISRCTN94091479) designed to test recruitment, retention and engagement with, and the acceptability and preliminary effects of the intervention. Participants aged ≥65 years with 2 or more LTCs were recruited in primary care and randomised by computer and with concealed allocation between June and October 2020. BA was offered to intervention participants (n = 47), and control participants received usual primary care (n = 49). Assessment of outcome was made blind to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was depression severity (measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9)). We also measured health-related quality of life (measured by the Short Form (SF)-12v2 mental component scale (MCS) and physical component scale (PCS)), anxiety (measured by the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7)), perceived social and emotional loneliness (measured by the De Jong Gierveld Scale: 11-item loneliness scale). Outcome was measured at 1 and 3 months. The mean age of participants was aged 74 years (standard deviation (SD) 5.5) and they were mostly White (n = 92, 95.8%), and approximately two-thirds of the sample were female (n = 59, 61.5%). Remote recruitment was possible, and 45/47 (95.7%) randomised to the intervention completed 1 or more sessions (median 6 sessions) out of 8. A total of 90 (93.8%) completed the 1-month follow-up, and 86 (89.6%) completed the 3-month follow-up, with similar rates for control (1 month: 45/49 and 3 months 44/49) and intervention (1 month: 45/47and 3 months: 42/47) follow-up. Between-group comparisons were made using a confidence interval (CI) approach, and by adjusting for the covariate of interest at baseline. At 1 month (the primary clinical outcome point), the median number of completed sessions for people receiving the BA intervention was 3, and almost all participants were still receiving the BA intervention. The between-group comparison for the primary clinical outcome at 1 month was an adjusted between-group mean difference of −0.50 PHQ-9 points (95% CI −2.01 to 1.01), but only a small number of participants had completed the intervention at this point. At 3 months, the PHQ-9 adjusted mean difference (AMD) was 0.19 (95% CI −1.36 to 1.75). When we examined loneliness, the adjusted between-group difference in the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale at 1 month was 0.28 (95% CI −0.51 to 1.06) and at 3 months −0.87 (95% CI −1.56 to −0.18), suggesting evidence of benefit of the intervention at this time point. For anxiety, the GAD adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 0.20 (−1.33, 1.73) and at 3 months 0.31 (−1.08, 1.70). For the SF-12 (physical component score), the adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 0.34 (−4.17, 4.85) and at 3 months 0.11 (−4.46, 4.67). For the SF-12 (mental component score), the adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 1.91 (−2.64, 5.15) and at 3 months 1.26 (−2.64, 5.15). Participants who withdrew had minimal depressive symptoms at entry. There were no adverse events. The Behavioural Activation in Social Isolation (BASIL) study had 2 main limitations. First, we found that the intervention was still being delivered at the prespecified primary outcome point, and this fed into the design of the main trial where a primary outcome of 3 months is now collected. Second, this was a pilot trial and was not designed to test between-group differences with high levels of statistical power. Type 2 errors are likely to have occurred, and a larger trial is now underway to test for robust effects and replicate signals of effectiveness in important secondary outcomes such as loneliness. Conclusions In this study, we observed that BA is a credible intervention to mitigate the psychological impacts of COVID-19 isolation for older adults. We demonstrated that it is feasible to undertake a trial of BA. The intervention can be delivered remotely and at scale, but should be reserved for older adults with evidence of depressive symptoms. The significant reduction in loneliness is unlikely to be a chance finding, and replication will be explored in a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT). Trial registration ISRCTN94091479.

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 10/57/43. The contractual start date was in September 2012. The draft report began editorial review in July 2016 and was accepted for publication in February 2017. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. Published by ...

Aims To explore the association between the use of glycaemic technologies and person‐reported outcomes (PROs) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods We included T1D and technology publications reporting on PROs since 2014. Only randomised controlled trials and cohort studies that used validated PRO measures (PROMs) were considered. Results T1D studies reported on a broad range of validated PROMs, mainly as secondary outcome measures. Most studies examined continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM), and the role of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), including sensor‐augmented CSII and closed loop systems. Generally, studies demonstrated a positive impact of technology on hypoglycaemia‐specific and diabetes‐specific PROs, including reduced fear of hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress, and greater satisfaction with diabetes treatment. In contrast, generic PROMs (including measures of health/functional status, emotional well‐being, depressive symptoms, and sleep quality) were less likely to demonstrate improvements associated with the use of glycaemic technologies. Several studies showed contradictory findings, which may relate to study design, population and length of follow‐up. Differences in PRO findings were apparent between randomised controlled trials and cohort studies, which may be due to different populations studied and/or disparity between trial and real‐world conditions. Conclusions PROs are usually assessed as secondary outcomes in glycaemic technology studies. Hypoglycaemia‐specific and diabetes‐specific, but not generic, PROs show the benefits of glycaemic technologies, and deserve a more central role in future studies as well as routine clinical care.

250wBackground: There is a paucity of research on the nature of life adversity in depressed and nondepressed older adults. Early life events work used in-depth interviews; however, larger epidemiological trials investigate life adversity using brief questionnaires. This study investigates the type of life adversity experienced in later life and its association with depression and compares adversity captured using a brief (LTE-Q) and in-depth (LEDS) measure.Methods: 960 participants over 65 years were recruited in UK primary care to complete the PHQ-9 and LTE-Q.A sub-sample (n=19) completed the LEDS and a question exploring the subjective experience of the LTE-Q and LEDS.Results: Important life adversity was reported on the LTE-Q in 48% of the sample. In the LTE-Q sample the prevalence of depression (PHQ-E the odds of depression. The LTE-Q only captured a proportion of adversity measured by the LEDS (42% vs 84%). Both measures showed health, bereavement and relationship events were most common.Limitations: The cross-sectional design limits the extent to which inferences can be drawn around the direction of causality between adversity and depression. Recall in older adults is questionable.Conclusions: UK older adults face adversity in areas of health, bereavement and relationships which are associated with depression. This has clinical relevance for psychological interventions for older adults to consider social context and social support. It helps identify the strengths and weaknesses of a brief adversity measure in large scale research. Further research is needed to explore the mechanisms of onset and direction of causality.

Background: People living with serious mental illness (SMI) experience debilitating symptoms that worsen their physical health and quality of life. Regular physical activity (PA) may bring symptomatic improvements and enhance wellbeing. When undertaken in community-based group settings, PA may yield additional benefits such as reduced isolation. Initiating PA can be difficult for people with SMI, so PA engagement is commonly low. Designing acceptable and effective PA programs requires a better understanding of the lived experiences of PA initiation among people with SMI. Methods: This systematic review of qualitative studies used the meta-ethnography approach by Noblit and Hare (1988). Electronic databases were searched from inception to November 2017. Eligible studies used qualitative methodology; involved adults (≥18 years) with schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder, major depressive disorder, or psychosis; reported community-based group PA; and captured the experience of PA initiation, including key features of social support. Study selection and quality assessment were performed by four reviewers. Results: Sixteen studies were included in the review. We identified a "journey" that depicted a long sequence of phases involved in initiating PA. The journey demonstrated the thought processes, expectations, barriers, and support needs of people with SMI. In particular, social support from a trusted source played an important role in getting people to the activity, both physically and emotionally. Discussion: The journey illustrated that initiation of PA for people with SMI is a long complex transition. This complex process needs to be understood before ongoing participation in PA can be addressed. Registration-The review was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 22/03/2017 (registration number CRD42017059948).

BackgroundEfforts to reduce the burden of illness and personal suffering associated with depression in older adults have focused on those with more severe depressive syndromes. Less attention has been paid to those with mild disorders/subthreshold depression, but these patients also suffer significant impairments in their quality of life and level of functioning. There is currently no clear evidence-based guidance regarding treatment for this patient group.ObjectivesTo establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a low-intensity intervention of collaborative care for primary care older adults who screened positive for subthreshold depression.DesignA pragmatic, multicentred, two-arm, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial with a qualitative study embedded within the pilot. Randomisation occurred after informed consent and baseline measures were collected.SettingThirty-two general practitioner (GP) practices in the north of England.ParticipantsA total of 705 participants aged ≥ 75 years during the pilot phase and ≥ 65 years during the main trial with subthreshold depression.InterventionsParticipants in the intervention group received a low-intensity intervention of collaborative care, which included behavioural activation delivered by a case manager for an average of six sessions over 7–8 weeks, alongside usual GP care. Control-arm participants received only usual GP care.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was a self-reported measure of depression severity, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items PHQ-9 score at 4 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder seven-item scale, Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale two-item version, a medication questionnaire and objective data. Participants were followed up for 12 months.ResultsIn total, 705 participants were randomised (collaborative caren = 344, usual caren = 361), with 586 participants (83%; collaborative care 76%, usual care 90%) followed up at 4 months and 519 participants (74%; collaborative care 68%, usual care 79%) followed up at 12 months. Attrition was markedly greater in the collaborative care arm. Model estimates at the primary end point of 4 months revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of collaborative care compared with usual care [mean difference 1.31 score points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.95 score points;p < 0.001]. The difference equates to a standard effect size of 0.30, for which the trial was powered. Treatment differences measured by the PHQ-9 were maintained at 12 months’ follow-up (mean difference 1.33 score points, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.10 score points;p = 0.001). Base-case cost-effectiveness analysis found that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £9633 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). On average, participants allocated to collaborative care displayed significantly higher QALYs than those allocated to the control group (annual difference in adjusted QALYs of 0.044, 95% bias-corrected CI 0.015 to 0.072;p = 0.003).ConclusionsCollaborative care has been shown to be clinically effective and cost-effective for older adults with subthreshold depression and to reduce the proportion of people who go on to develop case-level depression at 12 months. This intervention could feasibly be delivered in the NHS at an acceptable cost–benefit ratio. Important future work would include investigating the longer-term effect of collaborative care on the CASPER population, which could be conducted by introducing an extension to follow-up, and investigating the impact of collaborative care on managing multimorbidities in people with subthreshold depression.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN02202951.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.