Objective To describe variation in antibiotic prescribing for acute cough in contrasting European settings and the impact on recovery. Design Cross sectional observational study with clinicians from 14 primary care research networks in 13 European countries who recorded symptoms on presentation and management. Patients followed up for 28 days with patient diaries. Setting Primary care. Participants Adults with a new or worsening cough or clinical presentation suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection. Main outcome measures Prescribing of antibiotics by clinicians and total symptom severity scores over time. Results 3402 patients were recruited (clinicians completed a case report form for 99% (3368) of participants and 80% (2714) returned a symptom diary). Mean symptom severity scores at presentation ranged from 19 (scale range 0 to 100) in networks based in Spain and Italy to 38 in the network based in Sweden. Antibiotic prescribing by networks ranged from 20% to nearly 90% (53% overall), with wide variation in classes of antibiotics prescribed. Amoxicillin was overall the most common antibiotic prescribed, but this ranged from 3% of antibiotics prescribed in the Norwegian network to 83% in the English network. While fluoroquinolones were not prescribed at all in three networks, they were prescribed for 18% in the Milan network. After adjustment for clinical presentation and demographics, considerable differences remained in antibiotic prescribing, ranging from Norway (odds ratio 0.18, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.30) to Slovakia (11.2, 6.20 to 20.27) compared with the overall mean (proportion prescribed: 0.53). The rate of recovery was similar for patients who were and were not prescribed antibiotics (coefficient −0.01, P<0.01) once clinical presentation was taken into account.

Objective To establish whether an interactive booklet on respiratory tract infections in children reduces reconsultation for the same illness episode, reduces antibiotic use, and affects future consulting intentions, while maintaining parental satisfaction with care.Design Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting 61 general practices in Wales and England.Participants 558 children (6 months to 14 years) presenting to primary care with an acute respiratory tract infection (7 days or less). Children with suspected pneumonia, asthma or a serious concomitant illness, or needing immediate hospital admission were excluded. Three withdrew and 27 were lost to follow-up, leaving 528 (94.6%) with main outcome data.Interventions Clinicians in the intervention group were trained in the use of an interactive booklet on respiratory tract infections and asked to use the booklet during consultations with recruited patients (and provide it as a take home resource). Clinicians in the control group conducted their consultations as usual.Main outcome measures The proportion of children who attended a face-to-face consultation about the same illness during the two week follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included antibiotic prescribing, antibiotic consumption, future consulting intentions, and parental satisfaction, reassurance, and enablement.Results Reconsultation occurred in 12.9% of children in the intervention group and 16.2% in the control group (absolute risk reduction 3.3%, 95% confidence interval −2.7% to 9.3%, P=0.29). Using multilevel modelling (at the practice and individual level) to account for clustering, no significant difference in reconsulting was noted (odds ratio 0.75; 0.41 to 1.38). Antibiotics were prescribed at the index consultation to 19.5% of children in the intervention group and 40.8% of children in the control group (absolute risk reduction 21.3%, 95% confidence interval 13.7 to 28.9), P<0.001). A significant difference was still present after adjusting for clustering (odds ratio 0.29; 0.14 to 0.60). There was also a significant difference in the proportion of parents who said they would consult in the future if their child developed a similar illness (odds ratio 0.34; 0.20 to 0.57). Satisfaction, reassurance, and parental enablement scores were not significantly different between the two groups.Conclusions Use of a booklet on respiratory tract infections in children within primary care consultations led to important reductions in antibiotic prescribing and reduced intention to consult without reducing satisfaction with care.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46104365

Objective The HOME BP (Home and Online Management and Evaluation of Blood Pressure) trial aimed to test a digital intervention for hypertension management in primary care by combining self-monitoring of blood pressure with guided self-management. Design Unmasked randomised controlled trial with automated ascertainment of primary endpoint. Setting 76 general practices in the United Kingdom. Participants 622 people with treated but poorly controlled hypertension (>140/90 mm Hg) and access to the internet. Interventions Participants were randomised by using a minimisation algorithm to self-monitoring of blood pressure with a digital intervention (305 participants) or usual care (routine hypertension care, with appointments and drug changes made at the discretion of the general practitioner; 317 participants). The digital intervention provided feedback of blood pressure results to patients and professionals with optional lifestyle advice and motivational support. Target blood pressure for hypertension, diabetes, and people aged 80 or older followed UK national guidelines. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the difference in systolic blood pressure (mean of second and third readings) after one year, adjusted for baseline blood pressure, blood pressure target, age, and practice, with multiple imputation for missing values. Results After one year, data were available from 552 participants (88.6%) with imputation for the remaining 70 participants (11.4%). Mean blood pressure dropped from 151.7/86.4 to 138.4/80.2 mm Hg in the intervention group and from 151.6/85.3 to 141.8/79.8 mm Hg in the usual care group, giving a mean difference in systolic blood pressure of −3.4 mm Hg (95% confidence interval −6.1 to −0.8 mm Hg) and a mean difference in diastolic blood pressure of −0.5 mm Hg (−1.9 to 0.9 mm Hg). Results were comparable in the complete case analysis and adverse effects were similar between groups. Within trial costs showed an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £11 ($15, €12; 95% confidence interval £6 to £29) per mm Hg reduction. Conclusions The HOME BP digital intervention for the management of hypertension by using self-monitored blood pressure led to better control of systolic blood pressure after one year than usual care, with low incremental costs. Implementation in primary care will require integration into clinical workflows and consideration of people who are digitally excluded. Trial registration ISRCTN13790648 .

BackgroundOutpatients with acute cough who expect, hope for or ask for antibiotics may be more unwell, benefit more from antibiotic treatment, and be more satisfied with care when they are prescribed antibiotics. Clinicians may not accurately identify those patients.ObjectiveTo explore whether patient views (expecting, hoping for or asking for antibiotics) are associated with illness presentation and resolution, whether patient views are accurately perceived by clinicians, and the association of all these factors with antibiotic prescribing and patient satisfaction with care.MethodsProspective observational study of 3402 adult patients with acute cough presenting in 14 primary care networks. Correlations and associations tested with multilevel logistic regression and McNemar ‘s tests, and Cohen’s Kappa, positive agreement (PA) and negative agreement (NA) calculated as appropriate.Results1,213 (45.1%) patients expected, 1,093 (40.6%) hoped for, and 275 (10.2%) asked for antibiotics. Clinicians perceived 840 (31.3%) as wanting to be prescribed antibiotics (McNemar’s test, p<0.05). Their perception agreed modestly with the three patient views (Kappa’s = 0.29, 0.32 and 0.21, PA’s = 0.56, 0.56 and 0.33, NA’s = 0.72, 0.75 and 0.82, respectively). 1,464 (54.4%) patients were prescribed antibiotics. Illness presentation and resolution were similar for patients regardless their views. These associations were not modified by antibiotic treatment. Patient expectation and hope (OR:2.08, 95% CI:[1.48,2.93] and 2.48 [1.73,3.55], respectively), and clinician perception (12.18 [8.31,17.84]) were associated with antibiotic prescribing. 2,354 (92.6%) patients were satisfied. Only those hoping for antibiotics were less satisfied when antibiotics were not prescribed (0.39 [0.17,0.90]).ConclusionPatient views about antibiotic treatment were not useful for identifying those who will benefit from antibiotics. Clinician perceptions did not match with patient views, but particularly influenced antibiotic prescribing. Patients were generally satisfied with care, but those hoping for but not prescribed antibiotics were less satisfied. Clinicians need to more effectively elicit and address patient views about antibiotics.

The intervention was effective in improving anger control by people with intellectual disabilities. It provides evidence of the effectiveness of a CBT intervention for this client group and demonstrates that the staff who work with them can be trained and supervised to deliver such an intervention with reasonable fidelity.

This report should be referenced as follows:Willner P, Rose J, Jahoda A, Stenfert Kroese B, Felce D, MacMahon P, et al. A cluster randomised controlled trial of a manualised cognitive-behavioural anger management intervention delivered by supervised lay therapists to people with intellectual disabilities. Health Technol Assess 2013;17(21). This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/). Health Technology Assessment is indexed and abstracted inEditorial contact: nihredit@southampton.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: www.hta.ac.uk/ This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 08/53/34. The contractual start date was in May 2009. The draft report began editorial review in May 2012 and was accepted for publication in August 2012. 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 ...

Background Fissure sealant (FS) and fluoride varnish (FV) have been shown to be effective in preventing dental caries when tested against a no-treatment control. However, the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these interventions is unknown. Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FS and FV in preventing dental caries in first permanent molars (FPMs) in 6- and 7-year-olds and to determine their acceptability. Design A randomised controlled allocation-blinded clinical trial with two parallel arms. Setting A targeted population programme using mobile dental clinics (MDCs) in schools located in areas of high social and economic deprivation in South Wales. Participants In total, 1016 children were randomised, but one parent subsequently withdrew permission and so the analysis was based on 1015 children. The randomisation of participants was stratified by school and balanced for sex and primary dentition baseline caries levels using minimisation in a 1 : 1 ratio for treatments. A random component was added to the minimisation algorithm, such that it was not completely deterministic. Of the participants, 514 were randomised to receive FS and 502 were randomised to receive FV. Interventions Resin-based FS was applied to caries-free FPMs and maintained at 6-monthly intervals. FV was applied at baseline and at 6-month intervals over the course of 3 years. Main outcome measures The proportion of children developing caries into dentine (decayed, missing, filled teeth in permanent dentition, i.e. D4–6MFT) on any one of up to four treated FPMs after 36 months. The assessors were blinded to treatment allocation; however, the presence or absence of FS at assessment would obviously indicate the probable treatment received. Economic measures established the costs and budget impact of FS and FV and the relative cost-effectiveness of these technologies. Qualitative interviews determined the acceptability of the interventions. Results At 36 months, 835 (82%) children remained in the trial: 417 in the FS arm and 418 in the FV arm. The proportion of children who developed caries into dentine on a least one FPM was lower in the FV arm (73; 17.5%) than in the FS arm (82, 19.6%) [odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.21; p = 0.35] but the difference was not statistically significant. The results were similar when the numbers of newly decayed teeth (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.22) and tooth surfaces (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.21) were examined. Trial fidelity was high: 95% of participants received five or six of the six scheduled treatments. Between 74% and 93% of sealants (upper and lower teeth) were intact at 36 months. The costs of the two technologies showed a small but statistically significant difference; the mean cost to the NHS (including intervention costs) per child was £500 for FS, compared with £432 for FV, a difference of £68.13 (95% CI £5.63 to £130.63; p = 0.033) in favour of FV. The budget impact analysis suggests that there is a cost saving of £68.13 (95% CI £5.63 to £130.63; p = 0.033) per child treated if using FV compared with the application of FS over this time period. An acceptability score completed by the children immediately after treatment and subsequent interviews demonstrated that both interventions were acceptable to the children. No adverse effects were reported. Limitations There are no important limitations to this study. Conclusions In a community oral health programme utilising MDCs and targeted at children with high caries risk, the twice-yearly application of FV resulted in caries prevention that is not significantly different from that obtained by applying and maintaining FSs after 36 months. FV proved less expensive. Future work The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FS and FV following the cessation of active intervention merits investigation. Trial registration EudraCT number 2010-023476-23, Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17029222 and UKCRN reference 9273. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BackgroundOlder adults in care homes have increasingly complex health care needs, and care provision should be evidence-based whenever possible. However, recruitment of frail, older people to research is a complex process and often results in care home residents being excluded from research participation. This paper draws on the experience of setting up a randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of probiotics on antibiotic-associated diarrhoea in care home residents [Probiotics for Antibiotic Associated Diarrhoea in Care Homes (PAAD) Study] in Wales.FindingsSignificant challenges were encountered setting up a clinical trial in care homes. There were a number of barriers and facilitative factors encountered that were unique to this research setting. The classification of the study intervention (a widely available food supplement with a low risk safety profile) as an investigational medicinal product, with the associated requirements including obtaining statutory approvals and research governance, had a major impact.ConclusionThe process for setting up a clinical trial of an investigational medicinal product in care homes has been more complex and time consuming than the process for setting up an observational study in the same setting, and clinical trials in other health care settings. We recommend regulatory changes to ensure approvals processes are more proportionate to risk and context, to ensure that care home residents have the opportunity to participate in research and are able to help generate much needed evidence to underpin care. Recommendations made may inform future research practice.Trial registration: ISRCTN 25324586.