Background Dissociative seizures are paroxysmal events resembling epilepsy or syncope with characteristic features that allow them to be distinguished from other medical conditions. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) plus standardised medical care with standardised medical care alone for the reduction of dissociative seizure frequency. MethodsIn this pragmatic, parallel-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial, we initially recruited participants at 27 neurology or epilepsy services in England, Scotland, and Wales. Adults (≥18 years) who had dissociative seizures in the previous 8 weeks and no epileptic seizures in the previous 12 months were subsequently randomly assigned (1:1) from 17 liaison or neuropsychiatry services following psychiatric assessment, to receive standardised medical care or CBT plus standardised medical care, using a web-based system. Randomisation was stratified by neuropsychiatry or liaison psychiatry recruitment site. The trial manager, chief investigator, all treating clinicians, and patients were aware of treatment allocation, but outcome data collectors and trial statisticians were unaware of treatment allocation. Patients were followed up 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcome was monthly dissociative seizure frequency (ie, frequency in the previous 4 weeks) assessed at 12 months. Secondary outcomes assessed at 12 months were: seizure severity (intensity) and bothersomeness; longest period of seizure freedom in the previous 6 months; complete seizure freedom in the previous 3 months; a greater than 50% reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline; changes in dissociative seizures (rated by others); health-related quality of life; psychosocial functioning; psychiatric symptoms, psychological distress, and somatic symptom burden; and clinical impression of improvement and satisfaction. p values and statistical significance for outcomes were reported without correction for multiple comparisons as per our protocol. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population with multiple imputation for missing observations. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, ISRCTN05681227, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325544.

Background Dissociative (non-epileptic) seizures are potentially treatable by psychotherapeutic interventions; however, the evidence for this is limited. Objectives To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dissociative seizure-specific cognitive–behavioural therapy for adults with dissociative seizures. Design This was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-arm, mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Setting This took place in 27 UK-based neurology/epilepsy services, 17 liaison psychiatry/neuropsychiatry services and 18 cognitive–behavioural therapy services. Participants Adults with dissociative seizures in the previous 8 weeks and no epileptic seizures in the previous year and meeting other eligibility criteria were recruited to a screening phase from neurology/epilepsy services between October 2014 and February 2017. After psychiatric assessment around 3 months later, eligible and interested participants were randomised between January 2015 and May 2017. Interventions Standardised medical care consisted of input from neurologists and psychiatrists who were given guidance regarding diagnosis delivery and management; they provided patients with information booklets. The intervention consisted of 12 dissociative seizure-specific cognitive–behavioural therapy 1-hour sessions (plus one booster session) that were delivered by trained therapists, in addition to standardised medical care. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was monthly seizure frequency at 12 months post randomisation. The secondary outcomes were aspects of seizure occurrence, quality of life, mood, anxiety, distress, symptoms, psychosocial functioning, clinical global change, satisfaction with treatment, quality-adjusted life-years, costs and cost-effectiveness. Results In total, 698 patients were screened and 368 were randomised (standardised medical care alone, n = 182; and cognitive–behavioural therapy plus standardised medical care, n = 186). Primary outcome data were obtained for 85% of participants. An intention-to-treat analysis with multivariate imputation by chained equations revealed no significant between-group difference in dissociative seizure frequency at 12 months [standardised medical care: median of seven dissociative seizures (interquartile range 1–35 dissociative seizures); cognitive–behavioural therapy and standardised medical care: median of four dissociative seizures (interquartile range 0–20 dissociative seizures); incidence rate ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.09; p = 0.144]. Of the 16 secondary outcomes analysed, nine were significantly better in the arm receiving cognitive–behavioural therapy at a p-value < 0.05, including the following at a p-value ≤ 0.001: the longest dissociative seizure-free period in months 7–12 inclusive post randomisation (incidence rate ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.20; p = 0.001); better psychosocial functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale, standardised treatment effect –0.39, 95% confidence interval –0.61 to –0.18; p < 0.001); greater self-rated and clinician-rated clinical improvement (self-rated: standardised treatment effect 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.62; p = 0.001; clinician rated: standardised treatment effect 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.57; p < 0.001); and satisfaction with treatment (standardised treatment effect 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 0.73; p < 0.001). Rates of adverse events were similar across arms. Cognitive–behavioural therapy plus standardised medical care produced 0.0152 more quality-adjusted life-years (95% confidence interval –0.0106 to 0.0392 quality-adjusted life-years) than standardised medical care alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life-year) for cognitive–behavioural therapy plus standardised medical care versus standardised medical care alone based on the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, and imputed data was £120,658. In sensitivity analyses, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged between £85,724 and £206,067. Qualitative and quantitative process evaluations highlighted useful study components, the importance of clinical experience in treating patients with dissociative seizures and potential benefits of our multidisciplinary care pathway. Limitations Unlike outcome assessors, participants and clinicians were not blinded to the interventions. Conclusions There was no significant additional benefit of dissociative seizure-specific cognitive–behavioural therapy in reducing dissociative seizure frequency, and cost-effectiveness over standardised medical care was low. However, this large, adequately powered, multicentre randomised controlled trial highlights benefits of adjunctive dissociative seizure-specific cognitive–behavioural therapy for several clinical outcomes, with no evidence of greater harm from dissociative seizure-specific cognitive–behavioural therapy. Future work Examination of moderators and mediators of outcome. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN05681227 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02325544. 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. 25, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Postnatal depression (PND) affects 13% of new mothers, with numbers rising during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite this prevalence, many women have difficulty with or hesitancy towards accessing pharmacological and/or psychological interventions. Group-based mother-baby activities, however, have a good uptake, with singing improving maternal mental health and the mother-infant relationship. The recent lockdowns highlight the importance of adapting activities to an online platform that is wide-reaching and accessible. Aims The SHAPER-PNDO study will primarily analyse the feasibility of a 6-week online singing intervention, Melodies for Mums (M4M), for mothers with PND who are experiencing barriers to treatment. The secondary aim of the SHAPER-PNDO study will be to analyse the clinical efficacy of the 6-week M4M intervention for symptoms of postnatal depression. Methods A total of 120 mothers and their babies will be recruited for this single-arm study. All dyads will attend 6 weekly online singing sessions, facilitated by Breathe Arts Health Research. Assessments will be conducted on Zoom at baseline and week 6, with follow-ups at weeks 16 and 32, and will contain interviews for demographics, mental health, and social circumstances, and biological samples will be taken for stress markers. Qualitative interviews will be undertaken to understand the experiences of women attending the sessions and the facilitators delivering them. Finally, data will be collected on recruitment, study uptake and attendance of the programme, participant retention, and acceptability of the intervention. Discussion The SHAPER-PNDO study will focus on the feasibility, alongside the clinical efficacy, of an online delivery of M4M, available to all mothers with PND. We hope to provide a more accessible, effective treatment option for mothers with PND that can be available both during and outside of the pandemic for mothers who would otherwise struggle to attend in-person sessions, as well as to prepare for a subsequent hybrid RCT. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04857593. Registered retrospectively on 22 April 2021. The first participants were recruited on 27 January 2021, and the trial is ongoing.

IntroductionResearch on the benefits of ‘arts’ interventions to improve individuals’ physical, social and psychological well-being is growing, but evidence on implementation and scale-up into health and social care systems is lacking. This protocol reports the SHAPER-Implement programme (Scale-up of Health-Arts Programmes Effectiveness-Implementation Research), aimed at studying the impact, implementation and scale-up of: Melodies for Mums (M4M), a singing intervention for postnatal depression; and Dance for Parkinson’s (PD-Ballet) a dance intervention for Parkinson’s disease. We examine how they could be embedded in clinical pathways to ensure their longer-term sustainability.Methods and analysisA randomised two-arm effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 2 trial design will be used across M4M/PD-Ballet. We will assess the implementation in both study arms (intervention vs control), and the cost-effectiveness of implementation. The design and measures, informed by literature and previous research by the study team, were refined through stakeholder engagement. Participants (400 in M4M; 160 in PD-Ballet) will be recruited to the intervention or control group (2:1 ratio). Further implementation data will be collected from stakeholders involved in referring to, delivering or supporting M4M/PD-Ballet (N=25–30 for each intervention).A mixed-methods approach (surveys and semi-structured interviews) will be employed. ‘Acceptability’ (measured by the ‘Acceptability Intervention Measure’) is the primary implementation endpoint for M4M/PD-Ballet. Relationships between clinical and implementation outcomes, implementation strategies (eg, training) and outcomes will be explored using generalised linear mixed models. Qualitative data will assess factors affecting the acceptability, feasibility and appropriateness of M4M/PD-Ballet, implementation strategies and longer-term sustainability. Costs associated with implementation and future scale-up will be estimated.Ethics and disseminationSHAPER-PND (the M4M trial) and SHAPER-PD (the PD trial) are approved by the West London and GTAC (20/PR/0813) and the HRA and Health and Care Research Wales (REC Reference: 20/WA/0261) Research Ethics Committees. Study findings will be disseminated through scientific peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences.Trial registration numbersBoth trials are registered with NIH US National Library of Medicine, ClinicalTrials.gov. The trial registration numbers, URLs of registry records, and dates of registration are: (1) PD-Ballet: URL: NCT04719468 (https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.clinicaltrials.gov%2Fct2%2Fshow%2FNCT04719468%3Fterm%3DNCT04719468%26draw%3D2%26rank%3D1&amp;data=04%7C01%7Crachel.davis%40kcl.ac.uk%7C11a7c5142782437919f808d903111449%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0%7C0%7C6375441942616) (date of registration: 22 Jan 2021). (2) Melodies for Mums: NCT04834622 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04834622?term=shaper-pnd&draw=2&rank=1) (date of registration: 8 Apr 2021).

No abstract