The use of e-health interventions has grown in demand due to their accessibility, low implementation costs and their potential to improve the health and well-being of people across a large geographical area. Despite these potential benefits, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of self-guided e-health interventions. The aim of the study was to compare the cost and consequences of ‘iSupport’, an e-health intervention to reduce mental health issues in dementia carers.

A cost-consequence analysis (CCA) of a multi-centre, single-blind randomised controlled trial of iSupport. The CCA was conducted from a public sector (National Health Service, social care and local authority) perspective plus a wider societal perspective. Delivery costs of iSupport were collected using a bottom-up micro-costing approach.

352 participants were recruited from three centres in England, Wales and Scotland.

Participants eligible for inclusion were adults over the age of 18 years who self-identified as an unpaid carer with at least 6 months of experience caring for an individual with a diagnosis of dementia. Between 12 November 2021 and 31 March 2023, 2332 carers were invited to take part in the study. 352 participants were randomised: 175 randomised to the iSupport intervention group and 177 to the usual care control group. The mean age of participants in the intervention and control groups was 63 and 62, respectively.

The CCA presented the disaggregated costs and health-related quality of life measured using the EuroQol five-dimension.

There was no significant difference in generic health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5L (p=0.67). Both groups reported higher mean costs between baseline and 6 months, but the change in costs was significantly lower in the intervention group. Between baseline and 6 months, the mean change in total resource use costs from the public sector perspective was significantly different between groups (p=0.003, r=–0.161) reporting a mean change per participant of £146 (95% CI: –33 to 342) between the intervention and control groups. From the wider societal perspective, there was no significant difference (p=0.23) in the mean change in total resource use and informal care costs between the two groups from baseline to 6 months.

Use of iSupport was associated with reduced health and social care resource use costs for carers compared with care-as-usual. Self-guided e-health interventions for dementia carers may have the potential to reduce health and social care resource use and wider societal costs, but evidence relating to their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is lacking.

ISRCTN17420703.

To determine whether an enhanced community rehabilitation intervention (the Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR) intervention) was more effective than usual National Health Service care, following surgical repair of hip fracture, in terms of the recovery of activities of daily living (ADLs).

Definitive, pragmatic, multisite, parallel-group, two-armed, superiority randomised controlled trial with 1:1 allocation ratio.

Participant recruitment in 13 hospitals across England and Wales, with the FEMuR intervention delivered in the community.

Patients aged over 60 years, with mental capacity, recovering from surgical treatment for hip fracture and living in their own home prior to fracture.

Usual rehabilitation care (control) was compared with usual rehabilitation care plus the FEMuR intervention, which comprised a patient-held workbook and goal-setting diary to improve self-efficacy, and six additional therapy sessions delivered in-person in the community, or remotely during COVID-19 restrictions (intervention), to increase the practice of exercise and ADL.

Primary outcome was the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Falls Self-Efficacy-International scale, hip pain intensity, fear of falling, grip strength and Short Physical Performance Battery. Outcomes were collected by research assistants in participants’ homes, whenever possible, but had to be collected remotely during COVID-19 restrictions.

In total, 205 participants were randomised (n=104 experimental; n=101 control). Trial processes were adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. There were 20 deaths, 34 withdrawals and three lost to follow-up. At 52 weeks, there was no significant difference in NEADL score between the FEMuR intervention and control groups. Joint modelling analysis testing for difference in longitudinal outcome adjusted for missing values also found no significant difference with a mean difference of 0.1 (95% CI –1.1, 1.3). There were no significant between-group differences in secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses, examining the impact of COVID-19 restrictions, produced similar results. A median of 4.5 extra rehabilitation sessions were delivered to the FEMuR intervention group, with a median of two sessions delivered in-person. Instrumental variable regression did not find any effect of the amount of rehabilitation on the main outcome. There were 53 unrelated serious adverse events (SAEs) including 11 deaths in the control group: 41 SAEs including nine deaths in the FEMuR intervention group.

The FEMuR intervention was not more effective than usual rehabilitation care. The trial was severely impacted by COVID-19. Possible reasons for lack of effect included limited intervention fidelity (fewer sessions than planned and remote delivery), lack of usual levels of support from health professionals and families, and change in recovery beliefs and behaviours during the pandemic.

ISRCTN28376407.