This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of delivering a vocational rehabilitation intervention (Return to Work After Trauma—ROWTATE), remotely to individuals recovering from traumatic injuries. The primary objectives were to assess therapists’ training and competence, adapt the intervention and training for remote delivery and assess the feasibility and fidelity of remote delivery to inform a definitive randomised controlled trial.

A mixed-methods feasibility study incorporating (1) telerehabilitation qualitative literature review, (2) qualitative interviews preintervention and postintervention with therapists and patients, (3) a team objective structured clinical examination to assess competency, (4) usefulness of training, attitudes towards (15-item Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale) and confidence in (4-item Evidence Based Practice Confidence Scale) evidence-based practice, intervention delivery confidence (8-bespoke questions) and intervention behaviour determinants (51-items Theoretical Domains Framework) and (5) single-arm intervention delivery feasibility study.

The study was conducted in two UK Major Trauma Centres. The intervention and training were adapted for remote delivery due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Therapists: Seven occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical psychologists (CPs) were trained, and six participated in competency assessment. Seven OTs and CPs participated in preintervention interviews and surveys; six completed post-intervention interviews and four completed post-training surveys. Patients: 10 patients were enrolled in the single-arm feasibility study and 4 of these participated in postintervention qualitative interviews. Inclusion criteria included therapists involved in vocational rehabilitation delivery and patients admitted to major trauma centres. Exclusion criteria included participation in other vocational rehabilitation trials or those who had returned to work or education for at least 80% of preinjury hours. Intervention: The ROWTATE vocational rehabilitation intervention was delivered remotely by trained OTs and CPs. Training included competency assessments, mentoring and adaptation for telerehabilitation. The intervention was delivered over multiple sessions, with content tailored to individual patient needs.

Therapists found the training useful, reported positive attitudes (Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale mean=2.9 (SD 0.9)) and high levels of confidence in delivering evidence-based practice (range 75%–100%) and the ROWTATE intervention (range 80%–100%). Intervention barriers identified pretraining became facilitators post-training. Half the therapists needed additional support post-training through mentoring or additional training. The intervention and training were successfully adapted for remote delivery. High levels of fidelity (intervention components delivered: OTs=84.5%, CPs=92.9%) and session attendance rates were found (median: OT=97%, CP=100%). Virtually all sessions were delivered remotely (OT=98%, CP=100%). The intervention was acceptable to patients and therapists; both considered face-to-face delivery where necessary was important.

The ROWTATE intervention was delivered remotely with high fidelity and attendance and was acceptable to patients and therapists. Definitive trial key changes include modifying therapist training, competency assessment, face-to-face intervention delivery where necessary and addressing lower fidelity intervention components.

ISRCTN74668529.

To compare costs and health consequences and to assess the cost-effectiveness of using low-dose oral long-acting morphine in people with chronic breathlessness.

Within-trial planned cost-consequences and cost-effectiveness analysis of data from a multisite, parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of low-dose, long-acting morphine.

11 hospital outpatients across the UK.

Consenting adults with chronic breathlessness due to long-term cardiorespiratory conditions.

5–10 mg two times a day oral long-acting morphine with a blinded laxative for 56 days.

Mean and SD of healthcare resource use (HRU) by trial arm; mean differences and 95% CI of costs between trial arms.

Mean differences in 28- and 56-day quality-adjusted life years (QALYs based on EuroQol five-dimension five-level score), Short Form-six dimensional scores and ICEpop CAPability-Supportive Care Measure scores; cost-utility of long-acting morphine for chronic breathlessness.

143 participants (75 morphine and 67 placebo) were randomised; 140 (90% power, males 66%, mean age 70.5 (SD 9.4)) formed the modified intention-to-treat population (participants receiving at least one dose of study medication). There were more inpatient and fewer outpatient services used by the morphine group versus the placebo. In the base-case analysis at 56 days, long-acting morphine was associated with similar mean per-patient costs and QALYs. There was an increase of £24 (95% CI –£395 to £552) and 0.002 (95% CI –0.004 to 0.008) QALYs. Hospitalisations were the main driver of cost differences. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £12 000/QALY, with a probability of cost-effectiveness of 54% at a £20 000 willingness-to-pay threshold. In the scenario analysis that excluded costs of adverse events considered unrelated to long-acting morphine by site investigators and researchers, the probability of cost-effectiveness increased to 73%.

Oral morphine for chronic breathlessness is likely to be a cost-effective intervention provided adverse events are minimised, but the effect on outcome is small and cautious interpretation is warranted.

ISRCTN87329095.

The ROWTATE intervention helps people experiencing trauma to return to work (RTW) through vocational rehabilitation (VR) support from occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical psychologists (CPs). This study aims to explore and understand the acceptability of VR after traumatic injury for patients, therapists and employers.

Qualitative interviews in eight major trauma regions, UK.

Interviews were undertaken with a range of stakeholders—15 patients, 15 therapists and 6 employers. Data were analysed using the theoretical framework of acceptability.

Stakeholders understood the aim of the intervention was to support people to RTW and perceived it as effective in achieving this. Patients and therapists understood the benefits of working with a combination of occupational therapy and clinical psychology. The intervention fits with the values of patients wanting to recover, therapists wanting to offer support and line managers wanting to meet employer and employee needs.

Patients reported they could not have achieved RTW without the intervention, and their therapist helped them feel less alone. Therapists felt that their work was rewarding, effective and had good outcomes. Patients perceived remote delivery as less burdensome than attending in person. Therapists felt they wasted time on non-patient activity, such as (re-)arranging appointments.

Employers discussed the difficulty of balancing employer and employee needs and managing uncertainty. Some workplace policies lacked flexibility, and without the ROWTATE intervention, employers lacked confidence in supporting employees RTW.

A VR intervention delivered remotely by OTs and CPs is acceptable to patients, therapists and employers.

ISRCTN43115471.