Shoulder osteoarthritis most commonly affects older adults, causing pain, reduced function and quality of life. Total shoulder replacements (TSRs) are indicated once other non-surgical options no longer provide adequate pain relief. Two main types of TSRs are widely used: anatomic TSR (aTSR) and reverse TSR (rTSR). It is not clear whether one TSR type provides better short- or long-term outcomes for patients, and which, if either, is more cost-effective for the National Health Service (NHS).
RAPSODI-UK is a multi-centre, pragmatic, two-parallel arm, superiority randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of aTSR versus rTSR for adults aged 60+ with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis, an intact rotator cuff and bone stock suitable for TSR. Participants in both arms of the trial will receive usual post-operative rehabilitation. We aim to recruit 430 participants from approximately 28 NHS sites across the UK. The primary outcome is the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) at 2 years post-randomisation. Outcomes will be collected at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include the pain and function subscales of the SPADI, the Oxford Shoulder Score, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), complications, range of movement and strength, revisions and mortality. The between-group difference in the primary outcome will be derived from a constrained longitudinal data analysis model. We will also undertake a full health economic evaluation and conduct qualitative interviews to explore perceptions of acceptability of the two types of TSR and experiences of recovery with a sample of participants.
Ethics committee approval for this trial was obtained (London - Queen Square Research Ethics Committee, Rec Reference 22/LO/0617) on 4 October 2022. The results of the main trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and using other professional and media outlets.
Adolescents with mental health difficulties often attend acute paediatric services. There is a need to establish how well these services address their difficulties. No systematic review of this issue for adolescents aged 12–17 has been published.
To explore perspectives of healthcare professionals, adolescents and families on the provision of care for adolescents with mental health difficulties in acute paediatric services.
Mixed methods systematic review.
Authors screened published studies using Covidence for eligibility and extracted data. Findings were synthesised using qualitative convergent synthesis. Studies were critically appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).
Five databases were searched: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase and Web of Science Core Collection from June 2003 to July 2023.
Sixteen studies were included. Eleven studies were good quality, three were low quality and two were fair quality. Healthcare professionals' perspectives consisted of two themes: barriers and facilitators of care. Adolescents' perspectives consisted of two themes: perceptions of care and supportive and unsupportive interpersonal interactions. One study explored families' experiences of care.
Perspectives of care were similar across various countries and suggest that acute paediatric services do not adequately address mental health difficulties. There is a need for more support and education for healthcare professionals, targeted interventions and further research.
The SWiM guideline was used to ensure a transparent and systematic literature review.
No patient or public contribution.
PROSPERO: CRD42023443336 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=443336)