Many people with psychosis find the world very frightening. It can be difficult for them to do everyday things—for example, walking down a busy street, travelling on a bus or going to the shops. Sometimes, the fears are so great that individuals rarely leave their homes. gameChange virtual reality therapy is designed to reduce this agoraphobic avoidance. In gameChange, users practise going into computerised immersive versions of ordinary situations. A virtual therapist guides users through the programme. A mental health worker also supports people. People normally do six sessions of gameChange, but now they can do more as headsets can be left with many people. We originally tested gameChange with 346 patients with psychosis. People saw a significant reduction in their fears. People with the most severe problems made the biggest improvements. This led to gameChange receiving National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Early Value Assessment (EVA) approval for its use with patients with psychosis who have severe agoraphobic avoidance. NICE EVA approval is conditional on further evidence generation. We aim to carry out a real-world trial of gameChange used in the NHS. The overall aim is to gather evidence on the four essential areas (clinical benefits on agoraphobia, level of engagement and adherence, healthcare resource use, adverse effects) and the two further supporting areas (health-related quality of life, generalisability) identified in the NICE evidence generation plan for gameChange.

200 patients with psychosis and severe agoraphobic avoidance will be randomised (1:1) to receive gameChange in addition to treatment as usual (TAU) or to a waitlist control group receiving TAU. Assessments will be conducted blind to group allocation at baseline, 8 weeks (end of treatment) and 26 weeks (follow-up). The trial will be embedded in services in at least seven National Health Service (NHS) trusts across England. The primary outcome is agoraphobic avoidance at 26 weeks assessed with the Oxford Agoraphobic Avoidance Scale. The secondary clinical outcomes are agoraphobic distress, paranoia and social contacts. There will be tests of moderation of the main clinical outcome. Treatment acceptability, adverse effects and cost-effectiveness will also be assessed. The target estimand is the treatment policy estimand and all primary and secondary analyses will be carried out incorporating data from all participants including those who do not complete treatment.

The trial has received ethical approval from the NHS Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales (25/WA/0081). A key output will be the evidence needed for a NICE guidance update on gameChange and a clear recommendation concerning future routine use in the NHS.

ISRCTN79060696.

Persecutory delusions are very common in severe mental health disorders such as schizophrenia. Existing treatments often do not work well enough. We developed a face-to-face theory-driven psychological intervention, called Feeling Safe, that produces very large reductions in persistent persecutory delusions. The challenge now is to make Feeling Safe widely available. So, we developed a 6-month supported online version, called Feeling Safer. The aim is an intervention that patients can easily access and use, reduces persecutory delusions and can be supported by a range of mental health professionals in less contact time than face-to-face therapy. Initial proof of concept testing of Feeling Safer was very encouraging. In a randomised controlled trial, we now plan to test whether Feeling Safer is efficacious for patients and can be successfully delivered by any of three different mental health staff groups (peer-support workers, graduate psychologists and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) therapists). We will also test whether Feeling Safer works equally across gender, age, ethnicity and cognitive functioning (moderation) and whether Feeling Safer works via the targeted psychological processes (mediation).

The study design is a multicentre, single-blind (outcome assessor), parallel, four-arm randomised controlled trial; 484 patients with persistent persecutory delusions will be randomised to one of the four conditions (1:1:1:1): Feeling Safer (added to treatment as usual (TAU)) supported by peer-support workers, or Feeling Safer (added to TAU) supported by graduate mental health workers including assistant psychologists, or Feeling Safer (added to TAU) supported by CBT therapists or TAU. Feeling Safer will be provided for 6 months with a staff member. Assessments will be conducted at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months by research assistants blind to group allocation. The primary outcome is severity of persecutory delusions at 6 months rated with the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scale—Delusions. The secondary outcomes are other psychiatric symptoms (depression, anxiety, insomnia, agoraphobia and paranoia), psychological well-being, recovery, activity and health-related quality of life. Analysis will be conducted under a treatment policy strategy following the intention-to-treat principle, incorporating data from all participants including those who do not complete treatment. Moderation and mediation will be tested. A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted of Feeling Safer compared with TAU.

The trial has received ethical approval from the NHS Health Research Authority (23/LO/0951). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. A key output will be an open-access publication in a peer-reviewed journal reporting on the clinical effectiveness of a high-quality supported online programme for the treatment of persecutory delusions that has the potential to be used at scale in mental health services.

ISRCTN93974770.

Prompt recognition and treatment of patients with sepsis improve survival. Patients transported to hospital with sepsis often do not receive treatment until they are assessed in emergency departments. Initiation of treatments by paramedics at the point of first contact may improve outcomes for these patients.

The study design involves two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted using a 2x2 factorial design comparing use of (1) early intramuscular ceftriaxone versus placebo and (2) an early liberal intravenous fluid strategy (up to 2 L normal saline) versus usual care resuscitation guided by paramedic medical directives. Patients who are ≥18 years of age will be eligible for inclusion if they have sepsis, defined as (1) paramedic suspicion of infection, (2) fever (temperature ≥38.0°C measured by paramedic or history of fever during the previous 24 hours), and (3) hypotension: SBP 250 mL) within 24 hours of hospital arrival; total amount of crystalloid infused during transport and first 24 hours of hospitalisation; and proportion of enrolled patients not suspected to have sepsis or infection by emergency department physicians. Safety outcomes include the proportion of patients with pulmonary oedema during transport to hospital and on initial chest X-ray and the proportion of patients with anaphylaxis or suspected allergic reactions to study medication.

This study has been approved through Clinical Trials Ontario’s streamlined ethics review process (board of record, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre). It will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice guidelines and regulatory requirements. The final results will be disseminated to participating paramedic services through educational materials, presentations and interactive training. We anticipate our trial will achieve wide dissemination through publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal and presentation at international conferences targeting the fields of prehospital and emergency medicine, resuscitation and critical care.

NCT03068741.

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.

Research indicates the effectiveness of participatory interventions to address rapid rises in type 2 diabetes in low-income countries. Understanding their transferability to different contexts is a priority. We aimed to analyse how the COVID-19 post-lockdown context and adjustments to a participatory learning and action intervention affected theorised mechanisms of effect in rural Bangladesh and to examine the broader implications of this context and intervention adjustments for developing optimal contexts for participatory interventions.

Mixed methods using longitudinal qualitative and quantitative observation data, focus group discussions and interviews with group and community members and project personnel. We used descriptive content analysis, guided by realist evaluation research questions about context, implementation and mechanisms. We used team reflection to enhance the rigour of our analysis.

Cluster-randomised trial in Alfadanga upazila, Faridpur district, in the central region of Bangladesh. The intervention was implemented between January 2020 and December 2022, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Participatory group members, community members and project personnel (n=32). Structured observations of participatory groups (n=1820) and unstructured observations of groups and their environments (n=15).

Participatory learning and action community groups of men and women implemented by community-based facilitators.

Due to COVID-19, the participatory learning and action (PLA) intervention was not implemented as planned, which had major effects on the time available to develop the intervention with communities. Communities learnt about diabetes and were motivated to address its causes at an individual level, but community action was a more challenging mechanism to trigger. The post-pandemic context made it difficult to build community rapport, and strategies to engage communities through home visits were challenging. Communities’ prior negative experience in working together and in working with non-governmental organisations led to low community cohesion and low motivation to address diabetes collectively. This also resulted in expectations that the implementing organisation would implement community actions and incentivise attendance at meetings. This misalignment of expectations further disabled relationship building, and community strategies addressing the social causes of diabetes were largely not enacted.

PLA has optimal effects when time is available to build trust and social cohesion. These are contextual elements and mechanisms that need to be activated to enable critical reflection and community action to develop an enabling environment to address type 2 diabetes.

ISRCTN42219712.