Louisa Lawrie

COVID-19 has left a lasting impact on global mental health and well-being, with university students among those most affected, highlighting the urgent need for strategies to support post-pandemic welfare. This study identified and compared post-pandemic barriers and facilitators to seeking university and external mental health and well-being support (e.g., counselling, helplines) among undergraduate (UG), postgraduate taught (PGT), and doctoral (PhD) students, and generated recommendations for improving support services. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine UG, eight PGT, and three PhD students. Questions were guided by the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation. Thematic analysis was applied for data analysis. Findings suggested that UG and PGT students’ help-seeking tendencies were largely influenced by perceptual or social factors (e.g., stigma, social support, awareness, knowledge, perceived trustworthiness), whereas PhD students were primarily influenced by service features (e.g., flexibility, accessibility, clarity in information provision). Most participants preferred university over external services due to physical proximity, free access, and familiarity of staff with student-related concerns. External services were preferred when participants had prior positive experiences with them, negative experiences with university support, or when services were unavailable or unknown within the university. Across all study levels, free-of-charge support and coping strategies shifting from avoidant or reactive to more proactive coping were facilitators of post-pandemic help-seeking. Mental health and well-being support services need to adapt to students’ post-pandemic needs to facilitate help-seeking and protect their welfare. Improvement suggestions are provided in line with the findings.

Older adults perform worse than young at identifying standard emotional expressions from facial photographs. However, it has been argued that age differences may be reduced when more realistic tasks of emotion identification are used. In two studies, we tested the role of context and multimodal presentation in age differences in emotion perception. Younger and older adults performed tasks of labeling complex emotions from dynamic stimuli. In Study 1, older adults were worse than young at recognizing emotions from silent decontextualized video clips of facial expressions but better than young in a contextually rich multimodal film task. In Study 2, there was no age advantage in emotion perception in the contextually rich task when auditory cues were removed (the video clips were presented only in the visual modality). There was also evidence across both studies that crystallized ability might be more important in decoding contextualized emotions as compared to working memory capacity. Overall, these results indicate that multimodal context particularly benefits older adults' ability to decode others' emotions.

Background: The most common cause of preventable death after injury is haemorrhage. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite for definitive haemostasis. Objective: To compare standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency department. Design: Pragmatic, multicentre, Bayesian, group-sequential, registry-enabled, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, compared to standard care alone. Setting: United Kingdom Major Trauma Centres. Participants: Trauma patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed or suspected life-threatening torso haemorrhage deemed amenable to adjunctive treatment with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to: standard care, as expected in a major trauma centre standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Main outcome measures: Primary: Mortality at 90 days. Secondary: Mortality at 6 months, while in hospital, and within 24, 6 and 3 hours; need for haemorrhage control procedures, time to commencement of haemorrhage procedure, complications, length of stay (hospital and intensive care unit-free days), blood product use. Health economic: Expected United Kingdom National Health Service perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, modelled over a lifetime horizon. Data sources: Case report forms, Trauma Audit and Research Network registry, NHS Digital (Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics data). Results: Ninety patients were enrolled: 46 were randomised to standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and 44 to standard care. Mortality at 90 days was higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group (54%) compared to the standard care group (42%). The odds ratio was 1.58 (95% credible interval 0.72 to 3.52). The posterior probability of an odds ratio > 1 (indicating increased odds of death with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta) was 86.9%. The overall effect did not change when an enthusiastic prior was used or when the estimate was adjusted for baseline characteristics. For the secondary outcomes (3, 6 and 24 hours mortality), the posterior probability that standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta was harmful was higher than for the primary outcome. Additional analyses to account for intercurrent events did not change the direction of the estimate for mortality at any time point. Death due to haemorrhage was more common in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group than in the standard care group. There were no serious adverse device effects. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is less costly (probability 99%), due to the competing mortality risk but also substantially less effective in terms of lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (probability 91%). Limitations: The size of the study reflects the relative infrequency of exsanguinating traumatic haemorrhage in the United Kingdom. There were some baseline imbalances between groups, but adjusted analyses had little effect on the estimates. Conclusions: This is the first randomised trial of the addition of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to standard care in the management of exsanguinating haemorrhage. All the analyses suggest that a strategy of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is potentially harmful. Future work: The role (if any) of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in the pre-hospital setting remains unclear. Further research to clarify its potential (or not) may be required. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/199/09) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background: Trials in pre-hospital trauma care are relatively uncommon. There are logistical and methodological challenges related to designing and delivering trials in this setting. Previous studies have assessed challenges reported in individual trials rather than across the pre-hospital trial landscape to identify over-arching factors. The aim of this study was to investigate the challenges and opportunities related to the set-up, design and conduct of pre-hospital trauma trials from across the pre-hospital trial landscape and a specific pre-hospital trauma feasibility study. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with two cohorts of participants: research personnel who had experience of pre-hospital trials, either through direct involvement in conduct or through strategic oversight of national initiatives (n = 7), and clinical staff (n = 16) involved in recruitment to a pre-hospital trauma feasibility study. Thematic analyses were used to assess the barriers and enablers of conducting pre-hospital trauma trials. Two frameworks (The Capability Opportunity Motivation—Behaviour and the Theoretical Domains Framework) were used to guide analyses. Results: The barriers and enablers reported were relevant to several TDF domains and COM-B components. Across both cohorts, challenges associated with opportunities were reported and included the lack of research experience amongst pre-hospital staff, team dynamics within a rotating shift schedule, and the involvement of external organisations with diverse institutional priorities and infrastructures (e.g. Air Ambulances). The infrequency of eligible cases was also reported to affect the trial design, set-up, and conduct. Other barriers reported related to clinical equipoise amongst staff and institutional pressures, which affected motivation. Conclusions: This study has highlighted that pre-hospital trials face many context-specific but also generic challenges. Pre-hospital trauma trial teams could consider the findings to develop targeted, behaviourally focused, solutions to the challenges identified in order to enhance the set-up and conduct of trials in this setting. Trial registration: NCT04145271. Trial registration date: October 30, 2019. Note that this paper does not report results from a specific trial but does include participants who were involved in the conduct of a registered pre-hospital feasibility study.

Background: Healthcare technologies are becoming more commonplace, however clinical and patient perspectives regarding the use of technology in the management of childhood asthma have yet to be investigated. Within a clinical trial of asthma management in children, we conducted a qualitative process evaluation that provided insights into the experiences and perspectives of healthcare staff and families on (i) the use of smart inhalers to monitor medication adherence and (ii) the use of algorithm generated treatment recommendations. Methods: We interviewed trial staff (n = 15) and families (n = 6) who were involved in the trial to gauge perspectives around the use of smart inhalers to monitor adherence and the algorithm to guide clinical decision making. Findings: Staff and families indicated that there were technical issues associated with the smart inhalers. While staff suggested that the smart inhalers were good for monitoring adherence and enabling communication regarding medication use, parents and children indicated that smart inhaler use increased motivation to adhere to medication and provided the patient (child) with a sense of responsibility for the management of their asthma. Staff were open-minded about the use of the algorithm to guide treatment recommendations, but some were not familiar with its’ use in clinical care. There were some concerns expressed regarding treatment step-down decisions generated by the algorithm, and some staff highlighted the importance of using clinical judgement. Families perceived the algorithm to be a useful technology, but indicated that they felt comforted by the clinicians’ own judgements. Conclusion: The use of technology and individual data within appointments was considered useful to both staff and families: closer monitoring and the educational impacts were especially highlighted. Utilising an algorithm was broadly acceptable, with caveats around clinicians using the recommendations as a guide only and wariness around extreme step-ups/downs considering contextual factors not taken into account.

Objectives The effective implementation of a fast-changing healthcare delivery innovation, such as robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), into a healthcare system, can be affected (both positively and negatively) by external contextual factors. As part of a wider project investigating ways to optimise the implementation of RAS, this qualitative study aimed to uncover current issues of RAS and predictions about the future of robotic surgery. We refer to ‘current issues’ as the topical and salient challenges and opportunities related to the introduction of RAS in the UK healthcare system, from the perspectives of key stakeholders involved in the delivery and implementation of RAS. Design Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted. A thematic analysis was conducted to summarise salient issues that were articulated by the participants. Setting and participants The interview sample (n=35) comprised surgeons, wider theatre staff and other relevant personnel involved in the introduction and delivery of RAS services across the UK, including service managers and policymakers/commissioners. Two focus groups were also conducted with surgical trainees (n=7) and members of the public (n=8), respectively. Results The results revealed a largely positive attitude towards the introduction of RAS technology and an expectation of continued rapid expansion. Areas perceived to be particularly pertinent and requiring ongoing attention were also highlighted, including the need to achieve improved quality control, expertise quantification and training issues and the need to educate the public. Issues of centralisation, service organisation and equity of access were also emphasised. Conclusions Our study has highlighted a range of issues perceived to be particularly pertinent to the current and future provision of RAS which should be addressed. The areas outlined can enable healthcare managers and surgeons to plan for the adoption and/or expansion of RAS services.

Background: Trials in pre-hospital trauma care are relatively uncommon. There are logistical and methodological challenges related to designing and delivering trials in this setting. Previous studies have assessed challenges reported in individual trials rather than across the pre-hospital trial landscape to identify over-arching factors. The aim of this study was to investigate the challenges and opportunities related to the set-up, design and conduct of pre-hospital trauma trials. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with research personnel who had experience of pre-hospital trials, either through direct involvement in conduct or through strategic oversight of national initiatives (n = 7), and clinical staff (n = 16) involved in recruitment to a pre-hospital trauma feasibility study. Thematic analyses were used to assess the barriers and enablers of conducting pre-hospital trauma trials. Two frameworks (The Capability Opportunity Motivation - Behaviour and the Theoretical Domains Framework) were used to guide analyses. Results: The barriers and enablers reported were relevant to several TDF domains and COM-B components. Across both cohorts, challenges reported included the lack of research experience amongst pre-hospital staff, team dynamics within a rotating shift schedule (COM-B Physical and Social Opportunities, TDF Environmental Context & Resources and Social Influences), and the involvement of external organisations with diverse institutional priorities and infrastructures (e.g. Air Ambulances). The infrequency of eligible cases was also reported to affect trial design, set-up, and conduct (TDF Environmental Context & Resources). Other barriers reported related to clinical equipoise amongst staff and institutional pressures, which affected motivation (COM-B Reflective Motivation and TDF Beliefs about consequences). Conclusions: This study has highlighted that pre-hospital trials face many context specific but also generic challenges. Pre-hospital trauma trial teams could consider the findings to develop targeted, behaviourally focused, solutions to the challenges identified in order to enhance the set-up and conduct of trials in this setting. Trial registration: NCT04145271.

Background: Implementation of Robotic Assisted Surgery (RAS) is complex as it requires adjustments to associated physical infrastructure, but also changes to processes and behaviours. With the global objective of optimising and improving RAS implementation, this study aimed to: 1) Explore the barriers and enablers to RAS service adoption, incorporating an assessment of behavioural influences; 2) Provide an optimised plan for effective RAS implementation, with the incorporation of theory-informed implementation strategies that have been adapted to address the barriers/enablers that affect RAS service adoption. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with RAS personnel and stakeholders, including: surgeons, theatre staff, managers, industry representatives, and policy-makers/commissioners. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to identify barriers and enablers that represent individual behaviours, capabilities, attitudes, beliefs, and external organisational factors that influence the implementation of RAS. Results: Findings suggest that implementation planning has three separate phases–pre-, early, and late implementation. For pre-implementation, barriers and enablers identified included the cost of RAS equipment and issues of economic viability, weak outcome evidence for RAS, a preponderance of an eminence driven model, the clinician/manager relationship, and views around the uptake and expansion of RAS in the future. Early implementation findings revealed role changes for theatre personnel and an enhanced team approach, reliance on industry for training provision, and changes in skill sets and attentional processes. Late implementation factors included equipment maintenance costs, technological limitations, changes to cognition during RAS routine use, and benefits to institutions/healthcare professionals (such as ergonomic improvement). Conclusion: Together, findings suggest the factors that affect RAS implementation are multi-faceted and change across the life-cycle of intervention adoption. Theory-informed strategies are suggested which can optimise implementation of RAS. Optimisation strategies need planning from the outset.

Background: Clinical trials comprise multiple processes at various stages of the trial lifecycle. These processes often involve complex behaviours such as recruiting vulnerable patient populations and clinicians having to deliver complex trial interventions successfully. Few studies have utilised a behavioural framework to assess challenges and develop strategies for effective trial recruitment and delivery of trial interventions. This study reports the application of an innovative methodological approach to understand core trial processes, namely recruitment and intervention delivery, using a behavioural science approach to develop strategies designed to mitigate trial process problems. Methods: The UK-REBOA trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (a novel intervention) in injured patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage. A behavioural investigation (‘diagnosis’) was conducted using theory-informed (Theoretical Domains Framework, TDF) semi-structured interviews with site staff from the UK-REBOA trial to examine trial processes which could be improved in relation to trial recruitment and delivery of the intervention. Interviews were analysed using the TDF to identify influences on behaviour, which were then mapped to techniques for behaviour change and developed into potential solutions. Results: The behavioural diagnosis of the challenges experienced during trial processes highlighted factors relevant to a range of TDF domains: Skills, Environmental context and resources, Beliefs about capabilities, Beliefs about consequences, Social influences, and Memory, attention, and decision-making processes. Within the solution development phase, we identified 24 suitable behaviour change techniques that were developed into proposed solutions to target reported process problems with the aim of changing behaviour to improve recruitment and/or intervention delivery. Proposed solutions included targeted changes to trial training content, suggestions to restructure the environment (e.g. reinforced the purpose of the trial with information about the social and environmental consequences) and other strategies to reduce barriers to recruitment and intervention delivery. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility of applying a behavioural approach to investigate (‘diagnose’) behavioural trial process problems and subsequently develop and implement targeted solutions (‘treatment’) in an active trauma trial. Understanding the factors that affected behaviour, attitudes and beliefs in this trauma trial allowed us to implement theoretically informed, evidence-based solutions designed to enhance trial practices. Trial registration: ISRCTN 16,184,981

Background: The role of fractional exhaled nitric oxide in guiding asthma treatment in children is uncertain.Objective: To compare treatment guided by both fractional exhaled nitric oxide and symptoms (intervention) with treatment guided by symptoms alone (standard care) in children with asthma who are at risk of an asthma exacerbation, in terms of the number of asthma exacerbations over 12 months.Design: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with embedded cost-effectiveness and qualitative process evaluations. Randomisation (1 : 1) was carried out using a remote web-based system and was minimised on recruitment centre, age, sex and British Thoracic Society treatment step. Clinical teams and participants were not blind to treatment allocation.Setting: The trial took place in 35 hospitals and seven primary care practices in the UK.Participants: Children aged 6–15 years with a diagnosis of asthma who were currently prescribed inhaled corticosteroids and who had one or more parent-/patient-reported asthma exacerbation treated with oral corticosteroids in the 12 months prior to recruitment.Interventions: Asthma treatment guided by symptoms alone (standard care) and asthma treatment guided by symptoms plus fractional exhaled nitric oxide (intervention). Treatment recommendations in both groups were protocolised within a web-based algorithm, incorporating inhaled corticosteroid adherence (objectively measured using an electronic logging device) and current treatment.Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was asthma exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids in the year post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included time to first exacerbation, number of exacerbations, lung function, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, daily dose of inhaled corticosteroid, asthma control and quality of life.Results: In total, 509 eligible participants were recruited and the primary outcome was available for 506 participants. The primary outcome occurred in 123 out of 255 (48.2%) participants in the intervention group and 129 out of 251 (51.4%) participants in the standard-care group (adjusted odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.27). There was algorithm non-compliance on 21% of assessments. Per-protocol and complier-average causal effect analysis did not change the interpretation. This non-statistically significant estimate was consistent across predefined subgroups. There were no differences between the groups in secondary outcomes. There were no serious adverse events or deaths. No meaningful differences in health service costs, direct patient costs or indirect costs to society were identified between the groups. The economic evaluation does not provide evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. In the qualitative process evaluation, 15 trial staff and six families were interviewed. Overall, their experiences were positive. The intervention was broadly acceptable, with caveats around clinicians using the algorithm recommendation as a guide and wariness around extreme step ups/downs in treatment in the light of contextual factors not being taken into account by the algorithm.Limitations: Potential limitations included the choice of cut-off point to define uncontrolled asthma and the change in fractional exhaled nitric oxide to trigger a change in treatment. Furthermore, the treatment decisions in the two groups may not have been sufficiently different to create a difference in outcomes.Conclusions: The RAACENO (Reducing Asthma Attacks in Children using Exhaled Nitric Oxide) trial findings do not support the routine use of fractional exhaled nitric oxide measurements as part of asthma management in a secondary care setting. The potential for other objective markers to guide asthma management in children needs to be evaluated.Trial registration: This trial was registered as ISRCTN67875351.Funding: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a MRC and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) partnership. This will be published in full inEfficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 9, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.