According to the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework, the theorisation of how multilevel, multicomponent interventions work and the understanding of their interaction with their implementation context are necessary to be able to evaluate them beyond their complexity. More research is needed to provide good examples following this approach in order to produce evidence-based information on implementation practices.

This article reports on the results of the process evaluation of a complex mental health intervention in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) tested through a pilot study. The overarching aim is to contribute to the evidence base related to the recruitment, engagement and implementation strategies of applied mental health interventions in the workplace.

The Mental Health Promotion and Intervention in Occupational Settings (MENTUPP) intervention was pilot tested in 25 SMEs in three work sectors and nine countries. The evaluation strategy of the pilot test relied on a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative and quantitative research methods. The process evaluation was inspired by the RE-AIM framework and the taxonomy of implementation outcomes suggested by Proctor and colleagues and focused on seven dimensions: reach, adoption, implementation, acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility and maintenance.

Factors facilitating implementation included the variety of the provided materials, the support provided by the research officers (ROs) and the existence of a structured plan for implementation, among others. Main barriers to implementation were the difficulty of talking about mental health, familiarisation with technology, difficulty in fitting the intervention into the daily routine and restrictions caused by COVID-19.

The results will be used to optimise the MENTUPP intervention and the theoretical framework that we developed to evaluate the causal mechanisms underlying MENTUPP. Conducting this systematic and comprehensive process evaluation contributes to the enhancement of the evidence base related to mental health interventions in the workplace and it can be used as a guide to overcome their contextual complexity.

ISRCTN14582090.

Work-related stress is a social determinant of global health that represents a huge cost to workers’ health and reduces work performance. In Australia, mental well-being is a pressing national issue—with one in five Australians experiencing mental disorders. Antidepressants are a first-line medication commonly used to treat mental disorders. Recently, Australia has seen a dramatic increase in the use of prescribed antidepressant medications to treat mental health related illnesses. Australia has also seen a dramatic increase in the use of prescribed opioid analgesics for non-cancer pain including opioid use for psychological distress and social stressors. It is plausible a rise in mental health problems and antidepressant and opioid medication use is partly attributable to the corporate climate for worker mental health (ie, the psychosocial safety climate, PSC). This research aims to identify how PSC and workplace conditions contribute to employee well-being and distress that culminate in antidepressant and opioid medication use.

Data will be collected through creative data linkage from the Australian Workplace Barometer (AWB), to medication data (via the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, PBS). The participant sample will include 1372 working Australians from the AWB project from 2009 to 2021. Four waves of longitudinal data from 2009 to 2021 will be used to investigate the plausible link between Australia’s high levels of antidepressant and opioid use and distress at work. The project advances theory by probing the role corporate climate plays in work design, distress, mental health problems and antidepressant and opioid use. It will determine if antidepressant and opioid use has led to an underestimation of work stress effects. Proposed theoretical models will be analysed through linked data, using continuous time structural equation modelling, hierarchical linear modelling, logistic regression and cost estimation.

The study has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of South Australia (Ethics Protocol: 203003). Further, approval from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Ethics Committee was also granted for linkage of AWB data and PBS data (EthOS Application EO2022/1/1190).

Results of the study will be disseminated through worldwide keynotes, key international settings, high-impact peer-reviewed journals, industry conference presentations and media outlets to reach managers, workers, and industry partners. Further, UniSA requires publications from public projects to be held in an institutional repository which fulfils the Australian Research Council’s Open Access Policy.

To develop and validate the Oxford Needle Experience (ONE) scale, an instrument to assess needle fear, attitudes and expectations in the general population.

Cross-sectional validation study.

Internet-based with participants in the UK and USA.

UK and US representative samples stratified by age, sex, and ethnicity using the Prolific Academic platform.

Exploratory factor analysis with categorical variables and a polychoric correlation matrix followed by promax oblique rotation on the UK sample for the ONE scale. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a Satorra-Bentler scaled test statistic evaluating the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), standardised root mean squared residual (SRMR) and comparative fit index (CFI) on the US sample. Reliability as internal consistency using McDonald’s omega. Convergent validity using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Predictive and discriminant validity using logistic regression ORs of association (OR).

The population included 1000 respondents, 500 in the UK and 500 in the USA. Minimum average partial correlation and a scree plot suggested four factors should be retained: injection hesitancy, blood-related hesitancy, recalled negative experiences and perceived benefits, yielding a 19-question scale. On CFA, the RMSEA was 0.070 (90% CI, 0.064 to 0.077), SRMR 0.053 and CFI 0.925. McDonald’s omega was 0.92 and 0.93 in the UK and US samples, respectively. Convergent validity with the four-item Oxford Coronavirus Explanations, Attitudes and Narratives Survey (OCEANS) needle fear scale demonstrated a strong correlation (r=0.83). Predictive validity with a single-question COVID-19 vaccination status question demonstrated a strong association, OR (95% CI) 0.97 (0.96 to 0.98), p

The ONE scale is a reliable and valid multidimensional scale that may be useful in predicting vaccine hesitancy, designing public health interventions to improve vaccine uptake and exploring alternatives to needles for medical procedures.

To assess the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an informal caregiver training programme to support the recovery of people following hip fracture surgery.

Two-arm, multicentre, pragmatic, open, feasibility RCT with embedded qualitative study.

National Health Service (NHS) providers in five English hospitals.

Community-dwelling adults, aged 60 years and over, who undergo hip fracture surgery and their informal caregivers.

Usual care: usual NHS care. Experimental: usual NHS care plus a caregiver–patient dyad training programme (HIP HELPER). This programme comprised three, 1 hour, one-to-one training sessions for a patient and caregiver, delivered by a nurse, physiotherapist or occupational therapist in the hospital setting predischarge. After discharge, patients and caregivers were supported through three telephone coaching sessions.

Central randomisation was computer generated (1:1), stratified by hospital and level of patient cognitive impairment. There was no blinding.

Data collected at baseline and 4 months post randomisation included: screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists, acceptability data and clinical outcomes. Interviews were conducted with a subset of participants and health professionals.

102 participants were enrolled (51 patients; 51 caregivers). Thirty-nine per cent (515/1311) of patients screened were eligible. Eleven per cent (56/515) of eligible patients consented to be randomised. Forty-eight per cent (12/25) of the intervention group reached compliance to their allocated intervention. There was no evidence of treatment contamination. Qualitative data demonstrated the trial and HIP HELPER programme was acceptable.

The HIP HELPER programme was acceptable to patient–caregiver dyads and health professionals. The COVID-19 pandemic impacting on site’s ability to deliver the research. Modifications are necessary to the design for a viable definitive RCT.

ISRCTN13270387.

Poverty may pose risks to child and adolescent mental health, but few studies have reported on this association among children and adolescents in low-income families in Norway.

Based on a sample participating in an intervention for low-income families in Norway, we report data from the survey administered at the start of the intervention. Mental health problems were measured using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; self-report (SR) n = 148; parent/proxy-report (PR) n = 153, mean age = 10.8). Demographic and family characteristics were obtained from parent reported data. Results are presented by gender and migration background. Regression analysis was used to investigate the relative contribution of background factors to mental health symptoms. The distribution of scores is compared to UK norms.

Participants reported relatively high scores on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) Total Difficulties Scale (parent/proxy-report, PR mean=10.7; self-report, SR mean=10.1). Participants with non-immigrant backgrounds scored considerably higher on the Total Difficulties Scale (PR mean difference=2.9; SR 5.3) and on most other domains measured with the SDQ compared with their peers with immigration backgrounds. Participants generally scored higher than or equal to UK norms.

Participants in the current study had many symptoms of mental health problems, with large differences between those with and without a migrant background. Interventions for low-income families should be based on detailed knowledge about differences in family risks, resources and needs.

Psychosocial interventions have been shown to improve mood, relieve stress and improve quality of life for people living with dementia (PwD). To date, most evaluations of singing interventions have focused on the benefits for PwD and not their carers. This research aims to evaluate the benefits of dementia singing groups for both PwD and their carers.

This 2-year project will observe the impact of two different singing intervention services, one combining singing alongside dance and another that includes a sociable lunch. This project will aim to recruit a total of n=150 PwD and n=150 carers across the two singing interventions. Using a mixed-methods approach, the influence of both services will be analysed via the following outcome measures: quality of life, neuropsychiatric symptoms, social isolation, loneliness, cognition, carer burden and depressive symptoms in PwD and their carers using a prestudy/poststudy design. Regression models will be used to analyse the data with time (pre/post) as the exposure variable. Semistructured interviews will be conducted with a subset of people (n=40) to further investigate the impact of singing services with a specific focus on the acceptability of the interventions, barriers to access and prolonged engagement and potential for remote delivery. Interview data will be analysed using Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis, and public advisers will assist with coding the transcripts. A social return on investment analysis will be conducted to determine the social impact of the services.

This project has received ethical approval from the University of Liverpool’s Ethics Committee (App ref: 12374) and Lancaster University’s Ethics Committee (App ref: 3442). All participants will provide informed consent to participate. Results will be presented at national and international conferences, published in scientific journals and publicly disseminated to key stakeholders.

Invasive non-typhoidal Salmonellosis (iNTS) is mainly caused by Salmonella enterica serovars Typhimurium and Enteritidis and is estimated to result in 77 500 deaths per year, disproportionately affecting children under 5 years of age in sub-Saharan Africa. Invasive non-typhoidal Salmonellae serovars are increasingly acquiring resistance to first-line antibiotics, thus an effective vaccine would be a valuable tool in reducing morbidity and mortality from infection. While NTS livestock vaccines are in wide use, no licensed vaccines exist for use in humans. Here, a first-in-human study of a novel vaccine (iNTS-GMMA) containing S. Typhimurium and S. Enteritidis Generalised Modules for Membrane Antigens (GMMA) outer membrane vesicles is presented.

The Salmonella Vaccine Study in Oxford is a randomised placebo-controlled participant-observer blind phase I study of the iNTS-GMMA vaccine. Healthy adult volunteers will be randomised to receive three intramuscular injections of the iNTS-GMMA vaccine, containing equal quantities of S. Typhimurium and S. Enteritidis GMMA particles adsorbed on Alhydrogel, or an Alhydrogel placebo at 0, 2 and 6 months. Participants will be sequentially enrolled into three groups: group 1, 1:1 randomisation to low dose iNTS-GMMA vaccine or placebo; group 2, 1:1 randomisation to full dose iNTS-GMMA vaccine or placebo; group 3, 2:1 randomisation to full dose or lower dose (dependant on DSMC reviews of groups 1 and 2) iNTS-GMMA vaccine or placebo.

The primary objective is safety and tolerability of the vaccine. The secondary objective is immunogenicity as measured by O-antigen based ELISA. Further exploratory objectives will characterise the expanded human immune profile.

Ethical approval for this study has been obtained from the South Central—Oxford A Research Ethics Committee (Ethics REF:22/SC/0059). Appropriate documentation and regulatory approvals have been acquired. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed articles and conferences.

EudraCT Number: 2020-000510-14.

To investigate whether intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) improves neurological outcomes in children with encephalitis when administered early in the illness.

Phase 3b multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial.

Twenty-one hospitals in the UK.

Children aged 6 months to 16 years with a diagnosis of acute or subacute encephalitis, with a planned sample size of 308.

Two doses (1 g/kg/dose) of either IVIG or matching placebo given 24–36 hours apart, in addition to standard treatment.

The primary outcome was a ‘good recovery’ at 12 months after randomisation, defined as a score of≤2 on the Paediatric Glasgow Outcome Score Extended.

The secondary outcomes were clinical, neurological, neuroimaging and neuropsychological results, identification of the proportion of children with immune-mediated encephalitis, and IVIG safety data.

18 participants were recruited from 12 hospitals and randomised to receive either IVIG (n=10) or placebo (n=8) between 23 December 2015 and 26 September 2017. The study was terminated early following withdrawal of funding due to slower than anticipated recruitment, and therefore did not reach the predetermined sample size required to achieve the primary study objective; thus, the results are descriptive. At 12 months after randomisation, 9 of the 18 participants (IVIG n=5/10 (50%), placebo n=4/8 (50%)) made a good recovery and 5 participants (IVIG n=3/10 (30%), placebo n=2/8 (25%)) made a poor recovery. Three participants (IVIG n=1/10 (10%), placebo n=2/8 (25%)) had a new diagnosis of epilepsy during the study period. Two participants were found to have specific autoantibodies associated with autoimmune encephalitis. No serious adverse events were reported in participants receiving IVIG.

The IgNiTE (ImmunoglobuliN in the Treatment of Encephalitis) study findings support existing evidence of poor neurological outcomes in children with encephalitis. However, the study was halted prematurely and was therefore underpowered to evaluate the effect of early IVIG treatment compared with placebo in childhood encephalitis.

Clinical Trials.gov NCT02308982; ICRCTN registry ISRCTN15791925.