FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Enhancing emotion regulation with an in situ socially assistive robot among LGBTQ+ youth with self-harm ideation: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Por: Williams · A. J. · Cleare · S. · Borschmann · R. · Tench · C. R. · Gross · J. · Hollis · C. · Chapman-Nisar · A. · Naeche · N. · Townsend · E. · Slovak · P. · On behalf of Digital Youth · Creswell · Fonagy · Arseneault · Lloyd · Mendes · Holter · Jirotka · Lazar · Patalay · Kelly · Ka
Introduction

Purrble, a socially assistive robot, was codesigned with children to support in situ emotion regulation. Preliminary evidence has found that LGBTQ+ youth are receptive to Purrble and find it to be an acceptable intervention to assist with emotion dysregulation and their experiences of self-harm. The present study is designed to evaluate the impact of access to Purrble among LGBTQ+ youth who have self-harmful thoughts, when compared with waitlist controls.

Methods and analysis

The study is a single-blind, randomised control trial comparing access to the Purrble robot with waitlist control. A total of 168 LGBTQ+ youth aged 16–25 years with current self-harmful ideation will be recruited, all based within the UK. The primary outcome is emotion dysregulation (Difficulties with Emotion Regulation Scale-8) measured weekly across a 13-week period, including three pre-deployment timepoints. Secondary outcomes include self-harm (Self-Harm Questionnaire), anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7) and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9). We will conduct analyses using linear mixed models to assess primary and secondary hypotheses. Intervention participants will have unlimited access to Purrble over the deployment period, which can be used as much or as little as they like. After all assessments, control participants will receive their Purrble, with all participants keeping the robot after the end of the study. After the study has ended, a subset of participants will be invited to participate in semistructured interviews to explore engagement and appropriation of Purrble, considering the young people’s own views of Purrble as an intervention device.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval was received from King’s College London (RESCM-22/23-34570). Findings will be disseminated in peer review open access journals and at academic conferences.

Trial registration number

NCT06025942.

Acceptability of aspirin for cancer preventive therapy: a survey and qualitative study exploring the views of the UK general population

Por: Lloyd · K. E. · Hall · L. H. · Ziegler · L. · Foy · R. · Green · S. M. C. · MacKenzie · M. · Taylor · D. G. · Smith · S. G. · Aspirin for Cancer Prevention AsCaP Steering Committee · Cuzick · Balkwill · Bishop · Burn · Chan · Crooks · Hawkey · Langley · McKenzie · Nedjai · Patrign
Objectives

Aspirin could be offered for colorectal cancer prevention for the UK general population. To ensure the views of the general population are considered in future guidance, we explored public perceptions of aspirin for preventive therapy.

Design

We conducted an online survey to investigate aspirin use, and awareness of aspirin for cancer prevention among the UK general population. We conducted semistructured interviews with a subsample of survey respondents to explore participants’ acceptability towards aspirin for cancer preventive therapy. We analysed the interview data using reflexive thematic analysis and mapped the themes onto the Theoretical Domains Framework, and the Necessity and Concerns Framework.

Setting

Online survey and remote interviews.

Participants

We recruited 400 UK respondents aged 50–70 years through a market research company to the survey. We purposefully sampled, recruited and interviewed 20 survey respondents.

Results

In the survey, 19.0% (76/400) of respondents were aware that aspirin can be used to prevent cancer. Among those who had previously taken aspirin, 1.9% (4/216) had taken it for cancer prevention. The interviews generated three themes: (1) perceived necessity of aspirin; (2) concerns about side effects; and (3) preferred information sources. Participants with a personal or family history of cancer were more likely to perceive aspirin as necessary for cancer prevention. Concerns about taking aspirin at higher doses and its side effects, such as gastrointestinal bleeding, were common. Many described wanting guidance and advice on aspirin to be communicated from sources perceived as trustworthy, such as healthcare professionals.

Conclusions

Among the general population, those with a personal or family history of cancer may be more receptive towards taking aspirin for preventive therapy. Future policies and campaigns recommending aspirin may be of particular interest to these groups. Multiple considerations about the benefits and risks of aspirin highlight the need to support informed decisions on the medication.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of probiotic peanut oral immunotherapy (PPOIT) versus placebo in Australian children with peanut allergy alongside a randomised trial

Por: Huang · L. · Dalziel · K. · Lloyd · M. · Loke · P. · Lozinsky · A. C. · Tang · M.
Objective

To compared the cost-effectiveness of coadministration of a probiotic adjuvant with peanut oral immunotherapy (PPOIT) with placebo (no treatment) in children with peanut allergy.

Design

Prospectively planned cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised control trial.

Setting

The Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.

Participants

56 children with peanut allergy aged 1–10 years at recruitment.

Intervention

A daily dose of probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus CGMCC 1.3724 (NCC4007) and peanut oral immunotherapy administered for 1.5 years.

Main outcomes measures

Costs were considered from a healthcare system perspective and included costs of treatment delivery and adverse events. Effectiveness outcomes included rate of sustained unresponsiveness (SU) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The cost-effectiveness of PPOIT versus placebo was analysed using patient-level data. Time horizon was 10 years from commencement of PPOIT treatment, comprising 1.5 years of treatment (actual data), 4 years of post-treatment follow-up (actual data), and 4.5 years of extrapolation thereafter (modelling).

Results

Healthcare cost per patient over 10 years was higher for PPOIT compared with placebo ($A9355 vs $A1031, p

Conclusions

Cost per QALY gained using PPOIT compared with no treatment is approximately $A20 000 (£10 000) and is well below the conventional value judgement threshold of $A50 000 (£25 000) per QALY gained, thus deemed good value for money ($A1= £0.5 approximately).

Trial registration number

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12608000594325; Post-results.

Protocol for the EACH trial: a multicentre phase II study evaluating the safety and antitumour activity of the combination of avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 agent, and cetuximab, as any line treatment for patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous

Por: Ng · K. · Metcalf · R. · Sacco · J. · Kong · A. · Wheeler · G. · Forsyth · S. · Bhat · R. · Ward · J. · Ensell · L. · Lowe · H. · Spanswick · V. · Hartley · J. · White · L. · Lloyd-Dehler · E. · Forster · M.
Introduction

Head and neck cancer is the eighth most common cancer in the UK. Current standard of care treatment for patients with recurrent/metastatic squamous cell head and neck carcinoma (HNSCC) is platinum-based chemotherapy combined with the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) monoclonal antibody, cetuximab. However, most patients will have poor median overall survival (OS) of 6–9 months despite treatment. HNSCC tumours exhibit an immune landscape poised to respond to immunotherapeutic approaches, with most tumours expressing the immunosuppressive receptor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). We undertook the current study to determine the safety and efficacy of avelumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the interaction between PD-L1 and its receptor on cytotoxic T-cells, in combination with cetuximab.

Methods and analysis

This is a multi-centre, single-arm dose de-escalation phase II safety and efficacy study of avelumab combined with cetuximab; the study was to progress to a randomised phase II trial, however, the study will now complete after the safety run-in component. Up to 16 participants with histologically/cytologically recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma (including HNSCC) who have not received cetuximab previously will be recruited. All patients will receive 10 mg/kg avelumab and cetuximab (500, 400 or 300 mg/m2 depending on the cohort open at time of registration) on days 1 and 15 of 4-week cycles for up to 1 year, (avelumab not given cycle 1 day 1). A modified continual reassessment method will be used to determine dose de-escalation. The primary objective is to establish the safety of the combination and to determine the optimum dose of cetuximab. Secondary objectives include assessing evidence of antitumour activity by evaluating response rates and disease control rates at 6 and 12 months as well as progression-free and OS.

Ethics and dissemination

Approval granted by City and East REC (18/LO/0021). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at conferences.

Trial registration number

NCT03494322.

Supporting adolescents participation in muscle-strengthening physical activity: protocol for the 'Resistance Training for Teens (RT4T) hybrid type III implementation-effectiveness trial

Por: Kelly · H. T. · Smith · J. J. · Verdonschot · A. · Kennedy · S. G. · Scott · J. J. · McKay · H. · Nathan · N. · Sutherland · R. · Morgan · P. J. · Salmon · J. · Penney · D. · Boyer · J. · Lloyd · R. S. · Oldmeadow · C. · Reeves · P. · Pursey · K. · Hua · M. · Longmore · S. · Norman · J. · Vo
Introduction

In Australia, only 22% of male and 8% of female adolescents meet the muscle-strengthening physical activity guidelines, and few school-based interventions support participation in resistance training (RT). After promising findings from our effectiveness trial, we conducted a state-wide dissemination of the ‘Resistance Training for Teens’ (RT4T) intervention from 2015 to 2020. Despite high estimated reach, we found considerable variability in programme delivery and teachers reported numerous barriers to implementation. Supporting schools when they first adopt evidence-based programmes may strengthen programme fidelity, sustainability, and by extension, programme impact. However, the most effective implementation support model for RT4T is unclear.

Objective

To compare the effects of three implementation support models on the reach (primary outcome), dose delivered, fidelity, sustainability, impact and cost of RT4T.

Methods and analysis

We will conduct a hybrid type III implementation–effectiveness trial involving grade 9 and 10 (aged 14–16 years) students from 90 secondary schools in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Schools will be recruited across one cohort in 2023, stratified by school type, socioeconomic status and location, and randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive one of the following levels of implementation support: (1) ‘low’ (training and resources), (2) ‘moderate’ (training and resources+external support) or ‘high’ (training and resources+external support+equipment). Training includes a teacher workshop related to RT4T programme content (theory and practical sessions) and the related resources. Additional support will be provided by trained project officers from five local health districts. Equipment will consist of a pack of semiportable RT equipment (ie, weighted bars, dumbbells, resistance bands and inverted pull up bar stands) valued at ~$A1000 per school. Study outcomes will be assessed at baseline (T0), 6 months (T1) and 18 months (T2). A range of quantitative (teacher logs, observations and teacher surveys) and qualitative (semistructured interviews with teachers) methods will be used to assess primary (reach) and secondary outcomes (dose delivered, fidelity, sustainability, impact and cost of RT4T). Quantitative analyses will use logistic mixed models for dichotomous outcomes, and ordinal or linear mixed effects regression models for continuous outcomes, with alpha levels set at p

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval has been obtained from the University of Newcastle (H-2021-0418), the NSW Department of Education (SERAP:2022215), Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH00052) and the Catholic Schools Office. The design, conduct and reporting will adhere to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement, the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies statement and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. Findings will be published in open access peer-reviewed journals, key stakeholders will be provided with a detailed report. We will support ongoing dissemination of RT4T in Australian schools via professional learning for teachers.

Trial registration number

ACTRN12622000861752.

❌