Rescheduling Part 2 of the 11+ reduces injury burden and increases compliance in semi‐professional football

Although the 11+ program has been shown to reduce injuries in sub‐elite football, program compliance is typically poor, suggesting that strategies to optimize delivery are necessary. This study investigated the effect of rescheduling Part 2 of the three‐part 11+ program on program effectiveness. Twenty‐five semi‐professional football clubs were randomly allocated to either a Standard‐11+ (n = 398 players) or P2_post group (n = 408 players). Both groups performed the 11+ program at least twice a week throughout the 2017 football season. The Standard‐11+ group performed the entire 11+ program before training activities commenced, whereas the P2_post group performed Parts 1 and 3 of the 11+ program before and Part 2 after training. Injuries, exposure, and individual player 11+ dose were monitored throughout the season. No significant between group difference in injury incidence rate (P2_post vs Standard‐11+ = 11.8 vs 12.3 injuries/1000 h) was observed. Severe time loss injuries > 28 days (33 vs 58 injuries; P < .002) and total days lost to injury (4303 vs 5815 days; P < .001) were lower in the P2_post group. A higher 11+ program dose was observed in the P2_post (29.1 doses; 95% CI 27.9‐30.1) versus Standard‐11+ group (18.9 doses; 95% CI 17.6?20.2; P < .001). In semi‐professional football, rescheduling Part 2 of the 11+ program to the end of training maintained the effectiveness of the original 11+ program to reduce injury incidence. Importantly, rescheduling Part 2 improved player compliance and reduced the number of severe injuries and total injury burden, thereby enhancing effectiveness of the 11+ program.     

A (five-)level playing field for mental health conditions?: exploratory analysis of EQ-5D-5L-derived utility values

Purpose

Economic evaluations of mental health interventions often measure health benefit in terms of utility values derived from the EQ-5D. For the five-level version of the EQ-5D, there are two methods of estimating utility [crosswalk and stated preference (5L-SP)]. This paper explores potential impacts for researchers and decision-makers when comparing utility values derived from either method in the specific context of mental health.

Methods

Baseline EQ-5D-5L data from three large randomised controlled trials of interventions for mental health conditions were analysed. Utility values were generated using each method. Mean utility values were compared using a series of t tests on pooled data and subgroups. Scenario analyses explored potential impacts on cost-effectiveness decisions.

Results

EQ-5D data were available for 1399 participants. The mean utility value for each trial was approximately 0.08 higher when estimated using the 5L-SP approach compared to crosswalk (p?<?0.0001). The difference was greatest among people reporting extreme anxiety/depression (mean utility 5L-SP 0.309, crosswalk 0.084; difference?=?0.225; p?<?0.0001). Identical improvements in health status were associated with higher costs to gain one QALY with the 5L-SP approach; this is more pronounced when improvements are across all domains compared to improvements on the anxiety/depression domain only.

Conclusions

The two approaches produce significantly different utility values in people with mental health conditions. Resulting differences in cost per QALY estimates suggest that thresholds of cost-effectiveness may also need to be reviewed. Researchers and decision-makers should exercise caution when comparing or synthesising data from trials of mental health interventions using different utility estimation approaches.

     

The reliability of British Sign Language and English versions of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure with d/Deaf populations in the UK: an initial study

Previous research has argued that the mental well‐being of d/Deaf people is poorer than that of hearing populations. However, there is a paucity of valid and reliable mental health instruments in sign language that have been normalised with d/Deaf populations. The aim of this study was to determine the reliability of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure (CORE‐OM) with d/Deaf populations. A British Sign Language (BSL) version was produced using a team approach to forward translation, and a back‐translation check. The CORE‐OM was incorporated into an online survey, to be completed in either BSL or English, as preferred by the participant. From December 2010 to March 2011, data were collected from 136 d/Deaf people. Cronbach's α was used to measure the internal consistency of items in the CORE‐OM. Comparisons were made between versions, including comparisons with the non‐clinical hearing population (not in receipt of mental health services) in a previous study. The reliability of the overall score, as well as the non‐risk items in both the BSL and English versions, was satisfactory. The internal reliability of each domain in the BSL version was good (Cronbach's α > 0.70) and comparable to the English version in the hearing population. This was true for most domains of the CORE–OM in the English version completed by d/Deaf people, although the Functioning domain had a relatively low α of 0.79 and the Risk domain had an α of only 0.66 This raised the question whether it is advisable to use a mental health assessment with d/Deaf populations that has been standardised with hearing populations. Nevertheless, this study has shown that it is possible to collect data from d/Deaf populations in the UK via the web (both in BSL and English), and an online BSL version of the CORE‐OM is recommended for use with Deaf populations in the community.     

Physical activity in children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis: Quantification and evaluation

Objective. To measure daily physical activity in patients with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA) and in healthy controls, and to identify variables that may influence physical activity in JRA patients. Methods. Twenty-three prepubertal children, ages 5-11 years, with mild to moderate JRA and no prior exposure to systemic glucocorticosteroids, were compared to 23 healthy children of similar age. Physical activity was measured for 3 days (minimum of one weekend day) using 3 standardized methods simultaneously. Total body movement was assessed by the Caltrac accelerometer and the University of Cincinnati Motion Sensor (UCMS). The Caltrac measured movement in the vertical plane; the UCMS measured movement of 10° or more from the horizontal plane. The type and intensity of daily physical activity was measured by the 3-day activity record, which also recorded the number of hours of daily sleep. Participation and duration of involvement in organized sports was ascertained by questionnaire. Results. The mean physical activity was significantly lower in JRA patients than in controls for the activity diary (P = 0.05). However, daily body movement measured by the Caltrac and UCMS were similar for both groups. Differences were seen in the number of hours of sleep per day (P = 0.02) and participation in strenuous activities (P < 0.01). JRA patients had significantly less participation in organized sports (P = 0.01). Conclusion. There was less daily physical activity by this group of JRA patients than for healthy age-and sex-matched control subjects.     

Systemic features and early prognostic factors in Hispanic and non-Hispanic children from the United States of America and Mexico with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if the persistence of systemic features is longer in Hispanic children with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (S-JIA) than in non-Hispanic children with S-JIA and to determine early predictors of systemic and articular disease. METHODS: We performed a multi-center retrospective chart review of patients followed in six pediatric rheumatology centers with onset of S-JIA from 1974 to 2004. Patients were included in the study if they had been followed for > or = 1 year after disease onset. Information collected included demographic, clinical, laboratory and treatment data. Systemic features included fever, rash, lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, pericarditis, and pleuritis. RESULTS: Of the 159 S-JIA patients screened, 120 (75%) met our inclusion criteria. There were 65 boys and 55 girls. The mean follow-up period for Hispanic patients was 5.7 years (SD 4.0) and for non-Hispanic patients was 8.6 years (SD 7.2). There was no significant difference in the presence of systemic features between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 years of follow-up. Polyarthritis at the 6-month visit was predictive of systemic features (OR 9.7, 95% CI 1.16-81.35, p = 0.036) and polyarthritis (OR 5.6, 95% CI 1.42-21.8, p = 0.014) at last follow-up. CONCLUSION: In children with S-JIA, Hispanics did not demonstrate longer persistence of systemic features than non-Hispanics. Polyarthritis at 6 months strongly predicted the development of persistent systemic features and chronic polyarticular disease.     

Comparison of three screening tools to detect psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis (CONTEST study)

Background Multiple questionnaires to screen for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have been developed but the optimal screening questionnaire is unknown. Objectives To compare three PsA screening questionnaires in a head‐to‐head study using CASPAR (the Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis) as the gold standard. Methods This study recruited from 10 U.K. secondary care dermatology clinics. Patients with a diagnosis of psoriasis, not previously diagnosed with PsA, were given all three questionnaires. All patients who were positive on any questionnaire were invited for a rheumatological assessment. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve of the three questionnaires according to CASPAR criteria. Results In total, 938 patients with psoriasis were invited to participate and 657 (70%) patients returned the questionnaires. One or more questionnaires were positive in 314 patients (48%) and 195 (62%) of these patients attended for assessment. Of these, 47 patients (24%) were diagnosed with PsA according to the CASPAR criteria. The proportion of patients with PsA increased with the number of positive questionnaires (one questionnaire, 19·1%; two, 34·0%; three, 46·8%). Sensitivities and specificities for the three questionnaires, and areas under the ROC curve were, respectively: Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Evaluation (PASE), 74·5%, 38·5%, 0·594; Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST), 76·6%, 37·2%, 0·610; Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screen (ToPAS), 76·6%, 29·7%, 0·554. The majority of patients with a false positive response had degenerative or osteoarthritis. Conclusion Although the PEST and ToPAS questionnaires performed slightly better than the PASE questionnaire at identifying PsA, there is little difference between these instruments. These screening tools identify many cases of musculoskeletal disease other than PsA.