Rebecca Hawkins’s research while affiliated with University of Leeds and other places

Background Frailty is common in older age and is characterised by loss of biological reserves across multiple organ systems. These changes associated with frailty mean older people can be vulnerable to sudden, dramatic changes in health because of relatively small problems. Older people with frailty are at increased risk of adverse outcomes including disability, hospitalisation, and care home admission, with associated reduction in quality of life and increased NHS and social care costs. Personalised Care Planning offers an anticipatory, preventative approach to supporting older adults to live independently for longer, but it has not been robustly evaluated in a population of older adults with frailty. Methods Following an initial feasibility study, this multi-centre, individually randomised controlled trial aims to establish whether personalised care planning for older people improves health-related quality of life. It will recruit 1337 participants from general practices across Yorkshire and Humber and Mid-Mersey in the North of England. Eligible patients will be aged 65 and over with an electronic frailty index score of 0.21 or above, living in their own homes, without severe cognitive impairment and not in receipt of end-of-life care. Following confirmation of eligibility, informed consent and baseline data collection, participants will be individually randomised to the PeRsOnaliSed care Planning for oldER people with frailty (PROSPER) intervention or usual care in a 2.6:1 allocation ratio. Participants will not be blinded to allocation, but data collection and analysis will be blinded. The intervention will be delivered over 12 weeks by a Personal Independence Co-ordinator worker based within a voluntary sector organisation, Age UK. The primary outcomes are health-related quality of life, measured using both the physical and mental components of the Short-Form 12 Item Health Questionnaire at 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes comprise activities of daily living, self-management capabilities and loneliness, admission to care homes, hospitalisations, and health and social care resource use at 12 months post randomisation. Parallel cost-effectiveness and process evaluations will be conducted alongside the trial. Discussion The PROSPER study will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a personalised care planning approach for older people with frailty and inform the process of its implementation. Trial registration mailto:ISRCTN16123291. Registered on 28 August 2020.

Accepted methods of enquiry to address qualitative research questions are focus groups and interviews, enabling access to the experiences, opinions, and perspectives of participants. However use of these methods with people with dementia is problematic because this condition can impair verbal communication in addition to other domains. These challenges can have a significant impact when trying to obtain insight from an individual through conversation and discussion. As researchers, we should be creating alternative methods that place equal importance on behaviour that is non-verbal as well as verbal. This contribution highlights the need for the advancement of creative qualitative methods drawing on lessons learned of the benefits and challenges during the development of a novel approach to support the use of visual methods in dementia research. By focussing on all that is retained and done well, emphasising individual strengths and abilities, offers an increasingly prevalent alternative to existing loss-deficit models that have characterised dementia research in the past. This approach highlights the importance and appropriateness of visual methods in enabling meaning and transparency throughout the research process from ethical approval and consent procedures through to the collection, analysis, dissemination, and impact of the research data.

Background Personalised Care Planning (PCP) is a collaborative approach used in the management of chronic conditions. Core components of PCP are shared decision making to achieve joint goal setting and action planning by the clinician and patient. We undertook a process evaluation within the PROSPER feasibility trial to understand how best to implement PCP for older people with frailty in the community. Methods The trial was set in two localities in England. We observed training sessions and intervention delivery at three time points during the 12-week intervention period. We interviewed delivery teams before, during and after the intervention period, as well as primary care staff. We interviewed older people who had received, declined or withdrawn from PCP. We explored training of staff delivering PCP, structures, mechanisms and resources needed for delivery, and influences on uptake. We undertook a framework approach to data analysis. Findings We observed thirteen training sessions and interviewed seven delivery staff, five primary care staff, and twenty older people, including seven who had declined or withdrawn from the intervention. Delivery teams successfully acquired skills and knowledge, but felt underprepared for working with people with lower levels of frailty. Timing of training was critical and ‘top-ups’ were needed. Engagement with primary care staff was tenuous. Older people with lower frailty were unclear of the intervention purpose and benefits, goal setting and action planning. Conclusions PCP has the potential to address the individualised needs of older people with frailty. However, training requires careful tailoring and is ideally on-going. Considerable efforts are required to integrate statutory and voluntary stakeholders, understanding the expectations and contributions of each agency from the outset. In addition, older people with frailty need time and support to adjust to new ways of thinking about their own health now and in the future so they can participate in shared decision making. These key factors will be essential when developing models of care for delivering PCP to support older people with frailty to sustain their independence and quality of life. Trial registration ISRCTN 12,363,970 – 08/11/2018.

Introduction The Community Ageing Research 75+ (CARE75+) study is a longitudinal cohort study collecting extensive health and social data, with a focus on frailty, independence and quality of life in older age. CARE75+ was the first international experimental frailty research cohort designed using trial within cohorts (TwiCs) methodology, aligning epidemiological research with clinical trial evaluation of interventions to improve the health and well-being of older people. CARE75+ REMOTE is an extension of CARE75+ using a remote model that does not require face-to-face interactions for data collection in the current circumstances of a global pandemic and will provide an efficient, sustainable data collection model. Methods and analysis Prospective cohort study using TwiCs. One thousand community-dwelling older people (≥75 years) will be recruited from UK general practices by telephone. Exclusions include: nursing home/care home residents; those with an estimated life expectancy of 3 months or less; and people receiving palliative care. Data collection Assessments will be conducted by telephone, web-submission or postal questionnaire: baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months and 36 months. Measures include activities of daily living, mood, health-related quality of life, comorbidities, medications, frailty, informal care, healthcare and social care service use. Consent will be sought for data linkage and invitations to additional studies (sub-studies). Ethics and dissemination CARE75+ was approved by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee Yorkshire and the Humber—Bradford Leeds 10 October 2014 (14/YH/1120). CARE75+ REMOTE (amendment 13) was approved on the 18th November 2020. Consent is sought if an individual is willing to participate and has capacity to provide informed consent. Consultee assent is sought if an individual lacks capacity. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences. Results will be summarised and disseminated to study participants via newsletters, local engagement events and on a bespoke website. Trial registration number ISRCTN16588124 .

Background Care home residents are mainly inactive, leading to increased dependency and low mood. Although exercise classes may increase activity, a more sustainable model is to engage staff and residents in increasing routine activity. Objectives The objectives were to develop and preliminarily test strategies to enhance the routine physical activity of care home residents to improve their physical, psychological and social well-being through five overlapping workstreams. Design This trial had a mixed-methods research design to develop and test the feasibility of undertaking an evaluative study consisting of gaining an understanding of the opportunities for and barriers to enhancing physical activity in care homes (workstream 1); testing physical activity assessment instruments (workstream 2); developing an intervention through a process of intervention mapping (workstream 3); refining the provisional intervention in the care home setting and clarifying outcome measurement (workstream 4); and undertaking a cluster randomised feasibility trial of the intervention [introduced via three facilitated workshops at baseline (with physiotherapist input), 2 weeks (with artist input) and 2 months], with embedded process and health economic evaluations (workstream 5). Setting The trial was set in 12 residential care homes differing in size, location, ownership and provision in Yorkshire, UK. Participants The participants were elderly residents, carers, managers and staff of care homes. Intervention The intervention was MoveMore, designed for the whole home, to encourage and support the movement of residents in their daily routines. Main outcome measures The main outcome measures related to the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a full-scale trial in terms of recruitment and retention of care homes and residents, intervention delivery, completion and reporting of baseline data and outcomes (including hours of accelerometer wear, hours of sedentary behaviour and hours and type of physical activity), and safety and cost data (workstream 5). Results Workstream 1 – through a detailed understanding of life in a care home, a needs assessment was produced, and barriers to and facilitators of activity were identified. Key factors included ethos of care; organisation, management and delivery of care; use of space; and the residents’ daily routines. Workstream 2 – 22 (73.3%) out of 30 residents who wore a hip accelerometer had valid data (≥ 8 hours on ≥ 4 days of the week). Workstream 3 – practical mechanisms for increasing physical activity were developed, informed by an advisory group of stakeholders and outputs from workstreams 1 and 2, framed by the process of intervention mapping. Workstream 4 – action groups were convened in four care homes to refine the intervention, leading to further development of implementation strategies. The intervention, MoveMore, is a whole-home intervention involving engagement with a stakeholder group to implement a cyclical process of change to encourage and support the movement of residents in their daily routines. Workstream 5 – 12 care homes and 153 residents were recruited to the cluster randomised feasibility trial. Recruitment in the care homes varied (40–89%). Five care homes were randomised to the intervention and seven were randomised to usual care. Predetermined progression criteria were recruitment of care homes and residents (green); intervention delivery (amber); and data collection and follow-up – 52% of residents provided usable accelerometer data at 9 months (red), > 75% of residents had reported outcomes at 9 months (green, but self-reported resident outcomes were red), 26% loss of residents to follow-up at 9 months [just missing green criterion (no greater than 25%)] and safety concerns (green). Limitations Observations of residents’ movements were not conducted in private spaces. Working with care home residents to identify appropriate outcome measures was challenging. Take-up of the intervention was suboptimal in some sites. It was not possible to make a reliably informed decision on the most appropriate physical activity end point(s) for future use in a definitive trial. Conclusions A whole-home intervention was developed that was owned and delivered by staff and was informed by residents and staff. The feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial was successfully tested: the target numbers of care homes and residents were recruited, demonstrating that it is possible to recruit care home residents to a cluster randomised trial, although this process was time-consuming and resource heavy. A large data set was collected, which provided a comprehensive picture of the environment, residents and staff in care homes. Extensive quantitative and qualitative work comprehensively explored a neglected area of health and social care research. Completion of ethnographic work in a range of settings enabled the production of an in-depth picture of life in care homes that will be helpful for other researchers considering organisational change in this setting. Future work The content and delivery of the intervention requires optimisation and the outcome measurement requires further refinement prior to undertaking a full trial evaluation. Consideration could be given to a recommended, simplified, core outcome set, which would facilitate data collection in this population. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16076575. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grant for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grant for Applied Research ; Vol. 9, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background It is reported that the longer-term outcomes for stroke survivors are poor, with a range of unmet needs identified. Objectives The aims were to develop and test a longer-term stroke care strategy focused on improving the quality of life of stroke survivors and their carers by addressing unmet needs, and maintenance and enhancement of participation (i.e. involvement in life situations). Design Five overlapping workstreams were undertaken – (1) refinement of content by semistructured interviews with stroke survivors and their carers and by a review of the literature to inform content and delivery of the care strategy; (2) exploration of service models by national survey and focus groups with purposely selected services; (3) intervention development by interaction with a reference group of stroke survivors, carers, and health and social care professionals; (4) refinement and pilot implementation of the developed intervention in three stroke services (case studies); and (5) a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial in 10 stroke services across England and Wales. Setting The intervention development work and feasibility trial were in stroke services (inclusive of primary, secondary, community and social care provision) across England and Wales. Participants Participants were stroke survivors resident in the community and their carers, and health and social care professionals in the included stroke services. Data sources Interviews with 28 stroke survivors and their carers at least 9 months post stroke ascertained their needs and the barriers to and facilitators of addressing those needs. Additional literature reviews identified 23 needs. No evidence-based interventions to address these needs were reported; self-management was highlighted as a possible delivery mechanism. In workstream 2, a national survey revealed that the most common model of stroke service provision was care up to 12 months post stroke, reported by 46 (40%) services. Thirty-five (30%) services provided care up to 6 months post stroke and 35 (30%) provided care beyond 12 months, thus identifying 6 months post stroke as an appropriate delivery point for a new intervention. Through focus groups in a range of services, stroke survivors’ perceived unmet needs and the barriers to and enablers of service provision were identified. Intervention Using information obtained in workstreams 1 and 2 and working closely with a stakeholder reference group, we developed an intervention based on the unmet needs prioritised by stroke survivors and their carers (workstream 3). In workstream 4, action groups (clinicians, stroke survivors and researchers) were established in three stroke services that led implementation in their service and contributed to the iterative refinement of the intervention, associated training programme and implementation materials. The intervention (called New Start) was delivered at 6 months post stroke. Key components were problem-solving self-management with survivors and carers, help with obtaining usable information, and helping survivors and their carers build sustainable, flexible support networks. Results A cluster randomised feasibility trial (workstream 5) was successfully implemented in 10 stroke services across England and Wales, with associated process and health economic evaluations. Five services were randomised to provide New Start, while five continued with usual care; 269 participants were recruited. Progression criteria – in terms of our pre-determined (red, amber, green) criteria for progress to a full trial: target stroke survivor recruitment rates were achieved, on average, across sites (24.1 per site over 6 months, green); 216 (80.3%) registered stroke survivors returned follow-up questionnaires at 9 months (84.1% in the intervention arm and 75.8% in the usual care arm, green); according to data reported by sites, overall, 95.2% of registered stroke survivors were offered at least one session of the intervention (green); all five intervention sites had at least two facilitators deemed competent, delivered the New Start intervention and provided it to stroke survivors (green). However, at some sites, there were concerns regarding the number of stroke survivors being offered, accepting and receiving the intervention. Only small differences in outcomes and costs were observed between the New Start and usual care groups, and considerable uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness remains. Conclusions We report a complex programme of work that has described the longer-term needs of stroke survivors and highlighted evidence and service gaps. Working closely with stroke survivors, an intervention was developed that has been refined in three services and feasibility tested in a cluster randomised controlled trial. Further refinement of the target population and optimisation of the intervention materials is required prior to a full randomised controlled trial evaluation. Future work Optimisation of the intervention, and clearer specification of recipients, are required prior to a full trial evaluation. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38920246. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research ; Vol. 9, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Previous studies have summarized evidence on health-related quality of life for older people, identifying a range of measures that have been validated, but have not sought to present results by degree of frailty. Furthermore, previous studies did not typically use quality-of-life measures that generate an overall health utility score. Health utility scores are a necessary component of quality-adjusted life-year calculations used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of interventions. Methods We calculated normative estimates in mean and standard deviation for EQ-5D-5L, short-form 36-item health questionnaire in frailty (SF-36), and short-form 6-dimension (SF-6D) for a range of established frailty models. We compared response distributions across dimensions of the measures and investigated agreement using Bland-Altman and interclass correlation techniques. Results The EQ-5D-5L, SF-36, and SF-6D scores decrease and their variability increases with advancing frailty. There is strong agreement between the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D across the spectrum of frailty. Agreement is lower for people who are most frail, indicating that different components of the 2 instruments may have greater relevance for people with advancing frailty in later life. There is a greater risk of ceiling effects using the EQ-5D-5L rather than the SF-6D. Conclusions We recommend the SF-36/SF-6D as an appropriate measure of health-related quality of life for clinical trials if fit older people are the planned target. In trials of interventions involving older people with increasing frailty, we recommend that both the EQ-5D-5L and SF36/SF6D are included, and are used in sensitivity analyses as part of cost-effectiveness evaluation.

Background: Frailty is characterised by increased vulnerability to falls, disability, hospitalisation and care home admission. However, it is relatively reversible in the early stages. Older people living with frailty often have multiple health and social issues which are difficult to address but could benefit from proactive, person-centred care. Personalised care planning aims to improve outcomes through better self-management, care coordination and access to community resources. Methods: This feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial aims to recruit 400 participants from 11 general practice clusters across Bradford and Leeds in the north of England. Eligible patients will be aged over 65 with an electronic frailty index score of 0.21 (identified via their electronic health record), living in their own homes, without severe cognitive impairment and not in receipt of end of life care. After screening for eligible patients, a restricted 1:1 cluster-level randomisation will be used to allocate practices to the PROSPER intervention, which will be delivered over 12 weeks by a personal independence co-ordinator worker, or usual care. Following initial consent, participants will complete a baseline questionnaire in their own home including measures of health-related quality of life, activities of daily living, depression and health and social care resource use. Follow-up will be at six and 12 months. Feasibility outcomes relate to progression criteria based around recruitment, intervention delivery, retention and follow-up. An embedded process evaluation will contribute to iterative intervention optimisation and logic model development by examining staff training, intervention implementation and contextual factors influencing delivery and uptake of the intervention. Discussion: Whilst personalised care planning can improve outcomes in long-term conditions, implementation in routine settings is poor. We will evaluate the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial of personalised care planning in a community population based on frailty status. Key objectives will be to test fidelity of trial design, gather data to refine sample size calculation for the planned definitive trial, optimise data collection processes and optimise the intervention including training and delivery. Trial registration: ISRCTN12363970 - 08/11/18.

Background: provision of care for care home residents with complex needs is challenging. Physiotherapy and activity interventions can improve well-being but are often time-limited and resource intensive. A sustainable approach is to enhance the confidence and skills of staff who provide care. This trial assessed the feasibility of undertaking a definitive evaluation of a posture and mobility training programme for care staff. Design and setting: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial with embedded process evaluation. Ten care homes in Yorkshire, United Kingdom, were randomised (1:1) to the skilful care training package (SCTP) or usual care (UC). Participants: residents who were not independently mobile. Intervention: SCTP-delivered by physiotherapists to care staff. Objectives and measurements: key objectives informed progression to a definitive trial. Recruitment, retention and intervention uptake were monitored. Data, collected by a blinded researcher, included pain, posture, mobility, hospitalisations and falls. This informed data collection feasibility and participant safety. Results: a total of 348 residents were screened; 146 were registered (71 UC, 75 SCTP). Forty two were lost by 6 months, largely due to deaths. While data collection from proxy informants was good (>95% expected data), attrition meant that data completion rates did not meet target. Data collection from residents was poor due to high levels of dementia. Intervention uptake was variable-staff attendance at all sessions ranged from 12.5 to 65.8%. There were no safety concerns. Conclusion: care home and resident recruitment are feasible, but refinement of data collection approaches and intervention delivery are needed for this trial and care home research more widely.