Background: Reablement is an intensive, time-limited intervention for people at risk of needing social care or an increased intensity of care. Differing from home care, it seeks to restore functioning and self-care skills. In England, it is a core element of intermediate care. The existing evidence base is limited. Objectives: To describe reablement services in England and develop a service model typology; to conduct a mixed-methods comparative evaluation of service models investigating outcomes, factors that have an impact on outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness, and user and practitioner experiences; and to investigate specialist reablement services/practices for people with dementia. Methods: Work package (WP) 1, which took place in 2015, surveyed reablement services in England. Data were collected on organisational characteristics, service delivery and practice, and service costs and caseload. WP2 was an observational study of three reablement services, each representing a different service model. Data were collected on health (EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version) and social care related (Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit – self-completed) quality of life, practitioner (Barthel Index of Activities of Daily Living) and self-reported (Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale) functioning, individual and service characteristics, and resource use. They were collected on entry into reablement (n = 186), at discharge (n = 128) and, for those reaching the point on the study timeline, at 6 months post discharge (n = 64). Interviews with staff and service users explored experiences of delivering or receiving reablement and its perceived impacts. In WP3, staff in eight reablement services were interviewed to investigate their experiences of reabling people with dementia. Results: A total of 201 services in 139 local authorities took part in the survey. Services varied in their organisational base, their relationship with other intermediate care services, their use of outsourced providers, their skill mix and the scope of their reablement input. These characteristics influenced aspects of service delivery and practice. The average cost per case was £1728. Lower than expected sample sizes meant that a comparison of service models in WP2 was not possible. The findings are preliminary. At discharge (T1), significant improvements in mean score on outcome measures, except self-reported functioning, were observed. Further improvements were observed at 6 months post discharge (T2), but these were significant for self-reported functioning only. There was some evidence that individual (e.g. engagement, mental health) and service (e.g. service structure) characteristics were associated with outcomes and resource use at T1. Staff’s views on factors affecting outcomes typically aligned with, or offered possible explanations for, these associations. However, it was not possible to establish the significance of these findings in terms of practice or commissioning decisions. Service users expressed satisfaction with reablement and identified two core impacts: regained independence and, during reablement, companionship. Staff participating in WP3 believed that people with dementia can benefit from reablement, but objectives may differ and expectations for regained independence may be inappropriate. Furthermore, staff believed that flexibility in practice (e.g. duration of home visits) should be incorporated into delivery models and adequate provision made for specialist training of staff. Conclusions: The study contributes to our understanding of reablement, and what the impacts are on outcomes and costs. Staff believe that reablement can be appropriate for people with dementia. Findings will be of interest to commissioners and service managers. Future research should further investigate the factors that have an impact on outcomes, and reabling people with dementia. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Network meta-analysis methods, which are an extension of the standard pair-wise synthesis framework, allow for the simultaneous comparison of multiple interventions and consideration of the entire body of evidence in a single statistical model. There are well-established advantages to using individual patient data to perform network meta-analysis and methods for network meta-analysis of individual patient data have already been developed for dichotomous and time-to-event data. This paper describes appropriate methods for the network meta-analysis of individual patient data on continuous outcomes. This paper introduces and describes network meta-analysis of individual patient data models for continuous outcomes using the analysis of covariance framework. Comparisons are made between this approach and change score and final score only approaches, which are frequently used and have been proposed in the methodological literature. A motivating example on the effectiveness of acupuncture for chronic pain is used to demonstrate the methods. Individual patient data on 28 randomised controlled trials were synthesised. Consistency of endpoints across the evidence base was obtained through standardisation and mapping exercises. Individual patient data availability avoided the use of non-baseline-adjusted models, allowing instead for analysis of covariance models to be applied and thus improving the precision of treatment effect estimates while adjusting for baseline imbalance. The network meta-analysis of individual patient data using the analysis of covariance approach is advocated to be the most appropriate modelling approach for network meta-analysis of continuous outcomes, particularly in the presence of baseline imbalance. Further methods developments are required to address the challenge of analysing aggregate level data in the presence of baseline imbalance.

Evaluation of the costs and outcomes associated with environmental policies and interventions is often required to inform public policy and allocate scarce resources. Methods to conduct assessments of cost-effectiveness have been developed in the context of pharmaceuticals, but have more recently been applied in public health, diagnostics, and other more complex interventions. The suitability of existing economic evaluation methodology has been explored in many contexts, however, this is yet to be undertaken for interventions and policies pertaining to the natural environment, such as urban green spaces and strategies to reduce indoor and outdoor air pollution. To make significant inroads into the evaluation of interventions and policies relating to the natural environment requires an understanding of the challenges faced in this context. Many of these challenges may be practical (data-related), however, a number are also methodological, and thus have implications for the appropriate framework for economic evaluation. This paper considers some of the challenges faced when conducting cost-effectiveness analyses in this context and explores what solutions have been proposed thus far. The intention is to help pave the way for consideration of which existing framework is most appropriate for the evaluation of natural environment (NE) interventions, or if a distinct framework is required. Environmental policies and interventions relating to the built environment, for example, housing, are not explicitly included here.

Reablement is a time-limited intervention that aims to support people to regain independence and enable them to resume their daily activities after they return home from an in-patient care setting, or to maintain independence to enable them to remain at home. There is some evidence that reablement can enhance independence and has the potential to contain costs. However, reablement services are funded and provided in different ways and by different organisations, and there is limited research evidence about the effectiveness of different reablement service models. This study will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different reablement service models and service users’ and carers’ experiences of reablement in England, UK. The study will use a quasi-experimental mixed methods design that comprises three work packages (WP) extending over a period of 34 months. WP1 will conduct cluster analysis on survey data to develop a typology of current models of reablement services in order to describe the current reablement service landscape. WP2 will comprise a quantitative outcomes evaluation of the effectiveness of the different service models; a process evaluation and an economic evaluation. WP2 will be set within generic reablement services, where providers are using the most commonly employed generic reablement service types identified in WP1; the primary outcome measure is health-related quality of life measured by the EQ-5D-5L. WP3 will provide evidence about specialist reablement services and how specialist approaches and practices are organised and delivered. Managing demands on care services is, and will remain, a crucial factor for the UK National Health Service as the number of people with long-term conditions rise. There has been, and will continue to be, significant investment in reablement services. The proposed study will address several key areas where there is limited evidence regarding the organisation and delivery of reablement services in England, UK. Specifically, it will provide new evidence on different models of reablement services that will be of direct benefit to health and social care managers, commissioners and their partner organisations.

Background: Unpaid carers are the mainstay of support for people with dementia. Admiral Nursing (AN) is the only specialist nursing service that specifically focuses on supporting such carers, but evidence of its effectiveness, costs and relationships with other health and social care services is limited. This project aimed to address this gap and explore the feasibility of a full-scale formal evaluation.Objectives: To explore the relationships between characteristics of carers and people with dementia, service type and input and outcomes; to develop and test data collection methods for subsequent economic evaluation; to explore the effect of AN on outcomes and costs, compared with usual care; to explore the perceived system-wide impact of specialist support for carers of people with dementia, compared with usual care; and to implement new data collection methods in AN, which could also be used by other services, to facilitate evaluation.Design: A mixed-methods study, using secondary analysis of an administrative data set, and primary (cross-sectional) quantitative and qualitative data collection.Setting: Qualitative research with carers in four areas of England; a survey of carers in 32 local authority areas (16 with and 16 without AN); and qualitative interviews with professionals in four areas.Participants: Thirty-five carers of people with dementia and 20 professionals were interviewed qualitatively; 346 carers completed in-scope questionnaires (46% through AN services and 54% from matched non-AN areas).Interventions: Specialist nursing support for carers of people with dementia (with AN as an exemplar) compared with usual care.Main outcome measures: The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for Carers; the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; and the Caregiver Self-Efficacy for Managing Dementia Scale.Data sources: Dementia UK’s AN administrative data set.Results: Admiral Nurses are successfully targeting the most complex cases. They work predominantly with older carers who have the main responsibility for the person with dementia, who are heavily involved in caring activity and who may be at risk. Three outcome areas that are important to carers of people with dementia and are potentially affected by receiving support are (1) carer self-efficacy, (2) carer quality of life (3) and carer mental and physical health. The carers in the survey receiving support from AN were older, were more heavily involved in caring and had poorer outcomes than carers not in receipt of such support. When these differences were controlled for, carers supported by AN had better outcomes, although the differences did not reach statistical significance. Health and social care costs were similar in both groups. The perceived system-wide impact of services, such as AN, is not well understood by professional stakeholders.Limitations: Challenges were experienced in identifying similar carers in areas with or without an AN service and in the cross-sectional nature of the work.Conclusions: Specialist nursing support to carers of people with dementia may enable them to continue providing care to the end or very close to the end of the dementia journey. The outcomes for such carers may be no different from, or even slightly better than, those of similar carers without this support, although the costs to health and social care services are the same in each case.Future work: Future research could investigate the impact of specialist support for carers on admission to long-term care. There is also a need for more work to encourage routine use of the selected outcome measures in dementia service delivery.Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.