ORCID Profile
0000-0002-1770-6216
Current Organisations
University of Leeds School of Medicine
,
University of Leeds
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 26-09-2022
DOI: 10.1111/DME.14944
Abstract: To explore the association between the use of glycaemic technologies and person‐reported outcomes (PROs) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). We included T1D and technology publications reporting on PROs since 2014. Only randomised controlled trials and cohort studies that used validated PRO measures (PROMs) were considered. T1D studies reported on a broad range of validated PROMs, mainly as secondary outcome measures. Most studies examined continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM), and the role of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), including sensor‐augmented CSII and closed loop systems. Generally, studies demonstrated a positive impact of technology on hypoglycaemia‐specific and diabetes‐specific PROs, including reduced fear of hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress, and greater satisfaction with diabetes treatment. In contrast, generic PROMs (including measures of health/functional status, emotional well‐being, depressive symptoms, and sleep quality) were less likely to demonstrate improvements associated with the use of glycaemic technologies. Several studies showed contradictory findings, which may relate to study design, population and length of follow‐up. Differences in PRO findings were apparent between randomised controlled trials and cohort studies, which may be due to different populations studied and/or disparity between trial and real‐world conditions. PROs are usually assessed as secondary outcomes in glycaemic technology studies. Hypoglycaemia‐specific and diabetes‐specific, but not generic, PROs show the benefits of glycaemic technologies, and deserve a more central role in future studies as well as routine clinical care.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 22-05-2023
DOI: 10.1002/ERV.2981
Abstract: Eating disorders are associated with significant illness burden and costs, yet access to evidence‐based care is limited. Greater use of programme‐led and focused interventions that are less resource‐intensive might be part of the solution to this demand‐capacity mismatch. In October 2022, a group of predominantly UK‐based clinical and academic researchers, charity representatives and people with lived experience convened to consider ways to improve access to, and efficacy of, programme‐led and focused interventions for eating disorders in an attempt to bridge the demand‐capacity gap. Several key recommendations were made across areas of research, policy, and practice. Of particular importance is the view that programme‐led and focused interventions are suitable for a range of different eating disorder presentations across all ages, providing medical and psychiatric risk are closely monitored. The terminology used for these interventions should be carefully considered, so as not to imply that the treatment is suboptimal. Programme‐led and focused interventions are a viable option to close the demand‐capacity gap for eating disorder treatment and are particularly needed for children and young people. Work is urgently needed across sectors to evaluate and implement such interventions as a clinical and research priority.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 12-10-2022
DOI: 10.1136/EBMENTAL-2022-300530
Abstract: Behavioural and cognitive interventions remain credible approaches in addressing loneliness and depression. There was a need to rapidly generate and assimilate trial-based data during COVID-19. We undertook a parallel pilot RCT of behavioural activation (a brief behavioural intervention) for depression and loneliness (Behavioural Activation in Social Isolation, the BASIL-C19 trial ISRCTN94091479 ). We also assimilate these data in a living systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021298788) of cognitive and/or behavioural interventions. Participants (≥65 years) with long-term conditions were computer randomised to behavioural activation (n=47) versus care as usual (n=49). Primary outcome was PHQ-9. Secondary outcomes included loneliness (De Jong Scale). Data from the BASIL-C19 trial were included in a metanalysis of depression and loneliness. The 12 months adjusted mean difference for PHQ-9 was −0.70 (95% CI −2.61 to 1.20) and for loneliness was −0.39 (95% CI −1.43 to 0.65). The BASIL-C19 living systematic review (12 trials) found short-term reductions in depression (standardised mean difference (SMD)=−0.31, 95% CI −0.51 to −0.11) and loneliness (SMD=−0.48, 95% CI −0.70 to −0.27). There were few long-term trials, but there was evidence of some benefit (loneliness SMD=−0.20, 95% CI −0.40 to −0.01 depression SMD=−0.20, 95% CI −0.47 to 0.07). We delivered a pilot trial of a behavioural intervention targeting loneliness and depression achieving long-term follow-up. Living meta-analysis provides strong evidence of short-term benefit for loneliness and depression for cognitive and/or behavioural approaches. A fully powered BASIL trial is underway. Scalable behavioural and cognitive approaches should be considered as population-level strategies for depression and loneliness on the basis of a living systematic review.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Gemma Traviss-Turner.