14 Jan Mindfulness-based therapy for people with schizophrenia: randomised control trial and economic evaluation protocol. Schizophr
I have attached instructions for this paper. I have no idea what I want to base this paper on which is something I would like the writer to do as well. Perhaps have a discussion with me, i am welcome to ideas. I have also attached what kind of paper the instructor expects.
Mindfulness-based therapy for people with schizophrenia: randomised control trial and
economic evaluation protocol.
Schizophrenia is a neuropsychiatric disorder characterised by the presence of
psychopathological domains, such as delusions, hallucinations, formal thought disorder,
motor abnormalities and negative symptoms (1).
Although this disorder is not particularly frequent, with an estimated prevalence around 1%
(2), it is one of the most disabling conditions according to the Global Burden of Disease
studies (3, 4).
People with schizophrenia not only suffer from symptoms, but also from the consequences of
stigma, neglect and abuse (5, 6). Indeed, people with schizophrenia are less likely to be
employed (7) or have their own house (8), and they die 15–20 years earlier than the general
In addition, schizophrenia represents a costly condition for patients, caregivers and the
society. For instance, cost-of-illness systematic reviews have calculated prevalence-based
annual costs for schizophrenia ranging from US$94 million to US$102 billion (2013 US
Pharmacological treatment is one of the cornerstone of schizophrenia therapeutics (13),
however, noncompliance is a challenging issue (14) and even with adequate adherence, up to
30% of patients experience partial response (15). Psychosocial interventions have been
developed in order to increment treatment compliance, but also to help people to cope with
their symptoms, reduce relapses and increment social functioning (16).
The specific case of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has received special attention in the
literature, being recommended even in patients who are resistant to pharmacological
treatment (17). In addition, some economic evaluations have demonstrated that CBT is a
cost-effective intervention from a health perspective (18-20).
Mindfulness-based therapy (MBT), by contrast, has only recently started to be used to treat
people with psychosis (21). This is an operationalised intervention that includes the
development of cognitive and affect dimensions to embrace internal experiences, rather than
avoid them (22). This intervention includes guided meditation and can be added to cognitive
Despite initial concerns about the use of meditation in schizophrenia, pilot studies have
demonstrated the feasibility of using MBT for psychosis (24) and clinical trials have shown
that it can alleviate the distress associated with hallucinations and paranoia (25). Two recent
meta-analyses have evaluated the clinical effectiveness of mindfulness-based therapy for
psychosis (26, 27) with favourable results in terms of symptomatology and rehospitalisation
With this evidence, some people have argued that MBT should be included in the clinical
guidelines, as well as CBT (23). However, until the moment of writing this protocol, no
economic evaluation has been done to probe the cost-effectiveness of such intervention.
Hence, a new randomised trial with an economic evaluation is needed to assess whether MBT
for psychosis represent a valuable therapeutic choice.
Policy question and perspective
This research will answer the policy question about whether it is worthwhile to include MBT
in the package of care of people with schizophrenia.
To make this decision the health service perspective is crucial. Since this protocol is intended
to be applied to the UK setting, the NHS and Personal Social Services perspectives will be
considered according to the NICE recommendations (28).
However, schizophrenia has been proven to impact on many areas of people’s lives (7) and
the evidence has shown that most of costs are indirect costs (11). Hence, a broader
perspective seems more appropriate.
In addition, this research could also be relevant to other policy groups interested in the care of
people with schizophrenia, such as non-governmental organisations (NGO), family and
service-user organisations and research agencies.
Therefore, a societal perspective will be taken, including costs related to health and social
care, but also to productivity losses and costs of informal care.
Productivity losses will be included given that people with schizophrenia have a diminished
ability to work. This is partly due to the symptomatology (cognitive and negative symptoms
(1), but also due to the fact that the first episode of psychosis usually occurs in early
adulthood with a chronic course (29).
Although informal care is not mandatory by NICE, there is substantial evidence on the
impact of schizophrenia in family and caregivers (30) and many of such burden could
eventually implies costs for the NHS, because higher proportion of depression and physical
The aim of this study is to assess the clinical and economic value of adding a mindfulness-
based intervention (MBT) to CBT for people with schizophrenia from a societal perspective.
1) To compare effectiveness of CBT plus a MBT intervention versus CBT alone on
short- and long-term clinical outcomes in people with schizophrenia from secondary
2) To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of adding MBT to CBT for people
with schizophrenia from secondary care settings.
The addition of MBT to CBT is associated with less symptomatology amongst people with
schizophrenia compared with CBT alone.
CBT with a MBT intervention results in a more cost-effective intervention compared with
CBT alone, for the UK context.
A two-arm, parallel, randomised, controlled trial of MBT plus CBT in comparison with CBT
Participants will be recruited from secondary care facilities, either inpatient or community
mental health teams. Specialised services, such as early intervention in psychosis services or
assertive teams will be also included.
Patients aged 18 to 64 years with a diagnosis of schizophrenia-spectrum psychosis according
to the DSM-5 or ICD-11 criteria. This includes schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder,
delusional disorder and schizoaffective disorder.
1. Unwillingness to provide informed consent.
2. Intellectual disability defined as an IQ<80.
3. Active comorbidity with substance misuse without treatment.
4. Decompensated physical comorbidity that difficult the interventions.
5. Refusal to psychological therapies.
The experimental group will receive MBT according to the procedures developed by Segal et
al (32) and adapted to people with psychosis by Chadwick (24). The rationale for this is its
operationalisation and evidence in previous studies (25, 33). Patients will receive mindfulness
sessions twice a week over a period of 12 weeks led by a trained therapist and will be
encouraged to maintain CD-guided meditation practices at home.
This group will maintain treatment according to NICE guidelines (34), including
pharmacotherapy, social support and CBT.
Patients from the parallel arm will receive treatment according to NICE clinical guidelines
(34) as in the intervention group, but without the mindfulness-based module.
The CBT intervention will be defined as 16 one-to-one based sessions, following a treatment
manual to evaluate links between thoughts, feelings and behaviours (34).
The therapists in the experimental group will complete a form after every session, which will
be assessed by a research team member for treatment fidelity. CBT sessions will be recorded
(in both arms) and will be stochastically evaluated.
The primary outcome will be the change in the Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia
(CGI-SCH) (35). The rationale for this is that psychological therapies for schizophrenia have
a focus on how people deal with distressing symptoms, instead of only reducing them (36).
The CGI-SCH scale is applicable by clinicians and it permits evaluate the severity and
general functioning. Psychometric evaluations have demonstrated high reliability and high
correlation with other scales such as GAF and PANSS (35).
The main secondary outcome will be the quality-adjusted life years (QALY). For this study,
the SF-6D instrument will be used. This is an instrument developed by Brazier from the SF-
36 (37). The SF-6D has demonstrated advantages over the EQ-5D specifically in people with
schizophrenia, such as to reflect better the severe nature of the condition, being more
sensitive to change, has a normal distribution and lack of ceiling effect (38).
The PANSS (39) will be applied to evaluate more specifically the symptomatology of
schizophrenia and its correlation with CSI-SCH. The Social functioning scale (40) will
evaluate general aspects of recovery.
At baseline, sociodemographic characteristics of participants will be recorded joint with costs
and outcomes measurements. Next assessments with costs evaluation (see forehead) will be
at 3 months (just after the intervention), 6 months and 1 year.
Recruitment and preparation
Patients will be recruited from secondary care facilities from a defined catchment area of
London. Evaluators will be trained in measurement instruments. Inter-rater reliability will be
assessed with practice interviews.
Treatment allocation will be generated by an independent computer-derived random sequence
for purposes of concealment. An administrator will inform to patients, key health-workers
and MBT therapists of the allocation by phone.
The principal investigator and assessors will be blind to the randomisation status of patients.
This will be maintained by providing instructions to patients, their therapists, clinical teams
and caregivers of no revealing randomisation status. In addition, data will be treated with a
unique identification code to storage and management of the electronic database.
The sample size calculations are based on the clinical effectiveness hypothesis.
To detect a mean difference in CGI-SCH of 4 points (which has described as clinically
significant (35)) with a standard deviation (SD) of 4, a two-sided significance level (α) of 5%
and power (1 – β) of 80% would require 17 patients in each arm. However, given the group
modality of the MBT intervention, a cluster effect is likely to be found (41). A new sample
calculation with same means, SD, power and level of significance, but using an intraclass-
correlation of 0.5 and an estimated cluster size of 8 would require 80 participants per arm.
Both analyses were carried out with STATA 14.2, with commands power and clustersampsi
to sample sizes with and without clustering, respectively.
Estimating a conservative drop-out rate of 30%, is planned to be enrol 104 people in each
The design for the economic evaluation of the primary outcome will be a cost-effectiveness
analysis. Differences in costs and CGI-SCH scores in both arms will be used to calculate an
incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) using the following formula (42):
Fig 1. ICER formula for CEA
Where CMBT is the mean costs in the MBT group; CCBT is the mean costs in the control group;
CGIMBT is the mean CGI score in the treatment arm; and CGICBT is the mean CGI score in the
Uncertainty of the ICERs will be simulated by resampling bootstrapping method with 2000
iterations and simulated means for costs and outcomes will be plotted in the cost-
The same process will be applied to the QALYs from the SF-6D, resulting in a cost-utility
analysis of the effect of MBT. This will permit to inform directly to the decision maker with a
generic measure of health gain (42).
Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will be provided to estimate the probability that the
adding MBT is cost-effective compared with CBT alone (43). The rationale for this are: 1)
Adding a new intervention is likely to be in the northeast quadrant of the cost-effectiveness
plane; 2) There will be uncertainty in the measurement of costs and outcomes; 3) Is unlikely
to find a statistically significant difference between mean costs, given the sample size
In relation to the perspective of the economic evaluation previously mentioned, relevant
resources will be listed for the health system, formal social care, informal social care and
Direct medical costs will include psychiatric hospitalisation, emergency visits, day-hospital
care, community mental healthcare, medication and general physical care. Hospital- and
community-based staff costs will include those from psychiatrists, GP, nurses and therapists.
Costs of the MBT intervention will be calculated following the people allocated approach
(45). The rationale for this is that groups will be closed at 8 people and every session will run
unless no-one attend. The ratio of direct and indirect time will be extrapolated from a study of
MBT for depression (46).
Costs of formal social care will include supported accommodation and costs of social worker
per hour of contact with patients. Costs of informal care will be calculated based on the
monetary valuation of the time invested by caregivers in assisting the patients (47).
According to recommendations of a taxonomy for resource use measurement (RUM) (48),
this study will calculate resource use in the following way: 1) Source of data: patients and
patient proxies (caregiver or relative); 2) The RUM will be completed by a member of the
research team; 3) It will be administrated in a face-to-face basis; and 4) recorded in an
electronic format following a pre-stabled questionnaire.
The healthcare utilisation will be measured through the Client Socio-demographic and
Service Receipt Inventory (49), which is a recall questionnaire that allow measurement of
health and social care utilisation, specially validated for mental health and with independently
assessment of correlation with computerised records (50). Informal care will be measured by
a face-to-face questionnaire (51) and the productivity losses will be calculated by the World
Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ), a self-report
instrument which estimate the workplace costs of health problems (52).
The valuation of health and social care resources will base on published PSSRU unit costs of
Health and Social Care 2016 (53).
To value the informal care provided by caregivers, because the high burden of people caring
schizophrenic patients (54), the wellbeing method shall be used (55).
Finally, the friction cost approach (56) will be used to value the productivity losses, given the
evidence that overestimation by the human capital approach in schizophrenia (57).
Analysis will be carried-out with an intention-to-treat basis. This means that data will be
analysed according to initially allocated group, independently of withdrawals (58). Missing
data will treated through the multiple imputation method if they miss at random basis (59). If
such assumption is not satisfied, adjustment and modelling mechanisms will be explored
To examine successful randomisation, chi-squared and t-test statistics will be used. Baseline
characteristic with the results of statistical test will be presented in tables with 95%
confidence intervals and p-values less than 0.05 will consider significant.
Differences in the mean score of the outcomes and costs will be compared using the t-test
with adjustment by baseline characteristics and costs values.
As a result of the previously mentioned clustering effect, a multilevel analysis will be carried-
out to take into account the differences in therapists’ performance (41).
Several sensitivity analyses will be carried-out to test assumptions in measurements of costs
and outcomes, as well as for loss of follow-up and missing data.
Presentation of the results
Comparison between costs and outcomes will be presented in the form of ICERs (with
resampled estimations) in a cost-effectiveness plane. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves
with willingness to pay (WTP) ranging between £0 and £35,000 per QALY will permit to the
policy maker take a decision based on the probability of that MBT be cost-effective.
Ethics arrangements and dissemination
Research Ethics Committee approval will be obtained before the start of the project.
All eligible participant will require a written consent to be included in the trial, which will be
conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki (61).
The results of this research will be published in peer-review journals, anonymised data will
be accessible for sharing for non-commercial aims and it hopes improve the care of people
1. American Psychiatric A. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-5). Washington, United States: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.
2. Messias EL, Chen CY, Eaton WW. Epidemiology of schizophrenia: review of
findings and myths. The Psychiatric clinics of North America. 2007;30(3):323-38.
3. Whiteford HA, Degenhardt L, Rehm J, Baxter AJ, Ferrari AJ, Erskine HE, et al.
Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the
Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet (London, England). 2013;382(9904):1575-86.
4. Whiteford HA, Ferrari AJ, Degenhardt L, Feigin V, Vos T. The global burden of
mental, neurological and substance use disorders: an analysis from the Global Burden of
Disease Study 2010. PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0116820.
5. Rose D, Willis R, Brohan E, Sartorius N, Villares C, Wahlbeck K, et al. Reported
stigma and discrimination by people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Epidemiology and
psychiatric sciences. 2011;20(2):193-204.
6. Thornicroft G, Rose D, Kassam A, Sartorius N. Stigma: ignorance, prejudice or
discrimination? The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2007;190(3):192-3.
7. Morgan C, McKenzie K, Fearon P. Society and Psychosis. Cambridge,: Cambridge
University Press; 2008.
8. Agerbo E, Byrne M, Eaton WW, Mortensen PB. Marital and labor market status in
the long run in schizophrenia. Archives of general psychiatry. 2004;61(1):28-33.
9. Beary M, Hodgson R, Wildgust HJ. A critical review of major mortality risk factors
for all-cause mortality in first-episode schizophrenia: clinical and research implications.
Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England). 2012;26(5 Suppl):52-61.
10. Knapp M, Mangalore R, Simon J. The global costs of schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull.
11. Chong HY, Teoh SL, Wu DB, Kotirum S, Chiou CF, Chaiyakunapruk N. Global
economic burden of schizophrenia: a systematic review. Neuropsychiatric disease and
12. Jin H, Mosweu I. The Societal Cost of Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review.
13. Buchanan RW, Kreyenbuhl J, Kelly DL, Noel JM, Boggs DL, Fischer BA, et al. The
2009 Schizophrenia PORT Psychopharmacological Treatment Recommendations and
Summary Statements. Schizophr Bull. 2010;36(1):71-93.
14. Higashi K, Medic G, Littlewood KJ, Diez T, Granström O, De Hert M. Medication
adherence in schizophrenia: factors influencing adherence and consequences of
nonadherence, a systematic literature review. Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology.
15. Howes OD, McCutcheon R, Agid O, de Bartolomeis A, van Beveren NJ, Birnbaum
ML, et al. Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia: Treatment Response and Resistance in
Psychosis (TRRIP) Working Group Consensus Guidelines on Diagnosis and Terminology.
Am J Psychiatry. 2016:appiajp201616050503.
16. Turner DT, van der Gaag M, Karyotaki E, Cuijpers P. Psychological interventions for
psychosis: a meta-analysis of comparative outcome studies. Am J Psychiatry.
17. Kuipers E, Fowler D, Garety P, Chisholm D, Freeman D, Dunn G, et al. London-east
Anglia randomised controlled trial of cognitive-behavioural therapy for psychosis. III:
Follow-up and economic evaluation at 18 months. Br J Psychiatry. 1998;173:61-8.
18. van der Gaag M, Stant AD, Wolters KJK, Buskens E, Wiersma D. Cognitive–
behavioural therapy for persistent and recurrent psychosis in people with schizophrenia-
spectrum disorder: cost-effectiveness analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry.
19. Haddock G, Barrowclough C, Tarrier N, Moring J, O'Brien R, Schofield N, et al.
Cognitive-behavioural therapy and motivational intervention for schizophrenia and substance
misuse. 18-month outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2003;183:418-
20. Barton GR, Hodgekins J, Mugford M, Jones PB, Croudace T, Fowler D. Cognitive
behaviour therapy for improving social recovery in psychosis: cost-effectiveness analysis.
Schizophr Res. 2009;112(1-3):158-63.
21. Khoury B, Lecomte T, Gaudiano BA, Paquin K. Mindfulness interventions for
psychosis: a meta-analysis. Schizophr Res. 2013;150(1):176-84.
22. Khoury B, Lecomte T, Fortin G, Masse M, Therien P, Bouchard V, et al.
Mindfulness-based therapy: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review.
23. Chadwick P. Mindfulness for psychosis. The British Journal of Psychiatry.
24. Chadwick P, Taylor KN, Abba N. Mindfulness Groups for People with Psychosis.
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy. 2005;33(3):351-9.
25. Langer AI, Cangas AJ, Salcedo E, Fuentes B. Applying mindfulness therapy in a
group of psychotic individuals: a controlled study. Behav Cogn Psychother. 2012;40(1):105-
26. Khoury B, Lecomte T, Gaudiano BA, Paquin K. Mindfulness interventions for
psychosis: A meta-analysis. Schizophrenia Research. 2013;150(1):176-84.
27. Cramer H, Lauche R, Haller H, Langhorst J, Dobos G. Mindfulness- and Acceptance-
based Interventions for Psychosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Global Advances
in Health and Medicine. 2016;5(1):30-43.
28. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology
appraisal 2013. 2013.
29. Carr VJ, Lewin TJ, Neil AL, Halpin SA, Holmes S. Premorbid, psychosocial and
clinical predictors of the costs of schizophrenia and other psychoses. Br J Psychiatry.
30. Awad AG, Voruganti LN. The burden of schizophrenia on caregivers: a review.
31. Gupta S, Isherwood G, Jones K, Van Impe K. Assessing health status in informal
schizophrenia caregivers compared with health status in non-caregivers and caregivers of
other conditions. BMC psychiatry. 2015;15:162.
32. Segal Z, Williams JMG. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Depression. New
York, UNITED STATES: Guilford Publications; 2001.
33. Chadwick P, Hughes S, Russell D, Russell I, Dagnan D. Mindfulness Groups for
Distressing Voices and Paranoia: A Replication and Randomized Feasibility Trial.
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy. 2009;37(4):403-12.
34. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Psychosis and schizophrenia in
adults: prevention and management. Clinical guideline [CG178] 2014 [Available from:
35. Haro JM, Kamath SA, Ochoa S, Novick D, Rele K, Fargas A, et al. The Clinical
Global Impression-Schizophrenia scale: a simple instrument to measure the diversity of
symptoms present in schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 2003(416):16-23.
36. Birchwood M, Trower P. The future of cognitive-behavioural therapy for psychosis:
not a quasi-neuroleptic. Br J Psychiatry. 2006;188:107-8.
37. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of
health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271-92.
38. McCrone P, Patel A, Knapp M, Schene A, Koeter M, Amaddeo F, et al. A comparison
of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores in a study of patients with schizophrenia. J Ment Health
Policy Econ. 2009;12(1):27-31.
39. Kay SR, Fiszbein A, Opler LA. The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS)
for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1987;13(2):261-76.
40. Birchwood M, Smith J, Cochrane R, Wetton S, Copestake S. The Social Functioning
Scale. The development and validation of a new scale of social adjustment for use in family
intervention programmes with schizophrenic patients. The British Journal of Psychiatry.
41. Murray DM, Varnell SP, Blitstein JL. Design and Analysis of Group-Randomized
Trials: A Review of Recent Methodological Developments. American Journal of Public
42. Drummond M. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes.
Fourth edition / Michael F. Drummond, Mark J. Sculpher, Karl Claxton, Greg L. Stoddart,
George W. Torrance.. ed. Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW, editors:
Oxford, United Kingdom : Oxford University Press; 2015.
43. Fenwick E, O'Brien BJ, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves–facts,
fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ. 2004;13(5):405-15.
44. Henry AG, Jalpa AD, Seema SS, Daniel P. Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials.
Oxford, UK: 'Oxford University Press'; 2014.
45. Barrett B, S. B. The challenges of estimating the unit cost of group based therapies.
In: Curtis L, editor. Unit costs of health and social care 2008: Canterbury: Personal Social
Services Research Unit; 2008.
46. Kuyken W, Byford S, Taylor RS, Watkins E, Holden E, White K, et al. Mindfulness-
based cognitive therapy to prevent relapse in recurrent depression. J Consult Clin Psychol.
47. Krol M, Papenburg J, van Exel J. Does including informal care in economic
evaluations matter? A systematic review of inclusion and impact of informal care in cost-
effectiveness studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(2):123-35.
48. Ridyard CH, Hughes DA. Taxonomy for methods of resource use measurement.
Health Econ. 2015;24(3):372-8.
49. Chisholm D, Knapp MR, Knudsen HC, Amaddeo F, Gaite L, van Wijngaarden B.
Client Socio-Demographic and Service Receipt Inventory–European Version: development
of an instrument for international research. EPSILON Study 5. European Psychiatric
Services: Inputs Linked to Outcome Domains and Needs. Br J Psychiatry Suppl.
50. Heinrich S, Deister A, Birker T, Hierholzer C, Weigelt I, Zeichner D, et al. Accuracy
of self-reports of mental health care utilization and calculated costs compared to hospital
records. Psychiatry Res. 2011;185(1-2):261-8.
51. Shearer J, McCrone P, Romeo R. Economic Evaluation of Mental Health
Interventions: A Guide to Costing Approaches. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(7):651-64.
52. Kessler RC, Barber C, Beck A, Berglund P, Cleary PD, McKenas D, et al. The World
Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ). Journal of
occupational and environmental medicine. 2003;45(2):156-74.
53. Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care 2016: Canterbury: Personal Social
Services Research Unit; 2016.
54. Caqueo-Urizar A, Gutierrez-Maldonado J. Burden of care in families of patients with
schizophrenia. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(4):719-24.
55. van den Berg B, Ferrer ICA. Monetary valuation of informal care: the well-being
valuation method. Health Econ. 2007;16(11):1227-44.
56. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF, van Ineveld BM, van Roijen L. The friction cost
method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ. 1995;14(2):171-89.
57. Goeree R, O'Brien BJ, Blackhouse G, Agro K, Goering P. The valuation of
productivity costs due to premature mortality: a comparison of the human-capital and
friction-cost methods for schizophrenia. Can J Psychiatry. 1999;44(5):455-63.
58. Gupta SK. Intention-to-treat concept:
Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.