Search

Introduction: Using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening is likely to improve the efficiency of screening programmes by targeting resources towards those most likely to benefit. We aimed to explore the implications of this approach from a societal perspective by understanding public views on the most acceptable stratification strategies. Methods: We conducted three online community juries with 9 or 10 participants in each. Participants were purposefully sampled by age (40–79 years), sex, ethnicity, social grade and English region. On the first day, participants were informed of the potential benefits and harms of cancer screening and the implications of different ways of introducing stratification using scenarios based on phenotypic and genetic risk scores. On the second day, participants deliberated to reach a verdict on the research question, ‘Which approach(es) to inviting people to screening are acceptable, and under what circumstances?’ Deliberations and feedback were recorded and analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Across the juries, the principle of risk stratification was generally considered to be an acceptable approach for determining eligibility for screening. Disregarding increasing capacity, the participants considered it to enable efficient resource allocation to high‐risk individuals and could see how it might help to save lives. However, there were concerns regarding fair implementation, particularly how the risk assessment would be performed at scale and how people at low risk would be managed. Some favoured using the most accurate risk prediction model whereas others thought that certain risk factors should be prioritized (particularly factors considered as non‐modifiable and relatively stable, such as genetics and family history). Transparently justifying the programme and public education about cancer risk emerged as important contributors to acceptability. Conclusion: Using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening was acceptable to informed members of the public, particularly if it included risk factors they considered fair and when communicated transparently. Patient or Public Contribution: Two patient and public involvement representatives were involved throughout this study. They were not involved in synthesizing the results but contributed to producing study materials, co‐facilitated the community juries and commented on the interpretation of the findings and final report.

Funder: Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Funder: East of England Clinical Academic Reserve, In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that women at moderate or high risk of breast cancer be offered risk-reducing medication and enhanced breast screening/surveillance. In June 2022, NICE withdrew a statement recommending assessment of risk in primary care only when women present with concerns. This shift to the proactive assessment of risk substantially changes the role of primary care, in effect paving the way for a primary care-based screening programme to identify those at moderate or high risk of breast cancer. In this article, we review the literature surrounding proactive breast cancer risk assessment within primary care against the consolidated framework for screening. We find that risk assessment for women under 50 years currently satisfies many of the standard principles for screening. Most notably, there are large numbers of women at moderate or high risk currently unidentified, risk models exist that can identify those women with reasonable accuracy, and management options offer the opportunity to reduce breast cancer incidence and mortality in that group. However, there remain a number of uncertainties and research gaps, particularly around the programme/system requirements, that need to be addressed before these benefits can be realised.

Background Positive Choices is a whole-school social marketing intervention to promote sexual health among secondary school students. Intervention comprises school health promotion council involving staff and students coordinating delivery; student survey to inform local tailoring; teacher-delivered classroom curriculum; student-run campaigns; parent information; and review of sexual/reproductive health services to inform improvements. This trial builds on an optimisation/pilot RCT study which met progression criteria, plus findings from another pilot RCT of the Project Respect school-based intervention to prevent dating and relationship violence which concluded such work should be integrated within Positive Choices. Young people carry a disproportionate burden of adverse sexual health; most do not report competence at first sex. Relationships and sex education in schools can contribute to promoting sexual health but effects are small, inconsistent and not sustained. Such work needs to be supplemented by ‘whole-school’ (e.g. student campaigns, sexual health services) and ‘social marketing’ (harnessing commercial marketing to social ends) approaches for which there is good review-level evidence but not from the UK. Methods We will conduct a cluster RCT across 50 schools (minimum 6440, maximum 8500 students) allocated 1:1 to intervention/control assessing outcomes at 33 months. Our primary outcome is non-competent first sex. Secondary outcomes are non-competent last sex, age at sexual debut, non-use of contraception at first and last sex among those reporting heterosexual intercourse, number of sexual partners, dating and relationship violence, sexually transmitted infections, and pregnancy and unintended pregnancy for girls and initiation of pregnancy for boys. We will recruit 50 school and undertake baseline surveys by March 2022; implement the intervention over the 2022–2024 school years and conduct the economic and process evaluations by July 2024; undertake follow-up surveys by December 2024; complete analyses, all patient and policy involvement and draft the study report by March 2025; and engage in knowledge exchange from December 2024. Discussion This trial is one of a growing number focused on whole-school approaches to public health in schools. The key scientific output will be evidence about the effectiveness, costs and potential scalability and transferability of Positive Choices. Trial registration ISRCTN No: ISRCTN16723909. Trial registration summary: Date:. Funded by: National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research Programme (NIHR131487). Sponsor: LSHTM. Public/scientific contact: Chris Bonell. Public title: Positive Choices trial. Scientific title: Phase-III RCT of Positive Choices: a whole-school social marketing intervention to promote sexual health and reduce health inequalities. Countries of recruitment: UK. Intervention: Positive Choices. Inclusion criteria: Students in year 8 (age 12–13 years) at baseline deemed competent by schools to participate in secondary schools excluding pupil referral units, schools for those with special educational needs and disabilities, and schools with ‘inadequate’ Ofsted inspections. Study type: interventional study with superiority phase III cluster RCT design. Enrollment: 1/9/21-31/3/22. Sample size: 50 schools and 6440–8500 students. Recruitment status: pending. Primary outcome: binary measure of non-competent first sex. Secondary outcomes: non-competent last sex; age at sexual debut; non-use of contraception at first and last sex; number of sexual partners; dating and relationship violence (DRV) victimisation; sexually transmitted infections; pregnancy and unintended pregnancy for girls and initiation of pregnancy for boys using adapted versions of the RIPPLE measures. Ethics review: LSHTM research ethics committee (reference 26411). Completion data: 1/3/25. Sharing statement: Data will be made available after the main trial analyses have been completed on reasonable request from researchers with ethics approval and a clear protocol. Amendments to the protocol will be communicated to the investigators, sponsor, funder, research ethics committee, trial registration and the journal publishing the protocol. Amendments affecting participants’ experience of the intervention or important amendments affecting the overall design and conduct of the trial will be communicated to participants.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that centralising surgical treatment for some cancers can improve patient outcomes, but there is limited evidence of the impact on costs or health-related quality of life. OBJECTIVES: We report the results of a cost-utility analysis of the RESPECT-21 study using difference-in-differences, which investigated the reconfiguration of specialist surgery services for four cancers in an area of London, compared to the Rest of England (ROE). METHODS: Electronic health records data were obtained from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service for patients diagnosed with one of the four cancers of interest between 2012 and 2017. The analysis for each tumour type used a short-term decision tree followed by a 10-year Markov model with 6-monthly cycles. Costs were calculated by applying National Health Service (NHS) Reference Costs to patient-level hospital resource use and supplemented with published data. Cancer-specific preference-based health-related quality-of-life values were obtained from the literature to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Total costs and QALYs were calculated before and after the reconfiguration, in the London Cancer (LC) area and in ROE, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to illustrate the uncertainty in the results. RESULTS: At a threshold of £30,000/QALY gained, LC reconfiguration of prostate cancer surgery services had a 79% probability of having been cost-effective compared to non-reconfigured services using difference-in-differences. The oesophago-gastric, bladder and renal reconfigurations had probabilities of 62%, 49% and 12%, respectively, of being cost-effective at the same threshold. Costs and QALYs per surgical patient increased over time for all cancers across both regions to varying degrees. Bladder cancer surgery had the smallest patient numbers and changes in costs, and QALYs were not significant. The largest improvement in outcomes was in renal cancer surgery in ROE, making the relative renal improvements in LC appear modest, and the probability of the LC reconfiguration having been cost-effective low. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer reconfigurations had the highest probability of being cost-effective. It is not clear, however, whether the prostate results can be considered in isolation, given the reconfigurations occurred simultaneously with other system changes, and healthcare delivery in the NHS is highly networked and collaborative. Routine collection of quality-of-life measures such as the EQ-5D-5L would have improved the analysis.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of the ‘Getting it Right First Time’ (GIRFT) national improvement programme in orthopaedics, which started in 2012.DesignMixed-methods study comprising statistical analysis of linked national datasets (National Joint Registry; Hospital Episode Statistics; Patient-Reported Outcomes); economic analysis and qualitative case studies in six National Health Service (NHS) Trusts.SettingNHS elective orthopaedic surgery in England.Participants736 088 patients who underwent primary hip or knee replacement at 126 NHS Trusts between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2018, plus 50 NHS staff.InterventionImprovement bundle including ‘deep dive’ visits by senior clinician to NHS Trusts, informed by bespoke set of routine performance data, to discuss how improvements could be made locally.Main outcome measuresNumber of procedures conducted by low volume surgeons; use of uncemented hip implants in patients >65; arthroscopy in year prior to knee replacement; hospital length of stay; emergency readmissions within 30 days; revision surgery within 1 year; health-related quality of life and functional status.ResultsNational trends demonstrated substantial improvements beginning prior to GIRFT. Between 2012 and 2018, there were reductions in procedures by low volume surgeons (ORs (95% CI) hips 0.58 (0.53 to 0.63), knees 0.77 (0.72 to 0.83)); uncemented hip prostheses in >65 s (OR 0.56 (0.51 to 0.61)); knee arthroscopies before surgery (OR 0.48 (0.41 to 0.56)) and mean length of stay (hips −0.90 (−1.00 to -0.81), knees −0.74 days (−0.82 to −0.66)). The additional impact of visits was mixed and comprised an overall economic saving of £431 848 between 2012 and 2018, but this was offset by the costs of the visits. Staff reported that GIRFT’s influence ranged from procurement changes to improved regional collaboration.ConclusionNationally, we found substantial improvements in care, but the specific contribution of GIRFT cannot be reliably estimated due to other concurrent initiatives. Our approach enabled additional analysis of the discrete impact of GIRFT visits.

INTRODUCTION: The cost-effectiveness and long-term health impact of behavioural weight management programmes depends on post-treatment weight-loss maintenance. Growing evidence suggests that interventions using acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) could improve long-term weight management. We developed an ACT-based, guided self-help intervention to support adults who have recently completed a behavioural weight loss programme. This study will assess the feasibility and acceptability of this type of intervention and findings will inform the development of a full-scale trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic, randomised, single-blind, parallel group, two-arm, feasibility study with an embedded process evaluation. We will recruit and randomise 60 adults who have recently completed a behavioural weight loss programme to the ACT-based intervention or standard care, using a computer-generated sequence with 2:1 allocation stratified by diabetes status and sex. Baseline and 6-month measurements will be completed using online questionnaires. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with a subsample of participants and coaches about their experiences at 3 (mid-intervention) and 6 (postintervention) months. Feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, and a full-scale trial will be assessed using a number of outcomes, including adherence to, and engagement with the intervention, recruitment and retention rates, proportion of missing data for each outcome measure, participants' experiences of the intervention and study, and coaches' experiences of delivering intervention support. Quantitative and qualitative findings will be integrated and summarised to contribute to the interpretation of the main feasibility evaluation findings. Value of information methods will be used to estimate the decision uncertainty associated with the intervention's cost-effectiveness and determine the value of a definitive trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was received from Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee on 15/03/2021 (21/EE/0024). This protocol (V.2) was approved on 19 April 2021. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and communicated to other stakeholders as appropriate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12685964., This study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (RP-PG-0216-20010). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Although the communication pathways of Newborn Bloodspot Screening (NBS) are a delicate task, these pathways vary across different conditions and are often not evidence-based. The ReSPoND interventions were co-designed by healthcare professionals alongside parents who had received a positive NBS result for their child. To calculate the cost of these co-designed strategies and the existing communication pathways, we interviewed 71 members of the clinical and laboratory staff of the 13 English NBS laboratories in the English National Health Service. Therefore, a scenario analysis was used to compare the cost of the existing communication pathways to the co-designed strategies delivered by (i) home-visits and (ii) telecommunications. On average, the existing communication pathway cost £447.08 per infant (range: £237.12 to £628.51) or £234,872.75 (£3635.99 to £1,932,986.23) nationally. Implementing the new interventions relying on home-visits exclusively would cost on average £521.62 (£312.84 to £646.39) per infant and £297,816.03 (£4506.37 to £2,550,284.64) nationally, or £447.19 (£235.79 to £552.03) and £231,342.40 (£3923.7 to £1,922,192.22) if implemented via teleconsultations, respectively. The new strategies delivered are not likely to require additional resources compared with current practice. Further research is needed to investigate whether this investment represents good value for money for the NHS budget.

Funder: Wellcome Trust, OBJECTIVES: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) symptoms are experienced by an estimated 11% of UK adults, and symptoms have major impacts on quality of life. Data from UK and elsewhere suggest high economic burden of CRS, but detailed cost information and economic analyses regarding surgical pathway are lacking. This paper estimates healthcare costs for patients receiving surgery for CRS in England. DESIGN: Observational retrospective study examining cost of healthcare of patients receiving CRS surgery. SETTING: Linked electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics databases in England. PARTICIPANTS: A phenotyping algorithm using medical ontology terms identified 'definite' CRS cases who received CRS surgery. Patients were registered with a general practice in England. Data covered the period 1997-2016. A cohort of 13 462 patients had received surgery for CRS, with 9056 (67%) having confirmed nasal polyps. OUTCOME MEASURES: Information was extracted on numbers and types of primary care prescriptions and consultations, and inpatient and outpatient hospital investigations and procedures. Resource use was costed using published sources. RESULTS: Total National Health Service costs in CRS surgery patients were £2173 over 1 year including surgery. Total costs per person-quarter were £1983 in the quarter containing surgery, mostly comprising surgical inpatient care costs (£1902), and around £60 per person-quarter in the 2 years before and after surgery, of which half were outpatient costs. Outpatient and primary care costs were low compared with the peak in inpatient costs at surgery. The highest outpatient expenditure was on CT scans, peaking in the quarter preceding surgery. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first study of costs to the English healthcare system for patients receiving surgery for CRS. The total aggregate costs provide a further impetus for trials to evaluate the relative benefit of surgical intervention.

BackgroundThere was a national roll out of ‘COVID Virtual Wards’ (CVW) during England’s second COVID-19 wave (Autumn 2020 – Spring 2021). These services used remote pulse oximetry monitoring for COVID-19 patients following discharge from hospital. A key aim was to enable rapid detection of patient deterioration. It was anticipated that the services would support early discharge and avoid readmissions, reducing pressure on beds. This study is an evaluation of the impact of the CVW services on hospital activity.MethodsUsing retrospective patient-level hospital admissions data, we built multivariate models to analyse the relationship between the implementation of CVW services and hospital activity outcomes: length of COVID-19 related stays and subsequent COVID-19 readmissions within 28 days. We used data from more than 98% of recorded COVID-19 hospital stays in England, where the patient was discharged alive between mid-August 2020 and late February 2021.FindingsWe found a longer length of stay for COVID-19 patients discharged from hospitals where a CVW was available, when compared to patients discharged from hospitals where there was no CVW (adjusted IRR 1·05, 95% CI 1·01 to 1·09). We found no evidence of a relationship between the availability of CVW and subsequent rates of readmission for COVID-19 (adjusted OR 0·95, 95% CI 0·89 to 1·02).InterpretationWe found no evidence of early discharges or reduced readmissions associated with the roll out of COVID Virtual Wards across England. Our analysis made pragmatic use of national-scale hospital data, but it is possible that a lack of specific data (for example, on which patients were enrolled) may have meant that true impacts, especially at a local level, were not ultimately discernible.FundingThis is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Services & Delivery Research programme and NHSEI.Research in contextEvidence before this studyPost-hospital virtual wards have been found to have a positive impact on patient outcomes when focussed on patients with specific diseases, for example those with heart disease. There has been less evidence of impact for more heterogenous groups of patients. While these services have been rolled out at scale in England, there has been little evidence thus far that post-hospital virtual wards (using pulse oximetry monitoring) have helped to reduce the length of stay of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, or rates of subsequent readmissions for COVID-19.Added value of this studyThis national-scale study provides evidence that the rollout of post-hospital discharge virtual ward services for COVID-19 patients in England did not reduce lengths of stay in hospital, or rates of readmission.Implications of all the available evidenceWhile there is currently an absence of evidence of positive impacts for COVID-19 patients discharged to a virtual ward, our study emphasises the need for quality data to be collected as part of future service implementation.

Background: Rivaroxaban and apixaban are the most widely used nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). This meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness and safety of both NOACs versus standard of care (SoC) in real-world practice. Methods: Real-world evidence (RWE) studies were identified through a systematic literature review conducted between January 2012 and July 2020, using Embase, MEDLINE, and the websites of cardiological, hematological, and oncological associations. Eligible RWE studies recruited adult patients with deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism and presented a comparison between rivaroxaban and apixaban versus SoC, consisting either of vitamin K antagonists, heparins, or combinations thereof. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the comparison between NOACs and SoC were extracted from the relevant studies or estimated based on the reported binary data. The between-treatment contrasts were reported as HRs with associated 95% confidence intervals. Results: A total of 65 RWE studies were identified and considered relevant for the meta-analysis. Compared with SoC, both rivaroxaban and apixaban were associated with reduced risks of recurrent VTE and a lower rate of major bleeding events. Patients treated with rivaroxaban were at a lower risk of all-cause death compared with those receiving SoC (HR = 0.56 [0.39-0.80]), while evidence for apixaban from the identified studies was insufficient to demonstrate a statistically significant change in mortality (HR = 0.66 [0.30-1.47]). Conclusion: This analysis indicates that in real-world practice, rivaroxaban and apixaban are associated with a lower risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding events compared with SoC. Survival benefit in patients treated with rivaroxaban was also observed.

BackgroundRemote home monitoring of people testing positive for COVID-19 using pulse oximetry was implemented across England during the Winter of 2020/21 to identify falling blood oxygen saturation levels at an early stage. This was hypothesised to enable earlier hospital admission, reduce the need for intensive care and improve survival. This study is an evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of the pre-hospital monitoring programme, COVID oximetry @home (CO@h).MethodsWe analysed relationships at a geographical area level between the extent to which people aged 65 or over were enrolled onto the programme and outcomes over the period between November 2020 to February 2021FindingsFor every 10% increase in coverage of the programme, mortality was reduced by 2% (95% confidence interval: -4% to 1%), admissions increased by 3% (-1% to 7%), in-hospital mortality fell by 3% (-8% to 3%) and lengths of stay increased by 1·8% (-1·2% to 4·9%). None of these results are statistically significant.InterpretationThere are several possible explanations for our findings. One is that the CO@h did not have the hypothesised impact. Another is that the low rates of enrolment and incomplete data in many areas reduced the chances of detecting any impact that may have existed. Also, CO@h has been implemented in many different ways across the country and these may have had varying levels of effect.FundingThis is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Services & Delivery Research programme (RSET Project no. 16/138/17; BRACE Project no. 16/138/31) and NHSEI. NJF is an NIHR Senior Investigator. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.Research in ContextEvidence before this studyExisting evidence before this study and the search strategy used to obtain this evidence has been published previously by the authors in a systematic review. Previous quantitative studies have assessed remote oximetry monitoring services for COVID-19 patients mostly at individual sites and focussed on their safety. However, their effectiveness has been little studied. This may reflect the challenges of identifying reliable counterfactuals during a rapidly evolving pandemic.Added value of this studyThis study is part of a wider mixed methods evaluation that followed the rapid implementation of remote monitoring across the English NHS during the Winter of 2020/21. It adds to the evidence of the effectiveness of such programmes at a national level.Implications of the available evidenceThere is some existing evidence that remote monitoring of COVID-19 patients can be locally effective although we have not been able to replicate such findings at a wider level. Missing data and lower coverage of the service than expected may have influenced our results, and the effectiveness of some local programmes could have been lost among the analysis of national data. Future implementation requires better data collection strategies which could be focussed within fewer local areas, and effective learning from areas that have achieved better population coverage.

Introduction Improving care coordination for people with rare conditions may help to reduce burden on patients and carers and improve the care that patients receive. We recently developed a taxonomy of different ways of coordinating care for rare conditions. It is not yet known which models of care coordination are appropriate in different situations. This study aimed to: (1) explore what types of care coordination may be appropriate in different situations, and (2) use these findings to develop hypothetical models of care coordination for rare conditions. Methods To explore appropriateness of different types of care coordination, we conducted interviews (n = 30), four focus groups (n = 22) and two workshops (n = 27) with patients, carers, healthcare professionals, commissioners, and charity representatives. Participants were asked about preferences, benefits and challenges, and the factors influencing coordination. Thematic analysis was used to develop hypothetical models of care coordination. Models were refined following feedback from workshop participants. Results Stakeholders prefer models of care that: are nationally centralised or a hybrid of national and local care, involve professionals collaborating to deliver care, have clear roles and responsibilities outlined (including administrative, coordinator, clinical and charity roles), provide access to records and offer flexible appointments (in terms of timing and mode). Many factors influenced coordination, including those relating to the patient (e.g., condition complexity, patient’s location and ability to coordinate their own care), the healthcare professional (e.g., knowledge and time), the healthcare environment (e.g., resources) and societal factors (e.g., availability of funding). We developed and refined ten illustrative hypothetical models of care coordination for rare conditions. Conclusion Findings underline that different models of care coordination may be appropriate in different situations. It is possible to develop models of care coordination which are tailored to the individual in context. Findings may be used to facilitate planning around which models of care coordination may be appropriate in different services or circumstances. Findings may also be used by key stakeholders (e.g. patient organisations, clinicians and service planners) as a decision-making tool.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia associated with 30% of strokes, as well as other cardiovascular disease, dementia and death. AF meets many criteria for screening, but there is limited evidence that AF screening reduces stroke. Consequently, no countries recommend national screening programmes for AF. The Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke (SAFER) trial aims to determine whether screening for AF is effective at reducing risk of stroke. The aim of the pilot study is to assess feasibility of the main trial and inform implementation of screening and trial procedures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SAFER is planned to be a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) of over 100 000 participants aged 70 years and over, not on long-term anticoagulation therapy at baseline, with an average follow-up of 5 years. Participants are asked to record four traces every day for 3 weeks on a hand-held single-lead ECG device. Cardiologists remotely confirm episodes of AF identified by the device algorithm, and general practitioners follow-up with anticoagulation as appropriate. The pilot study is a cluster RCT in 36 UK general practices, randomised 2:1 control to intervention, recruiting approximately 12 600 participants. Pilot study outcomes include AF detection rate, anticoagulation uptake and other parameters to incorporate into sample size calculations for the main trial. Questionnaires sent to a sample of participants will assess impact of screening on psychological health. Process evaluation and qualitative studies will underpin implementation of screening during the main trial. An economic evaluation using the pilot data will confirm whether it is plausible that screening might be cost-effective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The London-Central Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/1597) and Confidentiality Advisory Group (19/CAG/0226) provided ethical approval. Dissemination will be via publications, patient-friendly summaries, reports and engagement with the UK National Screening Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN72104369., The SAFER pilot study and main trial are funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) [Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Reference Number RP-PG-0217-20007)]. The SAFER feasibility study is funded by the NIHR [School for Primary Care Research (SPCR-2014-10043, project 410)]. SAFER is a contributor to / partner of AFFECT-EU receiving funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation Programme under grant agreement NO. 847770. RM and JL are supported by the Wellcome Trust as part of the Wellcome Trust PhD Programme for Primary Care Clinicians [grant number 203921/Z/16/Z]. JB, SH and AP are based in The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), University of Cambridge. THIS Institute is supported by the Health Foundation, an independent charity committed to bringing about better health and healthcare for people in the UK. JB is supported by the Health Foundation’s grant to the University of Cambridge for The Healthcare Improvement Studies (THIS) Institute (RG88620). JM and FDRH are NIHR Senior Investigators. FDRH acknowledges support from NIHR ARC OTV and Oxford BRC (OUT). RJM is an NIHR Senior Investigator and acknowledges support from NIHR ARC OTV. NA is supported by a Health Foundation Improvement Science Fellowship and also by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands (ARC EM). RJ is an NIHR-funded Academic Clinical Lecturer. The University of Cambridge has received salary support in respect of SJG from the NHS in the East of England through the Clinical Academic Reserve. BF reports grants to the Heart Research Institute. All the funders and sponsors had no involvement in the development of this protocol and will have no involvement in any aspect of the study itself. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the Wellcome Trust, the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care.

Background Each year in England, almost 10,000 parents are informed of their child’s positive newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) results. This occurs approximately 2 to 8 weeks after birth depending on the condition. Communication of positive NBS results is a subtle and skillful task, demanding thought, preparation, and evidence to minimize potentially harmful negative sequelae. Evidence of variability in the content and the way the result is currently communicated has the potential to lead to increased parental anxiety and distress. Objective This study focused on the development of co-designed interventions to improve the experiences of parents receiving positive NBS results for their children and enhance communication between health care professionals and parents. Methods An experience-based co-design approach was used to explore experiences and co-design solutions with 17 health professionals employed in 3 National Health Service Trusts in England and 21 parents (13/21, 62% mothers and 8/21, 38% fathers) of 14 children recruited from the same 3 National Health Service Trusts. Experiences with existing services were gathered via semistructured interviews with health professionals. Filmed narrative interviews with parents were developed into a composite film. The co-design process identified priorities for improving communication of positive NBS results through separate parent and health professional feedback events followed by joint feedback events. In total, 4 interventions were then co-designed between the participants through a web-based platform. Results Parents and health professionals provided positive feedback regarding the process of gathering experiences and identifying priorities. Themes identified from the parent interviews included impact of initial communication, parental reactions, attending the first clinic appointment, impact of health professionals’ communication strategies and skills, impact of diagnosis on family and friends, improvements to the communication of positive NBS results, and parents’ views on NBS. Themes identified from the health professional interviews included communication between health professionals, process of communicating with the family, parent- and family-centered care, and availability of resources and challenges to effective communication. In response to these themes, 4 interventions were co-designed: changes to the NBS card; standardized laboratory proformas; standardized communication checklists; and an email or letter for providing reliable, up-to-date, condition-specific information for parents following the communication of positive NBS results. Conclusions Parents and health professionals were able to successfully work together to identify priorities and develop co-designed interventions to improve communication of positive NBS results to parents. The resulting co-designed interventions address communication at different stages of the communication pathway to improve the experiences of parents receiving positive NBS results for their children. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.1186/s40814-019-0487-5