Search

Background: Previous research has illustrated a drift in the fidelity of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) during the design of the pilot NHS England Low‐Calorie Diet (NHS‐LCD) Programme. This study evaluated a subsequent domain of fidelity, intervention delivery. Two research questions were addressed: (1) To what extent were BCTs delivered with fidelity to providers programme plans? (2) What were the observed barriers and facilitators to delivery? Methods: A mixed‐methods sequential explanatory design was employed. Remote delivery of one‐to‐one and group‐based programmes were observed. A BCT checklist was developed using the BCT Taxonomy v1; BCTs were coded as present, partially delivered, or absent during live sessions. Relational content analysis of field notes identified observed barriers and facilitators to fidelity. Results: Observations of 122 sessions across eight samples and two service providers were completed. Delivery of the complete NHS‐LCD was observed for five samples. Fidelity ranged from 33% to 70% across samples and was higher for group‐based delivery models (64%) compared with one‐to‐one models (46%). Barriers and facilitators included alignment with the programme's target behaviours and outcomes, session content, time availability and management, group‐based remote delivery, and deviation from the session plan. Conclusions: Overall, BCTs were delivered with low‐to‐moderate fidelity. Findings indicate a dilution in fidelity during the delivery of the NHS‐LCD and variation in the fidelity of programmes delivered across England. Staff training could provide opportunities to practice the delivery of BCTs. Programme‐level changes such as structured activities supported by participant materials and with sufficient allocated time, might improve the delivery of BCTs targeting self‐regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health and wellbeing can be profoundly impacted by both obesity and type 2 diabetes, while the normalisation and equity of care for people living with these non-communicable diseases remain as challenges for local health systems. The National Health Service Low Calorie Diet programme in England, aims to support people to achieve type 2 diabetes remission, while also reducing health inequalities. We have explored the experiences of health care staff who have made a referral to the LCD programme, while identifying effective and equitable delivery of programme referrals, and their normalisation into routine care. Methods: Nineteen individual semi-structured interviews were completed health care staff in the first year of the Low Calorie Diet programme. Interviewees were purposively sampled from the ten localities who undertook the Low Calorie Diet programme pilot. Each interview explored a number of topics of interest including communication and training, referrals, equity, and demands on primary care, before being subjected to a thematic analysis. Results: From the data, five core themes were identified: Covid-19 and the demands on primary care, the expertise and knowledge of referrers, patient identification and the referral process, barriers to referrals and who gets referred to the NHS LCD programme. Our findings demonstrate the variation in the real world settings of a national diabetes programme. It highlights the challenge of COVID-19 for health care staff, whereby the increased workload of referrals occurred at a time when capacity was curtailed. We have also identified several barriers to referral and have shown that referrals had not yet been normalised into routine care at the point of data collection. We also raise issues of equity in the referral process, as not all eligible people are informed about the programme. Conclusions: Referral generation had not yet been consistently normalised into routine care, yet our findings suggest that the LCD programme runs the risk of normalising an inequitable referral process. Inequalities remain a significant challenge, and the adoption of an equitable referral process, normalised at a service delivery level, has the capacity to contribute to the improvement of health inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The National Health Service Type 2 Diabetes Path to Remission programme in England (known as the NHS Low Calorie Diet programme when piloted) was established to support people living with excess weight and Type 2 Diabetes to lose weight and improve their glycaemic control. A mixed method evaluation was commissioned to provide an enhanced understanding of the long-term cost effectiveness of the pilot programme, its implementation, equity and transferability across broad and diverse populations. This study provided key insights on implementation and equity from the service providers' perspective. Methods: Thirteen focus groups were conducted with commercial providers of the programme, during the initial pilot rollout. Participants were purposively sampled across all provider organisations and staff roles involved in implementing and delivering the programme. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used to design the topic schedule, with the addition of topics on equity and person-centredness. Data were thematically analysed using NPT constructs with additional inductively created codes. Codes were summarised, and analytical themes generated. Results: The programme was found to fulfil the requirements for normalisation from the providers' perspective. However, barriers were identified in engaging GP practices and receiving sufficient referrals, as well as supporting service users through challenges to remain compliant. There was variation in communication and training between provider sites. Areas for learning and improvement included adapting systems and processes and closing the gap where needs of service users are not fully met. Conclusions: The evaluation of the pilot programme demonstrated that it was workable when supported by effective primary care engagement, comprehensive training, and effective internal and external communication. However, limitations were identified in relation to programme specifications e.g. eligibility criteria, service specification and local commissioning decisions e.g. pattern of roll out, incentivisation of general practice. A person-centred approach to care is fundamental and should include cultural adaptation(s), and the assessment and signposting to additional support and services where required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]