Search

BackgroundMobile technologies for health (mHealth) represent a promising strategy for reducing type 2 diabetes (T2DM) risk. The PROPELS trial investigates whether structured group-based education alone or supplemented with a follow-on support program combining self-monitoring with pedometers and tailored text-messaging is effective in promoting and maintaining physical activity among people at high risk of T2DM. ObjectiveThis paper describes the iterative development of the PROPELS follow-on support program and presents evidence on its acceptability and feasibility. MethodsWe used a modified mHealth development framework with four phases: (1) conceptualization of the follow-on support program using theory and evidence, (2) formative research including focus groups (n=15, ages 39-79 years), (3) pre-testing focus groups using a think aloud protocol (n=20, ages 52-78 years), and (4) piloting (n=11). Analysis was informed by the constant comparative approach, with findings from each phase informing subsequent phases. ResultsThe first three phases informed the structure, nature, and content of the follow-on support program, including the frequency of text messages, the need for tailored content and two-way interaction, the importance of motivational messages based on encouragement and reinforcement of affective benefits (eg, enjoyment) with minimal messages about weight and T2DM risk, and the need for appropriate language. The refined program is personalized and tailored to the individual’s perceived confidence, previous activity levels, and physical activity goals. The pilot phase indicated that the program appeared to fit well with everyday routines and was easy to use by older adults. ConclusionsWe developed a feasible and innovative text messaging and pedometer program based on evidence and behavior change theory and grounded in the experiences, views, and needs of people at high diabetes risk. A large scale trial is testing the effectiveness of this 4-year program over and above structured group education alone. Trial RegistrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 83465245; http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN83465245/83465245 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6dfSmrVAe)

Background: Medication reviews aim to support patients who take medicines, and they are often led by pharmacists. There are different types of medication reviews undertaken in various settings. Previous research undertaken in 2015 found mixed evidence that medication reviews in community settings improve clinical outcomes, but further work needs to be undertaken to establish their impact on patient-orientated and economic outcomes. Aim: This scoping review aims to explore the extent and range of systematic reviews of medication reviews conducted by pharmacists, the nature of the intervention, the evidence for effectiveness, and reported research gaps. Method: Systematic reviews were included irrespective of participants, settings or outcomes and were excluded if pharmacists did not lead the delivery of the included interventions. Data extracted included the design of included studies, population, setting, main results, description of interventions, and future research recommendations. Results: We identified twenty-four systematic reviews that reported that medication review interventions were diverse, and their nature was often poorly described. Two high-quality reviews reported that there was evidence of no effect on mortality; of these one reported an improvement in medicines-related problems (all studies reported an increase of identified problems), and another a reduction in hospital readmissions (Risk ratio 0.93 [95% CI 0.89, 0.98]). Other lower-quality reviews reported evidence supporting intervention effectiveness for some clinical outcomes (odds ratio: achieving diabetes control = 3.11 95% prediction intervals (PI), 1.48–6.52, achieving blood pressure target = 2.73, 95% PI, 1.05–7.083.50). Conclusion: There is mixed evidence of effectiveness for medication reviews across settings and patient populations. There is limited data about the implementation of medication reviews, therefore is difficult to ascertain which components of the intervention lead to improved outcomes. As medication reviews are widely implemented in practice, further research should explore the nature of the interventions, linking the components of these to outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Women in the criminal justice system and women who have been subject to domestic abuse are at high risk of cancer but underrepresented in health promotion research. We aimed to co‐produce, pilot and evaluate a health promoting programme delivered on group walks. Design: A programme co‐produced by women, based on motivational interviewing, created the opportunity for supportive conversations about cancer prevention. Methods: Programme development in two workshops with women with lived experience using authentic vignettes to prompt help‐seeking conversations. A small pilot and a qualitative evaluation was done using framework analysis. Results: The programme appeared acceptable to women and the walk leaders. Women felt included and found it a safe space for sensitive conversations. They appeared empowered and more confident to seek help. Walk leaders expressed confidence in delivering this informal programme, which used prompts rather than delivering didactic training. Conclusion: Cancer prevention for high‐risk groups can be delivered in a personalised and novel way by creating informal opportunities for supportive conversations about cancer prevention. Careful co‐production of the programme of walks with women, using scenarios and quotes that were authentic vignettes, ensured that these came directly from the women's lived experience and enabled women to talk about change. Our findings indicate that this approach was practical, relevant and acceptable to them with some evidence of women feeling empowered to make informed decisions about their health. We recommend that future cancer prevention programmes for underrepresented groups take an asset‐based approach by utilising pre‐existing community organisations to increase reach and sustainability. Patient and Public Involvement: Women with lived experience co‐designed and tested the programme. Provisional findings were fed back to the women and the women's organisation that partnered with this research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To identify and analyse ways in which parents are supported to deliver rehabilitation exercises to their child after traumatic brain injury (TBI), conceptualized as strategies. Method: A systematic search was completed using seven online databases and three grey literature databases, from inception to November 2021. The included studies focused on physical rehabilitation in children after TBI with the involvement of parents as hands‐on deliverers or facilitators of rehabilitation (e.g. supervising the exercise). Intervention descriptions were reviewed to identify strategies; this was followed by fine‐grained analysis using the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify intervention components. Risk of bias was analysed using the revised Cochrane Risk‐of‐Bias Tool for Randomized Trials or the Risk Of Bias In Non‐randomized Studies ‐ of Interventions. Results: Six interventions including 211 participants and one trial protocol met the inclusion criteria. All studies included a proportion of children diagnosed with TBI and four studies included mixed samples of acquired brain injury or cerebral palsy. All interventions included elements of goal setting and instruction. Interpretation: Interventions focus heavily on the initiation of physical rehabilitation, but focus less on the longer‐term maintenance of rehabilitation delivery. Further research should integrate perspectives from parents to inform the development of new interventions. What this paper adds: Parents need support to deliver or supervise rehabilitation exercises.The interventions identified in this review supported goal setting, action planning, and learning rehabilitation exercises.Interventions focused primarily on the initiation of exercises but less on maintenance.Rehabilitation is complex and new approaches are needed to better support parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Theory-based intervention programmes to support health-related behaviour change aim to increase health impact and improve understanding of mechanisms of behaviour change. However, the science of intervention development remains at an early stage. We present a causal modelling approach to developing complex interventions for evaluation in randomized trials. In this approach a generic model links behavioural determinants, causally through behaviour, to physiological and biochemical variables, and health outcomes. It is tailored to context, target population, behaviours and health outcomes. The development of a specific causal model based on theory and evidence is illustrated by the "ProActive" programme, supporting increased physical activity among individuals at risk of Type 2 diabetes. The model provides a rational guide to appropriate measures, intervention points and intervention techniques, and can be tested quantitatively. Causal modelling is critically compared to other approaches to intervention development and evaluation, and research directions are indicated.

Objectives: During COVID‐19 the UK general population has been given strong messages to stay at home. Concurrently unprecedented changes occurred in healthcare access with moves to remote/triage systems. Data have shown that the number of people accessing healthcare services decreased and there are significant concerns that the pandemic has negatively affected help‐seeking for serious conditions, with potentially increased morbidity and mortality. An understanding of help‐seeking is urgently needed to inform public campaigns. We aimed to develop an in‐depth, theory‐based understanding of how, when and why people sought help for potentially serious symptoms (e.g., related to major cardiovascular events or cancer diagnoses) during the pandemic, and what influenced their decisions. Design: Qualitative semi‐structured interviews. Methods: We interviewed 25 adults recruited through a targeted social media campaign. Interviews were conducted via telephone or online platform. Our topic guide was informed by the Model of Pathways to Treatment and the Capability‐Opportunity‐Motivation‐Behaviour model. Results: The analysis identified four main themes: Delay in recognition, Holding on to concerns, Weighing it up and Long‐term impacts. Multiple societal and environmental factors influenced participants' help‐seeking and motivation, capability and opportunity to seek help, with long‐term impacts on well‐being and future help‐seeking. Conclusions: There is a need for clear guidance about pathways to raise concerns about symptoms and gain advice while usual healthcare contacts are paused or stopped. Recommendations for future interventions to support help‐seeking during pandemics include clearer messaging, co‐produced with end‐users, on when, where and how to seek help. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]