Implementing interventions to reduce antibiotic use: a qualitative study in high-prescribing practices.

BackgroundTrials have shown that delayed antibiotic prescriptions (DPs) and point-of-care C-Reactive Protein testing (POC-CRPT) are effective in reducing antibiotic use in general practice, but these were not typically implemented in high-prescribing practices. We aimed to explore views of professionals from high-prescribing practices about uptake and implementation of DPs and POC-CRPT to reduce antibiotic use.MethodsThis was a qualitative focus group study in English general practices. The highest antibiotic prescribing practices in the West Midlands were invited to participate. Clinical and non-clinical professionals attended focus groups co-facilitated by two researchers. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.ResultsNine practices (50 professionals) participated. Four main themes were identified. Compatibility of strategies with clinical roles and experience - participants viewed the strategies as having limited value as 'clinical tools', perceiving them as useful only in 'rare' instances of clinical uncertainty and/or for those less experienced. Strategies as 'social tools' - participants perceived the strategies as helpful for negotiating treatment decisions and educating patients, particularly those expecting antibiotics. Ambiguities - participants perceived ambiguities around when they should be used, and about their impact on antibiotic use. Influence of context - various other situational and practical issues were raised with implementing the strategies.ConclusionsHigh-prescribing practices do not view DPs and POC-CRPT as sufficiently useful 'clinical tools' in a way which corresponds to the current policy approach advocating their use to reduce clinical uncertainty and improve antimicrobial stewardship. Instead, policy attention should focus on how these strategies may instead be used as 'social tools' to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. Attention should also focus on the many ambiguities (concerns and questions) about, and contextual barriers to, using these strategies that need addressing to support wider and more consistent implementation

Identifying change processes in group-based health behaviour-change interventions: development of the mechanisms of action in group-based interventions (MAGI) framework

Group-based interventions are widely used to promote health-related behaviour change. While processes operating in groups have been extensively described, it remains unclear how behaviour change is generated in group-based health-related behaviour-change interventions. Understanding how such interventions facilitate change is important to guide intervention design and process evaluations. We employed a mixed-methods approach to identify, map and define change processes operating in group-based behaviour-change interventions. We reviewed multidisciplinary literature on group dynamics, taxonomies of change technique categories, and measures of group processes. Using weight-loss groups as an exemplar, we also reviewed qualitative studies of participants' experiences and coded transcripts of 38 group sessions from three weight-loss interventions. Finally, we consulted group participants, facilitators and researchers about our developing synthesis of findings. The resulting 'Mechanisms of Action in Group-based Interventions' (MAGI) framework comprises six overarching categories: (1) group intervention design features, (2) facilitation techniques, (3) group dynamic and development processes, (4) inter-personal change processes, (5) selective intra-personal change processes operating in groups, and (6) contextual influences. The framework provides theoretical explanations of how change occurs in group-based behaviour-change interventions and can be applied to optimise their design and delivery, and to guide evaluation, facilitator training and further research

‘We're all in the same boat’: A qualitative study on how groups work in a diabetes prevention and management programme

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via the DOI in this recordObjectives: Although many health interventions are delivered in groups, it is unclear how group context can be best used to promote health-related behaviour change and what change processes are most helpful to participants. This study explored participants’ experiences of attending type 2 diabetes prevention and management programme, and their perceptions of how group participation influenced changes in diet and physical activity. Design: Qualitative. Methods: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 participants (twelve men) from nine groups in the Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis in NVivo. Results: Participants benefited from individual change processes, including information provision, structuring and prioritizing health goals, action planning, self-monitoring, and receiving feedback. They also benefited from group processes, including having a common purpose, sharing experiences, making social comparisons, monitoring and accountability, and providing and receiving social support in the groups. Participants’ engagement with, and benefits from, the groups were enhanced when there was a supportive group context (i.e., group cohesion, homogeneous group composition, and a positive group atmosphere). Optimal facilitation to develop an appropriate group context and initiate effective change processes necessitated good facilitator interpersonal and professional skills, credibility and empathy, and effective group facilitation methods. Participants reported developing a sense of responsibility and making behaviour changes that resulted in improvements in health outcomes and weight loss. Conclusions: This study highlights the role of individual and group processes in facilitating health-promoting behaviour change, and the importance of group context and optimal facilitation in promoting engagement with the programme. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Many health interventions, including programmes to help prevent or manage diabetes and facilitate weight loss, are delivered in groups. Such group-based behaviour-change interventions are often effective in facilitating psychological and behaviour change. There is considerable research and theory on individual change processes and techniques, but less is known about which change processes and techniques facilitate behaviour change in group settings. What does this study add? This study contributes to our understanding of how participating in group-based health programmes may enhance or impede individual behaviour change. It identified individual (intrapersonal) and group (interpersonal, facilitated through group interaction) change processes that were valued by group participants. The findings also show how these change processes may be affected by the group context. A diagram summarizes the identified themes helping to understand interactions between these key processes occurring in groups. The study offers an insight into participants’ views on, and experiences of, attending a group-based diabetes prevention and management programme. Thus, it helps better understand how the intervention might have helped them (or not) and what processes may have influenced intervention outcomes. Key practical recommendations for designing and delivering group-based behaviour-change interventions are presented, which may be used to improve future group-based health interventions.University of ExeterNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR

Play-based groups for children with cerebral palsy and their parents: A qualitative interview study about the impact on mothers' well-being

Background Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common childhood physical disability in developed countries. Parents of children with CP experience difficulties that can result in reduced well-being. Health professionals supporting children with CP have been encouraged to focus on parental well-being as this forms part of the child's essential environment. There is a lack of evidence about interventions that holistically support the whole family by providing therapeutic input for the child and support for parents. This study aimed to explore parents' experiences of play-based groups for children with CP and their parents, with a focus on the groups' impact on parents' well-being. Methods Parents of children with CP who had attended play-based groups in the year prior were recruited for this qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participants' demographic characteristics were collected as contextual information. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Results Ten mothers were interviewed. Overall, mothers had positive experiences of the groups and perceived them as an important influence on their well-being. Four themes described mothers' experiences of the groups and the subsequent impact on their well-being: (1) practical support, (2) connecting with others, (3) transitioning journeys and (4) different motivators, different experiences. Numerous factors influenced mothers' experiences of attending the groups and the subsequent impact on their well-being. This included mothers' individual experiences of having a child with CP. Conclusions Interventions combining practical and social support for the whole family can have a positive impact on the well-being of mothers of children with CP. Care should be taken to provide individualised support for each family. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, and a package of care can provide multiple services that meet the varying needs of mothers and their children with CP

Prispevek k vprašanju idiotizma

Journal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tBACKGROUND: Published descriptions of group-based behaviour-change interventions (GB-BCIs) often omit design and delivery features specific to the group setting. This impedes the ability to compare behaviour-change interventions, synthesise evidence on their effectiveness and replicate effective interventions. The aim of this study was to develop a checklist of elements that should be described to ensure adequate reporting of GB-BCIs. METHODS: A range of characteristics needed to replicate GB-BCIs were extracted from the literature and precisely defined. An abbreviated checklist and a coder manual were developed, pilot tested and refined. The final checklist and coder manual were used to identify the presence or absence of specified reporting elements in 30 published descriptions of GB-BCIs by two independent coders. Reliability of coding was assessed. RESULTS: The checklist comprises 26 essential reporting elements, covering intervention design, intervention content, participant characteristics, and facilitator characteristics. Inter-rater reliability for identification of reporting elements was high (95% agreement, Mean AC1 = 0.89). CONCLUSION: The checklist is a practical tool that can be used, alongside other reporting guidelines, to ensure comprehensive description and to assess reporting quality of GB-BCIs. It can also be helpful for designing group-based health interventions.The work was partially funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care of the South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC

Conducting rapid qualitative interview research during the COVID-19 pandemic—Reflections on methodological choices

As the COVID-19 pandemic has shown, setting up studies in time to gather relevant, real-world data enables researchers to capture current views and experiences, focus on practicalities on the ground, and deliver actionable results. Delivering high quality rapid studies in healthcare poses several challenges even in non-emergency situations. There is an expanding literature discussing benefits and challenges of conducting rapid research, yet there are relatively few examples related to methodological dilemmas and decisions that researchers may face when conducting rapid studies. In rapidly-changing emergency contexts, some of these challenges may be more easily overcome, while others may be unique to the emergency, magnified, or emerge in different ways. In this manuscript, we discuss our reflections and lessons learnt across the research process when conducting rapid qualitative interview studies in the context of a healthcare emergency, focusing on methodological issues. By this we mean the challenging considerations and pragmatic choices we made, and their downstream impacts, that shaped our studies. We draw on our extensive combined experience of delivering several projects during the COVID-19 pandemic in both single and multi-country settings, where we implemented rapid studies, or rapidly adapted an existing study. In the context of these studies, we discuss two main considerations, with a particular focus on the complexities, multiple facets, and trade-offs involved in: (i) team-based approaches to qualitative studies; and (ii) timely and rapid data collection, analysis and dissemination. We contribute a transparent discussion of these issues, describing them, what helped us to deal with them, and which issues have been difficult to overcome. We situate our discussion of arising issues in relation to existing literature, to offer broader recommendations while also identifying gaps in current understandings of how to deal with these methodological challenges. We thus identify key considerations, lessons, and possibilities for researchers implementing rapid studies in healthcare emergencies and beyond. We aim to promote transparency in reporting, assist other researchers in making informed choices, and consequently contribute to the development of the rapid qualitative research

Conducting rapid qualitative interview research during the COVID-19 pandemic : reflections on methodological choices

As the COVID-19 pandemic has shown, setting up studies in time to gather relevant, real-world data enables researchers to capture current views and experiences, focus on practicalities on the ground, and deliver actionable results. Delivering high quality rapid studies in healthcare poses several challenges even in non-emergency situations. There is an expanding literature discussing benefits and challenges of conducting rapid research, yet there are relatively few examples related to methodological dilemmas and decisions that researchers may face when conducting rapid studies. In rapidly-changing emergency contexts, some of these challenges may be more easily overcome, while others may be unique to the emergency, magnified, or emerge in different ways. In this manuscript, we discuss our reflections and lessons learnt across the research process when conducting rapid qualitative interview studies in the context of a healthcare emergency, focusing on methodological issues. By this we mean the challenging considerations and pragmatic choices we made, and their downstream impacts, that shaped our studies. We draw on our extensive combined experience of delivering several projects during the COVID-19 pandemic in both single and multi-country settings, where we implemented rapid studies, or rapidly adapted an existing study. In the context of these studies, we discuss two main considerations, with a particular focus on the complexities, multiple facets, and trade-offs involved in: (i) team-based approaches to qualitative studies; and (ii) timely and rapid data collection, analysis and dissemination. We contribute a transparent discussion of these issues, describing them, what helped us to deal with them, and which issues have been difficult to overcome. We situate our discussion of arising issues in relation to existing literature, to offer broader recommendations while also identifying gaps in current understandings of how to deal with these methodological challenges. We thus identify key considerations, lessons, and possibilities for researchers implementing rapid studies in healthcare emergencies and beyond. We aim to promote transparency in reporting, assist other researchers in making informed choices, and consequently contribute to the development of the rapid qualitative research

Optimising antimicrobial stewardship interventions in English primary care: a behavioural analysis of qualitative and intervention studies

Objective While various interventions have helped reduce antibiotic prescribing, further gains can be made. This study aimed to identify ways to optimise antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions by assessing the extent to which important influences on antibiotic prescribing are addressed (or not) by behavioural content of AMS interventions.Settings English primary care.Interventions AMS interventions targeting healthcare professionals’ antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections.Methods We conducted two rapid reviews. The first included qualitative studies with healthcare professionals on self-reported influences on antibiotic prescribing. The influences were inductively coded and categorised using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Prespecified criteria were used to identify key TDF domains. The second review included studies of AMS interventions. Data on effectiveness were extracted. Components of effective interventions were extracted and coded using the TDF, Behaviour Change Wheel and Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs) taxonomy. Using prespecified matrices, we assessed the extent to which BCTs and intervention functions addressed the key TDF domains of influences on prescribing.Results We identified 13 qualitative studies, 41 types of influences on antibiotic prescribing and 6 key TDF domains of influences: ‘beliefs about consequences’, ‘social influences’, ‘skills’, ‘environmental context and resources’, ‘intentions’ and ‘emotions’. We identified 17 research-tested AMS interventions; nine of them effective and four nationally implemented. Interventions addressed all six key TDF domains of influences. Four of these six key TDF domains were addressed by 50%–67% BCTs that were theoretically congruent with these domains, whereas TDF domain 'skills' was addressed by 24% of congruent BCTs and 'emotions' by none.Conclusions Further improvement of antibiotic prescribing could be facilitated by: (1) national implementation of effective research-tested AMS interventions (eg, electronic decision support tools, training in interactive use of leaflets, point-of-care testing); (2) targeting important, less-addressed TDF domains (eg, 'skills', 'emotions'); (3) using relevant, under-used BCTs to target key TDF domains (eg, ‘forming/reversing habits’, ‘reducing negative emotions’, ‘social support’). These could be incorporated into existing, or developed as new, AMS interventions