Is the involvement of opinion leaders in the implementation of research findings a feasible strategy?

BACKGROUND: There is only limited empirical evidence about the effectiveness of opinion leaders as health care change agents. AIM: To test the feasibility of identifying, and the characteristics of, opinion leaders using a sociometric instrument and a self-designating instrument in different professional groups within the UK National Health Service. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers in two regions of Scotland. All physicians and surgeons (junior hospital doctors and consultants) and medical and surgical nursing staff in two district general hospitals and one teaching hospital in Scotland, as well as all Scottish obstetric and gynaecology, and oncology consultants. RESULTS: Using the sociometric instrument, the extent of social networks and potential coverage of the study population in primary and secondary care was highly idiosyncratic. In contrast, relatively complex networks with good coverage rates were observed in both national specialty groups. Identified opinion leaders were more likely to have the expected characteristics of opinion leaders identified from diffusion and social influence theories. Moreover, opinion leaders appeared to be condition-specific. The self-designating instrument identified more opinion leaders, but it was not possible to estimate the extent and structure of social networks or likely coverage by opinion leaders. There was poor agreement in the responses to the sociometric and self-designating instruments. CONCLUSION: The feasibility of identifying opinion leaders using an off-the-shelf sociometric instrument is variable across different professional groups and settings within the NHS. Whilst it is possible to identify opinion leaders using a self-designating instrument, the effectiveness of such opinion leaders has not been rigorously tested in health care settings. Opinion leaders appear to be monomorphic (different leaders for different issues). Recruitment of opinion leaders is unlikely to be an effective general strategy across all settings and professional groups; the more specialised the group, the more opinion leaders may be a useful strategy

Protocol for an implementation study of an evidence-based home cardiac rehabilitation programme for people with heart failure and their caregivers in Scotland (SCOT:REACH-HF)

Introduction: Despite evidence that cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an essential component of care for people with heart failure, uptake is low. A centre-based format is a known barrier, suggesting that home-based programmes might improve accessibility. The aim of SCOT: Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) is to assess the implementation of the REACH-HF home-based CR intervention in the context of the National Health Service (NHS) in Scotland. This paper presents the design and protocol for this observational implementation study. Specific objectives of SCOT:REACH-HF are to: (1) assess service-level facilitators and barriers to the implementation of REACH-HF; (2) compare real-world patient and caregiver outcomes to those seen in a prior clinical trial; and (3) estimate the economic (health and social) impact of implementing REACH-HF in Scotland. Methods and analysis: The REACH-HF intervention will be delivered in partnership with four ‘Beacon sites’ across six NHS Scotland Health Boards, covering rural and urban areas. Health professionals from each site will be trained to facilitate delivery of the 12-week programme to 140 people with heart failure and their caregivers. Patient and caregiver outcomes will be assessed at baseline and 4-month follow-up. Assessments include the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), five-dimension EuroQol 5L, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Caregiver Burden Questionnaire. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with up to 20 health professionals involved in programme delivery (eg, cardiac nurses, physiotherapists). 65 facilitator-patient consultations will be audio recorded and assessed for fidelity. Integrative analysis will address key research questions on fidelity, context and CR participant-related outcomes. The SCOT:REACH-HF findings will inform the future potential roll-out of REACH-HF in Scotland. Ethics and dissemination: The study has been given ethical approval by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Service (reference 20/WS/0038, approved 25 March 2020). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The study is listed on the ISRCTN registry with study ID ISRCTN53784122. The research team will ensure that the study is conducted in accordance with both General Data Protection Regulations and the University of Glasgow’s Research Governance Framework. Findings will be reported to the funder and shared with Beacon Sites, to facilitate service evaluation, planning and good practice. To broaden interest in, and understanding of REACH-HF, we will seek to publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals and present at stakeholder events, national and international conferences

Home-based cardiac rehabilitation for people with heart failure and their caregivers: a mixed-methods analysis of the roll out an evidence-based programme in Scotland (SCOT:REACH-HF study)

Aims Alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) are required to improve CR access and uptake. Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) is a comprehensive home-based rehabilitation and self-management programme, facilitated by trained health professionals, for people with heart failure (HF) and their caregivers. REACH-HF was shown to be clinically effective and cost-effective in a multicentre randomised trial. The SCOT:REACH-HF study assessed implementation of REACH-HF in routine clinical practice in NHS Scotland. Methods & results A mixed-method implementation study was conducted across six regional Health Boards. Of 136 people with HF and 56 caregivers recruited, 101 people with HF and 26 caregivers provided four-month follow-up data, after participating in the 12-week programme. Compared with baseline, REACH-HF participation resulted in substantial gains in the primary outcome of health-related quality of life, as assessed by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (mean difference: -9.8, 95% CI: -13.2 to -6.4, P < 0.001). Improvements were also seen in secondary outcomes (PROM-CR+; EQ-5D-5L; Self-Care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) domains of maintenance and symptom perception; Caregiver Contribution to Self-Care (CC-SCHFI) domains of symptom perception and management). Twenty qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 REACH-HF facilitators, five supporting clinicians, and four national stakeholders. Interviewees were largely positive about REACH-HF, considering it to have ‘filled a gap’ where centre-based CR was not an option. Key issues to support future roll-out were also identified. Conclusion Our findings support wider roll-out of REACH-HF as an alternative to centre-based models, to improve CR access and uptake for people with HF

Association of latent class analysis-derived multimorbidity clusters with adverse health outcomes in patients with multiple long-term conditions: Comparative results across three UK cohorts

Background It remains unclear how to meaningfully classify people living with multimorbidity (multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs)), beyond counting the number of conditions. This paper aims to identify clusters of MLTCs in different age groups and associated risks of adverse health outcomes and service use. Methods Latent class analysis was used to identify MLTCs clusters in different age groups in three cohorts: Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (SAIL) (n = 1,825,289), UK Biobank (n = 502,363), and the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) (n = 49,186). Incidence rate ratios (IRR) for MLTC clusters were computed for: all-cause mortality, hospitalisations, and general practice (GP) use over 10 years, using <2 MLTCs as reference. Information on health outcomes and service use were extracted for a ten year follow up period (between 01st Jan 2010 and 31st Dec 2019 for UK Biobank and UKHLS, and between 01st Jan 2011 and 31st Dec 2020 for SAIL). Findings Clustering MLTCs produced largely similar results across different age groups and cohorts. MLTC clusters had distinct associations with health outcomes and service use after accounting for LTC counts, in fully adjusted models. The largest associations with mortality, hospitalisations and GP use in SAIL were observed for the “Pain+” cluster in the age-group 18–36 years (mortality IRR = 4.47, hospitalisation IRR = 1.84; GP use IRR = 2.87) and the “Hypertension, Diabetes & Heart disease” cluster in the age-group 37–54 years (mortality IRR = 4.52, hospitalisation IRR = 1.53, GP use IRR = 2.36). In UK Biobank, the “Cancer, Thyroid disease & Rheumatoid arthritis” cluster in the age group 37–54 years had the largest association with mortality (IRR = 2.47). Cardiometabolic clusters across all age groups, pain/mental health clusters in younger groups, and cancer and pulmonary related clusters in older age groups had higher risk for all outcomes. In UKHLS, MLTC clusters were not significantly associated with higher risk of adverse outcomes, except for the hospitalisation in the age-group 18–36 years. Interpretation Personalising care around MLTC clusters that have higher risk of adverse outcomes may have important implications for practice (in relation to secondary prevention), policy (with allocation of health care resources), and research (intervention development and targeting), for people living with MLTCs. Funding This study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR; Personalised Exercise-Rehabilitation FOR people with Multiple long-term conditions (multimorbidity)—NIHR202020)

The remote diet intervention to reduce Long COVID symptoms trial (ReDIRECT): protocol for a randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a remotely delivered supported weight management programme for people with Long COVID and excess weight, with personalised improvement goals

Objectives: The Remote Diet Intervention to Reduce Long COVID Symptoms Trial (ReDIRECT) evaluates whether the digitally delivered, evidence-based, cost-effective Counterweight-Plus weight management programme improves symptoms of Long COVID in people with overweight/obesity. Methods: Baseline randomised, non-blinded design with 240 participants allocated in a 1:1 ratio either to continue usual care or to add the remotely delivered Counterweight-Plus weight management programme, which includes a Counterweight dietitian supported delivery of 12 weeks total diet replacement, food reintroduction, and long-term weight loss maintenance. Randomisation is achieved by accessing a web-based randomisation system incorporated into the study web portal developed by a registered Clinical Trials Unit. We are using an innovative approach to outcome personalisation, with each participant selecting their most dominant Long COVID symptom as their primary outcome assessed at six months. Participants in the control arm enter the weight management programme after six months. We are recruiting participants from social media and existing networks (e.g., Long COVID Scotland groups), through newspaper advertisements and from primary care. Main inclusion criteria: people with Long COVID symptoms persisting &gt; three months, aged 18 years or above, body mass index (BMI) above 27kg/m2 (&gt;25kg/m2 for South Asians). The trial includes a process evaluation (involving qualitative interviews with participants and analysis of data on dose, fidelity and reach of the intervention) and economic evaluation (within-trial and long-term cost-utility analyses). Anticipated results: The recruitment for this study started in December 2021 and ended in July 2022. Project results are not yet available and will be shared via peer-reviewed publication once the six-months outcomes have been analysed. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN1259552

Baseline characteristics in the Remote Diet Intervention to REduce long-COVID Symptoms Trial (ReDIRECT)

Background: The persistence of symptoms for ≥12 weeks after a COVID-19 infection is known as Long COVID (LC), a condition with unclear pathophysiology and no proven treatments to date. Living with obesity is a risk factor for LC and has symptoms which may overlap with and aggravate LC. Methods: ReDIRECT is a remotely delivered trial assessing whether weight management can reduce LC symptoms. We recruited people with LC and BMI &gt;27kg/m2. The intervention was delivered remotely by dietitians, with online data collection (medical and dietary history, COVID-19 infection and vaccination, body composition, LC history/symptoms, blood pressure, quality of life, sociodemographic data). Participants self-selected the dominant LC symptoms they most wanted to improve from the intervention. Results: Participants (n=234) in England (64%) and Scotland (30%) were mainly women (85%) of white ethnicity (90%), with 13% living in the 20% most deprived areas, a mean age of 46 (SD10) years, and median BMI of 35kg/m2 (IQR 32-40). Before starting the study, 30% reported more than one COVID-19 infection (82% confirmed with one or more positive tests). LC Diagnosis was mainly by GPs (71%), other healthcare professionals (9%), or self-diagnosed (21%). The median total number of symptoms was 6 (IQR 4–8). Self-selected dominant LC symptoms included fatigue (54%), breathlessness (16%), pain (12%), anxiety/depression (1%) and "other" (17%). At baseline, 82% were taking medication, 57% reported 1+ other medical conditions. Quality of life was poor; 20% were on long-term sick leave or reduced working hours. Most (92%) reported having gained weight since contracting COVID-19 (median weight change +11.5 kg, range -11.5 to +45.3 kg). Conclusions: Symptoms linked to LC and overweight are diverse and complex. Remote trial delivery enabled rapid recruitment across the UK yet certain groups (e.g. men and those from ethnic minority groups) were under-represented. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12595520, 25/11/2021)

True prevalence of long-COVID in a nationwide, population cohort study

Long-COVID prevalence estimates vary widely and should take account of symptoms that would have occurred anyway. Here we determine the prevalence of symptoms attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection, taking account of background rates and confounding, in a nationwide population cohort study of 198,096 Scottish adults. 98,666 (49.8%) had symptomatic laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and 99,430 (50.2%) were age-, sex-, and socioeconomically-matched and never-infected. While 41,775 (64.5%) reported at least one symptom 6 months following SARS-CoV-2 infection, this was also true of 34,600 (50.8%) of those never-infected. The crude prevalence of one or more symptom attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection was 13.8% (13.2%,14.3%), 12.8% (11.9%,13.6%), and 16.3% (14.4%,18.2%) at 6, 12, and 18 months respectively. Following adjustment for potential confounders, these figures were 6.6% (6.3%, 6.9%), 6.5% (6.0%, 6.9%) and 10.4% (9.1%, 11.6%) respectively. Long-COVID is characterised by a wide range of symptoms that, apart from altered taste and smell, are non-specific. Care should be taken in attributing symptoms to previous SARS-CoV-2 infection

Outcomes among confirmed cases and a matched comparison group in the Long-COVID in Scotland Study

With increasing numbers infected by SARS-CoV-2, understanding long-COVID is essential to inform health and social care support. A Scottish population cohort of 33,281 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and 62,957 never-infected individuals were followed-up via 6, 12 and 18-month questionnaires and linkage to hospitalization and death records. Of the 31,486 symptomatic infections,1,856 (6%) had not recovered and 13,350 (42%) only partially. No recovery was associated with hospitalized infection, age, female sex, deprivation, respiratory disease, depression and multimorbidity. Previous symptomatic infection was associated with poorer quality of life, impairment across all daily activities and 24 persistent symptoms including breathlessness (OR 3.43, 95% CI 3.29–3.58), palpitations (OR 2.51, OR 2.36–2.66), chest pain (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.96–2.23), and confusion (OR 2.92, 95% CI 2.78–3.07). Asymptomatic infection was not associated with adverse outcomes. Vaccination was associated with reduced risk of seven symptoms. Here we describe the nature of long-COVID and the factors associated with it

Natural history of long-COVID in a nationwide, population cohort study

Previous studies on the natural history of long-COVID have been few and selective. Without comparison groups, disease progression cannot be differentiated from symptoms originating from other causes. The Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) is a Scotland-wide, general population cohort of adults who had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection matched to PCR-negative adults. Serial, self-completed, online questionnaires collected information on pre-existing health conditions and current health six, 12 and 18 months after index test. Of those with previous symptomatic infection, 35% reported persistent incomplete/no recovery, 12% improvement and 12% deterioration. At six and 12 months, one or more symptom was reported by 71.5% and 70.7% respectively of those previously infected, compared with 53.5% and 56.5% of those never infected. Altered taste, smell and confusion improved over time compared to the never infected group and adjusted for confounders. Conversely, late onset dry and productive cough, and hearing problems were more likely following SARS-CoV-2 infection

Association of latent class analysis-derived multimorbidity clusters with adverse health outcomes in patients with multiple long-term conditions: comparative results across three UK cohorts

Background: It remains unclear how to meaningfully classify people living with multimorbidity (multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs)), beyond counting the number of conditions. This paper aims to identify clusters of MLTCs in different age groups and associated risks of adverse health outcomes and service use. Methods: Latent class analysis was used to identify MLTCs clusters in different age groups in three cohorts: Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (SAIL) (n = 1,825,289), UK Biobank (n = 502,363), and the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) (n = 49,186). Incidence rate ratios (IRR) for MLTC clusters were computed for: all-cause mortality, hospitalisations, and general practice (GP) use over 10 years, using &lt;2 MLTCs as reference. Information on health outcomes and service use were extracted for a ten year follow up period (between 01st Jan 2010 and 31st Dec 2019 for UK Biobank and UKHLS, and between 01st Jan 2011 and 31st Dec 2020 for SAIL). Findings: Clustering MLTCs produced largely similar results across different age groups and cohorts. MLTC clusters had distinct associations with health outcomes and service use after accounting for LTC counts, in fully adjusted models. The largest associations with mortality, hospitalisations and GP use in SAIL were observed for the “Pain+” cluster in the age-group 18–36 years (mortality IRR = 4.47, hospitalisation IRR = 1.84; GP use IRR = 2.87) and the “Hypertension, Diabetes &amp; Heart disease” cluster in the age-group 37–54 years (mortality IRR = 4.52, hospitalisation IRR = 1.53, GP use IRR = 2.36). In UK Biobank, the “Cancer, Thyroid disease &amp; Rheumatoid arthritis” cluster in the age group 37–54 years had the largest association with mortality (IRR = 2.47). Cardiometabolic clusters across all age groups, pain/mental health clusters in younger groups, and cancer and pulmonary related clusters in older age groups had higher risk for all outcomes. In UKHLS, MLTC clusters were not significantly associated with higher risk of adverse outcomes, except for the hospitalisation in the age-group 18–36 years. Interpretation: Personalising care around MLTC clusters that have higher risk of adverse outcomes may have important implications for practice (in relation to secondary prevention), policy (with allocation of health care resources), and research (intervention development and targeting), for people living with MLTCs. Funding: This study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR; Personalised Exercise-Rehabilitation FOR people with Multiple long-term conditions (multimorbidity)—NIHR202020)