A lifestyle management programme focused on exercise, diet and physiotherapy support for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis and a body mass index over 35: a qualitative study

The Lifestyle Management Programme (LMP) is an exercise and weight management programme with physiotherapy support for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) and a body mass index (BMI) over 35. This qualitative study explored views and experiences of the LMP among patients and professionals, and offers insight for future programmes. Five referring clinicians and six delivering professionals participated in focus groups. Three referring GPs and nine patients who attended the LMP took part in semi-structured interviews. Topics included: referral, reasons for taking up and continuing the programme or not, and experiences and outcomes. Framework method was used to analyse the qualitative data. Overall, patients and professionals valued the multidisciplinary nature of the LMP. However, professionals explained feeling guilty about delaying patients on the orthopaedic waiting list and believed that the programme should be redirected to those with less severe OA and a lower BMI. Referring clinicians differed in their interpretation of the referral criteria and expressed varying levels of autonomy when making referrals. Patients referred after a consultation with their general practitioner appeared to be more satisfied with the referral process. Patients were also encouraged by the opportunity to improve health, their likelihood of surgery and social benefits. However, patients were discouraged by inconvenience, cost, lack of readiness to change and embarrassment. In conclusion, shared decision-making about lifestyle management without delaying orthopaedic opinion is preferable, and more psychological support may increase participation. Importantly, the programme may be better focused on rehabilitation for patients with a lower BMI and less severe symptoms

Patient perspectives on delays in diagnosis and treatment of cancer: a qualitative analysis of free-text data

Background: Earlier cancer diagnosis is crucial in improving cancer survival. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 (ICBP4) is a quantitative survey study that explores the reasons for delays in diagnosis and treatment of breast, colorectal, lung, and ovarian cancer. To further understand the associated diagnostic processes, it is also important to explore the patient perspectives expressed in the free-text comments. Aim: To use the free-text data provided by patients completing the ICBP4 survey to augment the understanding of patients’ perspectives of their diagnostic journey. Design and setting: Qualitative analysis of the free-text data collected in Wales between October 2013 and December 2014 as part of the ICBP4 survey. Newly-diagnosed patients with either breast, ovarian, colorectal, or lung cancer were identified from registry data and then invited by their GPs to participate in the survey. Method: A thematic framework was used to analyse the free-text comments provided at the end of the ICBP4 survey. Of the 905 patients who returned a questionnaire, 530 included comments. Results: The free-text data provided information about patients’ perspectives of the diagnostic journey. Analysis identified factors that acted as either barriers or facilitators at different stages of the diagnostic process. Some factors, such as screening, doctor–patient familiarity, and private treatment, acted as both barriers and facilitators depending on the context. Conclusion: Factors identified in this study help to explain how existing models of cancer diagnosis (for example, the Pathways to Treatment Model) work in practice. It is important that clinicians are aware of how these factors may interact with individual clinical cases and either facilitate, or act as a barrier to, subsequent cancer diagnosis. Understanding and implementing this knowledge into clinical practice may result in quicker cancer diagnoses

‘Function First’: how to promote physical activity and physical function in people with long-term conditions managed in primary care? A study combining realist and co-design methods

Objectives To develop a taxonomy of interventions and a programme theory explaining how interventions improve physical activity and function in people with long-term conditions managed in primary care. To co-design a prototype intervention informed by the programme theory. Design Realist synthesis combining evidence from a wide range of rich and relevant literature with stakeholder views. Resulting context, mechanism and outcome statements informed co-design and knowledge mobilisation workshops with stakeholders to develop a primary care service innovation. Results A taxonomy was produced, including 13 categories of physical activity interventions for people with long-term conditions. Abridged realist programme theory Routinely addressing physical activity within consultations is dependent on a reinforcing practice culture, and targeted resources, with better coordination, will generate more opportunities to address low physical activity. The adaptation of physical activity promotion to individual needs and preferences of people with long-term conditions helps affect positive patient behaviour change. Training can improve knowledge, confidence and capability of practice staff to better promote physical activity. Engagement in any physical activity promotion programme will depend on the degree to which it makes sense to patients and professions, and is seen as trustworthy. Co-design The programme theory informed the co-design of a prototype intervention to: improve physical literacy among practice staff; describe/develop the role of a physical activity advisor who can encourage the use of local opportunities to be more active; and provide materials to support behaviour change. Conclusions Previous physical activity interventions in primary care have had limited effect. This may be because they have only partially addressed factors emerging in our programme theory. The co-designed prototype intervention aims to address all elements of this emergent theory, but needs further development and consideration alongside current schemes and contexts (including implications relevant to COVID-19), and testing in a future study. The integration of realist and co-design methods strengthened this study

Promoting physical activity and physical function in people with long-term conditions by primary care:the Function First realist synthesis with co-design

Background As people age and accumulate long-term conditions, their physical activity and physical function declines, resulting in disability and loss of independence. Primary care is well placed to empower individuals and communities to reduce this decline; however, the best approach is uncertain. Objectives To develop a programme theory to explain the mechanisms through which interventions improve physical activity and physical function in people with long-term conditions in different primary care contexts, and to co-design a prototype intervention. Data sources Systematic literature searches of relevant databases with forwards and backwards citation tracking, grey literature searches and further purposive searches were conducted. Qualitative data were collected through workshops and interviews. Design Realist evidence synthesis and co-design for primary care service innovation. Setting Primary care in Wales and England. Participants Stakeholders included people with long-term conditions, primary care professionals, people working in relevant community roles and researchers. Methods The realist evidence synthesis combined evidence from varied sources of literature with the views, experiences and ideas of stakeholders. The resulting context, mechanism and outcome statements informed three co-design workshops and a knowledge mobilisation workshop for primary care service innovation. Results Five context, mechanism and outcome statements were developed. (1) Improving physical activity and function is not prioritised in primary care (context). If the practice team culture is aligned to the elements of physical literacy (mechanism), then physical activity promotion will become routine and embedded in usual care (outcome). (2) Physical activity promotion is inconsistent and unco-ordinated (context). If specific resources are allocated to physical activity promotion (in combination with a supportive practice culture) (mechanism), then this will improve opportunities to change behaviour (outcome). (3) People with long-term conditions have varying levels of physical function and physical activity, varying attitudes to physical activity and differing access to local resources that enable physical activity (context). If physical activity promotion is adapted to individual needs, preferences and local resources (mechanism), then this will facilitate a sustained improvement in physical activity (outcome). (4) Many primary care practice staff lack the knowledge and confidence to promote physical activity (context). If staff develop an improved sense of capability through education and training (mechanism), then they will increase their engagement with physical activity promotion (outcome). (5) If a programme is credible with patients and professionals (context), then trust and confidence in the programme will develop (mechanism) and more patients and professionals will engage with the programme (outcome). A prototype multicomponent intervention was developed. This consisted of resources to nurture a culture of physical literacy, materials to develop the role of a credible professional who can promote physical activity using a directory of local opportunities and resources to assist with individual behaviour change. Limitations Realist synthesis and co-design is about what works in which contexts, so these resources and practice implications will need to be modified for different primary care contexts. Conclusions We developed a programme theory to explain how physical activity could be promoted in primary care in people with long-term conditions, which informed a prototype intervention. Future work A future research programme could further develop the prototype multicomponent intervention and assess its acceptability in practice alongside existing schemes before it is tested in a feasibility study to inform a future randomised controlled trial. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018103027. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. </jats:sec

'Function First - Be Active, Stay Independent' - Promoting physical activity and physical function in people with long-term conditions by primary care: A protocol for a realist synthesis with embedded co-production and co-design.

Introduction: People with long-term conditions typically have reduced physical functioning, are less physically active and therefore become less able to live independently and do the things they enjoy. Long-term conditions are managed routinely in primary care, however support rarely emphasises physical function and physical activity. This project aims to develop evidence-based recommendations about how primary care can optimally help people to become more physically active in order to maintain and improve their physical function, thus promoting independence. Methods and analysis: This study takes a realist synthesis approach, following RAMESES guidance, with embedded co-production and co-design. Stage 1 will develop initial programme theories about physical activity and physical function for people with long-term conditions, based on a review of the scientific and grey literature, and two multisector stakeholder workshops using LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®. Stage 2 will involve focused literature searching, data extraction and synthesis to provide evidence to support or refute the initial programme theories. Searches for evidence will focus on physical activity interventions involving the assessment of physical function that are relevant to primary care. We will describe ‘what works’, ‘for whom’ and ‘in what circumstances’ and develop conjectured programme theories using (C)ontext, (M)echanism and (O)utcome (CMO) configurations. Stage 3 will test and refine these theories through individual stakeholder interviews. The resulting theory-driven recommendations will feed into Stage 4 which will involve three sequential co-design stakeholder workshops where practical ideas for service innovation in primary care will be developed. Ethics and dissemination: Healthcare and Medical Sciences Academic Ethics Committee (Reference 2018-16308) and NHS Wales Research Ethics Committee 5 approval (References 256729 and 262726) have been obtained. A knowledge mobilisation event will address issues relevant to wider implementation of the intervention and study findings. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publications, conference presentations, and formal and informal reports

Earlier cancer diagnosis in primary care: a feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer!

BackgroundUK cancer survival rates are much lower compared with other high-income countries. In primary care, there are opportunities for GPs and other healthcare professionals to act more quickly in response to presented symptoms that might represent cancer. ThinkCancer! is a complex behaviour change intervention aimed at primary care practice teams to improve the timely diagnosis of cancer.AimTo explore the costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in primary care.Design & settingFeasibility economic analysis using a micro-costing approach, which was undertaken in 19 general practices in Wales, UK.MethodFrom an NHS perspective, micro-costing methodology was used to determine whether it was feasible to gather sufficient economic data to cost the ThinkCancer!InterventionOwing to the COVID-19 pandemic, ThinkCancer! was mainly delivered remotely online in a digital format. Budget impact analysis (BIA) and sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore the costs of face-to-face delivery of the ThinkCancer! intervention as intended pre-COVID-19.ResultsThe total costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention across 19 general practices in Wales was £25 030, with an average cost per practice of £1317 (standard deviation [SD]: 578.2). Findings from the BIA indicated a total cost of £34 630 for face-to-face delivery.ConclusionData collection methods were successful in gathering sufficient health economics data to cost the ThinkCancer!InterventionResults of this feasibility study will be used to inform a future definitive economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT)