Self-management interventions in patients with long-term conditions: a structured review of approaches to reporting inclusion, assessment, and outcomes in multimorbidity

Background: Multimorbidity has many potential implications for healthcare delivery, but a particularly important impact concerns the validity of trial evidence underpinning clinical guidelines for individual conditions. Objective: To review how authors of published trials of self-management interventions reported inclusion criteria, sample descriptions, and consideration of the impact of multimorbidity on trial outcomes. Methods: We restricted our analysis to a small number of exemplar long-term conditions: type 2 diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We focussed our search on published Cochrane reviews. Data were extracted from the trials on inclusion/exclusion, sample description, and impact on outcomes. Results: Eleven reviews consisting of 164 unique trials were identified. Sixty percent of trials reported excluding patients with forms of multimorbidity. Reasons for exclusion were poorly described or defined. Reporting of multimorbidity within the trials was poor, with only 35% of trials reporting on multimorbidity in their patient samples. Secondary analyses, exploring the impact of multimorbidity, were very rare. Conclusions: The importance of multimorbidity in trials is only going to become more important over time, but trials often exclude patients with multimorbidity, and reporting of multimorbidity in trials including such patients is generally poor. This limits judgements about the external validity of the results for clinical populations. A consistent approach to the conduct and reporting of secondary analyses of the effects of multimorbidity on outcomes, using current best-practice guidance, could lead to a rapid development of the evidence base. Journal of Comorbidity 2014;4(1):37–4

Impact of research activity on performance of general practices: a qualitative study

Background: There is evidence that engaging in research is directly associated with better performance. If this relationship is to be strengthened, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms which might underlie that relationship. Aim: To explore the perspectives of staff and wider stakeholders about mechanisms by which research activity might impact on the performance of general practices. Design & Setting: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with general practice professionals and wider stakeholders in England. Method: Individual interviews with purposively sampled staff in ‘research ready’ or ‘research active’ general practices and other stakeholders. Interviews were analysed using a Framework approach. Results: Participants described potential ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ impacts on their work. ‘Direct’ impacts included research changing practice work (e.g. additional records searches for particular conditions), bringing in additional resources (e.g. access to investigations or staff) and improving relationships with patients. ‘Indirect’ impacts included job satisfaction (e.g. perception of practice as a centre of excellence and innovation, and the variety afforded by research activity reducing burnout) and staff recruitment (increasing the attractiveness of the practice as a place to work). Respondents identified few negative impacts. Conclusions: Staff and stakeholders identified a range of potential impacts of research activity on practice performance, with impacts on their working lives most salient. Negative impacts were not generally raised. Nevertheless, respondents generally discussed potential impacts rather than providing specific examples of those impacts. This may reflect the type of research activity conducted in general practice, often led by external collaborators

Impact of research activity on performance of general practices: a qualitative study

Background There is evidence that engaging in research is directly associated with better performance. If this relationship is to be strengthened, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms which might underlie that relationship. Aim To explore the perspectives of staff and wider stakeholders about mechanisms by which research activity might impact on the performance of general practices. Design & Setting Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with general practice professionals and wider stakeholders in England. Method Individual interviews with 41 purposively sampled staff in ‘research ready’ or ‘research active’ general practices and with 21 other stakeholders. Interviews were independently coded by three researchers using a Framework approach. Results Participants described potential ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ impacts on their work. ‘Direct’ impacts included research changing practice work (e.g. additional records searches for particular conditions), bringing in additional resources (e.g. access to investigations or staff) and improving relationships with patients. ‘Indirect’ impacts included job satisfaction (e.g. perception of practice as a centre of excellence and innovation, and the variety afforded by research activity reducing burnout) and staff recruitment (increasing the attractiveness of the practice as a place to work). Respondents identified few negative impacts. Conclusions Staff and stakeholders identified a range of potential impacts of research activity on practice performance, with impacts on their working lives most salient. Negative impacts were not generally raised. Nevertheless, respondents generally discussed potential impacts rather than providing specific examples of those impacts. This may reflect the type of research activity conducted in general practice, often led by external collaborators

Implementing a text message-based intervention to support type 2 diabetes medication adherence in primary care: a qualitative study with general practice staff

Background: The Support through Mobile Messaging and digital health Technology for Diabetes (SuMMiT-D) project has developed, and is evaluating, a mobile phone-based intervention delivering brief messages targeting identified behaviour change techniques promoting medication use to people with type 2 diabetes in general practice. The present study aimed to inform refinement and future implementation of the SuMMiT-D intervention by investigating general practice staff perceptions of how a text message-based intervention to support medication adherence should be implemented within current and future diabetes care. Methods: Seven focus groups and five interviews were conducted with 46 general practice staff (including GPs, nurses, healthcare assistants, receptionists and linked pharmacists) with a potential role in the implementation of a text message-based intervention for people with type 2 diabetes. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Results: Five themes were developed. One theme ‘The potential of technology as a patient ally’ described a need for diabetes support and the potential of technology to support medication use. Two themes outlined challenges to implementation, ‘Limited resources and assigning responsibility’ and ‘Treating the patient; more than diabetes medication adherence’. The final two themes described recommendations to support implementation, ‘Selling the intervention: what do general practice staff need to see?’ and ‘Fitting the mould; complementing current service delivery’. Conclusions: Staff see the potential for a text message-based support intervention to address unmet needs and to enhance care for people with diabetes. Digital interventions, such as SuMMiT-D, need to be compatible with existing systems, demonstrate measurable benefits, be incentivised and be quick and easy for staff to engage with. Interventions also need to be perceived to address general practice priorities, such as taking a holistic approach to care and having multi-cultural reach and relevance. Findings from this study are being combined with parallel work with people with type 2 diabetes to ensure stakeholder views inform further refinement and implementation of the SuMMiT-D intervention

Understanding acceptability in the context of text messages to encourage medication adherence in people with type 2 diabetes

From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2021-01-29, accepted 2021-05-11, registration 2021-06-22, pub-electronic 2021-06-28, online 2021-06-28, collection 2021-12Publication status: PublishedAbstract: Background: Acceptability is recognised as a key concept in the development of health interventions, but there has been a lack of consensus about how acceptability should be conceptualised. The theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) provides a potential tool for understanding acceptability. It has been proposed that acceptability measured before use of an intervention (anticipated acceptability) may differ from measures taken during and after use (experienced acceptability), but thus far this distinction has not been tested for a specific intervention. This paper 1) directly compares ratings of anticipated and experienced acceptability of a text message-based intervention, 2) explores the applicability of the TFA in a technology-based intervention, and 3) uses these findings to inform suggestions for measuring acceptability over the lifespan of technology-based health interventions. Methods: Data were obtained from a quantitative online survey assessing anticipated acceptability of the proposed text messages (n = 59) and a 12-week proof-of-concept mixed methods study assessing experienced acceptability while receiving the text messages (n = 48). Both quantitative ratings by return text message, and qualitative data from participant interviews were collected during the proof-of-concept study. Results: The quantitative analysis showed anticipated and experienced acceptability were significantly positively correlated (rs > .4). The qualitative analysis identified four of the seven constructs of the TFA as themes (burden, intervention coherence, affective attitude and perceived effectiveness). An additional two themes were identified as having an important impact on the TFA constructs (perceptions of appropriateness and participants’ role). Three suggestions are given related to the importance of appropriateness, what may affect ratings of acceptability and what to consider when measuring acceptability. Conclusions: The high correlation between anticipated and experienced acceptability was a surprising finding and could indicate that, in some cases, acceptability of an intervention can be gauged adequately from an anticipated acceptability study, prior to an expensive pilot or feasibility study. Directly exploring perceptions of appropriateness and understanding whether the acceptability described by participants is related to the intervention or the research - and is for themselves or others - is important in interpreting the results and using them to further develop interventions and predict future use

Supporting people with type 2 diabetes in effective use of their medicine through mobile health technology integrated with clinical care (SuMMiT-D pilot): results of a feasibility randomised trial

Background The purpose of this 6-month intervention pilot feasibility randomised trial was to test sending brief messages using mobile phones to promote self-management through taking medication as prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes. This was to inform the design and conduct of a future large-scale United Kingdom-based clinical trial and establish the feasibility of recruitment, the technology used, follow-up, and data collection. Methods A multicentre individually randomised, controlled parallel group trial in primary care, recruiting adults (≥ 35 years) with type 2 diabetes in England. Consenting participants were randomly allocated to receive short message system text messages up to four times a week, or usual care, for a period of 6 months; messages contained behavioural change techniques targeting medication use. The primary outcome was the rate of recruitment to randomisation of participants to the trial with a planned rate of 22 participants randomised per month. The study also aimed to establish the feasibility of follow-up at 6 months, with an aim of retaining more than 80% of participants. Data, including patient-reported measures, were collected at baseline and the end of the 6-month follow-up period, and a notes review was completed at 24 months. Results The trial took place between 26 November 2018 and 30 September 2019. In total 209 participants were randomly allocated to intervention (n = 103) or usual care (n = 106). The maximum rate of monthly recruitment to the trial was 60–80 participants per month. In total, 12,734 messages were sent to participants. Of these messages, 47 were identified as having failed to be sent by the service provider. Participants sent 2,864 messages to the automated messaging system. Baseline data from medical records were available for > 90% of participants with the exception of cholesterol (78.9%). At 6 months, a further HbA1c measurement was reported for 67% of participants. In total medical record data were available at 6 months for 207 (99.0%) of participants and completed self-report data were available for 177 (84.7%) of participants. Conclusion The feasibility of a large-scale randomised evaluation of brief message intervention for people with type 2 diabetes appears to be high using this efficient design. Failure rate of sending messages is low, rapid recruitment was achieved among people with type 2 diabetes, clinical data is available on participants from routine medical records and self-report of economic measures was acceptable. Trial registration ISCTRN ISRCTN13404264. Registered on 10 October 2018

Supporting People With Type 2 Diabetes in the Effective Use of Their Medicine Through Mobile Health Technology Integrated With Clinical Care to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk : Protocol for an Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness Randomized Controlled Trial

Funding Information: The Support Through Mobile Messaging and Digital Health Technology for Diabetes research team acknowledges the support of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) through the Clinical Research Networks. AF, LT, and RR have received support from the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. RH received support from the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care and North Thames at Bart's Health National Health Service (NHS) Trust. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. This paper presents independent research funded by the NIHR under its Program Grants for Applied Research as part of a wider program of work (RP-PG-1214-20003). The authors thank the personnel of the University of Oxford Primary Care and Vaccines Clinical Trials Collaborative for providing support in the conduct of the trial.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Supporting people with type 2 diabetes in effective use of their medicine through mobile health technology integrated with clinical care (SuMMiT-D pilot) : results of a feasibility randomised trial

Funding Information: This publication presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (RP-PG-1214–20003). AF and RR are supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. DPF is supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (IS-BRC-1215–20007). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (RP-PG-1214–20003). For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. The SuMMiT-D research team acknowledges the support of the Primary Care Clinical Trials Unit and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN). The authors would like to thank the Thames Valley and South Midlands, West Midlands, South West Peninsula and the Greater Manchester Clinical Research Networks and the participating general practices for help with recruitment. The funder had no role in the design, execution, analyses, interpretation of the data, or decision to submit results for this study.Peer reviewe

The Effect of Complex Interventions on Depression and Anxiety in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Depression and anxiety are very common in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and are associated with excess morbidity and mortality. Patients prefer non-drug treatments and clinical guidelines promote non-pharmacological interventions as first line therapy for depression and anxiety in people with long term conditions. However the comparative effectiveness of psychological and lifestyle interventions among COPD patients is not known. We assessed whether complex psychological and/or lifestyle interventions are effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety and depression in patients with COPD. We then determined what types of psychological and lifestyle interventions are most effective. Methods and Findings Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of psychological and/or lifestyle interventions for adults with COPD that measured symptoms of depression and/or anxiety. CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science and Scopus were searched up to April 2012. Meta-analyses using random effects models were undertaken to estimate the average effect of interventions on depression and anxiety. Thirty independent comparisons from 29 randomised controlled trials (n = 2063) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, psychological and/or lifestyle interventions were associated with small reductions in symptoms of depression (standardised mean difference −0.28, 95% confidence interval −0.41 to −0.14) and anxiety (standardised mean difference −0.23, 95% confidence interval −0.38 to −0.09). Multi-component exercise training was the only intervention subgroup associated with significant treatment effects for depression (standardised mean difference −0.47, 95% confidence interval −0.66 to −0.28), and for anxiety (standardised mean difference −0.45, 95% confidence interval −0.71 to −0.18). Conclusions Complex psychological and/or lifestyle interventions that include an exercise component significantly improve symptoms of depression and anxiety in people with COPD. Furthermore, multi-component exercise training effectively reduces symptoms of anxiety and depression in all people with COPD regardless of severity of depression or anxiety, highlighting the importance of promoting physical activity in this population