Process evaluation for complex interventions in primary care: understanding trials using the normalization process model

Background: the Normalization Process Model is a conceptual tool intended to assist in understanding the factors that affect implementation processes in clinical trials and other evaluations of complex interventions. It focuses on the ways that the implementation of complex interventions is shaped by problems of workability and integration.Method: in this paper the model is applied to two different complex trials: (i) the delivery of problem solving therapies for psychosocial distress, and (ii) the delivery of nurse-led clinics for heart failure treatment in primary care.Results: application of the model shows how process evaluations need to focus on more than the immediate contexts in which trial outcomes are generated. Problems relating to intervention workability and integration also need to be understood. The model may be used effectively to explain the implementation process in trials of complex interventions.Conclusion: the model invites evaluators to attend equally to considering how a complex intervention interacts with existing patterns of service organization, professional practice, and professional-patient interaction. The justification for this may be found in the abundance of reports of clinical effectiveness for interventions that have little hope of being implemented in real healthcare setting

A web-based self-management programme for people with type 2 diabetes : the HeLP-Diabetes research programme including RCT

Background: In the UK, 6% of the UK population have diabetes mellitus, 90% of whom have type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Diabetes mellitus accounts for 10% of NHS expenditure (£14B annually). Good self-management may improve health outcomes. NHS policy is to refer all people with T2DM to structured education, on diagnosis, to improve their self-management skills, with annual reinforcement thereafter. However, uptake remains low (5.6% in 2014–15). Almost all structured education is group based, which may not suit people who work, who have family or other caring commitments or who simply do not like group-based formats. Moreover, patient needs vary with time and a single education session at diagnosis is unlikely to meet these evolving needs. A web-based programme may increase uptake. / Objectives: Our aim was to develop, evaluate and implement a web-based self-management programme for people with T2DM at any stage of their illness journey, with the goal of improving access to, and uptake of, self-management support, thereby improving health outcomes in a cost-effective manner. Specific objectives were to (1) develop an evidence-based theoretically informed programme that was acceptable to patients and health-care professionals (HCPs) and that could be readily implemented within routine NHS care, (2) determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the programme compared with usual care and (3) determine how best to integrate the programme into routine care. / Design: There were five linked work packages (WPs). WP A determined patient requirements and WP B determined HCP requirements for the self-management programme. WP C developed and user-tested the Healthy Living for People with type 2 Diabetes (HeLP-Diabetes) programme. WP D was an individually randomised controlled trial in primary care with a health economic analysis. WP E used a mixed-methods and case-study design to study the potential for implementing the HeLP-Diabetes programme within routine NHS practice. / Setting: English primary care. / Participants: People with T2DM (WPs A, D and E) or HCPs caring for people with T2DM (WPs B, C and E). / Intervention: The HeLP-Diabetes programme; an evidence-based theoretically informed web-based self-management programme for people with T2DM at all stages of their illness journey, developed using participatory design principles. / Main outcome measures: WPs A and B provided data on user ‘wants and needs’, including factors that would improve the uptake and accessibility of the HeLP-Diabetes programme. The outcome for WP C was the HeLP-Diabetes programme itself. The trial (WP D) had two outcomes measures: glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level and diabetes mellitus-related distress, as measured with the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scale. The implementation outcomes (WP E) were the adoption and uptake at clinical commissioning group, general practice and patient levels and the identification of key barriers and facilitators. / Results: Data from WPs A and B supported our holistic approach and addressed all areas of self-management (medical, emotional and role management). HCPs voiced concerns about linkage with the electronic medical records (EMRs) and supporting patients to use the programme. The HeLP-Diabetes programme was developed and user-tested in WP C. The trial (WP D) recruited to target (n = 374), achieved follow-up rates of over 80% and the intention-to-treat analysis showed that there was an additional improvement in HbA1c levels at 12 months in the intervention group [mean difference –0.24%, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.44% to –0.049%]. There was no difference in overall PAID score levels (mean difference –1.5 points, 95% CI –3.9 to 0.9 points). The within-trial health economic analysis found that incremental costs were lower in the intervention group than in the control group (mean difference –£111, 95% CI –£384 to £136) and the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were higher (mean difference 0.02 QALYs, 95% CI 0.000 to 0.044 QALYs), meaning that the HeLP-Diabetes programme group dominated the control group. In WP E, we found that the HeLP-Diabetes programme could be successfully implemented in primary care. General practices that supported people in registering for the HeLP-Diabetes programme had better uptake and registered patients from a wider demographic than those relying on patient self-registration. Some HCPs were reluctant to do this, as they did not see it as part of their professional role. / Limitations: We were unable to link the HeLP-Diabetes programme with the EMRs or to determine the effects of the HeLP-Diabetes programme on users in the implementation study. / Conclusions: The HeLP-Diabetes programme is an effective self-management support programme that is implementable in primary care. / Future work: The HeLP-Diabetes research team will explore the following in future work: research to determine how to improve patient uptake of self-management support; develop and evaluate a structured digital educational pathway for newly diagnosed people; develop and evaluate a digital T2DM prevention programme; and the national implementation of the HeLP-Diabetes programme. / Trial registration: Research Ethics Committee reference number 10/H0722/86 for WPs A–C; Research Ethics Committee reference number 12/LO/1571 and UK Clinical Research Network/National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio 13563 for WP D; and Research Ethics Committee 13/EM/0033 for WP E. In addition, for WP D, the study was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register as reference number ISRCTN02123133. / Funding details: This project was funded by the NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 6, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

All Settled? A study of legally binding separation agreements and private ordering in family law in Scotland

Scots family law provides detailed legislation which regulates the sharing of property and finances on the breakdown of marriage, civil partnership and, to a limited extent, cohabitation, but increasingly couples opt instead to regulate the consequences of relationship breakdown by agreement. It is thought that there is widespread use of such agreements but very little is known about them, their content and outcomes, the negotiation process, the role of legal advisers or the extent to which the parties may feel that they are bargaining 'within the shadow of the law'. Separation agreements take the form of legally binding Minutes of Agreement. These are registered and stored in the National Archives of Scotland and accordingly they are public documents. This research will study a sample of agreements registered in 2010, followed up by interviews with parties and solicitors who have been involved in drafting agreements. It will be of considerable importance to lawyers, policymakers and individuals who are themselves involved in such private ordering

The public sector under a Labour government

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:q95/16794 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo