Staff experiences of a reablement approach to care for older people in a regional Australian community : a qualitative study

Reablement is described as a person-centred, goal-directed intervention with a view to regain, maintain or improve the independence of older clients. Although evidence to support the use of reablement as a multidisciplinary, home-based intervention for community-dwelling older adults is increasing, there is limited knowledge about what it means for care staff who provide client-based services. This study, which was nested in a larger program evaluation, used a descriptive qualitative approach to explore direct care staff and care coordinator experiences of translating a reablement training program into practice for older people in a regional Australian community. Two months after the training program four focus groups were conducted with 13 care coordinators to assimilate staff experiences with development of care plans, systems, processes and practices of reablement. In addition, four direct care staff took part in individual interviews, which centred on eliciting their experience using the reablement approach with clients. Results from the care coordinator focus groups and the direct care staff interviews highlight the importance of reablement staff training and the involvement of staff in the development and delivery of a reablement approach to client-centred care. A number of organisational and client-centred challenges such as communication, functional partnerships, staff education and resourcing are also uncovered in this research into the development of a reablement-focused care service in a regional setting. Overall there is support for the dominating discourse around healthy ageing and the policy approach of ageing in place to support wellness

Antenatal detection of large-for-gestational-age fetuses following implementation of the Growth Assessment Protocol: secondary analysis of a randomised control trial

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) affects the antenatal detection of large for gestational age (LGA) or maternal and perinatal outcomes amongst LGA babies. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a pragmatic open randomised cluster control trial comparing the GAP with standard care. SETTING: Eleven UK maternity units. POPULATION: Pregnant women and their LGA babies born at ≥36+0  weeks of gestation. METHODS: Clusters were randomly allocated to GAP implementation or standard care. Data were collected from electronic patient records. Trial arms were compared using summary statistics, with unadjusted and adjusted (two-stage cluster summary approach) differences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of detection of LGA (estimated fetal weight on ultrasound scan above the 90th centile after 34+0  weeks of gestation, defined by either population or customised growth charts), maternal and perinatal outcomes (e.g. mode of birth, postpartum haemorrhage, severe perineal tears, birthweight and gestational age, neonatal unit admission, perinatal mortality, and neonatal morbidity and mortality). RESULTS: A total of 506 LGA babies were exposed to GAP and 618 babies received standard care. There were no significant differences in the rate of LGA detection (GAP 38.0% vs standard care 48.0%; adjusted effect size -4.9%; 95% CI -20.5, 10.7; p = 0.54), nor in any of the maternal or perinatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of GAP did not change the rate of antenatal ultrasound detection of LGA when compared with standard care

Effect of the Growth Assessment Protocol on the DEtection of Small for GestatioNal age fetus: process evaluation from the DESiGN cluster randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Reducing the rate of stillbirth is an international priority. At least half of babies stillborn in high-income countries are small for gestational-age (SGA). The Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP), a complex antenatal intervention that aims to increase the rate of antenatal detection of SGA, was evaluated in the DESiGN type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomised trial (n = 13 clusters). In this paper, we present the trial process evaluation. METHODS: A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted. Clinical leads and frontline healthcare professionals were interviewed to inform understanding of context (implementing and standard care sites) and GAP implementation (implementing sites). Thematic analysis of interview text used the context and implementation of complex interventions framework to understand acceptability, feasibility, and the impact of context. A review of implementing cluster clinical guidelines, training and maternity records was conducted to assess fidelity, dose and reach. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 28 clinical leads and 27 frontline healthcare professionals across 11 sites. Staff at implementing sites generally found GAP to be acceptable but raised issues of feasibility, caused by conflicting demands on resource, and variable beliefs among clinical leaders regarding the intervention value. GAP was implemented with variable fidelity (concordance of local guidelines to GAP was high at two sites, moderate at two and low at one site), all sites achieved the target to train > 75% staff using face-to-face methods, but only one site trained > 75% staff using e-learning methods; a median of 84% (range 78–87%) of women were correctly risk stratified at the five implementing sites. Most sites achieved high scores for reach (median 94%, range 62–98% of women had a customised growth chart), but generally, low scores for dose (median 31%, range 8–53% of low-risk women and median 5%, range 0–17% of high-risk women) were monitored for SGA as recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of GAP was generally acceptable to staff but with issues of feasibility that are likely to have contributed to variation in implementation strength. Leadership and resourcing are fundamental to effective implementation of clinical service changes, even when such changes are well aligned to policy mandated service-change priorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Primary registry and trial identifying number: ISRCTN 67698474. Registered 02/11/16. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN67698474

Effect of the Growth Assessment Protocol on the DEtection of Small for GestatioNal age fetus: process evaluation from the DESiGN cluster randomised trial

Background Reducing the rate of stillbirth is an international priority. At least half of babies stillborn in high-income countries are small for gestational-age (SGA). The Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP), a complex antenatal intervention that aims to increase the rate of antenatal detection of SGA, was evaluated in the DESiGN type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomised trial (n = 13 clusters). In this paper, we present the trial process evaluation. Methods A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted. Clinical leads and frontline healthcare professionals were interviewed to inform understanding of context (implementing and standard care sites) and GAP implementation (implementing sites). Thematic analysis of interview text used the context and implementation of complex interventions framework to understand acceptability, feasibility, and the impact of context. A review of implementing cluster clinical guidelines, training and maternity records was conducted to assess fidelity, dose and reach. Results Interviews were conducted with 28 clinical leads and 27 frontline healthcare professionals across 11 sites. Staff at implementing sites generally found GAP to be acceptable but raised issues of feasibility, caused by conflicting demands on resource, and variable beliefs among clinical leaders regarding the intervention value. GAP was implemented with variable fidelity (concordance of local guidelines to GAP was high at two sites, moderate at two and low at one site), all sites achieved the target to train > 75% staff using face-to-face methods, but only one site trained > 75% staff using e-learning methods; a median of 84% (range 78–87%) of women were correctly risk stratified at the five implementing sites. Most sites achieved high scores for reach (median 94%, range 62–98% of women had a customised growth chart), but generally, low scores for dose (median 31%, range 8–53% of low-risk women and median 5%, range 0–17% of high-risk women) were monitored for SGA as recommended. Conclusions Implementation of GAP was generally acceptable to staff but with issues of feasibility that are likely to have contributed to variation in implementation strength. Leadership and resourcing are fundamental to effective implementation of clinical service changes, even when such changes are well aligned to policy mandated service-change priorities. Trial registration Primary registry and trial identifying number: ISRCTN 67698474. Registered 02/11/16. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN67698474

HPV.edu study protocol: a cluster randomised controlled evaluation of education, decisional support and logistical strategies in school-based human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination of adolescents

Background The National Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination Program in Australia commenced in 2007 for females and in 2013 for males, using the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (HPV 6,11,16,18). Thus far, we have demonstrated very substantial reductions in genital warts and in the prevalence of HPV among young Australian women, providing early evidence for the success of this public health initiative. Australia has a long history of school-based vaccination programs for adolescents, with comparatively high coverage. However, it is not clear what factors promote success in a school vaccination program. The HPV.edu study aims to examine: 1) student knowledge about HPV vaccination; 2) psycho-social outcomes and 3) vaccination uptake. Methods/Design HPV.edu is a cluster randomised trial of a complex intervention in schools aiming to recruit 40 schools with year-8 enrolments above 100 students (approximately 4400 students). The schools will be stratified by Government, Catholic, and Independent sectors and geographical location, with up to 20 schools recruited in each of two states, Western Australia (WA) and South Australia (SA), and randomly allocated to intervention or control (usual practice). Intervention schools will receive the complex intervention which includes an adolescent intervention (education and distraction); a decisional support tool for parents and adolescents and logistical strategies (consent form returns strategies, in-school mop-up vaccination and vaccination-day guidelines). Careful process evaluation including an embedded qualitative evaluation will be undertaken to explore in depth possible mechanisms for any observed effect of the intervention on primary and secondary outcomes. Discussion This study is the first to evaluate the relative effectiveness of various strategies to promote best practice in school-based vaccination against HPV. The study aims to improve vaccination-related psychosocial outcomes, including adolescent knowledge and attitudes, decision-making involvement, self-efficacy, and to reduce fear and anxiety. The study also aims to improve school vaccination program logistics including reduction in time spent vaccinating adolescents and increased number of consent forms returned (regardless of decision). Less anxiety in adolescents will likely promote more efficient vaccination, which will be more acceptable to teachers, nurses and parents. Through these interventions, it is hoped that vaccination uptake will be increased. Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12614000404628, 14.04.2014. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2168-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials