Lifestyle matters randomized controlled trial of a preventive health intervention for older people: Qualitative sub study with participants and intervention facilitators

© 2020 Mountain et al. Objective: This qualitative study embedded within a randomized controlled trial was conducted to explore the acceptability, experiences of, and short-term impact of a preventive health intervention (Lifestyle Matters) from the perspectives of those who took part, and to uncover any evidence for the theorised mechanisms of action (improved participation and self efficacy) underpinning the intervention. It was also conducted to help explain the quantitative trial results. Methods: A purposive sample of 13 trial participants who had been randomized to receive the Lifestyle Matters intervention (approximately 10%) were individually qualitatively interviewed immediately following their involvement. All four intervention facilitators were also individually interviewed. Results: Evidence of the hypothesized behavioural changes could be identified within the interview data, demonstrating the potential of this intervention. However, lack of adherence to the overall intervention eroded receipt of benefit. This finding complements the quantitative trial results which found that the study had failed to recruit those who considered themselves to be at risk of age-related decline. Conclusion: This form of preventive health intervention requires proactive identification of those who recognise the need to make lifestyle changes. This is difficult if reactive health and social care systems are the main referral routes. The methodological approaches taken towards the study of complex interventions requires reconsideration if potential benefits are to be accurately assessed. Clinical Trial Registration: ISRCTN67209155

Evaluation of intervention fidelity of a complex psychosocial intervention Lifestyle Matters: a randomised controlled trial

Objectives: Robust research of complex interventions designed to promote mental well-being in later life is required to inform service development. An essential component is ensuring that such interventions are delivered as intended. We present a detailed description of the design and implementation of a fidelity assessment within a trial of one such intervention (Lifestyle Matters). The findings help to explain the trial results and also inform the design of embedded fidelity assessments within future evaluations of complex interventions. Design: We conducted a mixed-method fidelity assessment embedded as part of a multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled trial. A conceptual fidelity framework was developed from the Behaviour Change Consortium framework. From this the fidelity assessment was designed. The resulting instrument assessed the following parameters: intervention design, training, supervision; and delivery, receipt and enactment of the intervention. Intervention: The Lifestyle Matters intervention was designed to assist older people to improve and sustain mental well-being through participation in meaningful activity. The aim is to enable participants to engage in both new and neglected activities through a mix of facilitated group meetings and individual sessions. Results: The fidelity assessment demonstrated that the intervention was delivered as per protocol for the group component and was tailored to meet individual needs. There was substantial inter-rater agreement for training; and group member performance 0.72; and moderate agreement for facilitator performance 0.55. It was not possible to determine whether small declines seen in facilitator performance were due to facilitator drift or moderating factors such as group dynamics or participant characteristics. Conclusions: The assessment methods adequately measured criteria identified as being significant indicators of fidelity. Adherence during training, delivery and supervision was good. The subjective nature of identification and rating observed behaviours was the main challenge. Future research should explore alternative methods of assessing fidelity in trials of complex interventions. Trial registration number: ISRCTN67209155

Journeying through Dementia, a community-based self-management intervention for people aged 65 years and over : a feasibility study to inform a future trial

Background: A study to determine the feasibility of conducting a future population-based trial into a self-management intervention for community-living adults with early stage dementia included evaluation of intervention content and modes of delivery, staffing requirements, recruitment methods and the utility and usability of patient reported outcomes. Methods: Participants identified through memory clinics in one city took part in an intervention called ‘Journeying through Dementia’. The 12-week programme incorporating four individual sessions with one of the facilitators encourages participants to engage in discussion and activities related to health and well-being positioning them as the expert enabling long-term behavioural change. Participants (n = 10) and their nominated carers (n = 7) were all asked to complete selected outcomes at baseline, 8 weeks (participants only) and post intervention and invited to comment on their usability. All participants and carers were qualitatively interviewed before intervention delivery about their expectations and participants; nominated carers and facilitators were all interviewed after cessation about their experiences. Results: The manualised intervention and modes of delivery proved acceptable to participants and carers. Reported benefits included increased confidence and self-efficacy, engagement in new or lapsed activities and re-engagement in fun and friendships. People with dementia and carers were able to self-complete all outcome measures, but time required to complete the measures is a key factor. Strategies for recruitment need to include direct contact within 24–48 h post invitation to the study. Analysis of data on the primary outcome did not reveal any trends. Facilitators found the training and support to be appropriate and helpful. Conclusions: The tailored intervention reportedly met the needs of all participants. The study confirmed the need for careful identification and application of patient-reported outcome measures. Outcomes to measure some dimensions of reported benefit are not available

The long-term (24-month) effect on health and well-being of the Lifestyle Matters community-based intervention in people aged 65 years and over: a qualitative study

Objectives To assess the long-term effect on health and well-being of the Lifestyle Matters programme. Design Qualitative study of a subset of intervention arm participants who participated in the Lifestyle Matters randomised controlled trial (RCT). Setting The intervention took place at community venues within two sites in the UK. Participants A purposeful sample of 13 participants aged between 66 and 88 years from the intervention arm of the RCT were interviewed at 24 months post randomisation. Interviews aimed to understand how participants had used their time in the preceding 2 years and whether the intervention had any impact on their lifestyle choices, participation in meaningful activities and well-being. Intervention Lifestyle Matters is a 4-month occupational therapy intervention, consisting of group and individual sessions, designed to enable community living older people to make positive lifestyle choices and participate in new or neglected activities through increasing self-efficacy. Results Interviews revealed that the majority of interviewed participants were reportedly active at 24 months, with daily routines and lifestyles not changing significantly over time. All participants raised some form of benefit from attending Lifestyle Matters, including an improved perspective on life, trying new hobbies and meeting new friends. A number of intervention participants spoke of adapting to their changing circumstances, but there were significant and lasting benefits for 2 of 13 intervention participants interviewed. Conclusion The majority of those who experienced the Lifestyle Matters intervention reported minor benefits and increases in self-efficacy, but they did not perceive that it significantly improved their health and well-being. The two participants who had experienced major benefits also reported having had life-changing events, suggesting that this intervention is most effective at the time when lifestyle has to be reconsidered if mental well-being is to be sustaine

Promoting Independence in Dementia (PRIDE): A Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: There is a need for interventions to foster and maintain independence for people with dementia to support community living, improve morale, and reduce stigma. We investigated a social intervention to promote living well and enhance independence for people with mild dementia.Methods: In this two arm parallel group, feasibility RCT at six sites in England, participants were randomized (1:1) to the PRIDE intervention (encompassing social, physical, and cognitive domains supported by a facilitator over three sessions) compared to usual care only. The main objective was to determine the feasibility of a main trial with respect to measures of recruitment, retention, and adherence to the intervention.Results: During a 7-month period, 402 people were invited to the trial, 148 were screened (37%, 95% confidence interval (CI)=32– 42%), 137 were eligible at pre-consent, 94 consented to the trial (69% of those eligible, 95% CI=60– 76%), and 92 were randomized (46 to each group). Of those allocated to the intervention, 42 (91%) received at least one of three intervention sessions. Outcome assessment follow-up visits were completed for 73 participants at 6 months (79%, 95% CI=70– 87%), and this was similar for both groups.Conclusion: A large multi-center trial of the PRIDE intervention in community-dwelling people with mild dementia is feasible using systematic recruitment strategies. The intervention was successfully delivered and well received by participants. Findings from this study will be used to refine the design and processes for a definitive RCT.Trial Registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN11288961, registered on 23 October 2018

Choosing and evaluating randomisation methods in clinical trials: a qualitative study

Background: There exist many different methods of allocating participants to treatment groups during a randomised controlled trial. Although there is research that explores trial characteristics that are associated with the choice of method, there is still a lot of variety in practice not explained. This study used qualitative methods to explore more deeply the motivations behind researchers’ choice of randomisation, and which features of the method they use to evaluate the performance of these methods. Methods: Data was collected from online focus groups with various stakeholders involved in the randomisation process. Focus groups were recorded and then transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts. Results: Twenty-five participants from twenty clinical trials units across the UK were recruited to take part in one of four focus groups. Four main themes were identified: how randomisation methods are selected; researchers’ opinions of the different methods; which features of the method are desirable and ways to measure method features. Most researchers agree that the randomisation method should be selected based on key trial characteristics; however, for many, a unit standard is in place. Opinions of methods were varied with some participants favouring stratified blocks and others favouring minimisation. This was generally due to researchers’ perception of the effect these methods had on balance and predictability. Generally, predictability was considered more important than balance as adjustments cannot be made for it; however, most researchers felt that the importance of these two methods was dependent on the design of the study. Balance is usually evaluated by tabulating variables by treatment arm and looking for perceived imbalances, predictability was generally considered much harder to measure, partly due to differing definitions. Conclusion: There is a wide variety in practice on how randomisation methods are selected and researcher’s opinions on methods. The difference in practice observed when looking at randomisation method selection can be explained by a difference in unit practice, and also by a difference in researchers prioritisation of balance and predictability. The findings of this study show a need for more guidance on randomisation method selection

The implementation of Journeying through Dementia: Strategies to run a successful pragmatic multicenter trial of a complex intervention

From Wiley via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2021-07-29, rev-recd 2021-09-22, accepted 2021-10-28, pub-electronic 2021-11-13Article version: VoRPublication status: PublishedFunder: UK NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme; Grant(s): 14/140/80Abstract: Objective: A key challenge in delivering pragmatic trials of complex interventions is effective implementation within the study period and beyond. We describe a trial of an intervention to improve quality of life in mild dementia (Journeying through Dementia), describe some of the challenges raised in terms of implementation, and illustrate the methods used to ensure effective implementation. Method: The intervention was delivered by staff within local services and supervised by more experienced clinicians within those services in order to test the intervention in real‐world settings and establish the potential for future embedding into practice. Researchers delivered training sessions for all facilitators and supervisors, met at regular intervals with intervention supervisors, and provided feedback on summaries of intervention sessions created by facilitators. We conducted a thematic analysis of the content of meetings and written correspondence between the researchers and intervention supervisors regarding implementation issues. Results: Key themes relating to difficulties with implementation were: staff absences and staff leaving posts; participant lack of engagement with intervention; difficulties with delivery of supervision; difficult group dynamics; lack of time to deliver the intervention; and lack of adherence to the intervention and its ethos. Conclusion: We provide guidance for researchers involved in the trialing of other complex interventions in how these challenges might be overcome. These include: recruiting additional staff to deliver the intervention; having clear protocols in place for managing staff absences; using supervision to problem solve participant attendance at intervention sessions and difficult group dynamics; monitoring staff engagement in supervision and addressing problems with engagement with staff and managers when this occurs; giving staff ring‐fenced time to deliver the intervention and engage in supervision; and regular monitoring and feedback in relation to the content of the intervention to ensure that it is consistent with ethos and content of the intervention manual

Current usage of explainer animations in trials: a survey of the UKCRC registered clinical trial units in the UK

Background: Explainer animations are a means to communicate aspects of clinical trials to participants in a more engaging and accessible way. Delivered well these have the potential to enhance recruitment and retention. The range of media technology used to deliver this material is expanding rapidly but is highly fragmented. Usage of explainer animations across the UK is unknown, the aim of this research was to determine current usage across the 52 registered UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) to understand the current landscape and any barriers that could be preventing wider uptake of this functionality. Methods: A survey link was emailed to all UKCRC CTU Directors and Trial Management Leads to ascertain current usage of explainer animations within their CTU. The survey ran between 01 February 2023 and 07 March 2023. Results: Responses were received from 35 CTUs—representing a response rate of 67%. 24 CTUs (69%) reported that they had created/used at least one explainer animation within their unit, although the usage, cost, length and production activities varied among the units. Conclusions: The survey showed that a high proportion of the UKCRC CTUs have used explainer animations to provide information to participants about clinical studies. For those not using the technology yet, the most common reasons cited were a lack of expertise, lack of resources and costs to produce them. One of the desired outcomes of this project is the creation of a free-to-use library of animations to encourage wider uptake and avoid duplication

Recording harms in randomized controlled trials of behavior change interventions: a scoping review and map of the evidence

Objectives: Randomized controlled trials evaluate diverse interventions. This can include medical interventions such as drugs or surgical procedures, or behavior change interventions (BCIs) that aim to change a habit, belief, or attitude to improve health, for example, healthy eating, psychological wellbeing. Harms are often recorded poorly or inconsistently within randomized controlled trials of BCIs. This scoping review aimed to collate and describe literature on categories, definitions, and mechanisms of harms from BCIs; methods of identifying plausible harms; and recommendations for recording harms. Study Design and Setting: A scoping review was conducted. Three databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) were searched. Reference list checking and citation searching were performed. Articles were included if they discussed (1) interventions that aimed to modify behavior, (2) categories or mechanisms of harms, and (3) methods or recommendations for recording harms. All research designs were included. One reviewer reviewed titles, abstracts, and full texts; queries were checked with another reviewer. Data were extracted and synthesized descriptively by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer. A thematic map was constructed to summarize the review findings. Harms described from specific BCIs were identified, and examples were selected and summarized. Results: The review included 37 articles. Nineteen of 37 articles contributed to a thematic review. Three articles described categories of harms; categories of harm included physical, psychological, group and social interactions, cultural, equity, opportunity cost, environmental, and economic. Seven articles included mechanisms or underlying factors for harms including feelings of failure leading to shame or stigma, and group interventions enabling knowledge exchange on unhealthy behaviors. Twelve articles provided recommendations for recording harms, including taking a proportionate approach by focusing on the most plausible and important harms, collecting different perspectives on whether harms had occurred (eg, caregivers and family members), and using qualitative research methods to identify harms. One article described a three-step method to identify plausible harms from an intervention, and six articles supported aspects of the method. Eighteen of 37 articles contributed to a review which collated harms arising from specific interventions, for example, a peer support intervention in inflammatory bowel disease caused distressing conversations which might lead to anxiety and confrontation with a possible negative future. Conclusion: BCIs can cause harm. This review identified categories and proposed mechanisms of harms, as well as methods and recommendations for identifying and recording harms in BCIs for inclusion in forthcoming recommendations