Developing and evaluating interventions to reduce inappropriate prescribing by general practitioners of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections: a randomised controlled trial to compare paper-based and web-based modelling experiments

Background: Much implementation research is focused on full-scale trials with little evidence of preceding modelling work. The Medical Research Council Framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions has argued for more and better theoretical and exploratory work prior to a trial as a means of improving intervention development. Intervention modelling experiments (IMEs) are a way of exploring and refining an intervention before moving to a full-scale trial. They do this by delivering key elements of the intervention in a simulation that approximates clinical practice by, for example, presenting general practitioners (GPs) with a clinical scenario about making a treatment decision. Methods: The current proposal will run a full, web-based IME involving 250 GPs that will advance the methodology of IMEs by directly comparing results with an earlier paper-based IME. Moreover, the web-based IME will evaluate an intervention that can be put into a full-scale trial that aims to reduce antibiotic prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections in primary care. The study will also include a trial of email versus postal invitations to participate. Discussion: More effective behaviour change interventions are needed and this study will develop one such intervention and a system to model and test future interventions. This system will be applicable to any situation in the National Health Service where behaviour needs to be modified, including interventions aimed directly at the public. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials (NCT): NCT0120673

Protocol for the effective feedback to improve primary care prescribing safety (EFIPPS) study : a cluster randomised controlled trial using ePrescribing data

High-risk prescribing in primary care is common and causes considerable harm. Feedback interventions to improve care are attractive because they are relatively cheap to widely implement. There is good evidence that feedback has small to moderate effects, but the most recent Cochrane review called for more high-quality, large trials that explicitly test different forms of feedback. The study is a three-arm cluster-randomised trial with general practices being randomised and outcomes measured at patient level. 262 practices in three Scottish Health Board areas have been randomised (94% of all possible practices). The two active arms receive different forms of prescribing safety data feedback, with rates of high-risk prescribing compared with a ‘usual care’ arm. Sample size estimation used baseline data from participating practices. With 85 practices randomised to each arm, then there is 93% power to detect a 25% difference in the percentage of high-risk prescribing (from 6.1% to 4.5%) between the usual care arm and each intervention arm. The primary outcome is a composite of six high-risk prescribing measures (antipsychotic prescribing to people aged ≥75 years; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescribing to people aged ≥75 without gastroprotection; NSAID prescribing to people prescribed aspirin/clopidogrel without gastroprotection; NSAID prescribing to people prescribed an ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and a diuretic; NSAID prescription to people prescribed an oral anticoagulant without gastroprotection; aspirin/clopidogrel prescription to people prescribed an oral anticoagulant without gastroprotection). The primary analysis will use multilevel modelling to account for repeated measurement of outcomes in patients clustered within practices. The study was reviewed and approved by the NHS Tayside Committee on Medical Research Ethics B (11/ES/0001). The study will be disseminated via a final report to the funder with a publicly available research summary, and peer reviewed publications

Weight management for overweight and obese men delivered through professional football clubs : a pilot randomized trial

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

SWAT 76 evaluation:Randomised evaluation of sending pre-notification cards to trial participants before a face-to-face primary outcome measurement to increase attendance

Grant information: The SWAT evaluation and the ActWELL trial were funded by the Scottish Government (BC/Screening/17/01). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).Publisher PD

Value and engagement : what can clinical trials learn from techniques used in not-for-profit marketing?

No funding has been received for this work.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Meeting the challenges of recruitment to multicentre, community-based, lifestyle-change trials : a case study of the BeWEL trial

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

A gender-sensitised weight loss and healthy living programme for overweight and obese men delivered by Scottish Premier League football clubs (FFIT): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of male obesity is increasing but few men take part in weight loss programmes. We assessed the effect of a weight loss and healthy living programme on weight loss in football (soccer) fans. METHODS: We did a two-group, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial of 747 male football fans aged 35-65 years with a body-mass index (BMI) of 28 kg/m(2) or higher from 13 Scottish professional football clubs. Participants were randomly assigned with SAS (version 9·2, block size 2-9) in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by club, to a weight loss programme delivered by community coaching staff in 12 sessions held every week. The intervention group started a weight loss programme within 3 weeks, and the comparison group were put on a 12 month waiting list. All participants received a weight management booklet. Primary outcome was mean difference in weight loss between groups at 12 months, expressed as absolute weight and a percentage of their baseline weight. Primary outcome assessment was masked. Analyses were based on intention to treat. The trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN32677491. FINDINGS: 374 men were allocated to the intervention group and 374 to the comparison group. 333 (89%) of the intervention group and 355 (95%) of the comparison group completed 12 month assessments. At 12 months the mean difference in weight loss between groups, adjusted for baseline weight and club, was 4·94 kg (95% CI 3·95-5·94) and percentage weight loss, similarly adjusted, was 4·36% (3·64-5·08), both in favour of the intervention (p<0·0001). Eight serious adverse events were reported, five in the intervention group (lost consciousness due to drugs for pre-existing angina, gallbladder removal, hospital admission with suspected heart attack, ruptured gut, and ruptured Achilles tendon) and three in the comparison group (transient ischaemic attack, and two deaths). Of these, two adverse events were reported as related to participation in the programme (gallbladder removal and ruptured Achilles tendon). INTERPRETATION: The FFIT programme can help a large proportion of men to lose a clinically important amount of weight; it offers one effective strategy to challenge male obesity. FUNDING: Scottish Government and The UK Football Pools funded delivery of the programme through a grant to the Scottish Premier League Trust. The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research Programme funded the assessment (09/3010/06)