Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Primary Prevention Advice in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Provider Attitudes and Routine Behaviours

Implementing risk-stratified breast cancer screening is being considered internationally. It has been suggested that primary care will need to take a role in delivering this service, including risk assessment and provision of primary prevention advice. This systematic review aimed to assess the acceptability of these tasks to primary care providers. Five databases were searched up to July–August 2020, yielding 29 eligible studies, of which 27 were narratively synthesised. The review was pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42020197676). Primary care providers report frequently collecting breast cancer family history information, but rarely using quantitative tools integrating additional risk factors. Primary care providers reported high levels of discomfort and low confidence with respect to risk-reducing medications although very few reported doubts about the evidence base underpinning their use. Insufficient education/training and perceived discomfort conducting both tasks were notable barriers. Primary care providers are more likely to accept an increased role in breast cancer risk assessment than advising on risk-reducing medications. To realise the benefits of risk-based screening and prevention at a population level, primary care will need to proactively assess breast cancer risk and advise on risk-reducing medications. To facilitate this, adaptations to infrastructure such as integrated tools are necessary in addition to provision of education

Does the design of the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme intervention have fidelity to the programme specification? A document analysis

Aims To assess fidelity of the Healthier You: NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS‐DPP), a behavioural intervention for people in England at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes, to the specified programme features. Methods Document analysis of the NHS‐DPP programme specification, including National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) PH38 diabetes prevention guidance. This was compared with the intervention design (framework response documents and programme manuals) from all four independent providers delivering the NHS‐DPP. Documents were coded using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication framework (describing service parameters) and the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1. Results Providers demonstrated good fidelity to service parameters of the NHS‐DPP. The NHS‐DPP specification indicated 19 unique behaviour change techniques. Framework responses for the four providers contained between 24 and 32 distinct behaviour change techniques, and programme manuals contained between 23 and 45 distinct behaviour change techniques, indicating variation in behaviour change content between providers’ intervention documents. Thus, each provider planned to deliver 74% of the unique behaviour change techniques specified, and a large amount of behaviour change content not mandated. Conclusions There is good fidelity to the specified service parameters of the NHS‐DPP; however, the four providers planned to deliver approximately three‐quarters of behaviour change techniques specified by the NHS‐DPP. Given that behaviour change techniques are the ‘active ingredients’ of interventions, and some of these techniques in the programme manuals may be missed in practice, this highlights possible limitations with fidelity to the NHS‐DPP programme specification at the intervention design stage

The theoretical basis of a nationally implemented type 2 diabetes prevention programme: how is the programme expected to produce changes in behaviour?

From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2020-11-25, registration 2021-05-04, accepted 2021-05-04, online 2021-05-13, pub-electronic 2021-05-13, collection 2021-12Publication status: PublishedFunder: Health Services and Delivery Research Programme; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002001; Grant(s): 16/48/07Abstract: Background: It is considered best practice to provide clear theoretical descriptions of how behaviour change interventions should produce changes in behaviour. Commissioners of the National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-DPP) specified that the four independent provider organisations must explicitly describe the behaviour change theory underpinning their interventions. The nationally implemented programme, launched in 2016, aims to prevent progression to Type 2 diabetes in high-risk adults through changing diet and physical activity behaviours. This study aimed to: (a) develop a logic model describing how the NHS-DPP is expected to work, and (b) document the behaviour change theories underpinning providers’ NHS-DPP interventions. Methods: A logic model detailing how the programme should work in changing diet and activity behaviours was extracted from information in three specification documents underpinning the NHS-DPP. To establish how each of the four providers expected their interventions to produce behavioural changes, information was extracted from their programme plans, staff training materials, and audio-recorded observations of mandatory staff training courses attended in 2018. All materials were coded using Michie and Prestwich’s Theory Coding Scheme. Results: The NHS-DPP logic model included information provision to lead to behaviour change intentions, followed by a self-regulatory cycle including action planning and monitoring behaviour. None of the providers described an explicit logic model of how their programme will produce behavioural changes. Two providers stated their programmes were informed by the COM-B (Capability Opportunity Motivation – Behaviour) framework, the other two described targeting factors from multiple theories such as Self-Regulation Theory and Self-Determination Theory. All providers cited examples of proposed links between some theoretical constructs and behaviour change techniques (BCTs), but none linked all BCTs to specified constructs. Some discrepancies were noted between the theory described in providers’ programme plans and theory described in staff training. Conclusions: A variety of behaviour change theories were used by each provider. This may explain the variation between providers in BCTs selected in intervention design, and the mismatch between theory described in providers’ programme plans and staff training. Without a logic model describing how they expect their interventions to work, justification for intervention contents in providers’ programmes is not clear

Is the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme Intervention Delivered as Planned? An Observational Study of Fidelity of Intervention Delivery

Background The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-DPP) has been delivered by four commercial organizations across England, to prevent people with impaired glucose tolerance developing Type 2 diabetes. Evidence reviews underpinning the NHS-DPP design specification identified 19 Behavior Change Techniques (BCTs) that are the intervention “active ingredients.” It is important to understand the discrepancies between BCTs specified in design and BCTs actually delivered. Purpose To compare observed fidelity of delivery of BCTs that were delivered to (a) the NHS-DPP design specification, and (b) the programme manuals of four provider organizations. Methods Audio-recordings were made of complete delivery of NHS-DPP courses at eight diverse sites (two courses per provider organization). The eight courses consisted of 111 group sessions, with 409 patients and 35 facilitators. BCT Taxonomy v1 was used to reliably code the contents of NHS-DPP design specification documents, programme manuals for each provider organization, and observed NHS-DPP group sessions. Results The NHS-DPP design specification indicated 19 BCTs that should be delivered, whereas only seven (37%) were delivered during the programme in all eight courses. By contrast, between 70% and 89% of BCTs specified in programme manuals were delivered. There was substantial under-delivery of BCTs that were designed to improve self-regulation of behavior, for example, those involving problem solving and self-monitoring of behavior. Conclusions A lack of fidelity in delivery to the underlying evidence base was apparent, due to poor translation of design specification to programme manuals. By contrast, the fidelity of delivery to the programme manuals was relatively good. Future commissioning should focus on ensuring the evidence base is more accurately translated into the programme manual contents

Preventing type 2 diabetes:A research agenda for behavioural science

Aims The aim of this narrative review was to identify important knowledge gaps in behavioural science relating to type 2 diabetes prevention, to inform future research in the field. Methods Seven researchers who have published behaviour science research applied to type 2 diabetes prevention independently identified several important gaps in knowledge. They met to discuss these and to generate recommendations to advance research in behavioural science of type 2 diabetes prevention. Results A total of 21 overlapping recommendations for a research agenda were identified. These covered issues within the following broad categories: (a) evidencing the impact of whole population approaches to type 2 diabetes prevention, (b) understanding the utility of disease-specific approaches to type 2 diabetes prevention such as Diabetes Prevention Programmes (DPPs) compared to generic weight loss programmes, (c) identifying how best to increase reach and engagement of DPPs, whilst avoiding exacerbating inequalities, (d) the need to understand mechanism of DPPs, (e) the need to understand how to increase maintenance of changes as part of or following DPPs, (f) the need to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of alternative approaches to the typical self-regulation approaches that are most commonly used, and (g) the need to address emotional aspects of DPPs, to promote effectiveness and avoid harms. Conclusions There is a clear role for behavioural science in informing interventions to prevent people from developing type 2 diabetes, based on strong evidence of reach, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This review identifies key priorities for research needed to improve existing interventions

The Fidelity of Training in Behaviour Change Techniques to Intervention Design in a National Diabetes Prevention Programme

Background The National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-DPP) is a behavioural intervention for people identified as high risk for developing type 2 diabetes that has been rolled out across England. The present study evaluates whether the four commercial providers of the NHS-DPP train staff to deliver behaviour change technique (BCT) content with fidelity to intervention plans. Method One set of mandatory training courses across the four NHS-DPP providers (seven courses across 13 days) was audio-recorded, and all additional training materials used were collected. Recordings and training materials were coded for BCT content using the BCT Taxonomy v1. BCTs and depth of training (e.g. instruction, demonstration, practice) of BCT content was checked against providers’ intervention plans. Results Ten trainers and 78 trainees were observed, and 12 documents examined. The number of unique BCTs in audio recordings and associated training materials ranged from 19 to 44 across providers, and staff were trained in 53 unique BCTs across the whole NHS-DPP. Staff were trained in 66% of BCTs that were in intervention plans, though two providers trained staff in approximately half of BCTs to be delivered. The most common way that staff were trained in BCT delivery was through instruction. Training delivery style (e.g. experiential versus educational) varied between providers. Conclusion Observed training evidences dilution from providers’ intervention plans. NHS-DPP providers should review their training to ensure staff are trained in all key intervention components, ensuring thorough training of BCTs (e.g. demonstrating and practicing how to deliver) to enhance BCT delivery

The Fidelity of Training in Behaviour Change Techniques to Intervention Design in a National Diabetes Prevention Programme

From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: accepted 2021-01-19, registration 2021-01-19, pub-electronic 2021-02-09, online 2021-02-09, pub-print 2021-12Publication status: PublishedFunder: Health Services and Delivery Research Programme; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002001; Grant(s): 16/48/07Abstract: Background: The National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-DPP) is a behavioural intervention for people identified as high risk for developing type 2 diabetes that has been rolled out across England. The present study evaluates whether the four commercial providers of the NHS-DPP train staff to deliver behaviour change technique (BCT) content with fidelity to intervention plans. Method: One set of mandatory training courses across the four NHS-DPP providers (seven courses across 13 days) was audio-recorded, and all additional training materials used were collected. Recordings and training materials were coded for BCT content using the BCT Taxonomy v1. BCTs and depth of training (e.g. instruction, demonstration, practice) of BCT content was checked against providers’ intervention plans. Results: Ten trainers and 78 trainees were observed, and 12 documents examined. The number of unique BCTs in audio recordings and associated training materials ranged from 19 to 44 across providers, and staff were trained in 53 unique BCTs across the whole NHS-DPP. Staff were trained in 66% of BCTs that were in intervention plans, though two providers trained staff in approximately half of BCTs to be delivered. The most common way that staff were trained in BCT delivery was through instruction. Training delivery style (e.g. experiential versus educational) varied between providers. Conclusion: Observed training evidences dilution from providers’ intervention plans. NHS-DPP providers should review their training to ensure staff are trained in all key intervention components, ensuring thorough training of BCTs (e.g. demonstrating and practicing how to deliver) to enhance BCT delivery

The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme: an observational study of service delivery and patient experience

Background The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-DPP) is a nine-month, group-based behavioural intervention for adults in England at risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. Four independent providers were commissioned to deliver versions of the NHS-DPP, in line with NHS England specifications. This observational study maps NHS-DPP delivery in routine practice against the NHS specification, and compares service delivery with observed patient experiences. Methods Researchers observed service delivery across eight complete NHS-DPP courses (118 sessions, median 14 sessions per course), consenting 455 participants (36 staff, 398 patients, 21 accompanying persons). Key features of NHS-DPP delivery were described using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) framework. Researchers wrote detailed field notes during each session, including observations of patient experience. Field notes were content analysed; instances of positive and negative experiences were labelled and grouped into categories. Researchers used a novel method of comparing observed patient experiences to variations in programme delivery. Results Delivery broadly followed NHS England’s specification and the plans set out by providers. Deviations included the scheduling and larger group sizes in some sessions. There was variation in the type and format of activities delivered by providers. Positive patient experiences included engagement, satisfaction with the programme, good within-group relationships and reported behavioural changes. Negative experiences included poor scheduling, large groups, and dissatisfaction with the venue. Where more interactive and visual activities were delivered in smaller groups of 10–15 people with good rapport, there were generally more instances of positive patient experiences, and where there were structural issues such as problems with the scheduling of sessions, poor venues and inadequate resources, there tended to be more negative patient experiences. Conclusions Addressing issues that we have identified as being linked to negative experiences with the NHS-DPP could increase uptake, reduce patient drop-out and increase the overall effectiveness of the programme. In particular, modifying structural aspects of the NHS-DPP (e.g. reliable session scheduling, reducing group sizes, enough session resources) and increasing interaction appear particularly promising for improving these outcomes

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Primary Prevention Advice in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Provider Attitudes and Routine Behaviours

From MDPI via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: accepted 2021-08-17, pub-electronic 2021-08-18Publication status: PublishedFunder: Manchester Cancer Research Centre; Grant(s): P122568 F07Implementing risk-stratified breast cancer screening is being considered internationally. It has been suggested that primary care will need to take a role in delivering this service, including risk assessment and provision of primary prevention advice. This systematic review aimed to assess the acceptability of these tasks to primary care providers. Five databases were searched up to July–August 2020, yielding 29 eligible studies, of which 27 were narratively synthesised. The review was pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42020197676). Primary care providers report frequently collecting breast cancer family history information, but rarely using quantitative tools integrating additional risk factors. Primary care providers reported high levels of discomfort and low confidence with respect to risk-reducing medications although very few reported doubts about the evidence base underpinning their use. Insufficient education/training and perceived discomfort conducting both tasks were notable barriers. Primary care providers are more likely to accept an increased role in breast cancer risk assessment than advising on risk-reducing medications. To realise the benefits of risk-based screening and prevention at a population level, primary care will need to proactively assess breast cancer risk and advise on risk-reducing medications. To facilitate this, adaptations to infrastructure such as integrated tools are necessary in addition to provision of education

Facilitating implementation of research evidence (FIRE): A randomised controlled trial and process evaluation of two models of facilitation informed by the promoting action on research implementation in health services (PARIHS) framework

Background: The PARIHS framework proposes that successful implementation of research evidence results from the complex interplay between the evidence to be implemented, the context of implementation and the facilitation processes employed. Facilitation is defined as a role (the facilitator) and a process (facilitation strategies/methods). Empirical evidence comparing different facilitation approaches is limited; this paper reports a trial of two different types of facilitation represented in the PARIHS framework. Methods: A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation was undertaken in 24 long-term nursing care settings in four European countries. In each country, sites were randomly allocated to standard dissemination of urinary incontinence guideline recommendations and one of two types of external-internal facilitation, labelled Type A and B. Type A facilitation was a less resource intensive approach, underpinned by improvement methodology; Type B was a more intensive, emancipatory model of facilitation, informed by critical social science. The primary outcome was percentage documented compliance with guideline recommendations. Process evaluation was framed by realist methodology and involved quantitative and qualitative data collection from multiple sources. Findings: Quantitative data were obtained from reviews of 2313 records. Qualitative data included over 332 hours of observations of care; 39 hours observation of facilitation activity; 471 staff interviews; 174 resident interviews; 120 next of kin/carer interviews; and 125 stakeholder interviews. There were no significant differences in the primary outcome between study arms and all study arms improved over time. Process data revealed three core mechanisms that influenced the trajectory of the facilitation intervention: alignment of the facilitation approach to the needs and expectations of the internal facilitator and colleagues; engagement of internal facilitators and staff in attitude and action; and learning over time. Data from external facilitators demonstrated that the facilitation interventions did not work as planned, issues were cumulative and maintenance of fidelity was problematic. Implications for D&I Research: Evaluating an intervention - in this case facilitation - that is fluid and dynamic within the methodology of a randomised controlled trial is complex and challenging. For future studies, we suggest a theoretical approach to fidelity, with a focus on mechanisms, as opposed to dose and intensity of the intervention