Search

Elizabeth Lumley,1 Sarah J Drabble,1 Anne Scott,2 Martin J Wildman,3 Alicia O’Cathain1 1Health and Care Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; 2Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; 3Adult Cystic Fibrosis Unit, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UKCorrespondence: Elizabeth Lumley, Health and Care Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK, Tel +44 114 2224294, Email e.lumley@sheffield.ac.ukPurpose: Low adherence to medication via nebulisers is linked to poor clinical outcomes for people with Cystic Fibrosis (PWCF). Advances in technology allow electronic monitoring of nebuliser usage and feedback of objective adherence data to PWCF and clinical teams caring for them. CFHealthHub is a new intervention that collects and displays objective adherence data in easy-to-read formats with the aim of improving nebuliser adherence and health. There is little understanding of how objective adherence data is perceived by PWCF and healthcare professionals (HCPs).Patients and Methods: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 22 PWCF and 31 HCPs who had used the CFHealthHub intervention.Results: Objective adherence data was welcomed by the majority of PWCF in the sample, and HCP delivering the intervention, because the data allowed PWCF to reflect on patterns of adherence or non-adherence. Ease of use and characteristics of data display were important, particularly the use of a “traffic light” system to allow PWCF to easily see if they were meeting their adherence targets. For PWCF objective adherence data was used as “proof to self”, offering reassurance to high adherers, and a wake-up call to those with lower levels of adherence. It could also provide ‘proof to others’ where PWCF had higher levels of adherence than HCP or family members believed. The data could sometimes c

It is common to undertake qualitative research alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) when evaluating complex interventions. Researchers tend to analyse these datasets one by one and then consider their findings separately within the discussion section of the final report, rarely integrating quantitative and qualitative data or findings, and missing opportunities to combine data in order to add rigour, enabling thorough and more complete analysis, provide credibility to results, and generate further important insights about the intervention under evaluation. This paper reports on a 2 day expert meeting funded by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council Hubs for Trials Methodology Research with the aims to identify current strengths and weaknesses in the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods in clinical trials, establish the next steps required to provide the trials community with guidance on the integration of mixed methods in RCTs and set-up a network of individuals, groups and organisations willing to collaborate on related methodological activity. We summarise integration techniques and go beyond previous publications by highlighting the potential value of integration using three examples that are specific to RCTs. We suggest that applying mixed methods integration techniques to data or findings from studies involving both RCTs and qualitative research can yield insights that might be useful for understanding variation in outcomes, the mechanism by which interventions have an impact, and identifying ways of tailoring therapy to patient preference and type. Given a general lack of examples and knowledge of these techniques, researchers and funders will need future guidance on how to undertake and appraise them.

It is common to undertake qualitative research alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) when evaluating complex interventions. Researchers tend to analyse these datasets one by one and then consider their findings separately within the discussion section of the final report, rarely integrating quantitative and qualitative data or findings, and missing opportunities to combine data in order to add rigour, enabling thorough and more complete analysis, provide credibility to results, and generate further important insights about the intervention under evaluation. This paper reports on a 2 day expert meeting funded by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council Hubs for Trials Methodology Research with the aims to identify current strengths and weaknesses in the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods in clinical trials, establish the next steps required to provide the trials community with guidance on the integration of mixed methods in RCTs and set-up a network of individuals, groups and organisations willing to collaborate on related methodological activity. We summarise integration techniques and go beyond previous publications by highlighting the potential value of integration using three examples that are specific to RCTs. We suggest that applying mixed methods integration techniques to data or findings from studies involving both RCTs and qualitative research can yield insights that might be useful for understanding variation in outcomes, the mechanism by which interventions have an impact, and identifying ways of tailoring therapy to patient preference and type. Given a general lack of examples and knowledge of these techniques, researchers and funders will need future guidance on how to undertake and appraise them.

It is common to undertake qualitative research alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) when evaluating complex interventions. Researchers tend to analyse these datasets one by one and then consider their findings separately within the discussion section of the final report, rarely integrating quantitative and qualitative data or findings, and missing opportunities to combine data in order to add rigour, enabling thorough and more complete analysis, provide credibility to results, and generate further important insights about the intervention under evaluation. This paper reports on a 2 day expert meeting funded by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council Hubs for Trials Methodology Research with the aims to identify current strengths and weaknesses in the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods in clinical trials, establish the next steps required to provide the trials community with guidance on the integration of mixed methods in RCTs and set-up a network of individuals, groups and organisations willing to collaborate on related methodological activity. We summarise integration techniques and go beyond previous publications by highlighting the potential value of integration using three examples that are specific to RCTs. We suggest that applying mixed methods integration techniques to data or findings from studies involving both RCTs and qualitative research can yield insights that might be useful for understanding variation in outcomes, the mechanism by which interventions have an impact, and identifying ways of tailoring therapy to patient preference and type. Given a general lack of examples and knowledge of these techniques, researchers and funders will need future guidance on how to undertake and appraise them.

It is common to undertake qualitative research alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) when evaluating complex interventions. Researchers tend to analyse these datasets one by one and then consider their findings separately within the discussion section of the final report, rarely integrating quantitative and qualitative data or findings, and missing opportunities to combine data in order to add rigour, enabling thorough and more complete analysis, provide credibility to results, and generate further important insights about the intervention under evaluation. This paper reports on a 2 day expert meeting funded by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council Hubs for Trials Methodology Research with the aims to identify current strengths and weaknesses in the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods in clinical trials, establish the next steps required to provide the trials community with guidance on the integration of mixed methods in RCTs and set-up a network of individuals, groups and organisations willing to collaborate on related methodological activity. We summarise integration techniques and go beyond previous publications by highlighting the potential value of integration using three examples that are specific to RCTs. We suggest that applying mixed methods integration techniques to data or findings from studies involving both RCTs and qualitative research can yield insights that might be useful for understanding variation in outcomes, the mechanism by which interventions have an impact, and identifying ways of tailoring therapy to patient preference and type. Given a general lack of examples and knowledge of these techniques, researchers and funders will need future guidance on how to undertake and appraise them.

It is common to undertake qualitative research alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) when evaluating complex interventions. Researchers tend to analyse these datasets one by one and then consider their findings separately within the discussion section of the final report, rarely integrating quantitative and qualitative data or findings, and missing opportunities to combine data in order to add rigour, enabling thorough and more complete analysis, provide credibility to results, and generate further important insights about the intervention under evaluation. This paper reports on a 2 day expert meeting funded by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council Hubs for Trials Methodology Research with the aims to identify current strengths and weaknesses in the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods in clinical trials, establish the next steps required to provide the trials community with guidance on the integration of mixed methods in RCTs and set-up a network of individuals, groups and organisations willing to collaborate on related methodological activity. We summarise integration techniques and go beyond previous publications by highlighting the potential value of integration using three examples that are specific to RCTs. We suggest that applying mixed methods integration techniques to data or findings from studies involving both RCTs and qualitative research can yield insights that might be useful for understanding variation in outcomes, the mechanism by which interventions have an impact, and identifying ways of tailoring therapy to patient preference and type. Given a general lack of examples and knowledge of these techniques, researchers and funders will need future guidance on how to undertake and appraise them.

It is common to undertake qualitative research alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) when evaluating complex interventions. Researchers tend to analyse these datasets one by one and then consider their findings separately within the discussion section of the final report, rarely integrating quantitative and qualitative data or findings, and missing opportunities to combine data in order to add rigour, enabling thorough and more complete analysis, provide credibility to results, and generate further important insights about the intervention under evaluation. This paper reports on a 2 day expert meeting funded by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council Hubs for Trials Methodology Research with the aims to identify current strengths and weaknesses in the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods in clinical trials, establish the next steps required to provide the trials community with guidance on the integration of mixed methods in RCTs and set-up a network of individuals, groups and organisations willing to collaborate on related methodological activity. We summarise integration techniques and go beyond previous publications by highlighting the potential value of integration using three examples that are specific to RCTs. We suggest that applying mixed methods integration techniques to data or findings from studies involving both RCTs and qualitative research can yield insights that might be useful for understanding variation in outcomes, the mechanism by which interventions have an impact, and identifying ways of tailoring therapy to patient preference and type. Given a general lack of examples and knowledge of these techniques, researchers and funders will need future guidance on how to undertake and appraise them.

It is common to undertake qualitative research alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) when evaluating complex interventions. Researchers tend to analyse these datasets one by one and then consider their findings separately within the discussion section of the final report, rarely integrating quantitative and qualitative data or findings, and missing opportunities to combine data in order to add rigour, enabling thorough and more complete analysis, provide credibility to results, and generate further important insights about the intervention under evaluation. This paper reports on a 2 day expert meeting funded by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council Hubs for Trials Methodology Research with the aims to identify current strengths and weaknesses in the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods in clinical trials, establish the next steps required to provide the trials community with guidance on the integration of mixed methods in RCTs and set-up a network of individuals, groups and organisations willing to collaborate on related methodological activity. We summarise integration techniques and go beyond previous publications by highlighting the potential value of integration using three examples that are specific to RCTs. We suggest that applying mixed methods integration techniques to data or findings from studies involving both RCTs and qualitative research can yield insights that might be useful for understanding variation in outcomes, the mechanism by which interventions have an impact, and identifying ways of tailoring therapy to patient preference and type. Given a general lack of examples and knowledge of these techniques, researchers and funders will need future guidance on how to undertake and appraise them.

BACKGROUND: People with intellectual disabilities (ID) may not be able to access and respond to uniformly delivered health interventions. Public bodies have a legal duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' to policies and practices to provide fair access and treatment for people with ID. This study aimed to identify adjustments to the Slimming World weight management programme to improve accessibility and assess acceptability and feasibility for this population. METHODS: This user-centred qualitative study was carried out with a steering group of people with ID (n = 4). Barriers and facilitators to using Slimming World were identified through interviews and focus groups with people with ID (n = 54), carers (n = 12) current members with ID (n = 8) and Slimming World group leaders (n = 11). Adjustments were made and their feasibility and acceptability were explored in a before-and-after mixed methods study where people with ID attended Slimming World for eight weeks. Participants (n = 9), carers (n = 7) and Slimming World group leaders (n = 4) were interviewed to explore their experiences of the adjustments. Participants were weighed at baseline then each week. RESULTS: Four key adjustments were identified and addressed by Slimming World who developed prototype Easy Read materials and a letter for carers. Six of the nine participants attended Slimming World for eight weeks and lost weight (1.4 kg to 6.6 kg, reduction in BMI between 0.5 and 1.7 kg/m2), indicating that the adjustments were feasible and acceptable. Two participants dropped out because they felt uncomfortable in a mainstream group and another left because they lacked control over food choice in their residential setting. CONCLUSIONS: This user-centred approach identified reasonable adjustments that were feasible to implement. In a small uncontrolled feasibility study, people with ID were positive about the adjustments and lost weight. However, issues in the wider context of people's lives, such as obesogenic

BACKGROUND: People with intellectual disabilities (ID) may not be able to access and respond to uniformly delivered health interventions. Public bodies have a legal duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' to policies and practices to provide fair access and treatment for people with ID. This study aimed to identify adjustments to the Slimming World weight management programme to improve accessibility and assess acceptability and feasibility for this population. METHODS: This user-centred qualitative study was carried out with a steering group of people with ID (n = 4). Barriers and facilitators to using Slimming World were identified through interviews and focus groups with people with ID (n = 54), carers (n = 12) current members with ID (n = 8) and Slimming World group leaders (n = 11). Adjustments were made and their feasibility and acceptability were explored in a before-and-after mixed methods study where people with ID attended Slimming World for eight weeks. Participants (n = 9), carers (n = 7) and Slimming World group leaders (n = 4) were interviewed to explore their experiences of the adjustments. Participants were weighed at baseline then each week. RESULTS: Four key adjustments were identified and addressed by Slimming World who developed prototype Easy Read materials and a letter for carers. Six of the nine participants attended Slimming World for eight weeks and lost weight (1.4 kg to 6.6 kg, reduction in BMI between 0.5 and 1.7 kg/m2), indicating that the adjustments were feasible and acceptable. Two participants dropped out because they felt uncomfortable in a mainstream group and another left because they lacked control over food choice in their residential setting. CONCLUSIONS: This user-centred approach identified reasonable adjustments that were feasible to implement. In a small uncontrolled feasibility study, people with ID were positive about the adjustments and lost weight. However, issues in the wider context of people's lives, such as obesogenic

Objective To develop a conceptual model for effective use of telehealth in the management of chronic health conditions, and to use this to develop and evaluate an intervention for people with two exemplar conditions: raised cardiovascular disease risk and depression. Design The model was based on several strands of evidence: a metareview and realist synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence on telehealth for chronic conditions; a qualitative study of patients’ and health professionals’ experience of telehealth; a quantitative survey of patients’ interest in using telehealth; and review of existing models of chronic condition management and evidence-based treatment guidelines. Based on these evidence strands, a model was developed and then refined at a stakeholder workshop. Then a telehealth intervention (‘Healthlines’) was designed by incorporating strategies to address each of the model components. The model also provided a framework for evaluation of this intervention within parallel randomised controlled trials in the two exemplar conditions, and the accompanying process evaluations and economic evaluations. Setting Primary care. Results The TElehealth in CHronic Disease (TECH) model proposes that attention to four components will offer interventions the best chance of success: (1) engagement of patients and health professionals, (2) effective chronic disease management (including subcomponents of self-management, optimisation of treatment, care coordination), (3) partnership between providers and (4) patient, social and health system context. Key intended outcomes are improved health, access to care, patient experience and cost-effective care. Conclusions A conceptual model has been developed based on multiple sources of evidence which articulates how telehealth may best provide benefits for patients with chronic health conditions. It can be used to structure the design and evaluation of telehealth programmes which aim to be acceptable to patients and p

Background Telehealth interventions use information and communication technology to provide clinical support. Some randomised controlled trials of telehealth report high patient decline rates. A large study was undertaken to determine which patients decline to participate in telehealth trials and their reasons for doing so. Methods Two linked randomised controlled trials were undertaken, one for patients with depression and one for patients with raised cardiovascular disease risk (the Healthlines Study). The trials compared usual care with additional support delivered by the telephone and internet. Patients were recruited via their general practice and could return a form about why they were not participating. Results Of the patients invited, 82.9 % (20,021/24,152) did not accept the study invite, either by returning a decline form (n = 7134) or by not responding (n = 12,887). In both trials patients registered at deprived general practices were less likely to accept the study invite. Decline forms were received from 29.5 % (7134/24,152) of patients invited. There were four frequently reported types of reasons for declining. The most common was telehealth-related: 54.7 % (3889/,7115) of decliners said they did not have access or the skills to use the internet and/or computers. This was more prevalent amongst older patients and patients registered at deprived general practices. The second was health need-related: 40.1 % (n = 2852) of decliners reported that they did not need additional support for their health condition. The third was related to life circumstances: 27.2 % (n = 1932) of decliners reported being too busy. The fourth was research-related: 15.3 % (n = 1092) of decliners were not interested in the research. Conclusions A large proportion of patients declining participation in these telehealth trials did so because they were unable to engage with telehealth or did not perceive a need for it. This has implications for engagement with telehealth in routine p

Background There is growing interest in telehealth—the use of technology to support the remote delivery of health care and promote self-management—as a potential alternative to face-to-face care for patients with chronic diseases. However, little is known about what precipitates interest in the use of telehealth among these patients. Objective This survey forms part of a research program to develop and evaluate a telehealth intervention for patients with two exemplar chronic diseases: depression and raised cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. The survey was designed to explore the key factors that influence interest in using telehealth in these patient groups. Methods Thirty-four general practices were recruited from two different regions within England. Practice records were searched for patients with (1) depression (aged 18+ years) or (2) 10-year risk of CVD ≥20% and at least one modifiable risk factor (aged 40-74 years). Within each general practice, 54 patients in each chronic disease group were randomly selected to receive a postal questionnaire. Questions assessed five key constructs: sociodemographics, health needs, difficulties accessing health care, technology-related factors (availability, confidence using technology, perceived benefits and drawbacks of telehealth), and satisfaction with prior use of telehealth. Respondents also rated their interest in using different technologies for telehealth (phone, email and Internet, or social media). Relationships between the key constructs and interest in using the three mediums of telehealth were examined using multivariable regression models. Results Of the 3329 patients who were sent a study questionnaire, 44.40% completed it (872/1740, 50.11% CVD risk; 606/1589, 38.14% depression). Overall, there was moderate interest in using phone-based (854/1423, 60.01%) and email/Internet-based (816/1425, 57.26%) telehealth, but very little interest in social media (243/1430, 16.99%). After adjusting for health needs, access

Objective: To assess whether non-clinical staff can effectively manage people at high risk of cardiovascular disease using digital health technologies. Design: Pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Setting: 42 general practices in three areas of England. Participants: Between 3 December 2012 and 23 July 2013 we recruited 641 adults aged 40 to 74 years with a 10 year cardiovascular disease risk of 20% or more, no previous cardiovascular event, at least one modifiable risk factor (systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg, body mass index ≥30, current smoker), and access to a telephone, the internet, and email. Participants were individually allocated to intervention (n=325) or control (n=316) groups using automated randomisation stratified by site, minimised by practice and baseline risk score. Interventions: Intervention was the Healthlines service (alongside usual care), comprising regular telephone calls from trained lay health advisors following scripts generated by interactive software. Advisors facilitated self-management by supporting participants to use online resources to reduce risk factors, and sought to optimise drug use, improve treatment adherence, and encourage healthier lifestyles. The control group comprised usual care alone. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants responding to treatment, defined as maintaining or reducing their cardiovascular risk after 12 months. Outcomes were collected six and 12 months after randomisation and analysed masked. Participants were not masked. Results: 50% (148/295) of participants in the intervention group responded to treatment compared with 43% (124/291) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 1.9; number needed to treat=13); a difference possibly due to chance (P=0.08). The intervention was associated with reductions in blood pressure (difference in mean systolic −2.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval −4.7 to −0.6 mm Hg), mean diasto

Background Many countries are exploring the potential of telehealth interventions manage the rising number of people with chronic conditions. However, evidence of effectiveness of telehealth is equivocal. Based on an evidence-based conceptual framework, we developed an integrated telehealth service (the ‘Healthlines Service’) for chronic conditions and assessed it’s effectiveness in patients with depression. Methods Pragmatic, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial comparing the Healthlines Depression Service plus usual care with usual care alone. The Healthlines Service comprised regular telephone calls from non-clinical, trained health advisors following standardised scripts generated by interactive software. Advisors supported participants to use online resources (including computerised cognitive-behavioural therapy) and sought to encourage healthier lifestyles, optimise medication and improve treatment adherence. We recruited participants from 43 general practices in three areas of England. Eligible participants required access to the internet and email, a PHQ9 score ≥ 10, and a confirmed diagnosis of depression. Participants were individually allocated in 1:1 ratio using an automated randomisation system, stratified by site, minimised by practice and PHQ-9 score. Participants were aware of their allocation but outcomes were analysed masked. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants responding to the intervention four months after randomisation (defined as PHQ9 <10 and reduction in PHQ-9 of ≥ 5 points), with further follow-up at eight and 12 months. Primary analysis was based on intention-to-treat without imputation. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN 14172341). Findings Between 24th July 2012 and 31st July 2013 we recruited 609 participants, randomly allocating 307 to the Healthlines Service and 302 to usual care. 525 (86%) provided primary outcome data. Response to treatment at four months was higher in the intervention arm (

Background: Ambulance service quality measures have focused on response times and a small number of emergency conditions, such as cardiac arrest. These quality measures do not reflect the care for the wide range of problems that ambulance services respond to and the Prehospital Outcomes for Evidence Based Evaluation (PhOEBE) programme sought to address this. Objectives: The aim was to develop new ways of measuring the impact of ambulance service care by reviewing and synthesising literature on prehospital ambulance outcome measures and using consensus methods to identify measures for further development; creating a data set linking routinely collected ambulance service, hospital and mortality data; and using the linked data to explore the development of case-mix adjustment models to assess differences or changes in processes and outcomes resulting from ambulance service care. Design: A mixed-methods study using a systematic review and synthesis of performance and outcome measures reported in policy and research literature; qualitative interviews with ambulance service users; a three-stage consensus process to identify candidate indicators; the creation of a data set linking ambulance, hospital and mortality data; and statistical modelling of the linked data set to produce novel case-mix adjustment measures of ambulance service quality. Setting: East Midlands and Yorkshire, England. Participants: Ambulance services, patients, public, emergency care clinical academics, commissioners and policy-makers between 2011 and 2015. Interventions: None. Main outcome measures: Ambulance performance and quality measures. Data sources: Ambulance call-and-dispatch and electronic patient report forms, Hospital Episode Statistics, accident and emergency and inpatient data, and Office for National Statistics mortality data. Results: Seventy-two candidate measures were generated from systematic reviews in four categories: (1) ambulance service operations (n = 14), (2) clinical manageme

Background Ambulance service quality measures have focused on response times and a small number of emergency conditions, such as cardiac arrest. These quality measures do not reflect the care for the wide range of problems that ambulance services respond to and the Prehospital Outcomes for Evidence Based Evaluation (PhOEBE) programme sought to address this. Objectives The aim was to develop new ways of measuring the impact of ambulance service care by reviewing and synthesising literature on prehospital ambulance outcome measures and using consensus methods to identify measures for further development; creating a data set linking routinely collected ambulance service, hospital and mortality data; and using the linked data to explore the development of case-mix adjustment models to assess differences or changes in processes and outcomes resulting from ambulance service care. Design A mixed-methods study using a systematic review and synthesis of performance and outcome measures reported in policy and research literature; qualitative interviews with ambulance service users; a three-stage consensus process to identify candidate indicators; the creation of a data set linking ambulance, hospital and mortality data; and statistical modelling of the linked data set to produce novel case-mix adjustment measures of ambulance service quality. Setting East Midlands and Yorkshire, England. Participants Ambulance services, patients, public, emergency care clinical academics, commissioners and policy-makers between 2011 and 2015. Interventions None. Main outcome measures Ambulance performance and quality measures. Data sources Ambulance call-and-dispatch and electronic patient report forms, Hospital Episode Statistics, accident and emergency and inpatient data, and Office for National Statistics mortality data. Results Seventy-two candidate measures were generated from systematic reviews in four categories: (1) ambulance service operations (n = 14), (2) clinical management of pat

Background: In England in 2015/16, ambulance services responded to nearly 11 million calls. Ambulance Quality Indicators show that half of the patients receiving a response by telephone or face to face were not conveyed to an emergency department. A total of 11% of patients received telephone advice only. A total of 38% of patients were sent an ambulance but were not conveyed to an emergency department. For the 10 large ambulance services in England, rates of calls ending in telephone advice varied between 5% and 17%. Rates of patients who were sent an ambulance but not conveyed to an emergency department varied between 23% and 51%. Overall non-conveyance rates varied between 40% and 68%. Objective: To explain variation in non-conveyance rates between ambulance services. Design: A sequential mixed methods study with five work packages. Setting: Ten of the 11 ambulance services serving > 99% of the population of England. Methods: (1) A qualitative interview study of managers and paramedics from each ambulance service, as well as ambulance commissioners (totalling 49 interviews undertaken in 2015). (2) An analysis of 1 month of routine data from each ambulance service (November 2014). (3) A qualitative study in three ambulance services with different published rates of calls ending in telephone advice (120 hours of observation and 20 interviews undertaken in 2016). (4) An analysis of routine data from one ambulance service linked to emergency department attendance, hospital admission and mortality data (6 months of 2013). (5) A substudy of non-conveyance for people calling 999 with breathing problems. Results: Interviewees in the qualitative study identified factors that they perceived to affect non-conveyance rates. Where possible, these perceptions were tested using routine data. Some variation in non-conveyance rates between ambulance services was likely to be due to differences in the way rates were calculated by individual services, particularly in relation to te

Background There is an increasing need to assess the performance of emergency ambulance services using measures other than the time taken for an ambulance to arrive on scene. In line with government policy, patients and carers can help to shape new measures of ambulance service performance. Objective To investigate the aspects of emergency ambulance service care valued by users. Design Qualitative interview study. Setting One of 11 ambulance services in England. Participants Twenty-two users and eight of their spouses (n = 30). Results Users of the emergency ambulance service, experiencing different types of ambulance service response, valued similar aspects of their pre-hospital care. Users were often extremely anxious about their health, and the outcome they valued was reassurance provided by ambulance service staff that they were receiving appropriate advice, treatment and care. This sense of being reassured was enhanced by the professional behaviour of staff, which instilled confidence in their care; communication; a short wait for help; and continuity during transfers. A timely response was valued in terms of allaying anxiety quickly. Discussion and conclusions The ability of the emergency ambulance service to allay the high levels of fear and anxiety felt by users is crucial to the delivery of a high quality service. Measures developed to assess and monitor the performance of emergency ambulance services should include the proportion of users reporting feeling reassured by the response they obtained.

Background Response times are currently the dominant indicator for measuring the quality of emergency ambulance services in the United Kingdom. However, there is a recognised need to consider wider measures of quality. We aimed to investigate patients’ experiences of the ambulance service to understand the processes and outcomes important to them. Methods We employed a qualitative design, using semi-structured interviews and a topic guide with a purposive sample of people who had recently used the ambulance service in the East Midlands. We recruited patients of different age, sex, geographical location, and ambulance service response including ‘hear and treat’ patients that received telephone advice only, ‘see and treat’ patients that were treated by clinicians on-scene and ‘see and convey’ patients that were transported to hospital. Results We interviewed 22 service users, including eight with their spouses. We found that users who had experienced different types of ambulance service response valued similar aspects of their care. The outcome they reported valuing the most was reassurance that they were receiving appropriate advice, treatment and care. A timely response was also valued, not from the perspective of clinical need but because it allayed anxiety quickly. The processes which delivered reassurance were: the professional behaviour and communication of staff, a short wait for help and continuity during transfers within the service and to hospital. Implications New measures of quality of emergency ambulance services should address users’ psychosocial as well as their clinical needs, and the processes which offer the outcome of reassurance to users.

The problem: Response times have been used as a key quality indicator for measuring the quality of ambulance services but are criticised for their narrow focus. As outcomes become the focus of commissioning of emergency services, better measures of quality need to be considered including those that reflect the patient perspective. The aim of this study was to investigate patients’ experiences of emergency ambulance use and identify the processes and outcomes important to service users. The approach: We employed a qualitative design, using semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of people who had recently used a 999 ambulance in the East Midlands. We recruited patients of different age, sex, geographical location, and ambulance service response including patients that received telephone advice only, those that were treated by clinicians at home and others that were transported to hospital. Our topic guide included questions on what users perceived worked well or needed to be improved, before identifying what was particularly important to them. Findings: We interviewed 22 service users. Eleven men and eleven women with a range of different clinical conditions participated;13 were aged 65 years and over.. Four issues were valued: a timely response, information giving, a professional relationship and smooth transition along the prehospital care pathway (from call handling to transfer to acute care). Patients valued a short waiting time for help. Perceptions of timeliness were affected; by expectations, explanation about when a response would arrive and what to do while waiting. Patients welcomed information about their condition, the assessment and treatment being given, and what was going to happen to them. The efficient execution of technical skills and smooth transition through the prehospital pathway from call handler to hospital were also appreciated. These aspects of care offered reassurance which was highly valued by patients who were anxious and in a

Introduction Response times have been used as a key quality indicator for measuring the quality of emergency ambulance services in the United Kingdom, but criticised for their narrow focus. As outcomes become the focus of primary care commissioning of ambulance services, wider measures of quality need to be considered. The patient perspective is becoming an increasingly important dimension in primary and pre-hospital outcomes research. To that end, we aimed to investigate patients’ experiences of the 999 ambulance service to understand the processes and outcomes important to them. Methods We employed a qualitative design, using semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of people who had recently used a 999 ambulance in the East Midlands. We recruited patients of different age, sex, geographical location, and ambulance service response including ‘hear and treat’ patients that received telephone advice only, ‘see and treat’ patients that were treated by clinicians on-scene and ‘see and convey’ patients that were transported to hospital. A topic guide included questions concerned with what worked well or needed to be improved, before identifying what was important to users. Framework analysis was used to facilitate the generation of practical outcomes. The interview schedule informed the initial coding frame. After subsequent interviews, the coding frame evolved to produce themes that were agreed by all members of the research team Results We interviewed 20 service users. Eleven men and nine women participated and 12 were aged 65 years and over. Four main themes emerged these were: arrival time; receiving correct information and advice; reassurance; and clinician behaviour and conduct. We found that users valued a quick response when they perceived the call to be an emergency. This was of less value to those who did not perceive their situation as an emergency and irrelevant to ‘hear and treat’ users. All users valued the professional approach and information

Background Historically ambulance care quality and performance has been measured by response times rather than clinical need or effectiveness. This limits the evidence about the effectiveness of the care the ambulance service provides. The Pre-hospital Outcomes for Evidence Based Evaluation (PhOEBE) project is a 5 year research programme which aims to develop new ways of measuring the performance, quality and impact of ambulance service care that better reflect the care provided. Methods We held a 1 day consensus event with a multi-stakeholder group to identify and prioritise which features of ambulance service care are important and worth further development as measures of performance and quality. The day comprised a series of small group discussions to share opinions about measures identified from literature reviews and the opportunity for participants to add their ideas, together with a live vote to help identify and rank measures for further development. Time measures were considered in a separate online questionnaire. The results from the online questionnaire and Consensus Event were fed into a Delphi study. Results 43 participants attended the consensus event, representing a range of participant groups including patient and public, ambulance services, commissioners and policy groups. The top 5 outcome measures prioritised by the participants were: Accuracy of dispatch decisions; Completeness and accuracy of patient records; Accuracy of call taker identification of different conditions or needs (e.g. heart attack, stroke, suitable for nurse advice); Pain measurement and symptom relief; Patient experience. From the online survey of time measures the top 5 measures were Time of call to time of arrival at scene; Time symptoms start (e.g. chest pain) to time of treatment with balloon for heart attack; Time taken to answer the emergency call; Total time spent on scene; Incident or start of symptoms to calling the ambulance service Conclusions Using consensus methods

Introduction: Response times have been used as a key quality indicator for emergency ambulance services in the United Kingdom, but criticised for their narrow focus. Consequently, there is a need to consider wider measures of quality. The patient perspective is becoming an increasingly important dimension in pre-hospital outcomes research. To that end, we aimed to investigate patients’ experiences of the 999 ambulance service to understand the processes and outcomes important to them. Methods: We employed a qualitative design, using semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of people who had recently used a 999 ambulance in the East Midlands region of the UK. We recruited patients of different age, sex, geographical location, and ambulance service response including ‘hear and treat’, ‘see and treat’ and ‘see and convey’. Results: We interviewed 20 service users. Eleven men and nine women participated and twelve were aged 65 years and over. Users valued a quick response when they perceived the call to be an emergency. This was of less value to those who did not perceive their situation as an emergency and irrelevant to ‘hear and treat’ users. All users valued the professional approach and information and advice given by call handlers, crew and first responders, which provided them with reassurance in a worrying situation. ‘See and convey’ users valued a seamless handover to secondary care. Conclusions: Aspects other than response times were important to patients, particularly in situations perceived by patients to be non-emergency. We found it challenging to engage participants to consider quality indicators beyond response times because these were considered to be abstract in comparison with their concrete experiences. The results will be combined with issues identified from systematic reviews and used in a Delphi study to identify candidates for new outcome measures for emergency ambulance services.

Introduction: Response times have been used as a key quality indicator for emergency ambulance services in the United Kingdom, but criticised for their narrow focus. Consequently, there is a need to consider wider measures of quality. The patient perspective is becoming an increasingly important dimension in pre-hospital outcomes research. To that end, we aimed to investigate patients’ experiences of the 999 ambulance service to understand the processes and outcomes important to them. Methods: We employed a qualitative design, using semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of people who had recently used a 999 ambulance in the East Midlands. We recruited patients of different age, sex, geographical location, and ambulance service response including ‘hear and treat’, ‘see and treat’ and ‘see and convey’. Results: We interviewed 20 service users. Eleven men and nine women participated and 12 were aged 65 years and over. Users valued a quick response when they perceived the call to be an emergency. This was of less value to those who did not perceive their situation as an emergency and irrelevant to ‘hear and treat’ users. All users valued the professional approach and information and advice given by call handlers, crew and first responders, which provided them with reassurance in a worrying situation. ‘See and convey’ users valued a seamless handover to secondary care. Limitations: We found it challenging to engage participants to consider quality indicators beyond response times because these were considered to be abstract in comparison with their concrete experiences. Conclusions and recommendations: Aspects other than response times were important to patients, particularly in situations perceived by patients to be non-emergency. The results will be combined with issues identified from systematic reviews and used in a Delphi study to identify candidates for new outcome measures for emergency ambulance services.

Objective: To assess whether non-clinical staff can effectively manage people at high risk of cardiovascular disease using digital health technologies. Design: Pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Setting: 42 general practices in three areas of England. Participants: Between 3 December 2012 and 23 July 2013 we recruited 641 adults aged 40 to 74 years with a 10 year cardiovascular disease risk of 20% or more, no previous cardiovascular event, at least one modifiable risk factor (systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg, body mass index ≥30, current smoker), and access to a telephone, the internet, and email. Participants were individually allocated to intervention (n=325) or control (n=316) groups using automated randomisation stratified by site, minimised by practice and baseline risk score. Interventions: Intervention was the Healthlines service (alongside usual care), comprising regular telephone calls from trained lay health advisors following scripts generated by interactive software. Advisors facilitated self-management by supporting participants to use online resources to reduce risk factors, and sought to optimise drug use, improve treatment adherence, and encourage healthier lifestyles. The control group comprised usual care alone. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants responding to treatment, defined as maintaining or reducing their cardiovascular risk after 12 months. Outcomes were collected six and 12 months after randomisation and analysed masked. Participants were not masked. Results: 50% (148/295) of participants in the intervention group responded to treatment compared with 43% (124/291) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 1.9; number needed to treat=13); a difference possibly due to chance (P=0.08). The intervention was associated with reductions in blood pressure (difference in mean systolic −2.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval −4.7 to −0.6 mm Hg), mean diasto

Background Many countries are exploring the potential of telehealth interventions manage the rising number of people with chronic conditions. However, evidence of effectiveness of telehealth is equivocal. Based on an evidence-based conceptual framework, we developed an integrated telehealth service (the ‘Healthlines Service’) for chronic conditions and assessed it’s effectiveness in patients with depression. Methods Pragmatic, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial comparing the Healthlines Depression Service plus usual care with usual care alone. The Healthlines Service comprised regular telephone calls from non-clinical, trained health advisors following standardised scripts generated by interactive software. Advisors supported participants to use online resources (including computerised cognitive-behavioural therapy) and sought to encourage healthier lifestyles, optimise medication and improve treatment adherence. We recruited participants from 43 general practices in three areas of England. Eligible participants required access to the internet and email, a PHQ9 score ≥ 10, and a confirmed diagnosis of depression. Participants were individually allocated in 1:1 ratio using an automated randomisation system, stratified by site, minimised by practice and PHQ-9 score. Participants were aware of their allocation but outcomes were analysed masked. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants responding to the intervention four months after randomisation (defined as PHQ9 <10 and reduction in PHQ-9 of ≥ 5 points), with further follow-up at eight and 12 months. Primary analysis was based on intention-to-treat without imputation. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN 14172341). Findings Between 24th July 2012 and 31st July 2013 we recruited 609 participants, randomly allocating 307 to the Healthlines Service and 302 to usual care. 525 (86%) provided primary outcome data. Response to treatment at four months was higher in the intervention arm (

Objective To develop a conceptual model for effective use of telehealth in the management of chronic health conditions, and to use this to develop and evaluate an intervention for people with two exemplar conditions: raised cardiovascular disease risk and depression. Design The model was based on several strands of evidence: a metareview and realist synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence on telehealth for chronic conditions; a qualitative study of patients’ and health professionals’ experience of telehealth; a quantitative survey of patients’ interest in using telehealth; and review of existing models of chronic condition management and evidence-based treatment guidelines. Based on these evidence strands, a model was developed and then refined at a stakeholder workshop. Then a telehealth intervention (‘Healthlines’) was designed by incorporating strategies to address each of the model components. The model also provided a framework for evaluation of this intervention within parallel randomised controlled trials in the two exemplar conditions, and the accompanying process evaluations and economic evaluations. Setting Primary care. Results The TElehealth in CHronic Disease (TECH) model proposes that attention to four components will offer interventions the best chance of success: (1) engagement of patients and health professionals, (2) effective chronic disease management (including subcomponents of self-management, optimisation of treatment, care coordination), (3) partnership between providers and (4) patient, social and health system context. Key intended outcomes are improved health, access to care, patient experience and cost-effective care. Conclusions A conceptual model has been developed based on multiple sources of evidence which articulates how telehealth may best provide benefits for patients with chronic health conditions. It can be used to structure the design and evaluation of telehealth programmes which aim to be acceptable to patients and p

Background Telehealth interventions use information and communication technology to provide clinical support. Some randomised controlled trials of telehealth report high patient decline rates. A large study was undertaken to determine which patients decline to participate in telehealth trials and their reasons for doing so. Methods Two linked randomised controlled trials were undertaken, one for patients with depression and one for patients with raised cardiovascular disease risk (the Healthlines Study). The trials compared usual care with additional support delivered by the telephone and internet. Patients were recruited via their general practice and could return a form about why they were not participating. Results Of the patients invited, 82.9 % (20,021/24,152) did not accept the study invite, either by returning a decline form (n = 7134) or by not responding (n = 12,887). In both trials patients registered at deprived general practices were less likely to accept the study invite. Decline forms were received from 29.5 % (7134/24,152) of patients invited. There were four frequently reported types of reasons for declining. The most common was telehealth-related: 54.7 % (3889/,7115) of decliners said they did not have access or the skills to use the internet and/or computers. This was more prevalent amongst older patients and patients registered at deprived general practices. The second was health need-related: 40.1 % (n = 2852) of decliners reported that they did not need additional support for their health condition. The third was related to life circumstances: 27.2 % (n = 1932) of decliners reported being too busy. The fourth was research-related: 15.3 % (n = 1092) of decliners were not interested in the research. Conclusions A large proportion of patients declining participation in these telehealth trials did so because they were unable to engage with telehealth or did not perceive a need for it. This has implications for engagement with telehealth in routine p

Background There is growing interest in telehealth—the use of technology to support the remote delivery of health care and promote self-management—as a potential alternative to face-to-face care for patients with chronic diseases. However, little is known about what precipitates interest in the use of telehealth among these patients. Objective This survey forms part of a research program to develop and evaluate a telehealth intervention for patients with two exemplar chronic diseases: depression and raised cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. The survey was designed to explore the key factors that influence interest in using telehealth in these patient groups. Methods Thirty-four general practices were recruited from two different regions within England. Practice records were searched for patients with (1) depression (aged 18+ years) or (2) 10-year risk of CVD ≥20% and at least one modifiable risk factor (aged 40-74 years). Within each general practice, 54 patients in each chronic disease group were randomly selected to receive a postal questionnaire. Questions assessed five key constructs: sociodemographics, health needs, difficulties accessing health care, technology-related factors (availability, confidence using technology, perceived benefits and drawbacks of telehealth), and satisfaction with prior use of telehealth. Respondents also rated their interest in using different technologies for telehealth (phone, email and Internet, or social media). Relationships between the key constructs and interest in using the three mediums of telehealth were examined using multivariable regression models. Results Of the 3329 patients who were sent a study questionnaire, 44.40% completed it (872/1740, 50.11% CVD risk; 606/1589, 38.14% depression). Overall, there was moderate interest in using phone-based (854/1423, 60.01%) and email/Internet-based (816/1425, 57.26%) telehealth, but very little interest in social media (243/1430, 16.99%). After adjusting for health needs, access

Background Many countries are exploring the potential of telehealth interventions manage the rising number of people with chronic conditions. However, evidence of effectiveness of telehealth is equivocal. Based on an evidence-based conceptual framework, we developed an integrated telehealth service (the ‘Healthlines Service’) for chronic conditions and assessed it’s effectiveness in patients with depression. Methods Pragmatic, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial comparing the Healthlines Depression Service plus usual care with usual care alone. The Healthlines Service comprised regular telephone calls from non-clinical, trained health advisors following standardised scripts generated by interactive software. Advisors supported participants to use online resources (including computerised cognitive-behavioural therapy) and sought to encourage healthier lifestyles, optimise medication and improve treatment adherence. We recruited participants from 43 general practices in three areas of England. Eligible participants required access to the internet and email, a PHQ9 score ≥ 10, and a confirmed diagnosis of depression. Participants were individually allocated in 1:1 ratio using an automated randomisation system, stratified by site, minimised by practice and PHQ-9 score. Participants were aware of their allocation but outcomes were analysed masked. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants responding to the intervention four months after randomisation (defined as PHQ9 <10 and reduction in PHQ-9 of ≥ 5 points), with further follow-up at eight and 12 months. Primary analysis was based on intention-to-treat without imputation. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN 14172341). Findings Between 24th July 2012 and 31st July 2013 we recruited 609 participants, randomly allocating 307 to the Healthlines Service and 302 to usual care. 525 (86%) provided primary outcome data. Response to treatment at four months was higher in the intervention arm (

Background Many countries are exploring the potential of telehealth interventions manage the rising number of people with chronic conditions. However, evidence of effectiveness of telehealth is equivocal. Based on an evidence-based conceptual framework, we developed an integrated telehealth service (the ‘Healthlines Service’) for chronic conditions and assessed it’s effectiveness in patients with depression. Methods Pragmatic, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial comparing the Healthlines Depression Service plus usual care with usual care alone. The Healthlines Service comprised regular telephone calls from non-clinical, trained health advisors following standardised scripts generated by interactive software. Advisors supported participants to use online resources (including computerised cognitive-behavioural therapy) and sought to encourage healthier lifestyles, optimise medication and improve treatment adherence. We recruited participants from 43 general practices in three areas of England. Eligible participants required access to the internet and email, a PHQ9 score ≥ 10, and a confirmed diagnosis of depression. Participants were individually allocated in 1:1 ratio using an automated randomisation system, stratified by site, minimised by practice and PHQ-9 score. Participants were aware of their allocation but outcomes were analysed masked. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants responding to the intervention four months after randomisation (defined as PHQ9 <10 and reduction in PHQ-9 of ≥ 5 points), with further follow-up at eight and 12 months. Primary analysis was based on intention-to-treat without imputation. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN 14172341). Findings Between 24th July 2012 and 31st July 2013 we recruited 609 participants, randomly allocating 307 to the Healthlines Service and 302 to usual care. 525 (86%) provided primary outcome data. Response to treatment at four months was higher in the intervention arm (

Objective: To assess whether non-clinical staff can effectively manage people at high risk of cardiovascular disease using digital health technologies. Design: Pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Setting: 42 general practices in three areas of England. Participants: Between 3 December 2012 and 23 July 2013 we recruited 641 adults aged 40 to 74 years with a 10 year cardiovascular disease risk of 20% or more, no previous cardiovascular event, at least one modifiable risk factor (systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg, body mass index ≥30, current smoker), and access to a telephone, the internet, and email. Participants were individually allocated to intervention (n=325) or control (n=316) groups using automated randomisation stratified by site, minimised by practice and baseline risk score. Interventions: Intervention was the Healthlines service (alongside usual care), comprising regular telephone calls from trained lay health advisors following scripts generated by interactive software. Advisors facilitated self-management by supporting participants to use online resources to reduce risk factors, and sought to optimise drug use, improve treatment adherence, and encourage healthier lifestyles. The control group comprised usual care alone. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants responding to treatment, defined as maintaining or reducing their cardiovascular risk after 12 months. Outcomes were collected six and 12 months after randomisation and analysed masked. Participants were not masked. Results: 50% (148/295) of participants in the intervention group responded to treatment compared with 43% (124/291) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 1.9; number needed to treat=13); a difference possibly due to chance (P=0.08). The intervention was associated with reductions in blood pressure (difference in mean systolic −2.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval −4.7 to −0.6 mm Hg), mean diasto

Background Telehealth interventions use information and communication technology to provide clinical support. Some randomised controlled trials of telehealth report high patient decline rates. A large study was undertaken to determine which patients decline to participate in telehealth trials and their reasons for doing so. Methods Two linked randomised controlled trials were undertaken, one for patients with depression and one for patients with raised cardiovascular disease risk (the Healthlines Study). The trials compared usual care with additional support delivered by the telephone and internet. Patients were recruited via their general practice and could return a form about why they were not participating. Results Of the patients invited, 82.9 % (20,021/24,152) did not accept the study invite, either by returning a decline form (n = 7134) or by not responding (n = 12,887). In both trials patients registered at deprived general practices were less likely to accept the study invite. Decline forms were received from 29.5 % (7134/24,152) of patients invited. There were four frequently reported types of reasons for declining. The most common was telehealth-related: 54.7 % (3889/,7115) of decliners said they did not have access or the skills to use the internet and/or computers. This was more prevalent amongst older patients and patients registered at deprived general practices. The second was health need-related: 40.1 % (n = 2852) of decliners reported that they did not need additional support for their health condition. The third was related to life circumstances: 27.2 % (n = 1932) of decliners reported being too busy. The fourth was research-related: 15.3 % (n = 1092) of decliners were not interested in the research. Conclusions A large proportion of patients declining participation in these telehealth trials did so because they were unable to engage with telehealth or did not perceive a need for it. This has implications for engagement with telehealth in routine p

Objective To develop a conceptual model for effective use of telehealth in the management of chronic health conditions, and to use this to develop and evaluate an intervention for people with two exemplar conditions: raised cardiovascular disease risk and depression. Design The model was based on several strands of evidence: a metareview and realist synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence on telehealth for chronic conditions; a qualitative study of patients’ and health professionals’ experience of telehealth; a quantitative survey of patients’ interest in using telehealth; and review of existing models of chronic condition management and evidence-based treatment guidelines. Based on these evidence strands, a model was developed and then refined at a stakeholder workshop. Then a telehealth intervention (‘Healthlines’) was designed by incorporating strategies to address each of the model components. The model also provided a framework for evaluation of this intervention within parallel randomised controlled trials in the two exemplar conditions, and the accompanying process evaluations and economic evaluations. Setting Primary care. Results The TElehealth in CHronic Disease (TECH) model proposes that attention to four components will offer interventions the best chance of success: (1) engagement of patients and health professionals, (2) effective chronic disease management (including subcomponents of self-management, optimisation of treatment, care coordination), (3) partnership between providers and (4) patient, social and health system context. Key intended outcomes are improved health, access to care, patient experience and cost-effective care. Conclusions A conceptual model has been developed based on multiple sources of evidence which articulates how telehealth may best provide benefits for patients with chronic health conditions. It can be used to structure the design and evaluation of telehealth programmes which aim to be acceptable to patients and p

Background There is growing interest in telehealth—the use of technology to support the remote delivery of health care and promote self-management—as a potential alternative to face-to-face care for patients with chronic diseases. However, little is known about what precipitates interest in the use of telehealth among these patients. Objective This survey forms part of a research program to develop and evaluate a telehealth intervention for patients with two exemplar chronic diseases: depression and raised cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. The survey was designed to explore the key factors that influence interest in using telehealth in these patient groups. Methods Thirty-four general practices were recruited from two different regions within England. Practice records were searched for patients with (1) depression (aged 18+ years) or (2) 10-year risk of CVD ≥20% and at least one modifiable risk factor (aged 40-74 years). Within each general practice, 54 patients in each chronic disease group were randomly selected to receive a postal questionnaire. Questions assessed five key constructs: sociodemographics, health needs, difficulties accessing health care, technology-related factors (availability, confidence using technology, perceived benefits and drawbacks of telehealth), and satisfaction with prior use of telehealth. Respondents also rated their interest in using different technologies for telehealth (phone, email and Internet, or social media). Relationships between the key constructs and interest in using the three mediums of telehealth were examined using multivariable regression models. Results Of the 3329 patients who were sent a study questionnaire, 44.40% completed it (872/1740, 50.11% CVD risk; 606/1589, 38.14% depression). Overall, there was moderate interest in using phone-based (854/1423, 60.01%) and email/Internet-based (816/1425, 57.26%) telehealth, but very little interest in social media (243/1430, 16.99%). After adjusting for health needs, access

Background Telehealth interventions use information and communication technology to provide clinical support. Some randomised controlled trials of telehealth report high patient decline rates. A large study was undertaken to determine which patients decline to participate in telehealth trials and their reasons for doing so. Methods Two linked randomised controlled trials were undertaken, one for patients with depression and one for patients with raised cardiovascular disease risk (the Healthlines Study). The trials compared usual care with additional support delivered by the telephone and internet. Patients were recruited via their general practice and could return a form about why they were not participating. Results Of the patients invited, 82.9 % (20,021/24,152) did not accept the study invite, either by returning a decline form (n = 7134) or by not responding (n = 12,887). In both trials patients registered at deprived general practices were less likely to accept the study invite. Decline forms were received from 29.5 % (7134/24,152) of patients invited. There were four frequently reported types of reasons for declining. The most common was telehealth-related: 54.7 % (3889/,7115) of decliners said they did not have access or the skills to use the internet and/or computers. This was more prevalent amongst older patients and patients registered at deprived general practices. The second was health need-related: 40.1 % (n = 2852) of decliners reported that they did not need additional support for their health condition. The third was related to life circumstances: 27.2 % (n = 1932) of decliners reported being too busy. The fourth was research-related: 15.3 % (n = 1092) of decliners were not interested in the research. Conclusions A large proportion of patients declining participation in these telehealth trials did so because they were unable to engage with telehealth or did not perceive a need for it. This has implications for engagement with telehealth in routine p

Background There is growing interest in telehealth—the use of technology to support the remote delivery of health care and promote self-management—as a potential alternative to face-to-face care for patients with chronic diseases. However, little is known about what precipitates interest in the use of telehealth among these patients. Objective This survey forms part of a research program to develop and evaluate a telehealth intervention for patients with two exemplar chronic diseases: depression and raised cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. The survey was designed to explore the key factors that influence interest in using telehealth in these patient groups. Methods Thirty-four general practices were recruited from two different regions within England. Practice records were searched for patients with (1) depression (aged 18+ years) or (2) 10-year risk of CVD ≥20% and at least one modifiable risk factor (aged 40-74 years). Within each general practice, 54 patients in each chronic disease group were randomly selected to receive a postal questionnaire. Questions assessed five key constructs: sociodemographics, health needs, difficulties accessing health care, technology-related factors (availability, confidence using technology, perceived benefits and drawbacks of telehealth), and satisfaction with prior use of telehealth. Respondents also rated their interest in using different technologies for telehealth (phone, email and Internet, or social media). Relationships between the key constructs and interest in using the three mediums of telehealth were examined using multivariable regression models. Results Of the 3329 patients who were sent a study questionnaire, 44.40% completed it (872/1740, 50.11% CVD risk; 606/1589, 38.14% depression). Overall, there was moderate interest in using phone-based (854/1423, 60.01%) and email/Internet-based (816/1425, 57.26%) telehealth, but very little interest in social media (243/1430, 16.99%). After adjusting for health needs, access

Objective To develop a conceptual model for effective use of telehealth in the management of chronic health conditions, and to use this to develop and evaluate an intervention for people with two exemplar conditions: raised cardiovascular disease risk and depression. Design The model was based on several strands of evidence: a metareview and realist synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence on telehealth for chronic conditions; a qualitative study of patients’ and health professionals’ experience of telehealth; a quantitative survey of patients’ interest in using telehealth; and review of existing models of chronic condition management and evidence-based treatment guidelines. Based on these evidence strands, a model was developed and then refined at a stakeholder workshop. Then a telehealth intervention (‘Healthlines’) was designed by incorporating strategies to address each of the model components. The model also provided a framework for evaluation of this intervention within parallel randomised controlled trials in the two exemplar conditions, and the accompanying process evaluations and economic evaluations. Setting Primary care. Results The TElehealth in CHronic Disease (TECH) model proposes that attention to four components will offer interventions the best chance of success: (1) engagement of patients and health professionals, (2) effective chronic disease management (including subcomponents of self-management, optimisation of treatment, care coordination), (3) partnership between providers and (4) patient, social and health system context. Key intended outcomes are improved health, access to care, patient experience and cost-effective care. Conclusions A conceptual model has been developed based on multiple sources of evidence which articulates how telehealth may best provide benefits for patients with chronic health conditions. It can be used to structure the design and evaluation of telehealth programmes which aim to be acceptable to patients and p

Objective: To assess whether non-clinical staff can effectively manage people at high risk of cardiovascular disease using digital health technologies. Design: Pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Setting: 42 general practices in three areas of England. Participants: Between 3 December 2012 and 23 July 2013 we recruited 641 adults aged 40 to 74 years with a 10 year cardiovascular disease risk of 20% or more, no previous cardiovascular event, at least one modifiable risk factor (systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg, body mass index ≥30, current smoker), and access to a telephone, the internet, and email. Participants were individually allocated to intervention (n=325) or control (n=316) groups using automated randomisation stratified by site, minimised by practice and baseline risk score. Interventions: Intervention was the Healthlines service (alongside usual care), comprising regular telephone calls from trained lay health advisors following scripts generated by interactive software. Advisors facilitated self-management by supporting participants to use online resources to reduce risk factors, and sought to optimise drug use, improve treatment adherence, and encourage healthier lifestyles. The control group comprised usual care alone. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants responding to treatment, defined as maintaining or reducing their cardiovascular risk after 12 months. Outcomes were collected six and 12 months after randomisation and analysed masked. Participants were not masked. Results: 50% (148/295) of participants in the intervention group responded to treatment compared with 43% (124/291) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 1.9; number needed to treat=13); a difference possibly due to chance (P=0.08). The intervention was associated with reductions in blood pressure (difference in mean systolic −2.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval −4.7 to −0.6 mm Hg), mean diasto