Search

Background: The implementation of models of integrated care for chronic conditions is not well understood. We conducted a realist evaluation to determine how and why the implementation of the National Diabetes Programme in Ireland worked (or not). Methods: Documentary analysis and qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of national stakeholders (n = 19), were used to develop an initial theory on expected programme delivery. We refined this theory using semi-structured interviews (n = 38) with professionals from different clinical disciplines involved in programme implementation. Results: Locally important contexts facilitating implementation included staff experience of delivering diabetes care, capacity, and familiarity with the intended purpose of new clinical posts. The extent to which integrated care was adopted and implemented depended on judgements made by professionals working in these contexts; specifically, judging the relative advantage of the programme and whether to engage in negotiations to legitimize their new roles in diabetes care. Conclusions: Our results highlight the need for adequate preparatory work to raise awareness of and support new roles to implement integrated care, clarification on the core components of new care models, and the development of local service infrastructures to support integrated care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Guidelines recommend involving intervention users in the intervention development process. However, there is limited guidance on how to involve users in a meaningful and effective way. Objective: The aim of this Study within a trial was to compare participants' experiences of taking part in one of three types of consensus meetings—people with diabetes‐only, combined people with diabetes and health‐care professionals (HCPs) or HCP‐only meeting. Design: The study used a mixed methods convergent design. Quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (observation notes and semi‐structured telephone interviews) data were collected to explore participants' experiences. A triangulation protocol was used to compare quantitative and qualitative findings. Participants: People with diabetes (recruited via multiple strategies) were randomly assigned to attend the people with diabetes or combined meeting. HCPs (recruited through professional networks) attended the HCP or combined meeting based on their availability. Results: Sixteen people with diabetes and 15 HCPs attended meetings, of whom 18 participated in a telephone interview. Participants' questionnaire responses suggested similar positive experiences across the three meetings. Observation and semi‐structured interviews highlighted differences experienced by participants in the combined meeting relating to: perceived lack of common ground; feeling empowered versus undervalued; needing to feel safe and going off task to fill the void. Conclusions: The qualitative theme 'needing to feel safe' may explain the dissonance (disagreement) between quantitative and qualitative data. In this study, involving patients and HCPs simultaneously in a consensus process was not found to be as suitable as involving each stakeholder group separately. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Multifactorial falls risk assessments reduce the rate of falls in older people and are recommended by international guidelines. Despite their effectiveness, their potential impact is often constrained by barriers to implementation. Attendance is an issue. The aim of this study was to explore why older people attend community-based multifactorial falls risk assessment clinics, and to map these reasons to a theoretical framework. Design This is a qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and analysed thematically. Each theme and subtheme were then mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify the determinants of behaviour. Participants Older adults (aged 60 and over) who attended community-based multifactorial falls risk assessments. Results Sixteen interviews were conducted. Three main themes explained participants’ reasons for attending the multifactorial risk assessment; being that ‘type of person’, being ‘linked in’ with health and community services and having ‘strong social support’. Six other themes were identified, but these themes were not as prominent during interviews. These were knowing what to expect, being physically able, having confidence in and being positive towards health services, imagining the benefits given previous positive experiences, determination to maintain or regain independence, and being ‘crippled’ by the fear of falling. These themes mapped on to nine TDF domains: ‘knowledge’, ‘skills’, ‘social role and identity’, ‘optimism’, ‘beliefs about consequences’, ‘goals’, ‘environmental context and resources’, ‘social influences’ and ‘emotion’. There were five TDF domains that were not relevant to the reasons for attending. Conclusions These findings provide theoretically based factors that influence attendance which can be used to inform the development of interventions to improve attendance to falls prevention programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In November 2016, the ICH published a requirement for sponsors to develop a systematic, prioritised, risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. This approach is more commonly known as risk-based monitoring (RBM). However, recent evidence suggests that a 'gold standard', validated approach to RBM does not exist and it is unclear how sponsors will introduce RBM into their organisations. A first step needed to inform the implementation of RBM is to explore academic trialists' readiness and ability to perform RBM. The aim of this paper is to identify the attitudes and perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of RBM in academic-led clinical trials in Ireland.Methods: This is a mixed-methods, explanatory sequential design, with quantitative survey followed by semistructured interviews. Academic clinical researchers (N = 132) working in Ireland were surveyed to examine their use and perceptions of RBM. A purposive sample of survey participants (n = 22) were then interviewed to gain greater insight into the quantitative findings. The survey and interview data were merged to generate a list of perceived barriers and facilitators to RBM implementation, with suggestions for, and solutions to, these issues.Results: Survey response rate was 49% (132/273). Thirteen percent (n = 18) of responders were not familiar with the term risk-based monitoring and less than a quarter of respondents (21%, n = 28) had performed RBM in a clinical trial. Barriers to RBM implementation included lack of RBM knowledge/training, increased costs caused by greater IT demands, increased workload for trial staff and lack of evidence to support RBM as an effective monitoring approach. Facilitators included participants' legal obligation to perform RBM under the new ICH-GCP guidelines, availability of RBM guidance and perception of cost savings by performing RBM in future trials.Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrate a need for training and regulatory-endorsed guidelines to support the implementation of RBM in academic-led clinical trials. The study provides valuable insights to inform interventions and strategies by policy-makers and clinical trial regulators to improve RBM uptake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: UK Medical Research Council guidelines recommend end-user involvement in intervention development. There is limited evidence on the contributions of different end-users to this process. The aim of this Study Within A Trial (SWAT) was to identify and compare contributions from two groups of end-users - people with diabetes' (PWD) and healthcare professionals' (HCPs), during consensus meetings to inform an intervention to improve retinopathy screening uptake. Methods: A mixed method, explanatory sequential design comprising a survey and three semi-structured consensus meetings was used. PWD were randomly assigned to a PWD only or combined meeting. HCPs attended a HCP only or combined meeting, based on availability. In the survey, participants rated intervention proposals on acceptability and feasibility. Survey results informed the meeting topic guide. Transcripts were analysed deductively to compare feedback on intervention proposals, suggestions for new content, and contributions to the final intervention. Results: Overall, 13 PWD and 17 HCPs completed the survey, and 16 PWD and 15 HCPs attended meetings. For 31 of the 39 intervention proposals in the survey, there were differences (≥10%) between the proportion of HCPs and PWD who rated proposals as acceptable and/or feasible. End-user groups shared and unique concerns about proposals; both were concerned about informing but not scaring people when communicating risk, while concerns about resources were mostly unique to HCPs and concerns about privacy were mostly unique to PWD.  Fewer suggestions for new intervention content from the combined meeting were integrated into the final intervention as they were not feasible for implementation in general practice. Participants contributed four new behaviour change techniques not present in the original proposals: goal setting (outcome) , restructuring the physical environment , material incentive (behaviour) and punishment . Conclusions: Preferences for intervention content may differ across end-user groups, with feedback varying depending on whether end-users are involved simultaneously or separately., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2023 Racine E et al.)

Background: UK Medical Research Council guidelines recommend end-user involvement in intervention development. There is limited evidence on the contributions of different end-users to this process. The aim of this Study Within A Trial (SWAT) was to identify and compare contributions from two groups of end-users - people with diabetes' (PWD) and healthcare professionals' (HCPs), during consensus meetings to inform an intervention to improve retinopathy screening uptake. Methods: A mixed method, explanatory sequential design comprising a survey and three semi-structured consensus meetings was used. PWD were randomly assigned to a diabetes only or combined meeting. HCPs attended a HCP only or combined meeting, based on availability. In the survey, participants rated intervention proposals on acceptability and feasibility. Survey results informed the meeting topic guide. Transcripts were analysed deductively to compare feedback on intervention proposals, suggestions for new content, and contributions to the final intervention. Results: Overall, 13 PWD and 17 HCPs completed the survey, and 16 PWD and 15 HCPs attended meetings. For 31 of the 39 intervention proposals in the survey, there were differences (≥10%) between the proportion of HCPs and PWD who rated proposals as acceptable and/or feasible. End-user groups shared and unique concerns about proposals; both were concerned about informing but not scaring people when communicating risk, while concerns about resources were mostly unique to HCPs and concerns about privacy were mostly unique to PWD.  Fewer suggestions for new intervention content from the combined meeting were integrated into the final intervention as they were not feasible for implementation in general practice. Participants contributed four new behaviour change techniques not present in the original proposals: goal setting (outcome) , restructuring the physical environment , material incentive (behaviour) and punishment . Conclusions: Preferences for intervention content may differ across end-user groups, with feedback varying depending on whether end-users are involved simultaneously or separately., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2022 Racine E et al.)

Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) affects 8.2% of the Irish population with type 2 diabetes over 50 years and is one of the leading causes of blindness among working-age adults. Regular diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) can reduce the risk of sight loss. In 2013, the new national screening programme (RetinaScreen) was introduced in Ireland. Maximising DRS uptake (consent to participate in the programme and attendance once invited) is a priority, therefore it is important to identify characteristics which determine DRS uptake among those with diabetes in Ireland. We report uptake in an Irish primary care population during the initial phase of implementation of RetinaScreen and investigate factors which predict consenting to participate in the programme. Methods:   In two primary care practices, data were extracted from records of people with diabetes (type 1 and type 2) aged ≥18 years who were eligible to participate in RetinaScreen between November 2013 and August 2015. Records were checked for a RetinaScreen letter. RetinaScreen were contacted to establish the status of those without a letter on file. Multivariable Poisson regression was used to examine associations between socio-demographic variables and consenting. Adjusted incident rate ratios (IRR) with 95% CI were generated as a measure of association. Results: Of 722 people with diabetes, one fifth (n=141) were not registered with RetinaScreen. Of 582 who were registered, 63% (n=365) had participated in screening. Most people who consented subsequently attended (n=365/382, 96%). People who had attended another retinopathy screening service were less likely to consent (IRR 0.65 [95%CI 0.5-0.8]; p<0.001). Other predictors were not significantly associated with consent. Conclusions: Over one third of people eligible to participate in RetinaScreen had not consented. Research is needed to understand barriers and enablers of DRS uptake in the Irish context. Implementing strategies to improve DRS uptake (consent and attendance) should be a priority., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2019 Tracey M et al.)

Background: While there is an increasing consensus that clinical trial results should be shared with trial participants, there is a lack of evidence on the most appropriate methods. The aim of this study is to use a patient and public involvement (PPI) approach to identify, develop and evaluate a patient-preferred method of receiving results of the Thyroid Hormone Replacement for Subclinical Hypo-Thyroidism Trial (TRUST). Methods: This is a mixed methods study with three consecutive phases. Phase 1 iteratively developed a patient-preferred result method using semi-structured focus groups and a consensus-orientated-decision model, a PPI group to refine the method and adult literacy review for plain English assessment. Phase 2 was a single-blind parallel group trial. Irish TRUST participants were randomised to the intervention (patient-preferred method) and control group (standard method developed by lead study site). Phase 3 used a patient understanding questionnaire to compare patient understanding of results between the two methods. Results: Patients want to receive results of clinical trials, with qualitative findings indicating three key themes including 'acknowledgement of individual contribution', 'contributing for a collective benefit' and 'receiving accessible and easy to understand results'. Building on these findings, a patient-preferred method of receiving results was developed as described above. TRUST participants (n=101) were randomised to the intervention. The questionnaire response rate was 74% for the intervention group and 62% for the control group.  There were no differences in patient understanding between the two methods.  Conclusions: We have demonstrated that it is feasible to conduct PPI with regard to the dissemination of results. The study identified and developed a patient-preferred method of receiving clinical trial results for older adults over 65 years. Although, in this study PPI did not influence patients' final understanding of results, it provides a record of the process of conducting PPI within the clinical trial setting., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2018 Racine E et al.)