Search

BackgroundAdherence to nebulizer treatments in adults with cystic fibrosis (CF) is often low. A new complex intervention to help adults with CF increase their adherence to nebulizer treatments was tested in a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 2 UK CF centers. Patients used a nebulizer with electronic monitoring capabilities that transferred data automatically to a digital platform (CFHealthHub) to monitor adherence over time and to a tailored website to display graphs of adherence data and educational and problem-solving information about adherence. A trained interventionist helped patients identify ways to increase their adherence. ObjectiveThis study aims to explore the mechanisms of action underpinning the intervention. MethodsA qualitative interview study was conducted concurrently with a pilot RCT. In total, 25 semistructured interviews were conducted with 3 interventionists at 2 time points, 14 patients in the intervention arm of the trial, and 5 members of the multidisciplinary teams offering wider care to patients. A framework approach was used for the analysis. ResultsThe intervention was informed by a theoretical framework of behavior change. There was evidence of the expected behavior change mechanisms of action. There was also evidence of additional mechanisms of action associated with effective telehealth interventions for self-management support: relationships, visibility, and fit. Patients described how building a relationship with the interventionist through face-to-face visits with someone who cared about them and their progress helped them to consider ways of increasing adherence to medication. Rather than seeing the visibility of adherence data to clinicians as problematic, patients found this motivating, particularly if they received praise about progress made. The intervention was tailored to individuals, but there were challenges in how the intervention fitted into some patients’ busy lives when delivered through a desktop computer. ConclusionsThe mechanisms of action associated with effective telehealth interventions for self-management operated within this new intervention. The intervention was modified to strengthen mechanisms of action based on these findings, for example, delivery through an app accessed via mobile phones and then tested in an RCT in 19 UK CF centers. Trial RegistrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number 13076797; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13076797

Introduction: Appraising the quality of studies included in systematic reviews combining qualitative and quantitative evidence is challenging. To address this challenge, a critical appraisal tool was developed: the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The aim of this paper is to present the enhancements made to the MMAT. Development: The MMAT was initially developed in 2006 based on a literature review on systematic reviews combining qualitative and quantitative evidence. It was subject to pilot and interrater reliability testing. A revised version of the MMAT was developed in 2018 based on the results from usefulness testing, a literature review on critical appraisal tools and a modified e-Delphi study with methodological experts to identify core criteria. Tool Description: The MMAT assesses the quality of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. It focuses on methodological criteria and includes five core quality criteria for each of the following five categories of study designs: (a) qualitative, (b) randomized controlled, (c) nonrandomized, (d) quantitative descriptive, and (e) mixed methods. Conclusion: The MMAT is a unique tool that can be used to appraise the quality of different study designs. Also, by limiting to core criteria, the MMAT can provide a more efficient appraisal.

Understand the practice and beliefs of healthcare professionals (HCPs) supporting the decision-making of people with MND (pwMND) about gastrostomy placement, including identifying differences between professions. An online cross-sectional survey disseminated to HCPs who support the decision-making of pwMND about gastrostomy placement. A total of 139 participants completed the survey including representation from a range of healthcare professions. A third (36/101, 36%) initiated discussions about gastrostomy later in practice than they believed was ideal. In relation to the outcome of declining compared to accepting gastrostomy, participants were more likely to discuss aspiration (80% vs. 68%), choking (76% vs. 58%) and prognosis (36% vs. 22%). Participants believed gastrostomies should be placed after a mean 8.1% weight loss since symptom-onset. More participants favored gastrostomy placement before pwMND presented with respiratory symptoms (45%) compared to onset of dysphagia (11%). Half believed pwMND placed gastrostomies too late. Participants were more likely to 'often'/'always' recommend pwMND to have a gastrostomy (23%) than continue without (7%) or decline (4%) gastrostomy, when believing these were the best option for pwMND. Nurses and dietitians discussed the broadest range of information, while doctors were more likely to discuss mortality risk and prognosis. There is variation in HCPs practice and beliefs about initiating discussions, the sharing of information and recommendations, and timing, about gastrostomy placement. The information shared varies by profession and there is evidence of sub-optimal communication between HCPs. Further research is required to understand how these findings may impact on the decision-making of pwMND about gastrostomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]