Search

Background: Diabetes is a growing global health problem. International guidelines recommend identification, screening, and referral to behavioural programmes for those at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Diabetes prevention programmes (DPPs) can prevent type 2 diabetes in those at high risk, however many eligible participants are not referred to these programmes. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are pivotal to the referral and recruitment processes. This study aims to identify, appraise and synthesise the evidence on barriers and facilitators to referral and recruitment to DPPs from the perspective of HCWs. Methods: A “best fit” framework synthesis method will synthesise qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods evidence on factors that affect HCWs referral and recruitment to DPPs, with the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) as the a priori framework. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science and Scopus will be searched for primary studies published in English. Year of publication will be restricted to the last 25 years (1997–2022). Quality will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A mix of deductive coding using the TDF and inductive coding of data that does not fit the TDF will be synthesised into themes representing the whole dataset. The relationships between the final set of themes will be explored to create a new model to understand HCWs’ perspectives on referral and recruitment to DPPs. Sensitivity analysis will be carried out this conceptual model. Confidence in the synthesised findings will be assessed using the GRADE-CERQual approach. One author will screen, extract, appraise the literature while a second author will independently verify a 20% sample at each stage. Discussion: Participation in DPPs is key for programme impact. HCWs typically identify those at risk and refer them to DPPs. Understanding HCWs’ perspectives of the barriers and facilitators to referral and recruitment will inform future implementation of DPPs.

Background: Recruitment challenges are a barrier to the conduct of trials in general practice, yet little is known about which recruitment strategies work best to recruit practices for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to describe the types of strategies used to recruit general practices for trials and synthesize any available evidence of effectiveness. Methods: We conducted a rapid evidence review in line with guidance from Tricco et al. Eligible studies reported or evaluated any strategy to improve practice recruitment to participate in clinical or implementation RCTs. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Library were searched from inception to June 22nd, 2021. Reference lists of included studies were screened. Data were synthesized narratively. Results: Over 9,162 articles were identified, and 19 studies included. Most (n=13, 66.7%) used a single recruitment strategy. The most common strategies were: in-person practice meetings/visits by the research team (n=12, 63.2%); phone calls (n=10, 52.6%); financial incentives (n=9, 47.4%); personalised emails (n=7, 36.8%) or letters (n=6, 52.6%) (as opposed to email ‘blasts’ or generic letters); targeting practices that participated in previous studies or with which the team had existing links (n=6, 31.6%) or targeting of practices within an existing practice or research network (n=6, 31.6%). Three studies reporting recruitment rates >80%, used strategies such as invitation letters with a follow-up phone call to non-responders, presentations by the principal investigator and study coordinator, or in-person meetings with practices with an existing affiliation with the University or research team. Conclusions: Few studies directly compared recruitment approaches making it difficult to draw conclusions about their comparative effectiveness. However, the role of more personalised letter/email, in-person, or phone contact, and capitalising on existing relationships appears important. Further work is needed to standardise how recruitment methods are reported and to directly compare different recruitment strategies within one study. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021268140 (15/08/2021)

Background: Older people are among the most vulnerable patients in acute care hospitals. The hospitalisation process can result in newly acquired functional or cognitive deficits termed hospital associated decline (HAD). Prioritising fundamental care including mobilisation, nutrition, and cognitive engagement can reduce HAD risk. Aim: The Frailty Care Bundle (FCB) intervention aims to implement and evaluate evidence-based principles on early mobilisation, enhanced nutrition and increased cognitive engagement to prevent functional decline and HAD in older patients. Methods: A hybrid implementation science study will use a pragmatic prospective cohort design with a pre-post mixed methods evaluation to test the effect of the FCB on patient, staff, and health service outcomes. The evaluation will include a description of the implementation process, intervention adaptations, and economic costs analysis. The protocol follows the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI). The intervention design and implementation strategy will utilise the behaviour change theory COM-B (capability, motivation, opportunity) and the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS). A clinical facilitator will use a co-production approach with staff. All patients will receive care as normal, the intervention is delivered at ward level and focuses on nurses and health care assistants (HCA) normative clinical practices. The intervention will be delivered in three hospitals on six wards including rehabilitation, acute trauma, medical and older adult wards. Evaluation: The evaluation will recruit a volunteer sample of 180 patients aged 65 years or older (pre 90; post 90 patients). The primary outcomes are measures of functional status (modified Barthel Index (MBI)) and mobilisation measured as average daily step count using accelerometers. Process data will include ward activity mapping, staff surveys and interviews and an economic cost-impact analysis. Conclusions: This is a complex intervention that involves ward and system level changes and has the potential to improve outcomes for older patients.

Introduction Understanding primary care practices’ ‘readiness’ to engage in trials and their experience is important to inform trial procedures and supports. Few studies report on the feasibility of study procedures though this is a central part of pilot trials. We explored the acceptability and feasibility of study procedures of a cluster randomised pilot trial of an intervention in primary care to improve uptake of Ireland’s national diabetic retinopathy programme. Methods As part of the embedded mixed-methods process evaluation, quantitative and qualitative data were gathered across four general practices participating in the intervention. Interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of staff. Research logs on time spent on intervention delivery, staff assignment, resources, problems/changes, and reasons for drop-outs, were maintained over the course of intervention rollout, and practice audit data were analysed. Quantitative outcomes included recruitment, retention, completion, and data quality and completeness. Qualitative data on perceptions and experience of the pilot trial procedures were analysed using the Framework Method. Findings Nine staff (3 GPs, 4 nurses, 2 administrators) were interviewed. An interest in the topic area or in research motivated practices to take part in the trial. Reimbursement meant they could ‘afford’ to participate. Staff valued the researcher briefing at the start of the trial, to avoid ‘going in slightly blind’. While staff varied in audit skills and confidence, and some found this aspect of data collection challenging, a ‘step-by-step’ audit manual and regular researcher contact, helped them stay on track and troubleshoot during data collection. Audit quality was acceptable overall, however there were some issues, incorrect assignment of patient status being most common. Conclusion The IDEAs trial procedures were acceptable and feasible for primary care staff, however, challenges with conducting the audit may reflect staff skills gaps and the need for greater guidance and support from researchers.

Background: Depression and diabetes distress are common in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). These conditions are independently associated with poorer T2DM outcomes and increased healthcare utilisation and costs. Questions remain regarding the most appropriate ways of initially detecting depression and diabetes distress in this group. Diabetes guidelines recommend depression screening in primary care for people with T2DM but their implementation in practice is suboptimal. As health care professionals influence detection practices, their perceptions and experiences of these guidelines can improve understanding of aspects of the guidelines that work, and those which are more difficult to implement in practice. This study describes the protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis of primary care health professionals’ perceived barriers and enablers to screen for and diagnose depression and diabetes distress in people with T2DM. Methods and analysis: Primary qualitative and mixed method studies will be identified using a systematic search of electronic databases and the CLUSTER (Citations, Lead authors, Unpublished materials, Scholar searches, Theories, Early examples, Related projects) approach. We selected ‘best-fit framework synthesis’ as the approach to synthesise primary data using the RETREAT (Review question-Epistemology-Time/Timescale-Resources-Expertise-Audience and purpose-Type of Data) framework. Quality appraisal of primary studies and confidence in the overall review findings will be determined using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) and the GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research), respectively. Discussion: The planned review will provide the first, single point of reference of the available synthesised qualitative evidence on this topic. It will apply recommended approaches to ensure rigor and robustness of study and contribute meaningfully to understanding of how depression and diabetes distress can be initially detected in people with T2DM. This protocol is awaiting processing by the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) [ID number 145483].

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 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.

Background: Structured management of uncomplicated diabetes in primary care constitutes good quality diabetes care. The cycle of care is a national initiative that financially remunerates general practitioners to provide structured diabetes care for people with type 2 diabetes. However, eligibility for the cycle of care is limited to those with means-tested public health insurance. We investigate the national coverage of the cycle of care and describe the socio-demographic and clinical profile of those eligible and non-eligible for the initiative. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of The Irish LongituDinal study on Ageing (TILDA) Wave 1 was conducted. Type 2 diabetes was defined using self-reported doctor-diagnosis of diabetes, age at diagnosis and use of insulin/oral hypoglycaemic agents. Findings were applied to the 2016 Irish census figures to estimate the absolute population eligible and non-eligible for the cycle of care. Pearson’s chi-square test was used to compare the profiles of those eligible and non-eligible for the initiative. Results: Of the 8,107 TILDA participants, 609 had type 2 diabetes (7.9% [95%CI: 7.3%, 8.5%]) and 31.6% (95%CI: 27.8, 35.6) of these were not eligible for the cycle of care. Applying these estimates to census data, an estimated 36,567 (95%CI: 32,170, 41,196) individuals aged ≥50 years with type 2 diabetes in Ireland are not eligible for the initiative. Those not eligible were less likely to be on insulin and more likely to be managing their diabetes without medication. Conclusions: Nearly one-third of people with type 2 diabetes aged ≥50 years are not eligible for the cycle of care and appear to fit the outlined criteria for uncomplicated diabetes which can be appropriately managed in primary care. Financial barriers to managing uncomplicated diabetes in primary care exist. It is essential that the cycle of care is extended to all those likely to benefit from regular structured diabetes management.