Search

Background and objectives The INTERVAL trial aimed to find the optimum frequency of blood donation to enhance blood supplies and maintain donor health. This not only requires biological knowledge, but also an appreciation of donor perspectives, and how their experiences and beliefs might be central if any changes are ever to be made. To address this, trial participants were interviewed about their ideas of blood and the body in relation to their experiences of increased donation frequency. Materials and methods Thirty in depth face-to-face interviews conducted with blood donors participating in the trial. Results Three key themes emerged: ideas about how blood and iron reserves are replenished, and what people did to facilitate this; beliefs about physiological differences relating to age and gender; and practical issues that affected the experience of donation. Overall, participants interviewed welcomed more frequent donation, despite a range of pragmatic concerns. Conclusion Despite some practical obstacles, increased donation frequency aligned with participant's ideas about bodily replenishment, the value of donation, and their identity as enduring blood donors. They therefore supported the idea of increasing frequency of donation, independently of the biomedical evidence from the trial itself.

In line with the concept of 'nudging' people to change their behaviour, there has been increased attention on habit as a focus for psychologically-based health interventions. It is hoped that behaviours initiated by interventions not only become so regular that they are normalised into people's everyday lives, but that through repetition they may eventually become fixed and habitual. In this paper we draw on people's accounts of participating in a trial designed to encourage greater physical activity, and attend to the ways they describe their engagement with interventions within wider narratives of their everyday lives. In contrast to the idea that habit refers to automatic behaviour cued by external stimuli and governed by unconscious cognitive processes, our study describes how people identify many diverse elements that are felt to have equal significance in achieving a routine. Paradoxically, the sense of stability derives not from exact repetition, but from the ability for an assemblage of elements to be configured slightly differently each time. We consequently argue that attending to the diverse range of contextual elements bracketed off from interventions designed to be tested in trials, and the idea that continuity might emerge from variation, demands a reconceptualisation of the concept of habit adopted within many areas of current health psychology.

Background Variation in access to joint replacement surgery has been widely reported but less attention has been given to the impact of comorbidities on the patient journey to joint replacement surgery. There is a lack of consensus amongst healthcare professionals and commissioners about how patients with comorbidities should be referred or selected for joint replacement surgery. It is therefore important to understand the views of healthcare professionals on the management, referral and selection of patients with comorbidities for joint replacement surgery. Methods An exploratory qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with 20 healthcare professionals in England across the referral pathway to joint replacement surgery. They were asked to talk about their experiences of referring and selecting patients with comorbidities for joint replacement surgery. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis followed a thematic analysis approach based on the principles of grounded theory. Results In general, the presence of comorbidities was not seen as a barrier to being referred or selected for joint replacement but was seen as a challenge to manage the patients’ journey across the referral pathway. Each professional group, concentrated on different aspects of the patients’ condition which appeared to affect how they managed patients with comorbidities. This implied there was a disagreement about roles and responsibilities in the management of patients with comorbidities. None of the professionals believed it was their responsibility to address comorbidities in preparation for surgery. This disagreement was identified as a reason why some patients seem to ‘get lost’ in the referral system when they were considered to be unprepared for surgery. Patients were then potentially left to manage their own comorbidities before being reconsidered for joint replacement. Conclusions At the clinician-level, comorbidities were not perceived as a barrier to accessing joint replacement surgery but at the pathway-level, it may create an implicit barrier such that patients with comorbidities may get ‘lost’ to the system. Further study is needed to explore the roles and responsibilities of professionals across the current orthopaedic referral pathway which may be less suitable for patients with comorbidities. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3565-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In this paper, we describe the measures of intervention exposure used in the cluster randomised trial of the Well London programme, a public health intervention using community engagement and community-based projects to increase physical activity, healthy eating and mental health and well-being in 20 of the most deprived neighbourhoods in London.10 No earmarked resources to support the development of these measures and associated data collection were provided to either the research team or to those delivering the interventions on the ground. Instead, these were derived from contractually specified performance management information reported quarterly by partners and by inclusion of questions seeking information about participation in the follow-up questionnaires used to measure the main trial outcomes. The exposure measures are consequently considerably less sophisticated than those used in the US studies, where earmarked funding was available.

Self-monitoring, by which individuals record and appraise ongoing information about the status of their body in order to improve their health, has been a key element in the personal management of conditions such as diabetes, but it is now also increasingly used in relation to health-associated behaviours. The introduction of self-monitoring as an intervention to change behaviour is intended to provide feedback that can be used by individuals to both assess their status and provide ongoing support towards a goal that may be formally set or remains implicit. However, little attention has been paid to how individuals actually engage in the process or act upon the information they receive. This article addresses this by exploring how participants in a particular trial (‘Get Moving’) experienced the process and nature of feedback. Although the trial aimed to compare the potential efficacy of three different monitoring activities designed to encourage greater physical activity, participants did not present distinctly different accounts of each intervention and the specifics of the feedback provided. Instead, their accounts took the form of much more extended and personal narratives that included other people and features of the environment. We draw on these broader descriptions to problematise the notion of self-monitoring and conclude that self-monitoring is neither solely about ‘self’ nor is it exclusively about ‘monitoring’. We suggest that a more expansive social and material understanding of feedback can give insight into the ways information is made active and meaningful for individuals in their everyday contexts.

Background: We report the main results, among adults, of a cluster-randomised-trial of Well London, a community engagement programme promoting healthy eating, physical activity and mental well-being in deprived neighbourhoods. The hypothesis was that benefits would be neighbourhood-wide, and not restricted to intervention participants.The trial was part of a multi-component process/outcome evaluation which included non-experimental components (self-reported behaviour change amongst participants, case studies and evaluations of individual projects) which suggested health, well-being and social benefits to participants.\ud Methods: Twenty matched pairs of neighbourhoods in London were randomised to intervention/control condition. Primary outcomes (five portions fruit/vegetables/day; 5x30 min of moderate intensity physical activity/week, abnormal General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)-12 score and Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) score) were measured by post-intervention questionnaire survey, among 3986 adults in a random sample of households across neighbourhoods.\ud Results: There was no evidence of impact on primary outcomes: healthy eating (relative risk [RR] 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.17); physical activity (RR:1.01, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.16); abnormal GHQ12 (RR:1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.61); WEMWBS (mean difference [MD]: −1.52, 95% CI −3.93 to 0.88). There was evidence of impact on some secondary outcomes: reducing unhealthy eating-score (MD: −0.14, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.27) and increased perception that people in the neighbourhood pulled together (RR: 1.92, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.29).\ud Conclusions: The trial findings do not provide evidence supporting the conclusion of non-experimental components of the evaluation that intervention improved health behaviours, well-being and social outcomes. Low participation rates and population churn likely compromised any impact of the intervention. Imprecise estimation of outcomes and sampling bias may also have influenced findings. There is a need for greater investment in refining such programmes before implementation; new methods to understand, longitudinally different pathways residents take through such interventions and their outcomes, and new theories of change that apply to each pathway.

Background:Well London is a multicomponent community engagement and coproduction programme designed to improve the health of Londoners living in socioeconomically deprived neighbourhoods. To evaluate outcomes of the Well London interventions, a cluster randomised trial (CRT) was conducted that included a longitudinal qualitative component, which is reported here. The aim is to explore in depth the nature of the benefits to residents and the processes by which these were achieved. Methods:The 1-year longitudinal qualitative study was nested within the CRT. Purposive sampling was used to select three intervention neighbourhoods in London and 61 individuals within these neighbourhoods. The interventions comprised activities focused on: healthy eating, physical exercise and mental health and well-being. Interviews were conducted at the inception and following completion of the Well London interventions to establish both if and how they had participated. Transcripts of the interviews were coded and analysed using Nvivo. Results:Positive benefits relating to the formal outcomes of the CRT were reported, but only among those who participated in project activities. The extent of benefits experienced was influenced by factors relating to the physical and social characteristics of each neighbourhood. The highest levels of change occurred in the presence of: (1) social cohesion, not only pre-existing but also as facilitated by Well London activities; (2) personal and collective agency; (3) involvement and support of external organisations. Where the physical and social environment remained unchanged, there was less participation and fewer benefits. Conclusions:These findings show interaction between participation, well-being and agency, social interactions and cohesion and that this modulated any benefits described. Pathways to change were thus complex and variable, but personal well-being and local social cohesion emerged as important mediators of change.

Background In London and the rest of the UK, diseases associated with poor diet, inadequate physical activity and mental illness account for a large proportion of area based health inequality. There is a lack of evidence on interventions promoting healthier behaviours especially in marginalised populations, at a structural or ecological level and utilising a community development approach. The Well London project financed by the Big Lottery 'Wellbeing' Fund and implemented by a consortium of London based agencies led by the Greater London Authority and the London Health Commission is implementing a set of complex interventions across 20 deprived areas of London. The interventions focus on healthy eating, healthy physical activity and mental health and wellbeing and are designed and executed with community participation complementing existing facilities and services. Methods/Design The programme will be evaluated through a cluster randomised controlled trial. Forty areas across London were chosen based on deprivation scores. Areas were characterised by high proportion of Black and Minority Ethnic residents, worklessness, ill-health and poor physical environments. Twenty areas were randomly assigned to the intervention arm of Well London project and twenty 'matched' areas assigned as controls. Measures of physical activity, diet and mental health are collected at start and end of the project and compared to assess impact. The quantitative element will be complemented by a longitudinal qualitative study elucidating pathways of influence between intervention activities and health outcomes. A related element of the study investigates the health-related aspects of the structural and ecological characteristics of the project areas. The project 'process' will also be evaluated. Discussion The size of the project and the fact that the interventions are 'complex' in the sense that firstly, there are a number of interacting components with a wide range of groups and organisational levels targeted by the intervention, and secondly, a degree of flexibility or tailoring of the intervention, makes this trial potentially very useful in providing evidence of the types of activities that can be used to address chronic health problems in communities suffering from multiple deprivation. Trial Registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68175121