Search

Sail training refers to sea voyages designed to foster personal and social change. Such training has mainly involved young people but may have the potential to benefit adults who are recovering from drug and alcohol addiction. During the voyage described here clients in drug rehabilitation centres across the UK were given the opportunity to participate in a 5-day sail training voyage. Pre- and post-voyage interviews were conducted with 11 clients to explore their experiences of being selected and participating in this voyage. Clients enjoyed the experience and found it to be beneficial, promoting self-insight, new life plans and social skills development. Living in an unfamiliar, potentially dangerous and inescapable environment necessitating close proximity to others and teamwork under the supervision of expert authority figures generated bonding with and caring for others; as well as the development of new competencies and greater self-confidence. The findings suggest that sail training can be beneficial to clients in recovery from addiction and highlight key features that may optimise effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This two-site randomised trial compared the effectiveness of a voluntary sector-led, community-based diabetes prevention programme to a waiting-list control group at 6 months, and included an observational follow-up of the intervention arm to 12 months. Methods: Adults aged 18–75 years at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes due to elevated blood glucose and being overweight were recruited from primary care practices at two UK sites, with data collected in participants' homes or community venues. Participants were randomised using an online central allocation service. The intervention, comprising the prototype "Living Well, Taking Control" (LWTC) programme, involved four weekly two-hour group sessions held in local community venues to promote changes in diet and physical activity, plus planned follow-up contacts at two, three, six, nine and 12 months alongside 5 hours of additional activities/classes. Waiting list controls received usual care for 6 months before accessing the programme. The primary outcome was weight loss at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure, physical activity, diet, health status and well-being. Only researchers conducting analyses were blinded. Results: The target sample of 314 participants (157 each arm) was largely representative of local populations, including 44% men, 26% from ethnic minorities and 33% living in deprived areas. Primary outcome data were available for 285 (91%) participants (141 intervention, 144 control). Between baseline and 6 months, intervention participants on average lost more weight than controls (− 1.7 kg, 95% CI − 2.59 to − 0.85). Higher attendance was associated with greater weight loss (− 3.0 kg, 95% CI − 4.5 to − 1.5). The prototype LWTC programme more than doubled the proportion of participants losing > 5% of their body weight (21% intervention vs. 8% control, OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.36 to 5.90) and improved self-reported dietary behaviour and health status. There were no impacts on HbA1c, blood pressure, physical activity and well-being at 6 months and, amongst intervention participants, few further changes from six to 12-months (e.g. average weight re-gain 0.36 kg, 95% CI − 0.20 to 0.91). There were no serious adverse events but four exercise-related injuries were reported in the intervention arm. Conclusions: This voluntary sector-led diabetes prevention programme reached a broad spectrum of the population and had modest effects on weight-related outcomes, but limited impacts on other diabetes risk factors. Trial registration: Trial registration number: ISRCTN70221670, 5 September 2014 Funder (National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research) project reference number: SPHR-EXE-PES-COM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite effective treatments and long-standing management guidelines, there are approximately 1400 hospital admissions for asthma weekly in the United Kingdom (UK), many of which could be avoided. In our previous research, a secondary analysis of the intervention (ARRISA) suggested an improvement in the management of at-risk asthma patients in primary care. ARRISA involved identifying individuals at risk of adverse asthma events, flagging their electronic health records, training practice staff to develop and implement practice-wide processes of care when alerted by the flag, plus motivational reminders. We now seek to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ARRISA in reducing asthma-related crisis events.Methods: We are undertaking a pragmatic, two-arm, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial, plus health economic and process evaluation. We will randomise 270 primary care practices from throughout the UK covering over 10,000 registered patients with 'at-risk asthma' identified according to a validated algorithm. Staff in practices randomised to the intervention will complete two 45-min eLearning modules (an individually completed module giving background to ARRISA and a group-completed module to develop practice-wide pathways of care) plus a 30-min webinar with other practices. On completion of training at-risk patients' records will be coded so that a flag appears whenever their record is accessed. Practices will receive a phone call at 4 weeks and a reminder video at 6 weeks and 6 months. Control practices will continue to provide usual care. We will extract anonymised routine patient data from primary care records (with linkage to secondary care data) to determine the percentage of at-risk patients with an asthma-related crisis event (accident and emergency attendances, hospitalisations and deaths) after 12 months (primary outcome). We will also capture the time to crisis event, all-cause hospitalisations, asthma control and any changes in practice asthma management for at-risk and all patients with asthma. Cost-effectiveness analysis and mixed-methods process evaluations will also be conducted.Discussion: This study is novel in terms of using a practice-wide intervention to target and engage with patients at risk from their asthma and is innovative in the use of routinely captured data with record linkage to obtain trial outcomes.Trial Registration: ISRCTN95472706 . Registered on 5 December 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: 'Participation' in a 'community of practice' is often proposed as a mechanism for clinical learning; however, the use of both terms is variable - ranging from technical to vernacular. Belongingness is a related single concept and development of a tool that measures belongingness may therefore be useful in adding to our understanding of when participation and hence learning takes place in clinical settings., Methods: After identifying relevant material from the literature, a draft belongingness assessment tool was developed, based on previously published work. This was piloted on 181 undergraduate medical students and the results subjected to factor analysis. The final version was then used to identify whether differences exist between two different clinical teaching environments., Results: Our belongingness assessment tool had internal and external validity, with Cronbach's alpha = 0.940, and detected statistically significant differences between primary and secondary care teaching environments., Conclusions: The belongingness scale described in this paper is a valid tool for the study of undergraduate medical students. This has the potential to investigate how variation in student experiences of participation in communities of practice influences learning. This tool revealed significant differences in student belongingness between primary and secondary care learning environments.