Search

Background: Breast cancer is the most frequent female malignancy in the UK. Around 20% of cases are linked to weight gain, excess weight and health behaviours. We designed a weight gain prevention, health behaviour intervention for young women at increased risk. Methods: The study comprised a single arm observational study over 2 months testing acceptability and usability of the intervention: online group welcome event, app and private Facebook group. Females aged 18–35 years at moderate or high risk of breast cancer (>17% lifetime risk) were recruited via invite letters and social media posts. The app included behaviour change techniques and education content. Online questionnaires were completed at baseline, as well as at 1 and 2 months. We also assessed feasibility of study procedures. Results: Both recruitment methods were successful. Thirty‐five women were recruited, 26% via social media posts. Median age was 33 (interquartile range = 28.2–34.5) years, the majority (94.1%) were of White ethnicity. Thirty‐four participants were included in the analyses, of which 94% downloaded the app. Median self‐monitoring logs per participant during the study period was 10.0 (interquartile range = 4.8–28.8). App quality mean (SD) score was 3.7 (0.6) at 1 and 2 months (scale: 1–5). Eighty‐nine per cent rated the app at average or above at 1 month and 75.0% at 2 months. Nineteen women (55.9%) joined the Facebook group and there were 61 comments and 83 reactions and votes from participants during the study period. Conclusions: This first iteration of the app and intervention was well received and is suitable to progress to the next stage of refining and further testing. Highlights: The newly developed intervention that focused on weight gain prevention and health behaviour change was tested in young women at increased risk of breast cancer and was well‐received by the target population.Both recruitment methods, by mailshot and social media, were successful.The study was unable to recruit and ethnically diverse population.Future research should retest the intervention in a larger population, after making refinements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, multiple countries worldwide have implemented behavioural interventions within national healthcare systems. Describing the content of these interventions is critical to improve their implementation, replication, and effectiveness, as well as to advance behavioural science. Tools, such as the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy, can enhance the quality of intervention description and reporting. As interventions are frequently developed without the use of such tools, retrospective coding of existing interventions to accurately characterise their content is becoming more common. However, the use of these tools for retrospective coding poses various challenges, the discussion of which has been neglected to date. This commentary discusses the challenges encountered when retrospectively describing the content of five nationally implemented programmes for type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and suggests recommendations to tackle these challenges. We present important methodological, practical, and ethical considerations for researchers to reflect on, relevant to the retrospective description of existing interventions. Specifically, we discuss (i) the importance of positive relationships and collaboration with intervention stakeholders, (ii) the practical and ethical considerations when analysing the content of implemented interventions, (iii) the independence of research teams and the potential for misclassification of intervention content, and (iv) the challenges associated with the analysis of intervention content using behavioural science tools. There is a growing demand for more robust approaches to address the methodological, practical, and ethical challenges associated with such studies. The present commentary describes key issues to be considered by research teams, as well as concrete recommendations to improve the retrospective characterisation of intervention content. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The National Health Service Digital Diabetes Prevention Programme is a nine-month behavioural intervention for adults in England at risk of type 2 diabetes. This qualitative study aimed to explore how service users engaged with the group support available within the programme. Methods: The majority of participants (n = 33), all service users, were interviewed twice via telephone, at 2–4 months into the programme, and at the end of the programme at 8–10 months. Semi-structured interviews covered participants' experiences of online group support functions and how such groups served as a route of support to aid participants' behavioural changes. Data were analysed using manifest thematic analysis. Results: The majority of participants valued the format of closed group chats, which provided an interactive platform to offer and receive support during their behaviour change journey. However, engagement with group chats reduced over time, and some participants did not find them useful when there was a lack of common interests within the group. Health coaches helped to promote engagement and build rapport among participants within the group chats. Participants reported mixed experiences of discussion forums. Conclusions: Programme developers should consider how to optimise online group support to help service users make behavioural changes, in terms of format, participant composition and use of health coach moderators. Further research is required to better understand who might benefit most from 'group chat' or 'discussion forum' support. Health coach moderation of online support groups is likely to facilitate engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Younger women are often diagnosed with advanced breast cancer. Beliefs about risk are instrumental in motivating many health protective behaviours, but there may be confusion around which behaviour is appropriate to detect breast cancer earlier. Breast awareness, defined as an understanding of how the breasts look and feel so changes can be identified early, is widely recommended. In contrast, breast self-examination involves palpation using a specified method. We aimed to investigate young women's beliefs about their risk and experiences of breast awareness. Methods: Thirty-seven women aged 30–39 years residing in a North West region of England with no family or personal history of breast cancer participated in seven focus groups (n = 29) and eight individual interviews. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Three themes were generated. "Future me's problem" describes why women perceive breast cancer as an older woman's disease. Uncertainty regarding checking behaviours highlights how confusion about self-checking behaviour advice has resulted in women infrequently performing breast checks. Campaigns as a missed opportunity highlights the potential negative effects of current breast cancer fundraising campaigns and the perceived absence of educational campaigning about breast cancer for this demographic. Conclusions: Young women expressed low perceived susceptibility to developing breast cancer in the near future. Women did not know what breast self-checking behaviours they should be performing and expressed a lack of confidence in how to perform a breast check appropriately due to limited knowledge about what to look and feel for. Consequently, women reported disengagement with breast awareness. Defining and clearly communicating the best strategy for breast awareness and establishing whether it is beneficial or not are essential next steps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in research is recognised by the National Institute for Health and Care Research as crucial for high quality research with practical benefit for patients and carers. Patient and public contributors can provide both personal knowledge and lived experiences which complement the perspectives of the academic research team. Nevertheless, effective PPIE must be tailored to the nature of the research, such as the size and scope of the research, whether it is researcher-led or independently commissioned, and whether the research aims to design an intervention or evaluate it. For example, commissioned research evaluations have potential limits on how PPIE can feed into the design of the research and the intervention. Such constraints may require re-orientation of PPIE input to other functions, such as supporting wider engagement and dissemination. In this commentary, we use the 'Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public' (GRIPP2) short form to share our own experiences of facilitating PPIE for a large, commissioned research project evaluating the National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme; a behavioural intervention for adults in England who are at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes. The programme was already widely implemented in routine practice when the research project and PPIE group were established. This commentary provides us with a unique opportunity to reflect on experiences of being part of a PPIE group in the context of a longer-term evaluation of a national programme, where the scope for involvement in the intervention design was more constrained, compared to PPIE within researcher-led intervention programmes. We reflect on PPIE in the design, analysis and dissemination of the research, including lessons learned for future PPIE work in large-scale commissioned evaluations of national programmes. Important considerations for this type of PPIE work include: ensuring the role of public contributors is clarified from the outset, the complexities of facilitating PPIE over longer project timeframes, and providing adequate support to public contributors and facilitators (including training, resources and flexible timelines) to ensure an inclusive and considerate approach. These findings can inform future PPIE plans for stakeholders involved in commissioned research. Plain English Summary: This commentary uses the 'Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public' checklist to describe the activities and lessons learned from the work of a Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) group working with researchers evaluating the National Health Service (NHS) Diabetes Prevention Programme (a nine-month behavioural support programme offered to adults who are at risk of developing type 2 diabetes). The evaluation aimed to find out if the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme was meeting its aim of reducing type 2 diabetes whilst offering value for money. The PPIE group was made up of members of the public who were either living with diabetes, at risk of diabetes, or had a family history of diabetes. Their aim was to support the work of the research team to identify research priorities, design the research, clarify the meaning of the research results, and help communicate the results to the wider public. However, given that the programme was an NHS service already being delivered in practice, there were limits to what the PPIE group could do in terms of designing the intervention. Instead, our public contributors were involved in all stages of conducting the research, with greater focus on communication of findings from the research evaluation. This report provides an opportunity to reflect on PPIE in a longer-term evaluation of a national programme and reflect on involvement in dissemination and policy impact. We hope that future evaluation programmes can learn from our experiences and optimise PPIE for similar national evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The National Health Service (NHS) Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) is a nationally implemented behavioral intervention for adults at high risk of developing Type 2 diabetes in England, based on a program specification that stipulates inclusion of 19 specific behavior change techniques (BCTs). Previous work has identified drift in fidelity from these NHS England specifications through providers' program manuals, training, and delivery, especially in relation to BCTs targeting self-regulatory processes.Purpose: This qualitative study investigates intervention receipt, i.e., how the self-regulatory BCT content of the NHS-DPP is understood by participants.Methods: Twenty participants from eight NHS-DPP locations were interviewed; topics included participants' understanding of self-monitoring of behavior, goal setting, feedback, problem solving, and action planning. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using the framework method.Results: There was a wide variation in understanding among participants for some BCTs, as well as between BCTs. Participants described their understanding of "self-monitoring of behaviors" with ease and valued BCTs focused on outcomes (weight loss). Some participants learned how to set appropriate behavioral goals. Participants struggled to recall "action planning" or "problem solving" or found these techniques challenging to understand, unless additional support was provided (e.g., through group discussion).Conclusions: Participants' lack of understanding of some self-regulatory BCTs is consistent with the drift across fidelity domains previously identified from NHS design specifications. Behavioral interventions should build-in necessary support for participants to help them understand some BCTs such as action planning and problem solving. Alternatively, these self-regulatory BCTs may be intrinsically difficult to use for this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective We know little about how goal setting is actually delivered in routine practice. The National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-DPP) is a behavioural intervention aiming to prevent progression to Type 2 diabetes in those at risk. It has been delivered across England by four commercial providers. This study aimed to establish whether goal setting in the NHS-DPP was delivered in line with the current evidence base. Design: Observational study and document review. One-hundred-and-eighteen NHS-DPP sessions with 419 people were observed at eight sites (two sites per provider). Main outcome measures: Multiple characteristics of goal setting were reliably coded from each providers' programme plans (intended goal setting) and from audio-recorded NHS-DPP sessions (actual goal setting). Results: Providers intended to deliver goal setting in 88.3% of sessions, though goal setting was delivered in only 52.5% of sessions. During delivery, the observed goals set across providers were generally specific (62.5%), set privately (53.1%), with goal difficulty rarely mentioned (3.1%). Conclusions: Goal setting in the NHS-DPP is being under-delivered, and not in line with the evidence base for promoting behavioural change. Goal setting in national behaviour change programmes should be optimised and training provided specifically for goal setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: METHODS: A structured search strategy encompassing databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library was implemented from inception to October 2023. Included studies focused on interventions targeting opioid reduction in adults following major surgeries. The risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool V.2 (RoB 2) and non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tools, and Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated. BCTs were identified using a validated taxonomy., Results: 22 studies, comprising 7 clinical trials and 15 cohort studies, were included, with varying risks of bias. Educational (n=12), guideline-focused (n=3), multifaceted (n=5) and pharmacist-led (n=2) interventions demonstrated diverse effect sizes (small-medium n=10, large n=12). A total of 23 unique BCTs were identified across studies, occurring 140 times. No significant association was observed between the number of BCTs and effect size, and interventions with large effect sizes predominantly targeted healthcare professionals. Key BCTs in interventions with the largest effect sizes included behaviour instructions, behaviour substitution, goal setting (outcome), social support (practical), social support (unspecified), pharmacological support, prompts/cues, feedback on behaviour, environmental modification, graded tasks, outcome goal review, health consequences information, action planning, social comparison, credible source, outcome feedback and social reward., Conclusions: Understanding the dominant BCTs in highly effective interventions provides valuable insights for future opioid tapering strategy implementations. Further research and validation are necessary to establish associations between BCTs and effectiveness, considering additional influencing factors., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42022290060., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)