Search

The UK Medical Research Council’s widely used guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions has been replaced by a new framework, commissioned jointly by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, which takes account of recent developments in theory and methods and the need to maximise the efficiency, use, and impact of research.Complex interventions are commonly used in the health and social care services, public health practice, and other areas of social and economic policy that have consequences for health. Such interventions are delivered and evaluated at different levels, from individual to societal levels. Examples include a new surgical procedure, the redesign of a healthcare programme, and a change in welfare policy. The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) published a framework for researchers and research funders on developing and evaluating complex interventions in 2000 and revised guidance in 2006.123 Although these documents continue to be widely used and are now accompanied by a range of more detailed guidance on specific aspects of the research process,45678 several important conceptual, methodological and theoretical developments have taken place since 2006. These developments have been included in a new framework commissioned by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and the MRC.9 The framework aims to help researchers work with other stakeholders to identify the key questions about complex interventions, and to design and conduct research with a diversity of perspectives and appropriate choice of methods.

Background:\ud There is strong interest in the use of social media to spread positive sexual health messages through young people’s social networks. However, research suggests this potential may be limited by a reluctance to be visibly associated with sexual health content online, and by a lack of trust in the veracity of peer sources.\ud Objective:\ud To investigate the opportunities and challenges of using social media to facilitate peer-to-peer sharing of sexual health messages within the context of a secondary school-based and peer-led sexual health intervention (STASH; Sexually Transmitted infections And Sexual Health).\ud Methods:\ud Following training, and as part of their role, student-nominated peer supporters (aged 14-16) invited school friends to STASH trainer-monitored, private Facebook groups. They posted curated educational sex and relationships content within these groups. Data come from a feasibility study of the STASH intervention implemented in 6 UK schools. To understand student experiences of the social media component we used data from: 11 semi-structured paired and group interviews with peer supporters and their friends (collectively, ‘students’; n=41; aged 14-16); a web-based post-intervention questionnaire to peer supporters (n=88); and baseline and follow-up questionnaires to students in the intervention year group (n=680 and 603 respectively). We carried out thematic analysis of qualitative data and descriptive analysis of quantitative data.\ud Results:\ud Message-sharing by peer supporters was hindered by variable engagement with Facebook. The trainer-monitored and private Facebook groups were acceptable to student members (peer supporters and their friends), and reassuring to peer supporters, but led to engagement that ran parallel to – rather than embedded in –their routine social media use. The offline context of a school-based intervention helped legitimate and augment the Facebook posts; but even where friends were receptive to STASH messages, they did not necessarily engage visibly. Preferences for content design varied, but humor, color and text brevity were important. Preferences for online versus offline message-sharing varied.\ud Conclusions:\ud Invitation-only social media groups formed around peer supporters’ existing friendship networks hold potential in peer-based sexual health interventions. Ideally, interactive opportunities should not be limited to single social media platforms and should run alongside offline conversations. There are tensions between offering young people autonomy to engage flexibly and authentically, and the need for adult-oversight of activities for information accuracy and safeguarding. Clinical Trial: ISRCTN97369178

In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence make recommendations to guide the local-level selection and implementation of adult behavioural weight management interventions (BWMIs) which lack specificity. The reporting of BWMIs is generally poorly detailed, resulting in difficulties when comparing effectiveness, quality and appropriateness for participants. This non-standardized reporting makes meta-analysis of intervention data impossible, resulting in vague guidance based on weak evidence, reinforcing the urgent need for consistency and detail within BWMI description. STAR-LITE - a 4-section, 119-item standardized adult BWMI reporting template - was developed and tested using a two-phase process. After initial design, the template was piloted using adult behavioural weight management RCTs and currently implemented UK BWMI mapping information to further refine the template and examine current reporting and variance. Overall, reporting quality of weight management RCTs was poor, and large variance across different components of real-world BWMIs was observed. Non-specific guidance and wide variation in adult BWMIs are likely linked to inadequate RCT reporting quality and the inability to perform reliable comparisons of data. Future use of STAR-LITE would facilitate the consistent, detailed reporting of adult BWMIs, supporting their evaluation and comparison, to ultimately inform effective policy and improve weight management practice.

Introduction: HelpMeDoIt! will test the feasibility of an innovative weight loss intervention using a smartphone app and website. Goal setting, self-monitoring and social support are three key facilitators of behaviour change. HelpMeDoIt! incorporates these features and encourages participants to invite ‘helpers’ from their social circle to help them achieve their goal(s).\ud \ud Aim: To test the feasibility of the intervention in supporting adults with obesity to achieve weight loss goals.\ud \ud Methods and analysis: 12-month feasibility randomised controlled trial and accompanying process evaluation. Participants (n=120) will be adults interested in losing weight, body mass index (BMI)> 30 kg/m2 and smartphone users. The intervention group will use the app/website for 12 months. Participants will nominate one or more helpers to support them. Helpers have access to the app/website. The control group will receive a leaflet on healthy lifestyle and will have access to HelpMeDoIt! after follow-up. The key outcome of the study is whether prespecified progression criteria have been met in order to progress to a larger randomised controlled effectiveness trial. Data will be collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Outcomes focus on exploring the feasibility of delivering the intervention and include: (i) assessing three primary outcomes (BMI, physical activity and diet); (ii) secondary outcomes of waist/hip circumference, health-related quality of life, social support, self-efficacy, motivation and mental health; (iii) recruitment and retention; (iv) National Health Service (NHS) resource use and participant borne costs; (v) usability and acceptability of the app/website; and (vi) qualitative interviews with up to 50 participants and 20 helpers on their experiences of the intervention. Statistical analyses will focus on feasibility outcomes and provide initial estimates of intervention effects. Thematic analysis of qualitative interviews will assess implementation, acceptability, mechanisms of effect and contextual factors influencing the intervention.\ud \ud Ethics and dissemination: The protocol has been approved by the West of Scotland NHS Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 15/WS/0288) and the University of Glasgow MVLS College Ethics Committee (Ref: 200140108). Findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.\ud \ud Trial registration number: ISRCTN85615983.

Background: After some years of a downward trend, antibiotic prescribing rates in the community have tended to level out in many countries. There is also wide variation in antibiotic prescribing between general practices, and between countries. There are still considerable further gains that could be made in reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, but complex interventions are required. Studies to date have generally evaluated the effect of interventions on antibiotic prescribing in a single consultation and pragmatic evaluations that assess maintenance of new skills are rare. This paper describes the protocol for a pragmatic, randomized evaluation of a complex intervention aimed at reducing antibiotic prescribing by primary care clinicians. Methods and design: We developed a Social Learning Theory based, blended learning program (on-line learning, a practice based seminar, and context bound learning) called the STAR Educational Program. The 'why of change' is addressed by providing clinicians in general practice with information on antibiotic resistance in urine samples submitted by their practice and their antibiotic prescribing data, and facilitating a practice-based seminar on the implications of this data. The 'how of change' is addressed through context-bound communication skills training and information on antibiotic indication and choice. This intervention will be evaluated in a trial involving 60 general practices, with general practice as the unit of randomization (clinicians from each practice to either receive the STAR Educational Program or not) and analysis. The primary outcome will be the number of antibiotic items dispensed over one year. An economic and process evaluation will also be conducted. Discussion: This trial will be the first to evaluate the effectiveness of this type of theory-based, blended learning intervention aimed at reducing antibiotic prescribing by primary care clinicians. Novel aspects include feedback of practice level data on antimicrobial resistance and prescribing, use of principles from motivational interviewing, training in enhanced communication skills that incorporates context-bound experience and reflection, and using antibiotic dispensing over one year (as opposed to antibiotic prescribing in a single consultation) as the main outcome. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN63355948.

Additional file 1. Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 Checklist: recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents.

Additional file 1. Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 Checklist: recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents.

BackgroundThe Medical Research Council published the second edition of its framework in 2006 on developing and evaluating complex interventions. Since then, there have been considerable developments in the field of complex intervention research. The objective of this project was to update the framework in the light of these developments. The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design, and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods.MethodsThere were four stages to the update: (1) gap analysis to identify developments in the methods and practice since the previous framework was published; (2) an expert workshop of 36 participants to discuss the topics identified in the gap analysis; (3) an open consultation process to seek comments on a first draft of the new framework; and (4) findings from the previous stages were used to redraft the framework, and final expert review was obtained. The process was overseen by a Scientific Advisory Group representing the range of relevant National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council research investments.ResultsKey changes to the previous framework include (1) an updated definition of complex interventions, highlighting the dynamic relationship between the intervention and its context; (2) an emphasis on the use of diverse research perspectives: efficacy, effectiveness, theory-based and systems perspectives; (3) a focus on the usefulness of evidence as the basis for determining research perspective and questions; (4) an increased focus on interventions developed outside research teams, for example changes in policy or health services delivery; and (5) the identification of six ‘core elements’ that should guide all phases of complex intervention research: consider context; develop, refine and test programme theory; engage stakeholders; identify key uncertainties; refine the intervention; and economic considerations. We divide the research process into four phases: development, feasibility, evaluation and implementation. For each phase we provide a concise summary of recent developments, key points to address and signposts to further reading. We also present case studies to illustrate the points being made throughout.LimitationsThe framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. In many of the areas of innovation that we highlight, such as the use of systems approaches, there are still only a few practical examples. We refer to more specific and detailed guidance where available and note where promising approaches require further development.ConclusionsThis new framework incorporates developments in complex intervention research published since the previous edition was written in 2006. As well as taking account of established practice and recent refinements, we draw attention to new approaches and place greater emphasis on economic considerations in complex intervention research. We have introduced a new emphasis on the importance of context and the value of understanding interventions as ‘events in systems’ that produce effects through interactions with features of the contexts in which they are implemented. The framework adopts a pluralist approach, encouraging researchers and research funders to adopt diverse research perspectives and to select research questions and methods pragmatically, with the aim of providing evidence that is useful to decision-makers.Future workWe call for further work to develop relevant methods and provide examples in practice. The use of this framework should be monitored and the move should be made to a more fluid resource in the future, for example a web-based format that can be frequently updated to incorporate new material and links to emerging resources.FundingThis project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (Department of Health and Social Care 73514).

Background One in seven UK children have obesity when starting school, with higher prevalence associated with deprivation. Most pre-school children do not meet UK recommendations for physical activity and nutrition. Formal childcare settings provide opportunities to deliver interventions to improve nutritional quality and physical activity to the majority of 3-4-year-olds. The nutrition and physical activity self-assessment for childcare (NAP SACC) intervention has demonstrated effectiveness in the USA with high acceptability in the UK. The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the NAP SACC UK intervention to increase physical activity, reduce sedentary time and improve nutritional intake. Methods Multi-centre cluster RCT with process and economic evaluation. Participants are children aged 2 years or over, attending UK early years settings (nurseries) for ≥ 12 hours/week or ≥ 15 hours/week during term time and their parents, and staff at participating nurseries. The 12-month intervention involves nursery managers working with a Partner (public health practitioner) to self-assess policies and practices relating to physical activity and nutrition; nursery staff attending one physical activity and one nutrition training workshop and setting goals to be achieved within six months. The Partner provides support and reviews progress. Nursery staff receive a further workshop and new goals are set, with Partner support for a further six months. The comparator is usual practice. Up to 56 nurseries will be stratified by area and randomly allocated to intervention or comparator arm with minimisation of differences in level of deprivation., Primary Outcomes: accelerometer-assessed mean total activity time on nursery days and average total energy (kcal) intake per eating occasion of lunch and morning/afternoon snacks consumed within nurseries., Secondary Outcomes: accelerometer-assessed mean daily minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and sedentary time per nursery day, total physical activity on nursery days compared to non-nursery days, average serving size of lunch and morning/afternoon snacks in nursery per day, average percentage of core and non-core food in lunch and morning/afternoon snacks, zBMI, proportion of children who are overweight/obese and child quality-of-life. A process evaluation will examine fidelity, acceptability, sustainability and context. An economic evaluation will compare costs and consequences from the perspective of the local government, nursery and parents., Trial Registration: ISRCTN33134697.