Health trainer-led motivational intervention plus usual care for people under community supervision compared with usual care alone: a study protocol for a parallel-group pilot randomised controlled trial (STRENGTHEN)

The role of community health workers in primary healthcare in the WHO-EU region: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Existing evidence on the role of community health workers (CHWs) in primary healthcare originates primarily from the United States, Canada and Australia, and from low- and middle-income countries. Little is known about the role of CHWs in primary healthcare in European countries. This scoping review aimed to contribute to filling this gap by providing an overview of literature reporting on the involvement of CHWs in primary healthcare in WHO-EU countries since 2001 with a focus on the role, training, recruitment and remuneration.

METHODS

This systematic scoping review followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, extension for Scoping Reviews. All published peer-reviewed literature indexed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases from Jan 2001 to Feb 2023 were reviewed for inclusion. Included studies were screened on title, abstract and full text according to predetermined eligibility criteria. Studies were included if they were conducted in the WHO-EU region and provided information regarding the role, training, recruitment or remuneration of CHWs.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included in this review, originating from eight countries. The involvement of CHWs in the WHO-EU regions was usually project-based, except in the United Kingdom. A substantial amount of literature with variability in the terminology used to describe CHWs, the areas of involvement, recruitment, training, and remuneration strategies was found. The included studies reported a trend towards recruitment from within the communities with some form of training and payment of CHWs. A salient finding was the social embeddedness of CHWs in the communities they served. Their roles can be classified into one or a combination of the following: educational; navigational and supportive.

CONCLUSION

Future research projects involving CHWs should detail their involvement and elaborate on CHWs' role, training and recruitment procedures. In addition, further research on CHW programmes in the WHO-EU region is necessary to prepare for their integration into the broader national health systems.

Randomised controlled trial of tailored support to increase physical activity and reduce smoking in smokers not immediately ready to quit: protocol for the Trial of physical Activity-assisted Reduction of Smoking (TARS) Study

INTRODUCTION

Smoking reduction can lead to increased success in quitting. This study aims to determine if a client-focused motivational support package for smoking reduction (and quitting) and increasing (or otherwise using) physical activity (PA) can help smokers who do not wish to quit immediately to reduce the amount they smoke, and ultimately quit. This paper reports the study design and methods.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A pragmatic, multicentred, parallel, two group, randomised controlled superiority clinical trial, with embedded process evaluation and economics evaluation. Participants who wished to reduce smoking with no immediate plans to quit were randomised 1:1 to receive either (1) tailored individual health trainer face-to-face and/or telephone support to reduce smoking and increase PA as an aid to smoking reduction (intervention) or (2) brief written/electronic advice to reduce or quit smoking (control). Participants in both arms of the trial were also signposted to usual local support for smoking reduction and quitting. The primary outcome measure is 6-month carbon monoxide-confirmed floating prolonged abstinence following participant self-reported quitting on a mailed questionnaire at 3 and 9 months post-baseline. Participants confirmed as abstinent at 9 months will be followed up at 15 months.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approved by SW Bristol National Health Service Research Committee (17/SW/0223). Dissemination will include publication of findings for the stated outcomes, parallel process evaluation and economic evaluation in peer-reviewed journals. Results will be disseminated to trial participants and healthcare providers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN47776579; Pre-results.

Interventions for female drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

This review represents one in a family of three reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 12 electronic bibliographic databases up to February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials with 2560 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (7/13 studies, 53%) and community (6/13 studies, 47%) settings. The rating of bias was affected by the lack of clear reporting by authors, and we rated many items as 'unclear'. In two studies (190 participants) collaborative case management in comparison to treatment as usual did not reduce drug use (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 2.12; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), reincarceration at nine months (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.57; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), and number of subsequent arrests at 12 months (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.49; 1 study, 113 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study (36 participants) comparing buprenorphine to placebo showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at end of treatment (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.20) and three months (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35); very low-certainty evidence. No adverse events were reported. One study (38 participants) comparing interpersonal psychotherapy to a psychoeducational intervention did not find reduction in drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; low-certainty evidence). One study (31 participants) comparing acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) to a waiting list showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use using the Addiction Severity Index (mean difference (MD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and abstinence from drug use at six months (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43); low-certainty evidence. One study (314 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills to a therapeutic community programme and aftercare showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.27), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.03); criminal activity (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03), or drug-related crime (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.32). A significant reduction for arrested (not for parole) violations at six months follow-up was significantly in favour of cognitive behavioural skills (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.77; very low-certainty evidence). A second study with 115 participants comparing cognitive behavioural skills to an alternative substance abuse treatment showed no significant reduction in reincarceration at 12 months (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.12; low certainty-evidence. One study (44 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills and standard therapy versus treatment as usual showed no significant reduction in Addiction Severity Index (ASI) drug score at three months (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.09) and six months (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.05), and incarceration at three months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.68) and six months (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.27); very low-certainty evidence. One study (171 participants) comparing a single computerised intervention versus case management showed no significant reduction in the number of days not using drugs at three months (MD -0.89, 95% CI -4.83 to 3.05; low certainty-evidence). One study (116 participants) comparing dialectic behavioural therapy and case management (DBT-CM) versus a health promotion intervention showed no significant reduction at six months follow-up in positive drug testing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.03), number of people not using marijuana (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.59), crack (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14), cocaine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12), heroin (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13), methamphetamine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20), and self-reported drug use for any drug (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.56); very low-certainty evidence. One study (211 participants) comparing a therapeutic community programme versus work release showed no significant reduction in marijuana use at six months (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.65), nor 18 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.45), heroin use at six months (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14), nor 18 months (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.24 to 15.37), crack use at six months (RR 2.07, 95% CI 0.41 to 10.41), nor 18 months (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.19 to 14.06), cocaine use at six months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.50), nor 18 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.35). It also showed no significant reduction in incarceration for drug offences at 18 months (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.42); with overall very low- to low-certainty evidence. One study (511 participants) comparing intensive discharge planning and case management versus prison only showed no significant reduction in use of marijuana (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.16), hard drugs (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43), crack cocaine (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.54), nor positive hair testing for marijuana (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03); it found a significant reduction in arrests (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.87), but no significant reduction in drug charges (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.53) nor incarceration (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.39); moderate-certainty evidence. One narrative study summary (211 participants) comparing buprenorphine pre- and post-release from prison showed no significant reduction in drug use at 12 months post-release; low certainty-evidence. No adverse effects were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons, outcome measures and small samples. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required. On one outcome of arrest (no parole violations), we identified a significant reduction when cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was compared to a therapeutic community programme. But for all other outcomes, none of the interventions were effective. Larger trials are required to increase the precision of confidence about the certainty of evidence.

Individual health trainers to support health and well-being for people under community supervision in the criminal justice system: the STRENGTHEN pilot RCT

Background

Little is known about the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of interventions, such as health trainer support, to improve the health and well-being of people recently released from prison or serving a community sentence, because of the challenges in recruiting participants and following them up.

Objectives

This pilot trial aimed to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the trial methods and intervention (and associated costs) for a randomised trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of health trainer support versus usual care.

Design

This trial involved a pilot multicentre, parallel, two-group randomised controlled trial recruiting 120 participants with 1 : 1 individual allocation to receive support from a health trainer and usual care or usual care alone, with a mixed-methods process evaluation, in 2017–18.

Setting

Participants were identified, screened and recruited in Community Rehabilitation Companies in Plymouth and Manchester or the National Probation Service in Plymouth. The intervention was delivered in the community.

Participants

Those who had been out of prison for at least 2 months (to allow community stabilisation), with at least 7 months of a community sentence remaining, were invited to participate; those who may have posed an unacceptable risk to the researchers and health trainers and those who were not interested in the trial or intervention support were excluded.

Interventions

The intervention group received, in addition to usual care, our person-centred health trainer support in one-to-one sessions for up to 14 weeks, either in person or via telephone. Health trainers aimed to empower participants to make healthy lifestyle changes (particularly in alcohol use, smoking, diet and physical activity) and take on the Five Ways to Well-being [Foresight Projects. Mental Capital and Wellbeing: Final Project Report. 2008. URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/mental-capital-and-wellbeing-making-the-most-of-ourselves-in-the-21st-century (accessed 24 January 2019).], and also signposted to other options for support. The control group received treatment as usual, defined by available community and public service options for improving health and well-being.

Main outcome measures

The main outcomes included the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale scores, alcohol use, smoking behaviour, dietary behaviour, physical activity, substance use, resource use, quality of life, intervention costs, intervention engagement and feasibility and acceptability of trial methods and the intervention.

Results

A great deal about recruitment was learned and the target of 120 participants was achieved. The minimum trial retention target at 6 months (60%) was met. Among those offered health trainer support, 62% had at least two sessions. The mixed-methods process evaluation generally supported the trial methods and intervention acceptability and feasibility. The proposed primary outcome, the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale scores, provided us with valuable data to estimate the sample size for a full trial in which to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.

Conclusions

Based on the findings from this pilot trial, a full trial (with some modifications) seems justified, with a sample size of around 900 participants to detect between-group differences in the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale scores at a 6-month follow-up.

Future work

A number of recruitment, trial retention, intervention engagement and blinding issues were identified in this pilot and recommendations are made in preparation of and within a full trial.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80475744.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 7, No. 20. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.