'Function First-Be Active, Stay Independent'-promoting physical activity and physical function in people with long-term conditions by primary care: a protocol for a realist synthesis with embedded co-production and co-design

Co-design of a behaviour change intervention to equip geriatricians and pharmacists to proactively deprescribe medicines that are no longer needed or are risky to continue in hospital

BACKGROUND

Trials of hospital deprescribing interventions have demonstrated limited changes in practitioner behaviour. Our previous research characterised four barriers and one enabler to geriatricians and pharmacists deprescribing in hospital that require addressing by a behaviour change intervention. Six behaviour change techniques (BCTs) have also been selected by the target audience using the hospital Deprescribing Implementation Framework (hDIF). This research aimed to co-design and operationalise the content, mode of delivery and duration/intensity of the six selected BCTs to develop the CompreHensive geriAtRician-led MEdication Review (CHARMER) deprescribing intervention.

METHODS

We established co-design panels at three hospitals representing contextual factors likely to influence CHARMER implementation. Panels comprised geriatricians, pharmacists and other hospital staff likely to be involved in implementation. We convened two rounds of co-design workshops with each hospital to design a prototype for each BCT, which went for feedback at a final workshop attended by all three hospital panels.

RESULTS

The six BCTs were co-designed into an intervention comprising:(^1&2) Pharmacists' workshop with pros and cons of deprescribing activities, and videos of salient patient cases³ Regular geriatrician and pharmacist deprescribing briefings⁴ Videos of geriatricians navigating challenging deprescribing consultations⁵ Hospital deprescribing action plan⁶ Dashboard to benchmark deprescribing activitiesAutomated prompts to flag high-risk patients for deprescribing and a primary and secondary care deprescribing forum were proposed as additional BCTs by stakeholders. These were later excluded as they were not fidelitous to the theoretical determinants of geriatricians' and pharmacists' deprescribing behaviours.

CONCLUSIONS

This study illustrates the integration of theory and co-design methodology with the target audience and staff likely to be involved in implementation of a hospital deprescribing behaviour change intervention. The development of an intervention that remains faithful to the underpinning mechanisms of action of behaviour change is a strength of this approach.

Flourishing together: research protocol for developing methods to better include disabled people's knowledge in health policy development

BACKGROUND

To positively impact the social determinants of health, disabled people need to contribute to policy planning and programme development. However, they report barriers to engaging meaningfully in consultation processes. Additionally, their recommendations may not be articulated in ways that policy planners can readily use. This gap contributes to health outcome inequities. Participatory co-production methods have the potential to improve policy responsiveness. This research will use innovative methods to generate tools for co-producing knowledge in health-related policy areas, empowering disabled people to articulate experience, expertise and insights promoting equitable health policy and programme development within Aotearoa New Zealand. To develop these methods, as an exemplar, we will partner with both tāngata whaikaha Māori and disabled people to co-produce policy recommendations around housing and home (kāinga)-developing a nuanced understanding of the contexts in which disabled people can access and maintain kāinga meeting their needs and aspirations.

METHODS

Participatory co-production methods with disabled people, embedded within a realist methodological approach, will develop theories on how best to co-produce and effectively articulate knowledge to address equitable health-related policy and programme development-considering what works for whom under what conditions. Theory-building workshops (Phase 1) and qualitative surveys (Phase 2) will explore contexts and resources (i.e., at individual, social and environmental levels) supporting them to access and maintain kāinga that best meets their needs and aspirations. In Phase 3, a realist review with embedded co-production workshops will synthesise evidence and co-produce knowledge from published literature and non-published reports. Finally, in Phase 4, co-produced knowledge from all phases will be synthesised to develop two key research outputs: housing policy recommendations and innovative co-production methods and tools empowering disabled people to create, synthesise and articulate knowledge to planners of health-related policy.

DISCUSSION

This research will develop participatory co-production methods and tools to support future creation, synthesis and articulation of the knowledge and experiences of disabled people, contributing to policies that positively impact their social determinants of health.

The use of co-production, co-design and co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions: a systematic review

Background

Knowledge mobilisation is a term used in healthcare research to describe the process of generating, sharing and using evidence. ‘Co’approaches, such as co-production, co-design and co-creation, have been proposed as a way of overcoming the knowledge to practice gap. There is a need to understand why researchers choose to adopt these approaches, how they achieve knowledge mobilisation in the management of health conditions, and the extent to which knowledge mobilisation is accomplished.

Methods

Studies that explicitly used the terms co-production, co-design or co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions were included. Web of Science, EMBASE via OvidSP, MEDLINE via OvidSP and CINHAL via EBSCO databases were searched up to April 2021. Quality assessment was carried out using the Joanna Briggs Institute qualitative quality assessment checklist. Pluye and Hong’s seven steps for mixed studies reviews were followed. Data were synthesised using thematic synthesis.

Results

Twenty four international studies were included. These were qualitative studies, case studies and study protocols. Key aspects of ‘co’approaches were bringing people together as active and equal partners, valuing all types of knowledge, using creative approaches to understand and solve problems, and using iterative prototyping techniques. Authors articulated mechanisms of action that included developing a shared understanding, identifying and meeting needs, giving everyone a voice and sense of ownership, and creating trust and confidence. They believed these mechanisms could produce interventions that were relevant and acceptable to stakeholders, more useable and more likely to be implemented in healthcare. Varied activities were used to promote these mechanisms such as interviews and creative workshops. There appeared to be a lack of robust evaluation of the interventions produced so little evidence in this review that ‘co’approaches improved the management of health conditions.

Conclusion

Those using ‘co’approaches believed that they could achieve knowledge mobilisation through a number of mechanisms, but there was no evidence that these led to improved health. The framework of key aspects and mechanisms of ‘co’approaches developed here may help researchers to meet the principles of these approaches. There is a need for robust evaluation to identify whether ‘co’approaches produce improved health outcomes.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO CRD42020187463.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08079-y.

Promoting physical activity and physical function in people with long-term conditions in primary care: the Function First realist synthesis with co-design

Background

As people age and accumulate long-term conditions, their physical activity and physical function declines, resulting in disability and loss of independence. Primary care is well placed to empower individuals and communities to reduce this decline; however, the best approach is uncertain.

Objectives

To develop a programme theory to explain the mechanisms through which interventions improve physical activity and physical function in people with long-term conditions in different primary care contexts, and to co-design a prototype intervention.

Data sources

Systematic literature searches of relevant databases with forwards and backwards citation tracking, grey literature searches and further purposive searches were conducted. Qualitative data were collected through workshops and interviews.

Design

Realist evidence synthesis and co-design for primary care service innovation.

Setting

Primary care in Wales and England.

Participants

Stakeholders included people with long-term conditions, primary care professionals, people working in relevant community roles and researchers.

Methods

The realist evidence synthesis combined evidence from varied sources of literature with the views, experiences and ideas of stakeholders. The resulting context, mechanism and outcome statements informed three co-design workshops and a knowledge mobilisation workshop for primary care service innovation.

Results

Five context, mechanism and outcome statements were developed. (1) Improving physical activity and function is not prioritised in primary care (context). If the practice team culture is aligned to the elements of physical literacy (mechanism), then physical activity promotion will become routine and embedded in usual care (outcome). (2) Physical activity promotion is inconsistent and unco-ordinated (context). If specific resources are allocated to physical activity promotion (in combination with a supportive practice culture) (mechanism), then this will improve opportunities to change behaviour (outcome). (3) People with long-term conditions have varying levels of physical function and physical activity, varying attitudes to physical activity and differing access to local resources that enable physical activity (context). If physical activity promotion is adapted to individual needs, preferences and local resources (mechanism), then this will facilitate a sustained improvement in physical activity (outcome). (4) Many primary care practice staff lack the knowledge and confidence to promote physical activity (context). If staff develop an improved sense of capability through education and training (mechanism), then they will increase their engagement with physical activity promotion (outcome). (5) If a programme is credible with patients and professionals (context), then trust and confidence in the programme will develop (mechanism) and more patients and professionals will engage with the programme (outcome). A prototype multicomponent intervention was developed. This consisted of resources to nurture a culture of physical literacy, materials to develop the role of a credible professional who can promote physical activity using a directory of local opportunities and resources to assist with individual behaviour change.

Limitations

Realist synthesis and co-design is about what works in which contexts, so these resources and practice implications will need to be modified for different primary care contexts.

Conclusions

We developed a programme theory to explain how physical activity could be promoted in primary care in people with long-term conditions, which informed a prototype intervention.

Future work

A future research programme could further develop the prototype multicomponent intervention and assess its acceptability in practice alongside existing schemes before it is tested in a feasibility study to inform a future randomised controlled trial.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018103027.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

'Function First': how to promote physical activity and physical function in people with long-term conditions managed in primary care? A study combining realist and co-design methods

OBJECTIVES

To develop a taxonomy of interventions and a programme theory explaining how interventions improve physical activity and function in people with long-term conditions managed in primary care. To co-design a prototype intervention informed by the programme theory.

DESIGN

Realist synthesis combining evidence from a wide range of rich and relevant literature with stakeholder views. Resulting context, mechanism and outcome statements informed co-design and knowledge mobilisation workshops with stakeholders to develop a primary care service innovation.

RESULTS

A taxonomy was produced, including 13 categories of physical activity interventions for people with long-term conditions.

ABRIDGED REALIST PROGRAMME THEORY

Routinely addressing physical activity within consultations is dependent on a reinforcing practice culture, and targeted resources, with better coordination, will generate more opportunities to address low physical activity. The adaptation of physical activity promotion to individual needs and preferences of people with long-term conditions helps affect positive patient behaviour change. Training can improve knowledge, confidence and capability of practice staff to better promote physical activity. Engagement in any physical activity promotion programme will depend on the degree to which it makes sense to patients and professions, and is seen as trustworthy.

CO-DESIGN

The programme theory informed the co-design of a prototype intervention to: improve physical literacy among practice staff; describe/develop the role of a physical activity advisor who can encourage the use of local opportunities to be more active; and provide materials to support behaviour change.

CONCLUSIONS

Previous physical activity interventions in primary care have had limited effect. This may be because they have only partially addressed factors emerging in our programme theory. The co-designed prototype intervention aims to address all elements of this emergent theory, but needs further development and consideration alongside current schemes and contexts (including implications relevant to COVID-19), and testing in a future study. The integration of realist and co-design methods strengthened this study.