To what extent can behaviour change techniques be identified within an adaptable implementation package for primary care? A prospective directed content analysis

Exploring the content and delivery of feedback facilitation co-interventions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Policymakers and researchers recommend supporting the capabilities of feedback recipients to increase the quality of care. There are different ways to support capabilities. We aimed to describe the content and delivery of feedback facilitation interventions delivered alongside audit and feedback within randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

We included papers describing feedback facilitation identified by the latest Cochrane review of audit and feedback. The piloted extraction proforma was based upon a framework to describe intervention content, with additional prompts relating to the identification of influences, selection of improvement actions and consideration of priorities and implications. We describe the content and delivery graphically, statistically and narratively.

RESULTS

We reviewed 146 papers describing 104 feedback facilitation interventions. Across included studies, feedback facilitation contained 26 different implementation strategies. There was a median of three implementation strategies per intervention and evidence that the number of strategies per intervention is increasing. Theory was used in 35 trials, although the precise role of theory was poorly described. Ten studies provided a logic model and six of these described their mechanisms of action. Both the exploration of influences and the selection of improvement actions were described in 46 of the feedback facilitation interventions; we describe who undertook this tailoring work. Exploring dose, there was large variation in duration (15-1800 min), frequency (1 to 42 times) and number of recipients per site (1 to 135). There were important gaps in reporting, but some evidence that reporting is improving over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneity in the design of feedback facilitation needs to be considered when assessing the intervention's effectiveness. We describe explicit feedback facilitation choices for future intervention developers based upon choices made to date. We found the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change to be valuable when describing intervention components, with the potential for some minor clarifications in terms and for greater specificity by intervention providers. Reporting demonstrated extensive gaps which hinder both replication and learning. Feedback facilitation providers are recommended to close reporting gaps that hinder replication. Future work should seek to address the 'opportunity' for improvement activity, defined as factors that lie outside the individual that make care or improvement behaviour possible.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

The study protocol was published at: https://www.protocols.io/private/4DA5DE33B68E11ED9EF70A58A9FEAC02 .

Identifying behavioural barriers and facilitators to engaging men in a community-based lifestyle intervention to improve physical and mental health and well-being

BACKGROUND

There are few community-based lifestyle interventions designed to target physical and mental health of men. We conducted a qualitative focus group study with men to explore their perceived barriers and facilitators to uptake and engagement with interventions designed to improve their physical and mental health and wellbeing.

METHODS

A volunteer sampling approach (advertisements posted on a premier league football club's social media) was used to recruit men aged 28 to 65 years who were interested in improving their physical and/or mental health and wellbeing. Focus group discussions were conducted at a local premier league football club to 1) explore men's perceived barriers and facilitators to uptake of community-based interventions; 2) identify health issues considered important to address; 3) obtain participant views on how to best engage men in community-based interventions; and 4) use the findings to inform the development of a multibehavioural complex community-based intervention (called 'The 12^th Man').

RESULTS

Six focus group discussions were conducted (duration 27 to 57 min) involving 25 participants (median age 41 years, IQR = 21 years). Thematic analyses generated seven themes: 'Lifestyle behaviours for both mental health and physical health'; 'work pressures are barriers to engaging with lifestyle behaviour change'; previous injuries are barriers to engagement in physical activity and exercise'; personal and peer group relationships impact on lifestyle behaviour change'; relationships between body image and self-confidence on mastery of skills for physical activity and exercise'; building motivation and personalised goal setting'; and 'credible individuals increase uptake and continued engagement with lifestyle behaviour change'.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that a multibehavioural community-based lifestyle intervention designed for men should promote parity of esteem between physical and mental health. It should also acknowledge individual needs and preferences, emotions in the context of goal setting and planning, and be delivered by a knowledgeable and credible professional. The findings will inform the development of a multibehavioural complex community-based intervention ('The 12^th Man').

Behavior Change Techniques in Digital Health Interventions for Midlife Women: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Digital health interventions are efficacious in health-promoting behaviors (eg, healthy eating and regular physical activity) that mitigate health risks and menopausal symptoms in midlife. However, integrated evidence-based knowledge about the mechanisms of change in these interventions is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to evaluate studies on behavior change techniques (BCTs) and mechanisms of change in digital health interventions aimed at promoting health-enhancing behaviors in midlife women (aged 40-65 years).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library was conducted. In total, 2 independent reviewers selected the studies for inclusion, extracted data, and completed BCT mapping of eligible studies. The mechanism of action and intervention functions of eligible studies were evaluated using the behavior change wheel framework. Reporting of psychological theory use within these interventions was explored using the Theory Coding Scheme. Mode of delivery, psychological theory, and BCTs were presented as descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

In total, 13 interventions (including 1315 women) reviewed used 13 (SD 4.30, range 6-21) BCTs per intervention on average. The "Shaping knowledge" and "Repetition and substitution" behavior change categories were used most frequently, with 92% (12/13) of the interventions implementing at least one of the BCTs from these 2 categories. Only 13.98% (169/1209) of the 93 available BCTs were used, with "Instructions on behaviour" most frequently used (12/13, 92%). The behavior change wheel mapping suggests that half of the intervention content aimed to increase "Capability" (49/98, 50% of the intervention strategies), "Motivation" (41/98, 42%), and "Opportunity" (8/98, 8%). "Behavioural Regulation" was the most frequently used mechanism of action (15/98, 15%), followed by increasing "Knowledge" (13/98, 13%) and "Cognitive and Interpersonal skills" (10/98, 10%). A total of 78% (7/9) of the intervention functions were used in the studies to change behavior, primarily through "Enablement" (60/169, 35.5%), whereas no study used "Restriction" or "Modelling" functions. Although 69% (9/13) of the interventions mentioned a psychological theory or model, most (10/13, 77%) stated or suggested rather than demonstrated the use of a theoretical base, and none reported explicit links between all BCTs within the intervention and the targeted theoretical constructs. Technological components were primarily based on web-based (9/13, 69%) modes of delivery, followed by phone or SMS text message (8/13, 62%) and wearables (7/13, 54%).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review indicate an overall weak use of theory, low levels of treatment fidelity, insignificant outcomes, and insufficient description of several interventions to support the assessment of how specific BCTs were activated. Thus, the identified limitations in the current literature provide an opportunity to improve the design of lifestyle health-enhancing interventions for women in midlife.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021259246; https://tinyurl.com/4ph74a9u.

Co-design of an oral health intervention (HABIT) delivered by health visitors for parents of children aged 9-12 months

BACKGROUND

Dental caries (tooth decay) in children is a national public health problem with impacts on the child, their family and wider society. Toothbrushing should commence from the eruption of the first primary tooth. Health visitors are a key provider of advice for parents in infancy and are ideally placed to support families to adopt optimal oral health habits. HABIT is a co-designed complex behaviour change intervention to support health visitors' oral health conversations with parents during the 9-12-month universal developmental home visit.

METHODS

A seven stage co-design process was undertaken: (1) Preparatory meetings with healthcare professionals and collation of examples of good practice, (2) Co-design workshops with parents and health visitors, (3) Resource development and expert/peer review, (4) Development of an intervention protocol for health visitors, (5) Early-phase testing of the resources to explore acceptability, feasibility, impact and mechanism of action, (6) Engagement with wider stakeholders and refinement of the HABIT intervention for wider use, (7) Verification, Review and Reflection of Resources.

RESULTS

Following preparatory meetings with stakeholders, interviews and co-design workshops with parents and health visitors, topic areas and messages were developed covering six key themes. The topic areas provided a structure for the oral health conversation and supportive resources in paper-based and digital formats. A five-step protocol was developed with health visitors to guide the oral health conversation during the 9-12 month visit. Following training of health visitors, an early-phase feasibility study was undertaken with preliminary results presented at a dissemination event where feedback for further refinement of the resources and training was gathered. The findings, feedback and verification have led to further refinements to optimise quality, accessibility, fidelity and behaviour change theory.

CONCLUSION

The co-design methods ensured the oral health conversation and supporting resources used during the 9-12 month visit incorporated the opinions of families and Health Visitors as well as other key stakeholders throughout the development process. This paper provides key learning and a framework that can be applied to other healthcare settings. The structured pragmatic approach ensured that the intervention was evidence-based, acceptable and feasible for the required context.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN55332414, Registration Date 11/11/2021.

A collaborative approach to develop an intervention to strengthen health visitors' role in prevention of excess weight gain in children

BACKGROUND

The high prevalence of childhood obesity is a concern for public health policy and practitioners, leading to a focus on early prevention. UK health visitors (HVs) are well-positioned to prevent excessive weight gain trends in pre-school children but experience barriers to implementing guideline recommended practices. This research engaged with HVs to design an intervention to strengthen their role in prevention of early childhood obesity.

METHODS

We describe the processes we used to develop a behaviour change intervention and measures to test its feasibility. We conducted a systematic review to identify factors associated with implementation of practices recommended for prevention of early childhood obesity. We carried out interactive workshops with HVs who deliver health visiting services in County Durham, England. Workshop format was informed by the behaviour change wheel framework for developing theory-based interventions and incorporated systematic review evidence. As intended recipients of the intervention, HVs provided their views of what is important and acceptable in the local context. The findings of the workshops were combined in an iterative process to inform the four steps of the Implementation Intervention development framework that was adapted as a practical guide for the development process.

RESULTS

Theoretical analysis of the workshop findings revealed HVs' capabilities, opportunities and motivations related to prevention of excess weight in 0-2 year olds. Intervention strategies deemed most likely to support implementation (enablement, education, training, modelling, persuasion) were combined to design an interactive training intervention. Measures to test acceptability, feasibility, and fidelity of delivery of the proposed intervention were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

An interactive training intervention has been designed, informed by theory, evidence, and expert knowledge of HVs, in an area of health promotion that is currently evolving. This research addresses an important evidence-practice gap in prevention of childhood obesity. The use of a systematic approach to the development process, identification of intervention contents and their hypothesised mechanisms of action provides an opportunity for this research to contribute to the body of literature on designing of implementation interventions using a collaborative approach. Future research should be directed to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention.

Explaining variable effects of an adaptable implementation package to promote evidence-based practice in primary care: a longitudinal process evaluation

Background

Implementing evidence-based recommendations is challenging in UK primary care, especially given system pressures and multiple guideline recommendations competing for attention. Implementation packages that can be adapted and hence applied to target multiple guideline recommendations could offer efficiencies for recommendations with common barriers to achievement. We developed and evaluated a package of evidence-based interventions (audit and feedback, educational outreach and reminders) incorporating behaviour change techniques to target common barriers, in two pragmatic trials for four “high impact” indicators: risky prescribing; diabetes control; blood pressure control; and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. We observed a significant, cost-effective reduction in risky prescribing but there was insufficient evidence of effect on the other outcomes. We explored the impact of the implementation package on both social processes (Normalisation Process Theory; NPT) and hypothesised determinants of behaviour (Theoretical Domains Framework; TDF).

Methods

We conducted a prospective multi-method process evaluation. Observational, administrative and interview data collection and analyses in eight primary care practices were guided by NPT and TDF. Survey data from trial and process evaluation practices explored fidelity.

Results

We observed three main patterns of variation in how practices responded to the implementation package. First, in integration and achievement, the package “worked” when it was considered distinctive and feasible. Timely feedback directed at specific behaviours enabled continuous goal setting, action and review, which reinforced motivation and collective action. Second, impacts on team-based determinants were limited, particularly when the complexity of clinical actions impeded progress. Third, there were delivery delays and unintended consequences. Delays in scheduling outreach further reduced ownership and time for improvement. Repeated stagnant or declining feedback that did not reflect effort undermined engagement.

Conclusions

Variable integration within practice routines and organisation of care, variable impacts on behavioural determinants, and delays in delivery and unintended consequences help explain the partial success of an adaptable package in primary care.

Educational Intervention to Strengthen Pediatric Postoperative Pain Management: A Cluster Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Pediatric postoperative pain is still undertreated.

AIMS

To assess whether educational intervention increases nurses' knowledge and improves pediatric postoperative pain management.

DESIGN

Cluster randomized controlled trial with three measurement points (baseline T1, 1 month after intervention T2, and 6 months after intervention T3).

PARTICIPANTS/SUBJECTS

The study was conducted in postanesthesia care units at six hospitals in Norway. Nurses working with children in the included units and children who were undergoing surgery were invited to participate in this study.

METHODS

Nurses were cluster randomized by units to an intervention (n = 129) or a control group (n = 129). This allocation was blinded for participants at baseline. Data were collected using "The Pediatric Nurses' Knowledge and Attitudes Survey Regarding Pain: Norwegian Version" (primary outcome), observations of nurses' clinical practice, and interviews with children. The intervention included an educational day, clinical supervision, and reminders.

RESULTS

At baseline 193 nurses completed the survey (75% response rate), 143 responded at T2, and 107 at T3. Observations of nurses' (n = 138) clinical practice included 588 children, and 38 children were interviewed. The knowledge level increased from T1 to T3 in both groups, but there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. In the intervention group, there was an improvement between T1 and T2 in the total PNKAS-N score (70% vs. 83%), observed increase use of pain assessment tools (17% vs. 39%), and children experienced less moderate-to-severe pain.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference was observed between the groups after intervention, but a positive change in knowledge and practice was revealed in both groups. Additional studies are needed to explore the most potent variables to strengthen pediatric postoperative pain management.

General practice responses to opioid prescribing feedback: a qualitative process evaluation

BACKGROUND

The rise in opioid prescribing in primary care represents a significant public health challenge, associated with increased psychosocial problems, hospitalisations, and mortality. An evidence-based bimonthly feedback intervention to reduce opioid prescribing was developed and implemented, targeting 316 general practices in West Yorkshire over 1 year.

AIM

To understand how general practice staff received and responded to the feedback intervention.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative process evaluation involving semi-structured interviews, guided by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), of primary care healthcare professionals targeted by feedback.

METHOD

Participants were purposively recruited according to baseline opioid prescribing levels and degree of change following feedback. Interview data were coded to NPT constructs, and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Interviews were conducted with 21 staff from 20 practices. Reducing opioid prescribing was recognised as a priority. While high achievers had clear structures for quality improvement, feedback encouraged some less structured practices to embed changes. The non-prescriptive nature of the feedback reports allowed practices to develop strategies consistent with their own ways of working and existing resources. Practice concerns were allayed by the credibility of the reports and positive experiences of reducing opioid prescribing. The scale, frequency, and duration of feedback may have ensured a good overall level of practice population reach.

CONCLUSION

The intervention engaged general practice staff in change by targeting an issue of emerging concern, and allowing adaption to different ways of working. Practice efforts to reduce opioid prescribing were reinforced by regular feedback, credible comparative data showing progress, and shared experiences of patient benefit.

The effects of an evidence- and theory-informed feedback intervention on opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain in primary care: A controlled interrupted time series analysis

BACKGROUND

The rise in opioid prescribing in primary care represents a significant international public health challenge, associated with increased psychosocial problems, hospitalisations, and mortality. We evaluated the effects of a comparative feedback intervention with persuasive messaging and action planning on opioid prescribing in primary care.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A quasi-experimental controlled interrupted time series analysis used anonymised, aggregated practice data from electronic health records and prescribing data from publicly available sources. The study included 316 intervention and 130 control primary care practices in the Yorkshire and Humber region, UK, serving 2.2 million and 1 million residents, respectively. We observed the number of adult patients prescribed opioid medication by practice between July 2013 and December 2017. We excluded adults with coded cancer or drug dependency. The intervention, the Campaign to Reduce Opioid Prescribing (CROP), entailed bimonthly, comparative, and practice-individualised feedback reports to practices, with persuasive messaging and suggested actions over 1 year. Outcomes comprised the number of adults per 1,000 adults per month prescribed any opioid (main outcome), prescribed strong opioids, prescribed opioids in high-risk groups, prescribed other analgesics, and referred to musculoskeletal services. The number of adults prescribed any opioid rose pre-intervention in both intervention and control practices, by 0.18 (95% CI 0.11, 0.25) and 0.36 (95% CI 0.27, 0.46) per 1,000 adults per month, respectively. During the intervention period, prescribing per 1,000 adults fell in intervention practices (change -0.11; 95% CI -0.30, -0.08) and continued rising in control practices (change 0.54; 95% CI 0.29, 0.78), with a difference of -0.65 per 1,000 patients (95% CI -0.96, -0.34), corresponding to 15,000 fewer patients prescribed opioids. These trends continued post-intervention, although at slower rates. Prescribing of strong opioids, total opioid prescriptions, and prescribing in high-risk patient groups also generally fell. Prescribing of other analgesics fell whilst musculoskeletal referrals did not rise. Effects were attenuated after feedback ceased. Study limitations include being limited to 1 region in the UK, possible coding errors in routine data, being unable to fully account for concurrent interventions, and uncertainties over how general practices actually used the feedback reports and whether reductions in prescribing were always clinically appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated comparative feedback offers a promising and relatively efficient population-level approach to reduce opioid prescribing in primary care, including prescribing of strong opioids and prescribing in high-risk patient groups. Such feedback may also prompt clinicians to reconsider prescribing other medicines associated with chronic pain, without causing a rise in referrals to musculoskeletal clinics. Feedback may need to be sustained for maximum effect.

How is the Theoretical Domains Framework applied in designing interventions to support healthcare practitioner behaviour change? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The use of theory is recommended to support interventions to promote implementation of evidence-based practices. However, there are multiple models of behaviour change which can be complex and lack comprehensiveness and are therefore difficult to understand and operationalize. The Theoretical Domains Framework sought to address these problems by synthesizing 33 models of behaviour or behaviour change. Given that it is 15 years since the first publication of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), it is timely to reflect on how the framework has been applied in practice.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to identify and narratively synthesize papers in which the TDF, (including frameworks that incorporate the TDF) have been used have been used to develop implementation interventions.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane databases using the terms: 'theoretical domains framework*' or TDF or Capability, Opportunity, Motivation to Behaviour (COM-B) or 'behav* change wheel' or 'BCW' AND implement* or improv* or quality or guideline* or intervention* or practice* or EBP or 'evidence based practice' and conducted citation and key author searches. The included papers were those that used any version of the TDF published from 2005 onwards. The included papers were subject to narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

A total of 3540 papers were identified and 60 were included. Thirty-two papers reported intervention design only and 28 reported intervention design and testing. Despite over 3000 citations there has been limited application to the point of designing interventions to support the best practice. In particular use of the framework has not been tried or tested in non-western countries and barely used in non-primary or acute care settings. Authors have applied the framework to assess barriers and facilitators successfully but reporting of the process of selection of behaviour change techniques and intervention design thereafter was variable.

CONCLUSION

Despite over three thousand citations of the framework there has been limited application to the point of designing interventions to support best practice. The framework is barely used in non-western countries or beyond primary or acute care settings. A stated purpose of the framework was to make psychological theory accessible to researchers and practitioners alike; if this is to be fully achieved, further guidance is needed on the application of the framework beyond the point of assessment of barriers and facilitators.

Using experience-based co-design with patients, carers and healthcare professionals to develop theory-based interventions for safer medicines use

BACKGROUND

Experience-Based Co-Design (EBCD) is a participatory design method which was originally developed and is still primarily used as a healthcare quality improvement tool. Traditionally, EBCD has been sited within single services or settings and has yielded improvements grounded in the experiences of those delivering and receiving care.

METHOD

In this article we present how EBCD can be adapted to develop complex interventions, underpinned by theory, to be tested more widely within the healthcare system as part of a multi-phase, multi-site research study. We begin with an outline of co-design and the stages of EBCD. We then provide an overview of how EBCD can be assimilated into an intervention development and evaluation study, giving examples of the adaptations and research tools and methods that can be deployed. We also suggest how to appraise the resulting intervention so it is realistic and tractable in multiple sites. We describe how EBCD can be combined with different behaviour change theories and methods for intervention development and finally, we make suggestions about the skills needed for successful intervention development using EBCD.

CONCLUSION

EBCD has been recognised as being a collaborative approach to improving healthcare services that puts patients and healthcare staff at the heart of initiatives and potential changes. We have demonstrated how EBCD can be integrated into a research project and how existing research approaches can be assimilated into EBCD stages. We have also suggested where behaviour change theories can be used to better understand intervention change mechanisms.

Underreporting of the active content of behavioural interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of smoking cessation interventions

Despite its importance, underreporting of the active content of experimental and comparator interventions in published literature has not been previously examined for behavioural trials. We assessed completeness and variability in reporting in 142 randomised controlled trials of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation published between 1/1996 and 11/2015. Two coders reliably identified the potential active components of experimental and comparator interventions (activities targeting behaviours key to smoking cessation and qualifying as behaviour change techniques, BCTs) in published, and in unpublished materials obtained from study authors directly. Unpublished materials were obtained for 129/204 (63%) experimental and 93/142 (65%) comparator groups. For those, only 35% (1200/3403) of experimental and 26% (491/1891) of comparator BCTs could be identified in published materials. Reporting quality (#published BCTs/#total BCTs) varied considerably between trials and between groups within trials. Experimental (vs. comparator) interventions were better reported (B(SE) = 0.34 (0.11), p < .001). Unpublished materials were more often obtained for recent studies (B(SE) = 0.093 (0.03), p = .003) published in behavioural (vs. medical) journals (B(SE) = 1.03 (0.41), p = .012). This high variability in underreporting of active content compromises reader's ability to interpret the effects of individual trials, compare and explain intervention effects in evidence syntheses, and estimate the additional benefit of an experimental intervention in other settings.

A Process Evaluation of A UK Classroom-Based Physical Activity Intervention-'Busy Brain Breaks'

The gap between development of effective physical activity interventions and the wide-scale adoption of these interventions in real-world settings has been reported since the early 2000s. Evaluations have been criticised for failing to report details of context, implementation, adoption and maintenance. 'Busy Brain Breaks' was an intervention designed to improve fundamental movement patterns whilst increasing physical activity within the classroom. This evaluation study used a mixed-methods approach including questionnaires, observations, semi-structured interviews and quantification of class-level dose. Findings suggest that giving teachers flexibility and autonomy over the way in which they implement physical activity interventions may increase the likelihood of adoption. Time was frequently perceived as a significant barrier to the intervention, giving the teachers flexibility to implement the intervention when they thought most suitable allowed teaching staff to retain their autonomy and make the intervention work with their schedule. Children's behaviour appeared to be both a facilitator and barrier to implementing physical activity interventions within the classroom. Whilst misbehaviour can pose as a barrier, children's enjoyment acts as a key facilitator to implementation for teaching practitioners. Teachers interviewed (n = 17) observed that movement ability had developed as a result of the intervention and recognised co-ordination, balance and stability as areas that had noticeably improved. Conducting an in-depth process evaluation has allowed for greater insight and understanding as to how, and to what extent, the intervention was implemented within the school-based setting.

Establishing a primary care audit and feedback implementation laboratory: a consensus study

BACKGROUND

There is a significant variation among individual primary care providers in prescribing of potentially problematic, low-value medicines which cause avoidable patient harm. Audit and feedback is generally effective at improving prescribing. However, progress has been hindered by research waste, leading to unanswered questions about how to include audit and feedback for specific problems and circumstances. Trials of different ways of providing audit and feedback in implementation laboratories have been proposed as a way of improving population healthcare while generating robust evidence on feedback effects. However, there is limited experience in their design and delivery.

AIM

To explore priorities, feasibility, and ethical challenges of establishing a primary care prescribing audit and feedback implementation laboratory.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Two-stage Delphi consensus process involving primary care pharmacy leads, audit and feedback researchers, and patient and public.

METHOD

Participants initially scored statements relating to priorities, feasibility, and ethical considerations for an implementation laboratory. These covered current feedback practice, priority topics for feedback, usefulness of feedback in improving prescribing and different types of prescribing data, acceptability and desirability of different organization levels of randomization, options for trial consent, different methods of delivering feedback, and interest in finding out how effective different ways of presenting feedback would be. After receiving collated results, participants then scored the items again. The consensus was defined using the GRADE criteria. The results were analyzed by group and overall score.

RESULTS

Fourteen participants reached consensus for 38 out of 55 statements. Addressing antibiotic and opioid prescribing emerged as the highest priorities for action. The panel supported statements around addressing high-priority prescribing issues, taking an "opt-out" approach to practice consent if waiving consent was not permitted, and randomizing at lower rather than higher organizational levels. Participants supported patient-level prescribing data and further research evaluating most of the different feedback methods we presented them with.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a good level of support for evaluating a wide range of potential enhancements to improve the effects of feedback on prescribing. The successful design and delivery of a primary care audit and feedback implementation laboratory depend on identifying shared priorities and addressing practical and ethical considerations.

Identifying contexts and mechanisms in multiple behavior change interventions affecting smoking cessation success: a rapid realist review

Background

Smoking continues to be a leading cause of preventable chronic disease-related morbidity and mortality, excess healthcare expenditure, and lost work productivity. Tobacco users are disproportionately more likely to be engaging in other modifiable risk behaviours such as excess alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, and poor diet. While hundreds of interventions addressing the clustering of smoking and other modifiable risk behaviours have been conducted worldwide, there is insufficient information available about the context and mechanisms in these interventions that promote successful smoking cessation. The aim of this rapid realist review was to identify possible contexts and mechanisms used in multiple health behaviour change interventions (targeting tobacco and two or more additional risk behaviours) that are associated with improving smoking cessation outcome.

Methods

This realist review method incorporated the following steps: (1) clarifying the scope, (2) searching for relevant evidence, (3) relevance confirmation, data extraction, and quality assessment, (4) data analysis and synthesis.

Results

Of the 20,423 articles screened, 138 articles were included in this realist review. Following Michie et al.’s behavior change model (the COM-B model), capability, opportunity, and motivation were used to identify the mechanisms of behaviour change. Universally, increasing opportunities (i.e. factors that lie outside the individual that prompt the behaviour or make it possible) for participants to engage in healthy behaviours was associated with smoking cessation success. However, increasing participant’s capability or motivation to make a behaviour change was only successful within certain contexts.

Conclusion

In order to address multiple health behaviours and assist individuals in quitting smoking, public health promotion interventions need to shift away from ‘individualistic epidemiology’ and invest resources into modifying factors that are external from the individual (i.e. creating a supportive environment).

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017064430

Developing and evaluating packages to support implementation of quality indicators in general practice: the ASPIRE research programme, including two cluster RCTs

Background

Dissemination of clinical guidelines is necessary but seldom sufficient by itself to ensure the reliable uptake of evidence-based practice. There are further challenges in implementing multiple clinical guidelines and clinical practice recommendations in the pressurised environment of general practice.

Objectives

We aimed to develop and evaluate an implementation package that could be adapted to support the uptake of a range of clinical guideline recommendations and be sustainably integrated within general practice systems and resources. Over five linked work packages, we developed ‘high-impact’ quality indicators to show where a measurable change in clinical practice can improve patient outcomes (work package 1), analysed adherence to selected indicators (work package 2), developed an adaptable implementation package (work package 3), evaluated the effects and cost-effectiveness of adapted implementation packages targeting four indicators (work package 4) and examined intervention fidelity and mechanisms of action (work package 5).

Setting and participants

Health-care professionals and patients from general practices in West Yorkshire, UK.

Design

We reviewed recommendations from existing National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidance and used a multistage consensus process, including 11 professionals and patients, to derive a set of ‘high-impact’ evidence-based indicators that could be measured using routinely collected data (work package 1). In 89 general practices that shared data, we found marked variations and scope for improvement in adherence to several indicators (work package 2). Interviews with 60 general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers explored perceived determinants of adherence to selected indicators and suggested the feasibility of adapting an implementation package to target different indicators (work package 3). We worked with professional and patient panels to develop four adapted implementation packages. These targeted risky prescribing involving non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and antiplatelet drugs, type 2 diabetes control, blood pressure control and anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. The implementation packages embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach and (for risky prescribing) computerised prompts. We randomised 178 practices to implementation packages targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (trial 1), or blood pressure control or anticoagulation (trial 2), or to a further control (non-intervention) group, and undertook economic modelling (work package 4). In trials 1 and 2, practices randomised to the implementation package for one indicator acted as control practices for the other package, and vice versa. A parallel process evaluation included a further eight practices (work package 5).

Main outcome measures

Trial primary end points at 11 months comprised achievement of all recommended levels of glycated haemoglobin, blood pressure and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended blood pressure; and anticoagulation prescribing.

Results

We recruited 178 (73%) out of 243 eligible general practices. We randomised 80 practices to trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to trial 2 (32 per arm), with 34 non-intervention controls. The risky prescribing implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio 0.82, 97.5% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.99; p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2337 per quality-adjusted life-year. The other three packages had no effect on primary end points. The process evaluation suggested that trial outcomes were influenced by losses in fidelity throughout intervention delivery and enactment, and by the nature of the targeted clinical and patient behaviours.

Limitations

Our programme was conducted in one geographical area; however, practice and patient population characteristics are otherwise likely to be sufficiently diverse and typical to enhance generalisability to the UK. We used an ‘opt-out’ approach to recruit general practices to the randomised trials. Subsequently, our trial practices may have engaged with the implementation package less than if they had actively volunteered. However, this approach increases confidence in the wider applicability of trial findings as it replicates guideline implementation activities under standard conditions.

Conclusions

This pragmatic, rigorous evaluation indicates the value of an implementation package targeting risky prescribing. In broad terms, an adapted ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach did not consistently work, with no improvement for other targeted indicators.

Future work

There are challenges in designing ‘one-size-fits-all’ implementation strategies that are sufficiently robust to bring about change in the face of difficult clinical contexts and fidelity losses. We recommend maximising feasibility and ‘stress testing’ prior to rolling out interventions within a definitive evaluation. Our programme has led on to other work, adapting audit and feedback for other priorities and evaluating different ways of delivering feedback to improve patient care.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91989345.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 8, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

An adaptable implementation package targeting evidence-based indicators in primary care: A pragmatic cluster-randomised evaluation

BACKGROUND

In primary care, multiple priorities and system pressures make closing the gap between evidence and practice challenging. Most implementation studies focus on single conditions, limiting generalisability. We compared an adaptable implementation package against an implementation control and assessed effects on adherence to four different evidence-based quality indicators.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We undertook two parallel, pragmatic cluster-randomised trials using balanced incomplete block designs in general practices in West Yorkshire, England. We used 'opt-out' recruitment, and we randomly assigned practices that did not opt out to an implementation package targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (Trial 1); or blood pressure (BP) control or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) (Trial 2). Within trials, each arm acted as the implementation control comparison for the other targeted indicator. For example, practices assigned to the diabetes control package acted as the comparison for practices assigned to the risky prescribing package. The implementation package embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach, and computerised support, with content tailored to each indicator. Respective patient-level primary endpoints at 11 months comprised the following: achievement of all recommended levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), BP, and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended BP; and anticoagulation prescribing. Between February and March 2015, we recruited 144 general practices collectively serving over 1 million patients. We stratified computer-generated randomisation by area, list size, and pre-intervention outcome achievement. In April 2015, we randomised 80 practices to Trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to Trial 2 (32 per arm). Practices and trial personnel were not blind to allocation. Two practices were lost to follow-up but provided some outcome data. We analysed the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, adjusted for potential confounders at patient level (sex, age) and practice level (list size, locality, pre-intervention achievement against primary outcomes, total quality scores, and levels of patient co-morbidity), and analysed cost-effectiveness. The implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.82; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1,359 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but there was insufficient evidence of effect on other primary endpoints (diabetes control OR 1.03, 97.5% CI 0.89-1.18, p = 0.693; BP control OR 1.05, 97.5% CI 0.96-1.16, p = 0.215; anticoagulation prescribing OR 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.75-1.09, p = 0.214). No statistically significant effects were observed in any secondary outcome except for reduced co-prescription of aspirin and clopidogrel without gastro-protection in patients aged 65 and over (adjusted OR 0.62; 97.5% CI 0.39-0.99; p = 0.021). Main study limitations concern our inability to make any inferences about the relative effects of individual intervention components, given the multifaceted nature of the implementation package, and that the composite endpoint for diabetes control may have been too challenging to achieve.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed that a multifaceted implementation package was clinically and cost-effective for targeting prescribing behaviours within the control of clinicians but not for more complex behaviours that also required patient engagement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN91989345).