Adherence to behaviours associated with the test, trace, and isolate system: an analysis using the theoretical domains framework.

BACKGROUND: The UK's test, trace, and isolate system are key measures to reduce the impact and spread of COVID-19. However, engagement with and adherence to guidance on testing, self-isolation, and providing details of contacts can be low and interventions are needed. This qualitative study aimed to identify the key factors affecting adherence to test, trace, and isolate behaviours using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). METHODS: We conducted six online focus groups between October 2020 and February 2021 with people living in Sheffield who came into close contact with others in work or social settings (N = 30). The focus groups explored capability, opportunity, and motivational barriers to adherence to test, trace, and isolate behaviours. Framework analysis was used to code the data into TDF domains. RESULTS: There is a complex relationship between the factors affecting COVID-19 symptom identification, testing, and self-isolation. People who perceived significant barriers to testing and self-isolation were less likely to interpret potential symptoms as COVID-19, and perceiving barriers to self-isolation reduced the likelihood of requesting a test. Concerns about the negative consequences of self-isolation for themselves and others were common and also influenced willingness to pass on details of contacts. There was a lack of trust in the Test and Trace system, with people wanting further evidence of being at risk of infection. CONCLUSIONS: Communications and interventions to increase adherence to test, trace, and isolate strategies need to consider the interplay of these behaviours and their influences and target them collectively. Efforts to promote testing should focus on the range of barriers to self-isolation, especially increasing financial and practical support, and include new messaging to promote symptom identification.

Delivering brief physical activity interventions in primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) brief interventions (BIs) involving screening and/or advice are recommended in primary care but frequency of delivery is unknown. AIM: To examine the extent to which PA BIs are delivered in primary care, and explore factors associated with delivery, receipt, and patient receptivity. DESIGN AND SETTING: A mixed-methods systematic review of studies conducted worldwide, with a narrative synthesis of results. METHOD: CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and APA PsycINFO index databases were searched for qualitative and quantitative studies, dating from January 2012 to June 2020, that reported the level of delivery and/or receipt of PA BIs in primary care, and/or factors affecting delivery, receipt, and patient receptivity. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Attitudes towards and barriers to delivery were coded into the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour model. RESULTS: After screening a total of 13 066 records, 66 articles were included in the review. The extent of PA screening and advice in primary care varied widely (2.4%-100% and 0.6%-100%, respectively). PA advice was delivered more often to patients with a higher body mass index, lower PA levels, and/or more comorbidities. Barriers - including a lack of time and training/guidelines - remain, despite recommendations from the World Health Organization and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence that PA advice should be provided in primary care. Few studies explored patients' receptivity to advice. CONCLUSION: PA BIs are not delivered frequently or consistently in primary care. Addressing barriers to delivery through system-level changes and training programmes could improve and increase the advice given. Understanding when patients are receptive to PA interventions could enhance health professionals' confidence in their delivery.

Aspirin use for cancer prevention: A systematic review of public, patient and healthcare provider attitudes and adherence behaviours.

We undertook a systematic review to synthesise the data on attitudes and behaviour towards the use of aspirin for cancer prevention, and healthcare providers' attitudes towards implementing aspirin in practice. Searches were carried out across 12 databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE). We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to evaluate study quality, and conducted a narrative synthesis of the data. The review was pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42018093453). Thirty-eight studies were identified. Uptake and adherence data were all from trials. Trials recruited healthy participants, those at higher risk of cancer, and those with cancer. Four studies reported moderate to high (40.9-77.7%) uptake to an aspirin trial among people who were eligible. Most trials (18/22) reported high day-to-day adherence (≥80%). Three trials observed no association between gender and adherence. One trial found no association between adherence and colorectal cancer risk. Three studies reported moderate to high (43.6-76.0%) hypothetical willingness to use aspirin. Two studies found that a high proportion of healthcare providers (72.0-76.0%) perceived aspirin to be a suitable cancer prevention option. No qualitative studies were identified. The likelihood that eligible users of aspirin would participate in a trial evaluating the use of aspirin for preventive therapy was moderate to high. Among participants in a trial, day-to-day adherence was high. Further research is needed to identify uptake and adherence rates in routine care, the factors affecting aspirin use, and the barriers to implementing aspirin into clinical care.

What influences people's responses to public health messages for managing risks and preventing infectious diseases? A rapid systematic review of the evidence and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Individual behaviour changes, such as hand hygiene and physical distancing, are required on a population scale to reduce transmission of infectious diseases such as COVID-19. However, little is known about effective methods of communicating risk reducing information, and how populations might respond. OBJECTIVE: To synthesise evidence relating to what (1) characterises effective public health messages for managing risk and preventing infectious disease and (2) influences people's responses to messages. DESIGN: A rapid systematic review was conducted. Protocol is published on Prospero CRD42020188704. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched: Ovid Medline, Ovid PsycINFO and Healthevidence.org, and grey literature (PsyarXiv, OSF Preprints) up to May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: All study designs that (1) evaluated public health messaging interventions targeted at adults and (2) concerned a communicable disease spread via primary route of transmission of respiratory and/or touch were included. Outcomes included preventative behaviours, perceptions/awareness and intentions. Non-English language papers were excluded. SYNTHESIS: Due to high heterogeneity studies were synthesised narratively focusing on determinants of intentions in the absence of measured adherence/preventative behaviours. Themes were developed independently by two researchers and discussed within team to reach consensus. Recommendations were translated from narrative synthesis to provide evidence-based methods in providing effective messaging. RESULTS: Sixty-eight eligible papers were identified. Characteristics of effective messaging include delivery by credible sources, community engagement, increasing awareness/knowledge, mapping to stage of epidemic/pandemic. To influence intent effectively, public health messages need to be acceptable, increase understanding/perceptions of health threat and perceived susceptibility. DISCUSSION: There are four key recommendations: (1) engage communities in development of messaging, (2) address uncertainty immediately and with transparency, (3) focus on unifying messages from sources and (4) frame messages aimed at increasing understanding, social responsibility and personal control. Embedding principles of behavioural science into public health messaging is an important step towards more effective health-risk communication during epidemics/pandemics.

Knowledge of Potential Harms and Benefits of Tamoxifen among Women Considering Breast Cancer Preventive Therapy.

Tamoxifen reduces breast cancer incidence in women at increased risk, but may cause side effects. We examined women's knowledge of tamoxifen's potential harms and benefits, and the extent to which knowledge reflects subjective judgments of awareness and decision quality. After a hospital appointment, 408 (55.7%) women at increased risk of breast cancer completed a survey assessing objective knowledge about the potential benefit (risk reduction) and harms (endometrial cancer, thromboembolic events, and menopausal side effects) of tamoxifen, and subjective tamoxifen knowledge and decisional quality. Two hundred fifty-eight (63.2%) completed a 3-month follow-up survey. Sixteen percent (15.7%) of participants recognized the potential benefit and three major harms of using tamoxifen. These women were more likely to have degree-level education [vs. below degree level; OR, 2.24; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-4.55] and good numeracy (vs. poor numeracy; OR, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.33-26.19). Tamoxifen uptake was higher in women who recognized all harms and benefits (vs. not recognizing; OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 0.94-6.54). Sixty-six percent (65.8%) of tamoxifen users were unaware of its potential benefit and harms. Most (87.1%) women reported feeling informed about tamoxifen, and subjective decisional quality was high [Mean (SD), 17.03 (1.87), out of 18]. Knowledge regarding the potential harms and benefit of tamoxifen is low in women considering prevention therapy, and they may need additional support to make informed decisions about tamoxifen preventive therapy.

Beliefs About Medication and Uptake of Preventive Therapy in Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer: Results From a Multicenter Prospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: Uptake of preventive therapies for breast cancer is low. We examined whether women at increased risk of breast cancer can be categorized into groups with similar medication beliefs, and whether belief group membership was prospectively associated with uptake of preventive therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women (n = 732) attending an appointment to discuss breast cancer risk were approached; 408 (55.7%) completed the Beliefs About Medicines and the Perceived Sensitivity to Medicines questionnaires. Uptake of tamoxifen at 3 months was reported in 258 (63.2%). The optimal number of belief groups were identified using latent profile analysis. RESULTS: Uptake of tamoxifen was 14.7% (38/258). One in 5 women (19.4%; 78/402) reported a strong need for tamoxifen. The model fit statistics supported a 2-group model. Both groups held weak beliefs about their need for tamoxifen for current and future health. Group 2 (38%; 154/406 of the sample) reported stronger concerns about tamoxifen and medicines in general, and stronger perceived sensitivity to the negative effects of medicines compared with group 1 (62%; 252/406). Women with low necessity and lower concerns (group 1) were more likely to initiate tamoxifen (18.3%; 33/180) than those with low necessity and higher concerns (group 2) (6.4%; 5/78). After adjusting for demographic and clinical factors, the odds ratio was 3.37 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-10.51; P = .036). CONCLUSION: Uptake of breast cancer preventive therapy was low. A subgroup of women reported low need for preventive therapy and strong medication concerns. These women were less likely to initiate tamoxifen. Medication beliefs are targets for supporting informed decision-making.

Uptake of breast cancer preventive therapy in the UK: results from a multicentre prospective survey and qualitative interviews.

PURPOSE: Uptake of preventive therapy for women at increased breast cancer risk in England is unknown following the introduction of UK clinical guidelines in 2013. Preventive therapy could create socioeconomic inequalities in cancer incidence if it is more readily accepted by particular socio-demographic groups. In this multicentre study, we investigated uptake of tamoxifen and evaluated socio-demographic and clinical factors associated with initiation. We explored women's experiences of treatment decision-making using qualitative interview data. METHODS: Between September 2015 and December 2016, women (n = 732) attending an appointment at one of 20 centres in England to discuss breast cancer risk were approached to complete a survey containing socio-demographic details and nulliparity. Of the baseline survey respondents (n = 408/732, 55.7% response rate), self-reported uptake of tamoxifen at 3-month follow-up was reported in 258 (63.2%). Sixteen women participated in semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: One in seven (38/258 = 14.7%) women initiated tamoxifen. Women who had children were more likely to report use of tamoxifen than those without children (OR = 5.26; 95%CI: 1.13-24.49, p = 0.035). Interview data suggested that women weigh up risks and benefits of tamoxifen within the context of familial commitments, with exposure to significant other's beliefs and experiences of cancer and medication a basis for their decision. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of tamoxifen is low in clinical practice. There were no socio-demographic differences in uptake, suggesting that the introduction of breast cancer preventive therapy is unlikely to create socioeconomic inequalities in cancer incidence. Women's decision-making was influenced by familial priorities, particularly having children.

Intentional and Unintentional Medication Non-Adherence in Psoriasis: The Role of Patients' Medication Beliefs and Habit Strength.

Medication non-adherence is a missed opportunity for therapeutic benefit. We assessed "real-world" levels of self-reported non-adherence to conventional and biologic systemic therapies used for psoriasis and evaluated psychological and biomedical factors associated with non-adherence using multivariable analyses. Latent profile analysis was used to investigate whether patients can be categorized into groups with similar medication beliefs. Latent profile analysis categorizes individuals with similar profiles on a set of continuous variables into discrete groups represented by a categorical latent variable. Eight hundred and eleven patients enrolled in the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register were included. Six hundred and seventeen patients were using a self-administered systemic therapy; 22.4% were classified as "non-adherent" (12% intentionally and 10.9% unintentionally). Patients using an oral conventional systemic agent were more likely to be non-adherent compared to those using etanercept or adalimumab (29.2% vs. 16.4%; P ≤ 0.001). Latent profile analysis supported a three-group model; all groups held strong beliefs about their need for systemic therapy but differed in levels of medication concerns. Group 1 (26.4% of the sample) reported the strongest concerns, followed by Group 2 (61%), with Group 3 (12.6%) reporting the weakest concerns. Group 1 membership was associated with intentional non-adherence (odds ratio = 2.27, 95% confidence interval = 1.16-4.47) and weaker medication-taking routine or habit strength was associated with unintentional non-adherence (odds ratio = 0.92, 95% confidence interval = 0.89-0.96). Medication beliefs and habit strength are modifiable targets for strategies to improve adherence in psoriasis.

The challenges of assessing patients' medication beliefs: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 50% of patients do not take their medication as prescribed, with medication adherence associated with adverse outcomes and higher costs of care. The Necessity-Concerns Framework identified individual's beliefs about their medication as playing a key role in adherence, and UK Clinical Adherence Guidelines recommend eliciting and incorporating individual's perceptions of their medication within the consultation. The Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) is widely used to assess medication beliefs, however, given the condition-specific nature of some self-management regimens, it is unknown whether this tool is able to fully capture beliefs about more complex medication regimens. METHODS: We examined the challenges of assessing medication beliefs using the BMQ in 20 people with a complex relapsing-remitting condition recruited from community sources. Data were collected from people with psoriasis; a patient group characterised by complex medication regimens, which include therapies that are applied topically, phototherapy/photochemotherapy, and therapies that are administered orally or via subcutaneous or intravenous injections. Semi-structured cognitive interviews were undertaken, with responses coded using established schedules and analysed using Content analysis. RESULTS: Individual's beliefs about their condition specific therapies were not accurately captured by the BMQ. Medication beliefs as expressed during 'real-time' completion of the BMQ were underestimated, or failed to be captured, by the corresponding scores given by participants. There was mismatch between the terminology used in the scale and individuals perceptions of their condition and the complexity of its management and treatment outcomes. Currently the BMQ cannot represent beliefs about medicines underuse, even though some individuals with psoriasis viewed access to therapies as overly restrictive. Some the BMQ items were misinterpreted in part due to ambiguous item wording or due to misreading by participants. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to identify general and condition-specific difficulties experienced by individuals completing the BMQ in 'real time'. The main implication of this research is the need to develop condition-specific versions of the BMQ in order that this important instrument can capture the full range of medication beliefs in individuals living with a complex relapsing-remitting condition. Access to condition-specific versions could significantly increase our understanding of beliefs which facilitate or reduce medication adherence.