Participatory development of an mHealth intervention delivered in general practice to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour of patients with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes (ENERGISED).

BACKGROUND: The escalating global prevalence of type 2 diabetes and prediabetes presents a major public health challenge. Physical activity plays a critical role in managing (pre)diabetes; however, adherence to physical activity recommendations remains low. The ENERGISED trial was designed to address these challenges by integrating mHealth tools into the routine practice of general practitioners, aiming for a significant, scalable impact in (pre)diabetes patient care through increased physical activity and reduced sedentary behaviour. METHODS: The mHealth intervention for the ENERGISED trial was developed according to the mHealth development and evaluation framework, which includes the active participation of (pre)diabetes patients. This iterative process encompasses four sequential phases: (a) conceptualisation to identify key aspects of the intervention; (b) formative research including two focus groups with (pre)diabetes patients (n = 14) to tailor the intervention to the needs and preferences of the target population; (c) pre-testing using think-aloud patient interviews (n = 7) to optimise the intervention components; and (d) piloting (n = 10) to refine the intervention to its final form. RESULTS: The final intervention comprises six types of text messages, each embodying different behaviour change techniques. Some of the messages, such as those providing interim reviews of the patients' weekly step goal or feedback on their weekly performance, are delivered at fixed times of the week. Others are triggered just in time by specific physical behaviour events as detected by the Fitbit activity tracker: for example, prompts to increase walking pace are triggered after 5 min of continuous walking; and prompts to interrupt sitting following 30 min of uninterrupted sitting. For patients without a smartphone or reliable internet connection, the intervention is adapted to ensure inclusivity. Patients receive on average three to six messages per week for 12 months. During the first six months, the text messaging is supplemented with monthly phone counselling to enable personalisation of the intervention, assistance with technical issues, and enhancement of adherence. CONCLUSIONS: The participatory development of the ENERGISED mHealth intervention, incorporating just-in-time prompts, has the potential to significantly enhance the capacity of general practitioners for personalised behavioural counselling on physical activity in (pre)diabetes patients, with implications for broader applications in primary care.

Facilitators and barriers to vaccination uptake in pregnancy: A qualitative systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccination during pregnancy protects both the mother and the foetus from vaccine-preventable diseases. However, uptake of the recommended vaccines (influenza, pertussis, COVID-19) by pregnant women remains low in Europe and the USA. Understanding the reasons for this is crucial to inform strategies to increase vaccination rates in pregnant women. This qualitative systematic review aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to vaccination against influenza, pertussis/whooping cough and COVID-19 during pregnancy and identify possible strategies to increase vaccination rates. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases, including Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, WHO database, Embase and grey literature to identify qualitative studies that explored barriers and facilitators to vaccine uptake among pregnant women (PROSPERO CRD42023399488). The search was limited to studies published between 2012 and 2022 conducted in high-income countries with established vaccination programmes during pregnancy. Studies were thematically analysed and underwent quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute validated critical appraisal tool for qualitative research. RESULTS: Out of 2681 articles screened, 28 studies (n = 1573 participants) were eligible for inclusion. Five overarching themes emerged relating to personal, provider and systemic factors. Barriers to vaccine uptake included concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, lack of knowledge about vaccines' benefits and necessity, fear of adverse effects on the foetus or mother and low perception of disease severity. Facilitators included recommendations from trusted healthcare providers, easy access to vaccination, clear communication on the benefits and safety of vaccination, and positive social influences from family and friends. Strategies for increasing vaccination uptake included strong and proactive vaccine recommendations by trusted healthcare professionals, provision of vaccines during routine antenatal care, and clear and consistent communication about vaccines addressing pregnant women's concerns. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the need for interventions that address the identified barriers to vaccine uptake among pregnant women. Recommendation from a healthcare provider can play a significant role in promoting vaccine uptake, as can clear risk/benefit communication and convenient access to vaccination. Addressing concerns about vaccine safety and providing accurate information about vaccines is also important.

Effect of 3 months and 12 months of financial incentives on 12-month postpartum smoking cessation maintenance: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Offering financial incentives is effective for smoking cessation during pregnancy. We tested the effectiveness of financial incentives for maintaining postpartum cessation, comparing 12-month and 3-month incentives with each other and with usual care (UC). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study was a pragmatic, multi-centre, three-arm randomized controlled trial involving four English, National Health Service, stop smoking services. A total of 462 postpartum women (aged ≥ 16 years) took part, who stopped smoking during pregnancy with financial incentives, validated as abstinent from smoking at end of pregnancy or early postpartum. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions comprised (i) UC; (ii) UC plus up to £60 of financial voucher incentives offered to participants and £60 offered to an optional significant-other supporter, over 3 months postpartum, contingent upon validated abstinence ('3-month incentives'); or (iii) UC plus '3-month incentives' plus £180 of vouchers offered to participants over 9 months postpartum, contingent upon abstinence ('12-month incentives'). MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome: biochemically validated abstinence at 1 year postpartum. To adjust for testing all comparisons between groups with equal precision, P < 0.017 was necessary for significance. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: self-reported and validated abstinence at 3 months postpartum; self-reported abstinence at 1 year postpartum. FINDINGS: Primary outcome ascertainment: abstinence was 39.6% (63/159) 12 months incentives, 21.4% (33/154) 3 months incentives and 28.2% (42/149) UC. Adjusted odds ratios [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 12-month versus 3-month incentives OR = 2.41 (95% CI = 1.46-3.96), P = 0.001; 12 months versus UC 1.67 (1.04-2.70), P = 0.035; 3 months versus UC 0.69 (0.41-1.17), P = 0.174. Bayes factors indicated that for 12-month versus 3-month incentives and 12 months versus UC there was good evidence for the alternative hypothesis, and for 3 months versus UC there was good evidence for the null hypothesis. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized controlled trial provides weak evidence that up to £300 of voucher incentives over 12 months is effective for maintaining smoking abstinence postpartum compared with usual care. There was good evidence that 12-month incentives are superior to those over only 3 months, for which there was no evidence of effectiveness relative to usual care.

Understanding the impact of COVID-19 on women's access to and experiences of contraceptive services in England: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic response prompted rapid changes to how contraceptive services were delivered in England. Our aim was to examine women's experiences of accessing contraceptive services since March 2020 and to understand any inequalities of access. METHODS: We conducted telephone interviews with 31 women aged 17-54 years who had accessed contraceptive services in England since March 2020. The sample was skewed to include participants with lower educational attainment and higher deprivation. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed using inductive and deductive approaches. RESULTS: Few differences were found regarding educational attainment. Participants using contraceptive injections (all living in areas in the most deprived quintile) reported the greatest access challenges. Some switched method or stopped using contraception as a result. More general barriers reported by participants included service closures, unclear booking processes, and lack of appointment availability. Many participants welcomed the flexibility and convenience of remote contraceptive services. However, telephone appointments posed challenges for those at school or living with parents, and some described them as rushed and inconducive to asking questions or raising concerns. Those accessing contraception for the first time or nearing menopause felt they were unable to access sufficient support and guidance during the pandemic. Some participants voiced concerns around the lasting effects of COVID-19 on appointment availability and inadequate service delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Women's experiences of accessing contraceptive services in England since March 2020 are diverse. While remote services were suitable for some, COVID-19 restrictions unequally impacted women depending on their method of contraception and life stage.

Identifying barriers and facilitators to increase fibre intakes in UK primary school children and exploring the acceptability of intervention components: a UK qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Within the UK, dietary fibre intakes are well below recommended intakes and associated with increased risk of obesity. This study aimed to explore the views of parents and children on barriers and facilitators to increasing fibre intakes and improving diets, alongside investigating the appropriateness of intervention components to overcome modifiable barriers. DESIGN: Qualitative study including semi-structured interviews and focus groups informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model. PARTICIPANTS: Year 5 children (aged 9-10-years) and parents, recruited through London primary schools. RESULTS: A total of twenty-four participants (eleven parents and thirteen children) took part. Five key themes were identified as barriers and facilitators, namely lack of (and improving) knowledge, social factors (including parent-child conflicts, limited time for food preparation, influence of peer and family members), current eating habits, influence of the school, community and home environment in shaping eating behaviours, and the importance of choice and variety in finding foods that are healthy and tasty. Parents strongly supported school-based dietary interventions to enable consistent messaging at home and school and help support dietary behaviour change. Practical sessions (such as workshops to strengthen knowledge, taste tests and food swap ideas) were supported by parents and children. CONCLUSIONS: By using a theory-driven approach to explore the barriers and facilitators to increasing fibre intake, this research identified important themes and modifiable barriers to behaviour change and identifies acceptable intervention components to overcome barriers and bring about sustained dietary behaviour change in primary school children.

Development of an intervention for reducing infant bathing frequency.

BACKGROUND: Bathing babies less frequently and intensively in the first six months of life may prevent eczema, but this has not yet been definitively tested in a randomised controlled trial. Such a trial would require evidence-based support to help parents engage with a minimal bathing routine. The present study reports the development of this support. METHODS: We adopted a four-stage design process: (i) Pregnant women and their families (n = 31) were interviewed to ascertain key barriers and facilitators towards following the minimal bathing intervention. (ii) These barriers and facilitators were mapped to behaviour change techniques, focussing on the intervention types of education, persuasion and environmental restructuring, alongside appropriate modes of delivery, and prototype intervention materials were developed. (iii) We iteratively refined these materials in a workshop with multidisciplinary experts and Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) representatives (n = 13) and an (iv) intervention walkthrough with families (n = 5). The design process was informed by the Behaviour Change Wheel, Theoretical framework of acceptability and the Template for intervention description and replication. RESULTS: Social influences and motivational factors are likely to influence both uptake and adherence to the intervention. Anticipated emotional reward from participating in research for the benefit of others was indicated to be a strong facilitator for intervention uptake. Alternatives to bathing, having fun with the baby and the night-time routine, alongside family support, were notable facilitators suggested to aid adherence to the intervention. Barriers included hygiene concerns and anticipated negative social appraisal. Barriers and facilitators were mapped to thirty-six behaviour change techniques, focussing on the intervention types of education, persuasion and environmental restructuring, all of which were embedded into the package of support. The prototype intervention materials received positive feedback from the expert workshop and study walkthrough with families. The final package of support comprises printed and digital prompts and cues, a study booklet, video, and digital tool for self-monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention design process incorporated the 'real world' views and experiences of families, experts and PPIE representatives, alongside criteria for designing behavioural interventions. The effectiveness of the package of support will be tested in a feasibility trial and embedded process evaluation.

Safety of e-cigarettes and nicotine patches as stop-smoking aids in pregnancy: Secondary analysis of the Pregnancy Trial of E-cigarettes and Patches (PREP) randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to examine the safety of e-cigarettes (EC) and nicotine patches (NRT) when used to help pregnant smokers quit. DESIGN: A recent trial of EC versus NRT reported safety outcomes in the randomized arms. We conducted a further analysis based on product use. SETTING: Twenty-three hospitals in England and a stop-smoking service in Scotland took part. PARTICIPANTS: The participants comprised 1140 pregnant smokers. INTERVENTIONS: We compared women using and not using EC and NRT regularly during pregnancy. MEASUREMENTS: Measurements included nicotine intake compared with baseline, birth weight, other pregnancy outcomes, adverse events, maternal respiratory symptoms and relapse in early abstainers. FINDINGS: Use of EC was more common than use of NRT (47.3% vs 21.6%, P < 0.001). Women who stopped smoking (abstainers) and used EC at the end-of-pregnancy (EOP) reduced their salivary cotinine by 45% [49.3 ng/ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -79.8 to -10]. Only one abstainer used NRT at EOP. In dual users, cotinine increased by 19% (24 ng/ml, 95% CI = 3.5-68). In women reporting a reduction of at least 50% in cigarette consumption, cotinine levels increased by 10% in those using nicotine products and by 9% in those who did not. Birth weights in dual users and exclusive smokers were the same (3.1 kg). Birth weight in abstainers using either nicotine product was higher than in smokers [3.3 kg, standard deviation (SD) = 0.7] versus 3.1 kg, SD = 0.6; difference = 0.15 kg, 95% CI = 0.05-0.25) and not different from abstainers not using nicotine products (3.1 kg, SD = 0.8). Abstainers and smokers using nicotine products had no worse pregnancy outcomes or more adverse events than abstainers and smokers not using them. EC users reported more improvements than non-users in cough [adjusted relative risk (aRR) = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.37-0.93] and phlegm (aRR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.31-0.92), controlling for smoking status. EC or NRT use had no association with relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Regular use of e-cigarettes or nicotine patches by pregnant smokers does not appear to be associated with any adverse outcomes.

Interventions to increase vaccination against COVID-19, influenza and pertussis during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women and their babies face significant risks from three vaccine-preventable diseases: COVID-19, influenza and pertussis. However, despite these vaccines' proven safety and effectiveness, uptake during pregnancy remains low. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42023399488; January 2012-December 2022 following PRISMA guidelines) of interventions to increase COVID-19/influenza/pertussis vaccination in pregnancy. We searched nine databases, including grey literature. Two independent investigators extracted data; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models to estimate pooled effect sizes. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistics. RESULTS: From 2681 articles, we identified 39 relevant studies (n = 168 262 participants) across nine countries. Fifteen studies (39%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs); the remainder were observational cohort, quality-improvement or cross-sectional studies. The quality of 18% (7/39) was strong. Pooled results of interventions to increase influenza vaccine uptake (18 effect estimates from 12 RCTs) showed the interventions were effective but had a small effect (risk ratio = 1.07, 95% CI 1.03, 1.13). However, pooled results of interventions to increase pertussis vaccine uptake (10 effect estimates from six RCTs) showed no clear benefit (risk ratio = 0.98, 95% CI 0.94, 1.03). There were no relevant RCTs for COVID-19. Interventions addressed the 'three Ps': patient-, provider- and policy-level strategies. At the patient level, clear recommendations from healthcare professionals backed by text reminders/written information were strongly associated with increased vaccine uptake, especially tailored face-to-face interventions, which addressed women's concerns, dispelled myths and highlighted benefits. Provider-level interventions included educating healthcare professionals about vaccines' safety and effectiveness and reminders to offer vaccinations routinely. Policy-level interventions included financial incentives, mandatory vaccination data fields in electronic health records and ensuring easy availability of vaccinations. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions had a small effect on increasing influenza vaccination. Training healthcare providers to promote vaccinations during pregnancy is crucial and could be enhanced by utilizing mobile health technologies.

Helping pregnant smokers quit: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of electronic cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy.

Background: Some pregnant smokers try e-cigarettes, but effectiveness and safety of such use are unknown. Objectives: To compare effectiveness and safety of nicotine patches and e-cigarettes in pregnancy. Design: A pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Setting: Twenty-three hospitals across England, and a Stop Smoking Service in Scotland. Participants: One thousand one hundred and forty pregnant daily smokers (12-24 weeks' gestation) motivated to stop smoking, with no strong preference for using nicotine patches or e-cigarettes. Interventions: Participants in the e-cigarette arm were posted a refillable e-cigarette device with two 10 ml bottles of tobacco-flavoured e-liquid (18 mg nicotine). Participants in the nicotine patches arm were posted a 2-week supply of 15 mg/16-hour nicotine patches. Supplies were provided for up to 8 weeks. Participants sourced further supplies themselves as needed. Participants in both arms received support calls prior to their target quit date, on the quit date, and weekly for the next 4 weeks. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was validated prolonged abstinence at the end of pregnancy. Participants lost to follow-up or not providing biochemical validation were included as non-abstainers. Secondary outcomes included self-reported abstinence at different time points, treatment adherence and safety outcomes. Results: Only 55% of self-reported abstainers mailed back useable saliva samples. Due to this, validated sustained abstinence rates were low (6.8% vs. 4.4% in the e-cigarettes and nicotine patches arms, respectively, risk ratio = 1.55, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 2.53; Bayes factor = 2.7). In a pre-specified sensitivity analysis that excluded abstainers using non-allocated products, the difference became significant (6.8% vs. 3.6%, risk ratio = 1.93, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 3.26; Bayes factor = 10). Almost a third of the sample did not set a target quit date and the uptake of support calls was low, as was the initial product use. At end of pregnancy, 33.8% versus 5.6% of participants were using their allocated product in the e-cigarettes versus nicotine patches arm (risk ratio = 6.01, 95% confidence interval 4.21 to 8.58). Regular use of e-cigarettes in the nicotine patches arm was more common than use of nicotine replacement products in the e-cigarette arm (17.8% vs. 2.8%). Rates of adverse events and adverse birth outcomes were similar in the two study arms, apart from participants in the e-cigarette arm having fewer infants with low birthweight (<2500 g) (9.6% vs. 14.8%, risk ratio = 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.90; Bayes factor = 10.3). Limitations: Low rates of validation reduced the study power. A substantial proportion of participants did not use the support on offer sufficiently to test its benefits. Sample size may have been too small to detect differences in less frequent adverse effects. Conclusions: E-cigarettes were not significantly more effective than nicotine patches in the primary analysis, but when e-cigarettes use in the nicotine patches arm was accounted for, e-cigarettes were almost twice as effective as patches in all abstinence outcomes. In pregnant smokers seeking help, compared to nicotine patches, e-cigarettes are probably more effective, do not pose more risks to birth outcomes assessed in this study and may reduce the incidence of low birthweight. Future work: Routine monitoring of smoking cessation and birth outcomes in pregnant women using nicotine patches and e-cigarettes and further studies are needed to confirm these results. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN62025374 and Eudract 2017-001237-65. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Like many other smokers in the UK, some pregnant smokers try to limit or stop smoking with the help of e-cigarettes. It is not known whether this helps with stopping smoking and whether using e-cigarettes has any bad effects on the baby. We recruited 1140 pregnant smokers who wanted to quit. A random half were given nicotine patches, which are commonly used to help smokers quit. The other half were given an e-cigarette. They also received six weekly phone calls to support them in stopping smoking. We then looked at how many in each group stopped smoking by the end of pregnancy. More women stopped smoking in the group that was given an e-cigarette, but the difference was small and could be due to chance. However, some of the women in the nicotine patch group who had successfully stopped smoking were using e-cigarettes rather than patches. When these (and women in the e-cigarette group who used patches) were not counted, e-cigarettes helped almost twice as many women stop smoking than patches. E-cigarettes were better than patches in preventing low birthweight (having babies who weigh less than 2.5 kg). Otherwise, women given patches and those given e-cigarettes (and their babies) had similar numbers of medical complications. For pregnant women who smoke and need help to quit, e-cigarettes are probably more helpful than nicotine patches, and do not pose any additional risks to women or their babies.

BabyBreathe trial: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention to prevent postpartum return to smoking.

INTRODUCTION: Many people quit smoking during pregnancy, but postpartum smoking relapse is common. Maintaining smoking abstinence achieved during pregnancy is key to improving maternal and child health. There are no evidence-based interventions for preventing postpartum smoking relapse. This trial aims to determine whether an intervention to prevent postpartum relapse is effective and cost-effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention to prevent postpartum smoking relapse (BabyBreathe), with internal pilot, economic and process evaluations. Participants are adults who are pregnant and who report having quit smoking in the 12 months before, or during pregnancy. Participants are eligible if they read and understand English, and provide informed consent. Following consent and biochemical validation of smoking abstinence, participants are randomised to intervention or usual care/control (no specific relapse prevention support). The BabyBreathe intervention consists of manualised advice from a trained member of the health visiting service, health information leaflets for participants and partners, access to the BabyBreathe website and app. At the time of birth, participants are posted the BabyBreathe box and support is provided by text message for up to 12 months postpartum. Target sample size is 880, recruiting across midwifery services at four hubs in England and Scotland and through remote advertising in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Outcomes are collected at 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is self-reported sustained smoking abstinence at 12 months, carbon monoxide verified. Secondary outcomes include self-reported abstinence, time to relapse, partner smoking status and quality of life. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by the North West Preston Research Ethics committee (21/NW/0017). Dissemination will include publication in peer-reviewed journals, presentation at academic and public conferences including patient and public involvement and to policymakers and practitioners. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN70307341.

Motivational support intervention to reduce smoking and increase physical activity in smokers not ready to quit: the TARS RCT.

Background: Physical activity can support smoking cessation for smokers wanting to quit, but there have been no studies on supporting smokers wanting only to reduce. More broadly, the effect of motivational support for such smokers is unclear. Objectives: The objectives were to determine if motivational support to increase physical activity and reduce smoking for smokers not wanting to immediately quit helps reduce smoking and increase abstinence and physical activity, and to determine if this intervention is cost-effective. Design: This was a multicentred, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1) controlled superiority trial with accompanying trial-based and model-based economic evaluations, and a process evaluation. Setting and participants: Participants from health and other community settings in four English cities received either the intervention (n = 457) or usual support (n = 458). Intervention: The intervention consisted of up to eight face-to-face or telephone behavioural support sessions to reduce smoking and increase physical activity. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures were carbon monoxide-verified 6- and 12-month floating prolonged abstinence (primary outcome), self-reported number of cigarettes smoked per day, number of quit attempts and carbon monoxide-verified abstinence at 3 and 9 months. Furthermore, self-reported (3 and 9 months) and accelerometer-recorded (3 months) physical activity data were gathered. Process items, intervention costs and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. Results: The average age of the sample was 49.8 years, and participants were predominantly from areas with socioeconomic deprivation and were moderately heavy smokers. The intervention was delivered with good fidelity. Few participants achieved carbon monoxide-verified 6-month prolonged abstinence [nine (2.0%) in the intervention group and four (0.9%) in the control group; adjusted odds ratio 2.30 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 7.56)] or 12-month prolonged abstinence [six (1.3%) in the intervention group and one (0.2%) in the control group; adjusted odds ratio 6.33 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 53.10)]. At 3 months, the intervention participants smoked fewer cigarettes than the control participants (21.1 vs. 26.8 per day). Intervention participants were more likely to reduce cigarettes by ≥ 50% by 3 months [18.9% vs. 10.5%; adjusted odds ratio 1.98 (95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.90] and 9 months [14.4% vs. 10.0%; adjusted odds ratio 1.52 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 2.29)], and reported more moderate-to-vigorous physical activity at 3 months [adjusted weekly mean difference of 81.61 minutes (95% confidence interval 28.75 to 134.47 minutes)], but not at 9 months. Increased physical activity did not mediate intervention effects on smoking. The intervention positively influenced most smoking and physical activity beliefs, with some intervention effects mediating changes in smoking and physical activity outcomes. The average intervention cost was estimated to be £239.18 per person, with an overall additional cost of £173.50 (95% confidence interval -£353.82 to £513.77) when considering intervention and health-care costs. The 1.1% absolute between-group difference in carbon monoxide-verified 6-month prolonged abstinence provided a small gain in lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (0.006), and a minimal saving in lifetime health-care costs (net saving £236). Conclusions: There was no evidence that behavioural support for smoking reduction and increased physical activity led to meaningful increases in prolonged abstinence among smokers with no immediate plans to quit smoking. The intervention is not cost-effective. Limitations: Prolonged abstinence rates were much lower than expected, meaning that the trial was underpowered to provide confidence that the intervention doubled prolonged abstinence. Future work: Further research should explore the effects of the present intervention to support smokers who want to reduce prior to quitting, and/or extend the support available for prolonged reduction and abstinence. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN47776579. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

NHS pharmacological and behavioural support helps smokers wanting to quit, and physical activity may also help. It is unclear if behavioural support for those not ready to quit may lead to more quit attempts and abstinence from smoking. A total of 915 smokers who wanted to reduce their smoking, but who had not yet quit, were recruited and randomised to receive an intervention or brief support as usual (brief advice to quit), in Plymouth, London, Oxford and Nottingham. The intervention involved up to eight sessions (by telephone or in person) of motivational support to reduce smoking and increase physical activity (and more sessions to support a quit attempt). Participants self-reported smoking and physical activity information at the start of the trial and after 3 and 9 months. Self-reported quitters confirmed their abstinence with a biochemical test of expired air or saliva. Our main interest was in whether or not the groups differed in the proportion who remained abstinent for at least 6 months. Overall, only 1­2% remained abstinent for 6 months. Although it appeared that a greater proportion did so after receiving the intervention, because few participants were abstinent, the results are not conclusive. However, the intervention had beneficial effects on less rigorous outcomes, including a reduction in the self-reported number of cigarettes smoked, and a greater proportion of intervention than control participants with self-reported and biochemically verified abstinence at 3 months. The intervention also helped participants to reduce, by at least half, the number of cigarettes they smoked at 3 and 9 months, and to report more physical activity, but only at 3 months. Despite reasonable intervention engagement and some short-term changes in smoking and physical activity, the trial does not provide evidence that this intervention would help smokers to quit for at least 6 months nor would it be cost-effective, with an average cost of £239 per smoker.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural support for prolonged abstinence for smokers wishing to reduce but not quit: Randomised controlled trial of physical activity assisted reduction of smoking (TARS).

AIMS: For smokers unmotivated to quit, we assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural support to reduce smoking and increase physical activity on prolonged abstinence and related outcomes. DESIGN: A multi-centred pragmatic two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care and the community across four United Kingdom sites. PARTICIPANTS: Nine hundred and fifteen adult smokers (55% female, 85% White), recruited via primary and secondary care and the community, who wished to reduce their smoking but not quit. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to support as usual (SAU) (n = 458) versus multi-component community-based behavioural support (n = 457), involving up to eight weekly person-centred face-to-face or phone sessions with additional 6-week support for those wishing to quit. MEASUREMENTS: Ideally, cessation follows smoking reduction so the primary pre-defined outcome was biochemically verified 6-month prolonged abstinence (from 3-9 months, with a secondary endpoint also considering abstinence between 9 and 15 months). Secondary outcomes included biochemically verified 12-month prolonged abstinence and point prevalent biochemically verified and self-reported abstinence, quit attempts, number of cigarettes smoked, pharmacological aids used, SF12, EQ-5D and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) at 3 and 9 months. Intervention costs were assessed for a cost-effectiveness analysis. FINDINGS: Assuming missing data at follow-up implied continued smoking, nine (2.0%) intervention participants and four (0.9%) SAU participants achieved the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70-7.56, P = 0.169). At 3 and 9 months, the proportions self-reporting reducing cigarettes smoked from baseline by ≥50%, for intervention versus SAU, were 18.9% versus 10.5% (P = 0.009) and 14.4% versus 10% (P = 0.044), respectively. Mean difference in weekly MVPA at 3 months was 81.6 minutes in favour of the intervention group (95% CI = 28.75, 134.47: P = 0.003), but there was no significant difference at 9 months (23.70, 95% CI = -33.07, 80.47: P = 0.143). Changes in MVPA did not mediate changes in smoking outcomes. The intervention cost was £239.18 per person, with no evidence of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: For United Kingdom smokers wanting to reduce but not quit smoking, behavioural support to reduce smoking and increase physical activity improved some short-term smoking cessation and reduction outcomes and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, but had no long-term effects on smoking cessation or physical activity.

mHealth intervention delivered in general practice to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour of patients with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes (ENERGISED): rationale and study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The growing number of patients with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes is a major public health concern. Physical activity is a cornerstone of diabetes management and may prevent its onset in prediabetes patients. Despite this, many patients with (pre)diabetes remain physically inactive. Primary care physicians are well-situated to deliver interventions to increase their patients' physical activity levels. However, effective and sustainable physical activity interventions for (pre)diabetes patients that can be translated into routine primary care are lacking. METHODS: We describe the rationale and protocol for a 12-month pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of an mHealth intervention delivered in general practice to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour of patients with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes (ENERGISED). Twenty-one general practices will recruit 340 patients with (pre)diabetes during routine health check-ups. Patients allocated to the active control arm will receive a Fitbit activity tracker to self-monitor their daily steps and try to achieve the recommended step goal. Patients allocated to the intervention arm will additionally receive the mHealth intervention, including the delivery of several text messages per week, with some of them delivered just in time, based on data continuously collected by the Fitbit tracker. The trial consists of two phases, each lasting six months: the lead-in phase, when the mHealth intervention will be supported with human phone counselling, and the maintenance phase, when the intervention will be fully automated. The primary outcome, average ambulatory activity (steps/day) measured by a wrist-worn accelerometer, will be assessed at the end of the maintenance phase at 12 months. DISCUSSION: The trial has several strengths, such as the choice of active control to isolate the net effect of the intervention beyond simple self-monitoring with an activity tracker, broad eligibility criteria allowing for the inclusion of patients without a smartphone, procedures to minimise selection bias, and involvement of a relatively large number of general practices. These design choices contribute to the trial's pragmatic character and ensure that the intervention, if effective, can be translated into routine primary care practice, allowing important public health benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05351359, 28/04/2022).

Predictors of engagement with peer support: analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial of one-to-one peer support for discharge from inpatient psychiatric care.

BACKGROUND: A range of evidence for the effectiveness of one-to-one peer support in mental health services is emerging. Levels of engagement with peer support vary with limited studies showing few individual participant characteristics predicting engagement. Implementation factors that might predict engagement have not been considered. METHODS: Data were analysed from the intervention arm of the ENRICH trial of one-to-one peer support for discharge from acute psychiatric inpatient care. Two outcomes were considered: (1) a measure of 'engaged with peer worker'; (2) number of face-to-face contacts with peer worker post-discharge. Two sets of independent variables were analysed against each outcome: (1) pre-randomisation participant characteristics; (2) implementation factors measured pre-discharge. Analyses used logistic and zero-inflated negative binomial regression models according to outcome structure. RESULTS: Data were analysed for 265 participants randomised to peer support who had a known peer worker. Non-heterosexual participants had increased odds of engaging with peer support compared to heterosexual participants, OR = 4.38 (95% CI: 1.13, 16.9, p = .032). Longer duration of first contact with peer worker (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.04, p < .001) and more relationship building activities in the first contact (OR = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.85, p = .004) were associated with greater odds of engaging with peer support. Analysis of number of contacts post-discharge showed consistent findings. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of peer support should include a focus on relationship building in the first session of peer support. The potential for peer support to break down barriers to accessing mental health services experienced by people from marginalised communities warrants further investigation.

Effect of financial voucher incentives provided with UK stop smoking services on the cessation of smoking in pregnant women (CPIT III): pragmatic, multicentre, single blinded, phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine effectiveness, cost effectiveness, generalisability, and acceptability of financial incentives for smoking cessation during pregnancy in addition to variously organised UK stop smoking services. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, single blinded, phase 3, randomised controlled trial (Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial phase 3 (CPIT III)). SETTING: Seven UK stop smoking services provided in primary and secondary care facilities in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England. PARTICIPANTS: 944 pregnant women (age ≥16 years) who self-reported as being smokers (at least one cigarette in the past week) when asked at first maternity visit, less than 24 weeks' gestation, and notified to the trial team by routine stop smoking services. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the control group were offered the standard stop smoking services, which includes the offer of counselling by specially trained workers using withdrawal orientated therapy and the offer of free nicotine replacement therapy. The intervention was the offer of usual support from the stop smoking services and the addition of up to £400 ($440; €455) of LoveToShop financial voucher incentives for engaging with current stop smoking services or to stop smoking, or both, during pregnancy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported smoking cessation in late pregnancy (between 34 and 38 weeks' gestation) corroborated by saliva cotinine (and anabasine if using nicotine replacement products). Results were adjusted for age, smoking years, index of multiple deprivation, Fagerström score, before or after covid, and recruitment site. Secondary outcomes included point and continuous abstinence six months after expected date of delivery, engagement with stop smoking services, biochemically validated abstinence from smoking at four weeks after stop smoking date, birth weight of baby, cost effectiveness, generalisability documenting formats of stop smoking services, and acceptability to pregnant women and their carers. RESULTS: From 9 January 2018 to 4 April 2020, of 4032 women screened by stop smoking services, 944 people were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n=471) or the control group (n=470). Three people asked for their data to be removed. 126 (27%) of 471 participants stopped smoking from the intervention group and 58 (12%) of 470 from the control group (adjusted odds ratio 2.78 (1.94 to 3.97) P<0.001). Serious adverse events were miscarriages and other expected pregnancy events requiring hospital admission; all serious adverse events were unrelated to the intervention. Most people who stopped smoking from both groups relapsed after their baby was born. CONCLUSIONS: The offer of up to £400 of financial voucher incentives to stop smoking during pregnancy as an addition to current UK stop smoking services is highly effective. This bolt-on intervention supports new guidance from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which includes the addition of financial incentives to support pregnant women to stop smoking. Continuing incentives to 12 months after birth is being examined to prevent relapse. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15236311.