Eligibility for interventions, co-occurrence and risk factors for unhealthy behaviours in patients consulting for routine primary care: results from the Pre-Empt study.

BACKGROUND: Smoking, excessive drinking, lack of exercise and a poor diet remain key causes of premature morbidity and mortality globally, yet it is not clear what proportion of patients attending for routine primary care are eligible for interventions about these behaviours, the extent to which they co-occur within individuals, and which individuals are at greatest risk for multiple unhealthy behaviours. The aim of the trial was to examine 'intervention eligibility' and co-occurrence of the 'big four' risky health behaviours - lack of exercise, smoking, an unhealthy diet and excessive drinking - in a primary care population. METHODS: Data were collected from adult patients consulting routinely in general practice across South Wales as part of the Pre-Empt study; a cluster randomised controlled trial. After giving consent, participants completed screening instruments, which included the following to assess eligibility for an intervention based on set thresholds: AUDIT-C (for alcohol), HSI (for smoking), IPAQ (for exercise) and a subset of DINE (for diet). The intervention following screening was based on which combination of risky behaviours the patient had. Descriptive statistics, χ2 tests for association and ordinal regressions were undertaken. RESULTS: Two thousand sixty seven patients were screened: mean age of 48.6 years, 61.9 % female and 42.8 % in a managerial or professional occupation. In terms of numbers of risky behaviours screened eligible for, two was the most common (43.6 %), with diet and exercise (27.2 %) being the most common combination. Insufficient exercise was the most common single risky behaviour (12.0 %). 21.8 % of patients would have been eligible for an intervention for three behaviours and 5.9 % for all four behaviours. Just 4.5 % of patients did not identify any risky behaviours. Women, older age groups and those in managerial or professional occupations were more likely to exhibit all four risky behaviours. CONCLUSION: Very few patients consulting for routine primary care screen ineligible for interventions about common unhealthy behaviours, and most engage in more than one of the major common unhealthy behaviours. Clinicians should be particularly alert to opportunities to engaging younger, non professional men and those with multi-morbidity about risky health behaviour. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN22495456.

Preventing disease through opportunistic, rapid engagement by primary care teams using behaviour change counselling (PRE-EMPT): protocol for a general practice-based cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, lack of exercise and an unhealthy diet are the key modifiable factors contributing to premature morbidity and mortality in the developed world. Brief interventions in health care consultations can be effective in changing single health behaviours. General Practice holds considerable potential for primary prevention through modifying patients' multiple risk behaviours, but feasible, acceptable and effective interventions are poorly developed, and uptake by practitioners is low. Through a process of theoretical development, modeling and exploratory trials, we have developed an intervention called Behaviour Change Counselling (BCC) derived from Motivational Interviewing (MI). This paper describes the protocol for an evaluation of a training intervention (the Talking Lifestyles Programme) which will enable practitioners to routinely use BCC during consultations for the above four risk behaviours. METHODS/DESIGN: This cluster randomised controlled efficacy trial (RCT) will evaluate the outcomes and costs of this training intervention for General Practitioners (GPs) and nurses. Training methods will include: a practice-based seminar, online self-directed learning, and reflecting on video recorded and simulated consultations. The intervention will be evaluated in 29 practices in Wales, UK; two clinicians will take part (one GP and one nurse) from each practice. In intervention practices both clinicians will receive training. The aim is to recruit 2000 patients into the study with an expected 30% drop out. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients making changes in one or more of the four behaviours at three months. Results will be compared for patients seeing clinicians trained in BCC with patients seeing non-BCC trained clinicians. Economic and process evaluations will also be conducted. DISCUSSION: Opportunistic engagement by health professionals potentially represents a cost effective medical intervention. This study integrates an existing, innovative intervention method with an innovative training model to enable clinicians to routinely use BCC, providing them with new tools to encourage and support people to make healthier choices. This trial will evaluate effectiveness in primary care and determine costs of the intervention.

Training practitioners to deliver opportunistic multiple behaviour change counselling in primary care: a cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of training primary care health professionals in behaviour change counselling on the proportion of patients self reporting change in four risk behaviours (smoking, alcohol use, exercise, and healthy eating). DESIGN: Cluster randomised trial with general practices as the unit of randomisation. SETTING: General practices in Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 53 general practitioners and practice nurses from 27 general practices (one each at all but one practice) recruited 1827 patients who screened positive for at least one risky behaviour. INTERVENTION: Behaviour change counselling was developed from motivational interviewing to enable clinicians to enhance patients' motivation to change health related behaviour. Clinicians were trained using a blended learning programme called Talking Lifestyles. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of patients who reported making beneficial changes in at least one of the four risky behaviours at three months. RESULTS: 1308 patients from 13 intervention and 1496 from 14 control practices were approached: 76% and 72% respectively agreed to participate, with 831 (84%) and 996 (92%) respectively screening eligible for an intervention. There was no effect on the primary outcome (beneficial change in behaviour) at three months (362 (44%) v 404 (41%), odds ratio 1.12 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.39)) or on biochemical or biometric measures at 12 months. More patients who had consulted with trained clinicians recalled consultation discussion about a health behaviour (724/795 (91%) v 531/966 (55%), odds ratio 12.44 (5.85 to 26.46)) and intended to change (599/831 (72%) v 491/996 (49%), odds ratio 2.88 (2.05 to 4.05)). More intervention practice patients reported making an attempt to change (328 (39%) v 317 (32%), odds ratio 1.40 (1.15 to 1.70)), a sustained behaviour change at three months (288 (35%) v 280 (28%), odds ratio 1.36 (1.11 to 1.65)), and reported slightly greater improvements in healthy eating at three and 12 months, plus improved activity at 12 months. Training cost £1597 per practice. DISCUSSION: Training primary care clinicians in behaviour change counselling using a brief blended learning programme did not increase patients reported beneficial behaviour change at three months or improve biometric and a biochemical measure at 12 months, but it did increase patients' recollection of discussing behaviour change with their clinicians, intentions to change, attempts to change, and perceptions of having made a lasting change at three months. Enduring behaviour change and improvements in biometric measures are unlikely after a single routine consultation with a clinician trained in behaviour change counselling without additional intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 22495456.

Counselling patients about behaviour change: the challenge of talking about diet.

BACKGROUND: As obesity levels increase, opportunistic behaviour change counselling from primary care clinicians in consultations about healthy eating is ever more important. However, little is known about the approaches clinicians take with patients. AIM: To describe the content of simulated consultations on healthy eating in primary care, and compare this with the content of smoking cessation consultations. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study of 23 audiotaped simulated healthy eating and smoking cessation consultations between an actor and primary care clinicians (GPs and nurses) within a randomised controlled trial looking at behaviour change counselling. METHOD: Consultations were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim, then analysed inductively using thematic analysis. A thematic framework was developed by all authors and applied to the data. The content of healthy eating consultations was contrasted with that given for smoking cessation. RESULTS: There was a lack of consistency and clarity when clinicians discussed healthy eating compared with smoking; in smoking cessation consultations, the content was clearer to both the clinician and patient. There was a lack of specificity about what dietary changes should be made, how changes could be achieved, and how progress could be monitored. Barriers to change were addressed in more depth within the smoking cessation consultations than within the healthy eating encounters. CONCLUSION: At present, dietary counselling by clinicians in primary care does not typically contain consistent, clear suggestions for specific change, how these could be achieved, and how progress would be monitored. This may contribute to limited uptake and efficacy of dietary counselling in primary care.