Effectiveness of complex behaviour change interventions tested in randomised controlled trials for people with multiple long-term conditions (M-LTCs): systematic review with meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of multiple long-term conditions (M-LTCs) increases as adults age and impacts quality of life and health outcomes. To help people manage these conditions, complex behaviour change interventions are used, often based on research conducted in those with single LTCs. However, the needs of those with M-LTCs can differ due to complex health decision-making and engagement with multiple health and care teams. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to identify whether current interventions are effective for people living with M-LTCs, and which outcomes are most appropriate to detect this change. METHODS: Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science) were systematically searched, between January 1999 and January 2022, to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating effectiveness of behaviour change interventions in people with M-LTCs. Intervention characteristics, intervention effectiveness and outcome measures were meta-analysed and narratively synthesised. RESULTS: 53 eligible articles were included. Emotional well-being and psychological distress (depression and anxiety) outcomes were most amenable to change (emotional well-being: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.31 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.58); depression psychological distress: SMD -0.45 (95% CI -0.73 to -0.16); anxiety psychological distress: SMD -0.14 (95% CI -0.28 to 0.00)), particularly for interventions with a collaborative care approach. Interventions targeting those with a physical and mental health condition and those with cognitive and/or behavioural activation approach saw larger reductions in psychological distress outcomes. Interventions that lasted for longer than 6 months significantly improved the widest variety of outcomes. CONCLUSION: Complex interventions can be successfully delivered to those with M-LTCs. These are most effective at reducing psychological distress in those with physical and mental LTCs. Further research is needed to identify the effective components of interventions for people with two or more physical LTCs and which outcome is most appropriate for detecting this change.

Reporting dose in complex self-management support interventions for long-term conditions: is it defined by researchers and received by participants? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The minimum clinically effective dose, and whether this is received in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of complex self-management interventions in long-term conditions (LTCs), can be unclear. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist states that dose should be clearly reported to ensure validity and reliable implementation. OBJECTIVES: To identify whether the expected minimum clinically effective dose, and the dose participants received is reported within research articles and if reporting has improved since the TIDieR checklist was published. METHODS: Four databases were systematically searched (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, AMED and CINAHL) to identify published reports between 2008 and 2022 for RCTs investigating complex self-management interventions in LTCs. Data on reporting of dose were extracted and synthesised from the eligible articles. RESULTS: 94 articles covering various LTCs including diabetes, stroke and arthritis were included. Most complex interventions involved behaviour change combined with education and/or exercise. The maximum dose was usually reported (n=90; 97.8%), but the expected minimum clinically effective dose and the dose received were reported in only 28 (30.4%) and 62 (67.4%) articles, respectively. Reporting of the expected minimum clinically effective dose and the dose participants received did not improve following the publication of the TIDieR checklist in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Interpreting results and implementing effective complex self-management interventions is difficult when researchers' reporting of dose is not in line with guidelines. If trial findings indicate benefit from the intervention, clear reporting of dose ensures reliable implementation to standard care. If the results are non-significant, detailed reporting enables better interpretation of results, that is, differentiating between poor implementation and lack of effectiveness. This ensures quality of interventions and validity and generalisability of trial findings. Therefore, wider adoption of reporting the TIDieR checklist dose aspects is strongly recommended. Alternatively, customised guidelines for reporting dose in complex self-management interventions could be developed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020180988.