Factors influencing decisions people with motor neuron disease make about gastrostomy placement and ventilation: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: People with motor neuron disease (pwMND) are routinely offered gastrostomy feeding tube placement and (non-invasive and invasive) ventilation to manage the functional decline associated with the disease. This study aimed to synthesise the findings from the qualitative literature to understand how individual, clinical team and organisational factors influence pwMND decisions about these interventions. METHODS: The study design was guided by the enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREC) statement. The search of five bibliography databases and an extensive supplementary search strategy identified 27 papers that included qualitative accounts of pwMND, caregivers and healthcare professionals' (HCPs) experiences of making decisions about gastrostomy and ventilation. The findings from each study were included in a thematic synthesis. FINDINGS: Making decisions about interventions is an emotional rather than simply a functional issue for pwMND. The interventions can signal an end to normality, and increasing dependence, where pwMND consider the balance between quality of life and extending survival. Interactions with multiple HCPs and caregivers can influence the process of decision-making and the decisions made. These interactions contribute to the autonomy pwMND are able to exert during decision-making. HCPs can both promote and threaten pwMND perceived agency over decisions through how they approach discussions about these interventions. Though there is uncertainty over the timing of interventions, pwMND who agree to interventions report reaching a tipping point where they accept the need for change. CONCLUSION: Discussion of gastrostomy and ventilation options generate an emotional response in pwMND. Decisions are the consequence of interactions with multiple external agents, including HCPs treading a complex ethical path when trying to improve health outcomes while respecting pwMND right to autonomy. Future decision support interventions that address the emotional response and seek to support autonomy have the potential to enable pwMND to make informed and timely decisions about gastrostomy placement and ventilation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The lead author collaborated with several patient and participant involvement (PPI) groups with regards to the conceptualisation and design of this project. Decisions that have been influenced by discussions with multiple PPI panels include widening the scope of decisions about ventilation in addition to gastrostomy placement and the perceptions of all stakeholders involved (i.e., pwMND, caregivers and HCPs).

Self-completed online dietary recalls as an alternative method of dietary assessment for dietetic outpatient appointments: A feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Integrating digital dietary assessment within dietetic care could save time and reduce costs, at the same time as increasing patient engagement. The present study explores the feasibility of implementing a web-based dietary assessment tool, myfood24 (https://www.myfood24.org), into routine healthcare. METHODS: This mixed methods feasibility study recruited dietitians and patients from a National Health Service (NHS) hospital outpatient setting. Patients completed and shared three online 24-h dietary recalls in advance, which were used as a dietary assessment by dietitians. Recruitment data were collected and questionnaires on technology, usability, and acceptability were completed. Patient interviews and focus groups with dietitians were conducted. RESULTS: Eleven dietitians working in allergy, bariatrics, diabetes, oncology, general, renal, infectious diseases, and coeliac services took part with 39 patients. Recruitment rates were highest in bariatrics and lowest in renal and oncology. Compared to other studies, completion rates were good, with 29 (74.4%) completing three recalls despite lower technology readiness and software usability scores than in similar studies. Illness and difficulty with technology were reasons for non-completion. Opportunity to receive nutritional feedback from the tool and share this with a dietitian motivated patients to complete the record accurately. Consultation times were shortened in approximately one-third of appointments and a higher proportion of time was spent on nutritional education compared to usual practice. However, mean preparation time increased by 13 min per appointment because dietitians found nutritional analysis reports difficult to interpret. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to introduce a digital dietary assessment tool into NHS dietetic practice. However, further development is needed to ensure that the tool is suitable for healthcare.

The use of co-production, co-design and co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge mobilisation is a term used in healthcare research to describe the process of generating, sharing and using evidence. 'Co'approaches, such as co-production, co-design and co-creation, have been proposed as a way of overcoming the knowledge to practice gap. There is a need to understand why researchers choose to adopt these approaches, how they achieve knowledge mobilisation in the management of health conditions, and the extent to which knowledge mobilisation is accomplished. METHODS: Studies that explicitly used the terms co-production, co-design or co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions were included. Web of Science, EMBASE via OvidSP, MEDLINE via OvidSP and CINHAL via EBSCO databases were searched up to April 2021. Quality assessment was carried out using the Joanna Briggs Institute qualitative quality assessment checklist. Pluye and Hong's seven steps for mixed studies reviews were followed. Data were synthesised using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: Twenty four international studies were included. These were qualitative studies, case studies and study protocols. Key aspects of 'co'approaches were bringing people together as active and equal partners, valuing all types of knowledge, using creative approaches to understand and solve problems, and using iterative prototyping techniques. Authors articulated mechanisms of action that included developing a shared understanding, identifying and meeting needs, giving everyone a voice and sense of ownership, and creating trust and confidence. They believed these mechanisms could produce interventions that were relevant and acceptable to stakeholders, more useable and more likely to be implemented in healthcare. Varied activities were used to promote these mechanisms such as interviews and creative workshops. There appeared to be a lack of robust evaluation of the interventions produced so little evidence in this review that 'co'approaches improved the management of health conditions. CONCLUSION: Those using 'co'approaches believed that they could achieve knowledge mobilisation through a number of mechanisms, but there was no evidence that these led to improved health. The framework of key aspects and mechanisms of 'co'approaches developed here may help researchers to meet the principles of these approaches. There is a need for robust evaluation to identify whether 'co'approaches produce improved health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020187463 .

Guidance for reporting intervention development studies in health research (GUIDED): an evidence-based consensus study.

OBJECTIVE: To improve the quality and consistency of intervention development reporting in health research. DESIGN: This was a consensus exercise consisting of two simultaneous and identical three-round e-Delphi studies (one with experts in intervention development and one with wider stakeholders including funders, journal editors and public involvement members), followed by a consensus workshop. Delphi items were systematically derived from two preceding systematic reviews and a qualitative interview study. PARTICIPANTS: Intervention developers (n=26) and wider stakeholders (n=18) from the UK, North America and Europe participated in separate e-Delphi studies. Intervention developers (n=13) and wider stakeholders (n=13) participated in a 1-day consensus workshop. RESULTS: e-Delphi participants achieved consensus on 15 reporting items. Following feedback from the consensus meeting, the final inclusion and wording of 14 items with description and explanations for each item were agreed. Items focus on context, purpose, target population, approaches, evidence, theory, guiding principles, stakeholder contribution, changes in content or format during the development process, required changes for subgroups, continuing uncertainties, and open access publication. They form the GUIDED (GUIDance for the rEporting of intervention Development) checklist, which contains a description and explanation of each item, alongside examples of good reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus-based reporting guidance for intervention development in health research is now available for publishers and researchers to use. GUIDED has the potential to lead to greater transparency, and enhance quality and improve learning about intervention development research and practice.

Developing interventions to improve health: a systematic mapping review of international practice between 2015 and 2016.

BACKGROUND: Researchers publish the processes they use to develop interventions to improve health. Reflecting on this endeavour may help future developers to improve their practice. METHODS: Our aim was to collate, describe, and analyse the actions developers take when developing complex interventions to improve health. We carried out a systematic mapping review of empirical research studies that report the development of complex interventions to improve health. A search was undertaken of five databases over 2015-2016 using the term 'intervention dev*'. Eighty-seven journal articles reporting the process of intervention development were identified. A purposive subset of 30 articles, using a range of published approaches to developing interventions, was selected for in-depth analysis using principles of realist synthesis to identify the actions of intervention development and rationales underpinning those actions. RESULTS: The 87 articles were from the USA (39/87), the UK (32/87), continental Europe (6/87), and the rest of the world (10/87). These mainly took a pragmatic self-selected approach (n = 43); a theory- and evidence-based approach, e.g. Intervention Mapping, Behaviour Change Wheel (n = 22); or a partnership approach, e.g. community-based participatory research, co-design (n = 10). Ten actions of intervention development were identified from the subset of 30 articles, including identifying a need for an intervention, selecting the intervention development approach to follow, considering the needs of the target population, reviewing published evidence, involving stakeholders, drawing or generating theory, and designing and refining the intervention. Rationales for these actions were that they would produce more engaging, acceptable, feasible, and effective interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Developers take a variety of approaches to the international endeavour of complex intervention development. We have identified and described a set of actions taken within this endeavour regardless of whether developers follow a published approach or not. Future developers can use these actions and the rationales that underpin them to help them make decisions about the process of intervention development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42017080545.

Attending to design when developing complex health interventions: A qualitative interview study with intervention developers and associated stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Guidance and frameworks exist to assist those developing health interventions but may offer limited discussion of 'design', the part of development concerned with generating ideas for and making decisions about an intervention's content, format and delivery. The aim of this paper is to describe and understand the views and experiences of developers and associated stakeholders in relation to how design occurs in health intervention development. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 people who had developed complex interventions to improve health and/or who were relevant stakeholders (e.g. funders and publishers of intervention development work), regarding their views, experiences and approaches to intervention design. Sampling was purposive in terms of maximising diversity. A thematic inductive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Approaches to design varied substantially between intervention developers. This contrasted with consistency in other activities undertaken during development, such as literature review. Design also posed more challenges than other parts of development. We identified six 'modes' of design: informed; negotiated; structured; delegated; 'my baby'; and creative partnership. In understanding the differences between these different modes, and the challenges posed by intervention design, we identified three key themes: enabling creativity during the design process; working with different types of knowledge; and 'stabilising' (developing clear shared understandings of) the intervention development to enable design. CONCLUSIONS: Design has received less attention than other activities undertaken when developing interventions to improve health. Developers take a variety of approaches to design and often find it challenging. Guidance for intervention development in health has tended to see design as proceeding in a predictable and controlled manner from acquired knowledge. Our study suggests that design rarely reflects this rational ideal. Future guidance on intervention development in healthcare should support developers to work effectively with different types of knowledge, to help design progress more smoothly and to maximise creativity.

Guidance on how to develop complex interventions to improve health and healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: To provide researchers with guidance on actions to take during intervention development. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS: Based on a consensus exercise informed by reviews and qualitative interviews, we present key principles and actions for consideration when developing interventions to improve health. These include seeing intervention development as a dynamic iterative process, involving stakeholders, reviewing published research evidence, drawing on existing theories, articulating programme theory, undertaking primary data collection, understanding context, paying attention to future implementation in the real world and designing and refining an intervention using iterative cycles of development with stakeholder input throughout. CONCLUSION: Researchers should consider each action by addressing its relevance to a specific intervention in a specific context, both at the start and throughout the development process.

Understanding successful development of complex health and healthcare interventions and its drivers from the perspective of developers and wider stakeholders: an international qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVE: Identify how individuals involved in developing complex health and healthcare interventions (developers), and wider stakeholders in the endeavour, such as funders, define successful intervention development and what factors influence how interventions are developed. DESIGN: In-depth interviews with developers and wider stakeholders to explore their views and experiences of developing complex health and healthcare interventions. SETTING: Interviews conducted with individuals in the UK, Europe and North America. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one individuals were interviewed: 15 developers and 6 wider stakeholders. Seventeen participants were UK based. RESULTS: Most participants defined successful intervention development as a process that resulted in effective interventions that were relevant, acceptable and could be implemented in real-world contexts. Accounts also indicated that participants aimed to develop interventions that end users wanted, and to undertake a development process that was methodologically rigorous and provided research evidence for journal publications and future grant applications. Participants' ambitions to develop interventions that had real-world impact drove them to consider the intervention's feasibility and long-term sustainability early in the development process. However, this process was also driven by other factors: the realities of resource-limited health contexts; prespecified research funder priorities; a reluctance to deviate from grant application protocols to incorporate evidence and knowledge acquired during the development process; limited funding to develop interventions and the need for future randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to prove effectiveness. Participants expressed concern that these drivers discouraged long-term thinking and the development of innovative interventions, and prioritised evaluation over development and future implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Tensions exist between developers' goal of developing interventions that improve health in the real world, current funding structures, the limited resources within healthcare contexts, and the dominance of the RCT for evaluation of these interventions. There is a need to review funding processes and expectations of gold standard evaluation.

Taxonomy of approaches to developing interventions to improve health: a systematic methods overview.

BACKGROUND: Interventions need to be developed prior to the feasibility and piloting phase of a study. There are a variety of published approaches to developing interventions, programmes or innovations to improve health. Identifying different types of approach, and synthesising the range of actions taken within this endeavour, can inform future intervention development. METHODS: This study is a systematic methods overview of approaches to intervention development. Approaches were considered for inclusion if they described how to develop or adapt an intervention in a book, website or journal article published after 2007, or were cited in a primary research study reporting the development of a specific intervention published in 2015 or 2016. Approaches were read, a taxonomy of approaches was developed and the range of actions taken across different approaches were synthesised. RESULTS: Eight categories of approach to intervention development were identified. (1) Partnership, where people who will use the intervention participate equally with the research team in decision-making about the intervention throughout the development process. (2) Target population-centred, where the intervention is based on the views and actions of the people who will use it. (3) Evidence and theory-based, where the intervention is based on published research evidence and existing theories. (4) Implementation-based, where the intervention is developed with attention to ensuring it will be used in the real world. (5) Efficiency-based, where components of an intervention are tested using experimental designs to select components which will optimise efficiency. (6) Stepped or phased, where interventions are developed with an emphasis on following a systematic set of processes. (7) Intervention-specific, where an approach is constructed for a specific type of intervention. (8) Combination, where existing approaches to intervention development are formally combined. The actions from approaches in all eight categories were synthesised to identify 18 actions to consider when developing interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This overview of approaches to intervention development can help researchers to understand the variety of existing approaches, and to understand the range of possible actions involved in intervention development, prior to assessing feasibility or piloting the intervention. Findings from this overview will contribute to future guidance on intervention development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017080553.

The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) within organisations delivering health related services. However, organisations have had mixed success in implementing PROMs and there is little understanding about why this may be. Thus, the purpose of this study was to identify the facilitators and barriers to implementing PROMs in organisations. METHOD: A systematic review of reviews was undertaken. Searches were conducted of five electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, during the week of the 20th February 2017. Additional search methods included website searching and reference checking. To be included, a publication had to be a review of the literature, describe its methods and include information related to implementing PROMs. The reviews were extracted using a standardised form and assessed for their risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool. The findings were synthesised using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (PROSPERO) (CRD42017057491). RESULTS: Initially 2047 records were identified. After assessing eligibility, six reviews were included. These reviews varied in their review type and focus. Different issues arose at distinct stages of the implementation process. Organisations needed to invest time and resources in two key stages early in the implementation process: 'designing' the processes for using PROMs within an organisation; and 'preparing' an organisation and its staff. The 'designing' stage involved organisations planning not just which PROMs to use and how to administer them, but also how the data would be used for clinical purposes. The 'preparing' stage involved getting an organisation and its staff ready to use PROMs, particularly persuading clinicians of the validity and value of PROMs, delivering training, and developing electronic systems. Having an implementation lead overseeing the process and developing the process based on feedback were also identified as facilitating implementation. CONCLUSION: Organisations implementing PROMs need to invest time and resources in 'designing' the PROMs strategy and 'preparing' the organisation to use PROMs. Focusing on these earlier stages may prevent problems arising when PROMs are used in practice.

Adjusting a mainstream weight management intervention for people with intellectual disabilities: a user centred approach.

BACKGROUND: People with intellectual disabilities (ID) may not be able to access and respond to uniformly delivered health interventions. Public bodies have a legal duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' to policies and practices to provide fair access and treatment for people with ID. This study aimed to identify adjustments to the Slimming World weight management programme to improve accessibility and assess acceptability and feasibility for this population. METHODS: This user-centred qualitative study was carried out with a steering group of people with ID (n = 4). Barriers and facilitators to using Slimming World were identified through interviews and focus groups with people with ID (n = 54), carers (n = 12) current members with ID (n = 8) and Slimming World group leaders (n = 11). Adjustments were made and their feasibility and acceptability were explored in a before-and-after mixed methods study where people with ID attended Slimming World for eight weeks. Participants (n = 9), carers (n = 7) and Slimming World group leaders (n = 4) were interviewed to explore their experiences of the adjustments. Participants were weighed at baseline then each week. RESULTS: Four key adjustments were identified and addressed by Slimming World who developed prototype Easy Read materials and a letter for carers. Six of the nine participants attended Slimming World for eight weeks and lost weight (1.4 kg to 6.6 kg, reduction in BMI between 0.5 and 1.7 kg/m2), indicating that the adjustments were feasible and acceptable. Two participants dropped out because they felt uncomfortable in a mainstream group and another left because they lacked control over food choice in their residential setting. CONCLUSIONS: This user-centred approach identified reasonable adjustments that were feasible to implement. In a small uncontrolled feasibility study, people with ID were positive about the adjustments and lost weight. However, issues in the wider context of people's lives, such as obesogenic environments and concerns about joining mainstream groups, limited the acceptability of Slimming World even with these adjustments. These findings have important implications for policy and suggest that environmental and organisational level interventions are needed alongside those targeting individual behaviour to tackle the obesogenic environment in which many people with ID spend their time, in order to reduce inequalities associated with the consequences of obesity.

A study to define: profound and multiple learning disabilities (PMLD).

This study aimed to define the term 'profound and multiple learning disabilities' (PMLD). A shared understanding of terminology or diagnostic terms describing groups of individuals is important for the purposes of strategic development, service planning, and the provision and equity of service delivery. A literature review provided different definitions and meanings associated with the term. The meaning attributed to the definitions was explored in focus groups and individual interviews (face to face and telephone) with service managers, commissioners, practitioners, frontline healthcare staff and family carers who provide services, support and care for people with PMLD. Further iterative discussions were held with a smaller group over the precise wording of the chosen definition to ensure there was a shared and common understanding. Personal characteristics for the purpose of this study are defined as diagnoses, disabilities, impairments, activity restrictions and other characteristics which represent a person with PMLD.