Transferability of the NHS low-calorie diet programme: A qualitative exploration of factors influencing the programme's transfer ahead of wide-scale adoption.

INTRODUCTION: Although behavioural interventions have been found to help control type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is important to understand how the delivery context can influence implementation and outcomes. The NHS committed to testing a low-calorie diet (LCD) programme designed to support people living with excess weight and T2D to lose weight and improve diabetes outcomes. Understanding what influenced implementation during the programme pilot is important in optimising rollout. This study explored the transferability of the NHS LCD Programme prior to wider adoption. METHODS: Twenty-five interviews were undertaken with stakeholders involved in implementing the LCD programme in pilot sites (health service leads, referring health professionals and programme deliverers). Interviews with programme participants (people living with T2D) were undertaken within a larger programme of work, exploring what worked, for whom and why, which is reported separately. The conceptual Population-Intervention-Environment-Transfer Model of Transferability (PIET-T) guided study design and data collection. Constructs of the model were also used as a deductive coding frame during data analysis. Key themes were identified which informed recommendations to optimise programme transfer. RESULTS: Population: Referral strategies in some areas lacked consideration of population characteristics. Many believed that offering a choice of delivery model would promote acceptability and accessibility of the eligible population. INTERVENTION: Overall, stakeholders had confidence in the LCD programme due to the robust evidence base along with anecdotal evidence, but some felt the complex referral process hindered engagement from GP practices. ENVIRONMENT: Stakeholders described barriers to accessing the programme, including language and learning difficulties. Transferability: Multidisciplinary working and effective communication supported successful implementation. CONCLUSION: Referral strategies to reach underrepresented groups should be considered during programme transfer, along with timely data from service providers on access and programme benefits. A choice of delivery models may optimise uptake. Knowledge sharing between sites on good working practices is encouraged, including increasing engagement with key stakeholders.

Childhood obesity prevention trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis on trial design and the impact of type 1 error.

Effect sizes from previously reported trials are often used to determine the meaningful change in weight in childhood obesity prevention interventions because information on clinically meaningful differences is lacking. Estimates from previous trials may be influenced by statistical significance; therefore, it is important that they have a low risk of type 1 error. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to report on the design of child obesity prevention randomized controlled trials and effectiveness according to risk of type 1 error. Eighty-four randomized controlled trials were identified. A large range of assumptions were applied in the sample size calculations. The most common primary outcome was BMI, with detectable effect size differences used in sample size calculations ranging from 0.25 kg/m2 (followed up at 2 years) to 1.1 kg/m2 (at 9 months) and BMI z-score ranging from 0.1 (at 4 years) to 0.67 (at 3 years). There was no consistent relationship between low risk of type 1 error and reports of higher or lower effectiveness. Further clarity of the size of a meaningful difference in weight in childhood obesity prevention trials is required to support evaluation design and decision-making for intervention and policy. Type 1 error risk does not appear to impact effect sizes in a consistent direction.

Methods of assessing value for money of UK-based early childhood public health interventions: a systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Economic evaluation has an important role to play in the demonstration of value for money of early childhood public health interventions; however, concerns have been raised regarding their consistent application and relevance to commissioners. This systematic review of the literature therefore aims to collate the breadth of the existing economic evaluation evidence of these interventions and to identify the approaches adopted in the assessment of value. SOURCE OF DATA: Recently published literature in Medline, EMBASE, EconLit, Health Management Information Consortium, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Technology Assessment, NHS EED and Web of Science. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: The importance of the early childhood period on future health and well-being as well as the potential to impact health inequalities making for a strong narrative case for expenditure in early childhood public health. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: The most appropriate approaches to evaluating value for money of such preventative interventions relevant for UK decision-makers given the evident challenges. GROWING POINTS: The presented review considered inconsistencies across methodological approaches used to demonstrate value for money. The results showed a mixed picture in terms of demonstrating value for money. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Future resource allocations decisions regarding early childhood public health interventions may benefit from consistency in the evaluative frameworks and health outcomes captured, as well as consistency in approaches to incorporating non-health costs and outcomes, incorporating equity concerns and the use of appropriate time horizons.

Efficacy of a Commercial Weight Management Program Compared With a Do-It-Yourself Approach: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Given the prevalence of obesity, accessible and effective treatment options are needed to manage obesity and its comorbid conditions. Commercial weight management programs are a potential solution to the lack of available treatment, providing greater access at lower cost than clinic-based approaches, but few commercial programs have been rigorously evaluated. Objective: To compare the differences in weight change between individuals randomly assigned to a commercial weight management program and those randomly assigned to a do-it-yourself (DIY) approach. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 1-year, randomized clinical trial conducted in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom between June 19, 2018, and November 30, 2019, enrolled 373 adults aged 18 to 75 years with a body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 25 to 45. Assessors were blinded to treatment conditions. Interventions: A widely available commercial weight management program that included reduced requirements for dietary self-monitoring and recommendations for a variety of DIY approaches to weight loss. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the difference in weight change between the 2 groups at 3 and 12 months. The a priori hypothesis was that the commercial program would result in greater weight loss than the DIY approach at 3 and 12 months. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: The study include 373 participants (272 women [72.9%]; mean [SD] BMI, 33.8 [5.2]; 77 [20.6%] aged 18-34 years, 74 [19.8%] aged 35-43 years, 82 [22.0%] aged 44-52 years, and 140 [37.5%] aged 53-75 years). At 12 months, retention rates were 88.8% (166 of 187) for the commercial weight management program group and 95.7% (178 of 186) for the DIY group. At 3 months, participants in the commercial program had a mean (SD) weight loss of -3.8 (4.1) kg vs -1.8 (3.7) kg among those in the DIY group. At 12 months, participants in the commercial program had a mean (SD) weight loss of -4.4 (7.3) kg vs -1.7 (7.3) kg among those in the DIY group. The mean difference between groups was -2.0 kg (97.5% CI, -2.9 to -1.1 kg) at 3 months (P < .001) and -2.6 kg (97.5% CI, -4.3 to -0.8 kg) at 12 months (P < .001). A greater percentage of participants in the commercial program group than participants in the DIY group achieved loss of 5% of body weight at both 3 months (40.7% [72 of 177] vs 18.6% [34 of 183]) and 12 months (42.8% [71 of 166] vs 24.7% [44 of 178]). Conclusions and Relevance: Adults randomly assigned to a commercial weight management program with reduced requirements for dietary self-monitoring lost more weight and were more likely to achieve weight loss of 5% at 3 and 12 months than adults following a DIY approach. This study contributes data on the efficacy of commercial weight management programs and DIY weight management approaches. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03571893.

Addressing inequalities in the identification and management of perinatal mental health difficulties: The perspectives of minoritised women, healthcare practitioners and the voluntary sector.

Background: Perinatal mental health (PMH) difficulties affect approximately one in five birthing women. If not identified and managed appropriately, these PMH difficulties can carry impacts across generations, affecting mental health and relationship outcomes. There are known inequalities in identification and management across the healthcare pathway. Whilst barriers and facilitators have been identified there is a lack of clarity about how these relate to the avoidable and unfair inequalities experienced by various groups of women. Further research is required to understand how to address inequalities in PMH. Aim: To understand the key factors that enable and hinder access to PMH care for women from minoritised groups across the PMH care pathway, and how these have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A sequential mixed-methods approach gathered views and experiences from stakeholders in one region in northern England. This included an online survey with 145 NHS healthcare practitioners and semi-structured interviews with 19 women from ethnic minority and/or socio-economically deprived backgrounds who had experienced PMH difficulties, and 12 key informants from the voluntary and community sector workforce. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and framework analysis was applied to qualitative data. Findings: Barriers and facilitators were mapped using a socio-technical framework to understand the role of (i) processes, (ii) people (organised as women, practitioners and others), (iii) technology, and (iv) the system as a whole in deepening or alleviating inequalities. Influences that were identified as pertinent to inequalities in identification and management included provision of interpreters, digital exclusion, stigma, disempowerment, distrust of services, practitioner attitudes, data capture, representation in the workforce, narrow rules of engagement and partnership working. Stakeholder groups expressed that several barriers were further compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussion: The findings highlight the need for change at the system level to tackle inequalities across the PMH care pathway. Four inter-connected recommendations were developed to enable this systems change: building emotional safety between professionals and women; making PMH a part of core healthcare business; increasing cultural competency specific to PMH; and enhanced partnership working.

Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a targeted cancer awareness intervention for adults living in deprived areas of the UK.

BACKGROUND: Cancer outcomes are poor in socioeconomically deprived communities, with low symptom awareness contributing to prolonged help-seeking and advanced disease. Targeted cancer awareness interventions require evaluation. METHODS: This is a randomised controlled trial involving adults aged 40+ years recruited in community and healthcare settings in deprived areas of South Yorkshire and South-East Wales. INTERVENTION: personalised behavioural advice facilitated by a trained lay advisor. CONTROL: usual care. Follow-up at two weeks and six months post-randomisation. PRIMARY OUTCOME: total cancer symptom recognition score two weeks post-randomisation. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-four participants were randomised. The difference in total symptom recognition at two weeks [adjusted mean difference (AMD) 0.6, 95% CI: -0.03, 1.17, p = 0.06] was not statistically significant. Intervention participants reported increased symptom recognition (AMD 0.8, 95% CI: 0.18, 1.37, p = 0.01) and earlier intended presentation (AMD -2.0, 95% CI: -3.02, -0.91, p < 0.001) at six months. "Lesser known" symptom recognition was higher in the intervention arm (2 weeks AMD 0.5, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.97 and six months AMD 0.7, 95% CI: 0.16, 1.17). Implementation cost per participant was £91.34, with no significant between-group differences in healthcare resource use post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Improved symptom recognition and earlier anticipated presentation occurred at longer-term follow-up. The ABACus Health Check is a viable low-cost intervention to increase cancer awareness in socioeconomically deprived communities. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16872545.

Recruitment and retention of participants from socioeconomically deprived communities: lessons from the Awareness and Beliefs About Cancer (ABACus3) Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment of research participants poses challenges in socioeconomically deprived areas. The Awareness and Beliefs About Cancer (ABACus) phase 3 Randomised Control Trial recruited adult participants from socioeconomically deprived areas using a combined healthcare/community engagement model. We report the strategies used to successfully recruit and retain our trial participant sample. METHODS: Community and healthcare settings in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation were identified by lay advisors who recruited participants opportunistically or by appointment. Follow-up was done by telephone or post at 2-weeks and 6-months after recruitment, and all participants were offered financial incentives. Qualitative interviews were conducted with lay advisors regarding their experience and reflections. RESULTS: The lay advisors identified and contacted 107 potential recruitment venues across South and West Yorkshire and South East Wales of which 41.1% (n = 42) were opened for recruitment. A total of 234 participants were recruited, with 91% (n = 212) retention at 2-weeks and 85% (n = 199) at 6-months. Community settings yielded 75% (n = 176) of participants. Participants had a mean age of 61.3 years and 63.3% (n = 148) were female, with 66% (n = 154) resident in the most deprived geographical areas. Lay advisors described recruitment as intensive, although engaging participants was easier in community settings. CONCLUSIONS: The ABACus3 trial achieved recruitment and high retention with a population that is often "hard to reach" or entirely missed in health research. Strategies were specifically tailored to engage the venues and adult residents of highly deprived areas. Future studies recruiting adults living in the most deprived areas might benefit from community recruitment and from collaborating with local gatekeepers who are key to engagement. This study adheres to CONSORT guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered with ISRCTN ( http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16872545 ) on 12.01.2018.

Improving cancer symptom awareness and help-seeking among adults living in socioeconomically deprived communities in the UK using a facilitated health check: A protocol for the Awareness and Beliefs About Cancer (ABACus) Randomised Control Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survival is lower in socioeconomically deprived communities, partly due to low awareness of symptoms, negative beliefs and delayed help-seeking. We developed an interactive health check questionnaire facilitated by trained lay advisors. It entails 29 questions about background, lifestyle and health with tailored behaviour change advice. Personalised results are printed using a traffic light (red/amber/green) system, highlighting areas where action should be taken. This is an individually randomised control trial to test effectiveness of the health check on symptom recognition. METHODS: A total 246 participants aged 40+ years will be recruited from community and healthcare settings in socioeconomically deprived areas of Yorkshire and South Wales. Participants will be randomised to receive the health check or standard care (1:1 ratio). Outcome measures include: adapted Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer (primary outcome), brief State Trait Anxiety Inventory, intentions and motivation to adopt recommended health behaviours (early symptom presentation, cancer screening and lifestyle behaviours), adapted Client Service Receipt Inventory, brief medical history/screening and demographic questionnaire at: baseline; 2-weeks; and 6-months post-randomisation. A purposive sample of intervention sessions will be audio-recorded (n = 24) and half will additionally be observed (n = 12). Semi-structured interviews will take place at 2-weeks (n = 30) and 6-months (n = 15-20) post-randomisation. The primary analysis will compare cancer symptom recognition scores between arms at 2-weeks. Secondary analysis will assess cancer beliefs, barriers/time to presentation, screening and lifestyle behaviours, anxiety and costs. A process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity, dose and contamination. The London-Surrey NHS Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 17/LO/1507) approved this trial. DISCUSSION: This is a trial of a theoretically underpinned complex intervention which has undergone phase 1 and 2 development work. The findings will evaluate evidence about the effect of the health check on symptom awareness. Although there are few exclusion criteria there are limitations regarding the population we are able to reach, who may have even higher risks of late diagnosis and poor cancer prognosis. However, the health check has the potential to improve cancer symptom awareness and encourage early help-seeking behaviour in deprived populations, thereby reducing inequalities in longer term cancer outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered with ISRCTN (Ref: ISRCTN16872545 ) on 12.01.2018.