Development of an implementation science informed "Test Evidence Transition" program to improve cancer outcomes.

Introduction: Translation of cancer research into practice takes around 15 years. Programs informed by implementation science methods and frameworks offer potential to improve cancer outcomes by addressing the implementation gap. Methods: We describe the development of a Test Evidence Transition (TET) program which provides funding and support to health system delivery teams and project design and evaluation partners working together to achieve three objectives: Test innovations to support optimal cancer pathways that transform clinical practice; Evidence the process, outcome, and impact of implementation; and work with strategic partners to ensure the Transition of best practice into effective and equitable adoption across UK health systems. Results: Phase 1 launched in April 2023. Teams with the capability and motivation to implement evidence-based pathway innovations were identified and invited to submit expressions of interest. Following peer-review, teams were supported to develop full proposals with input from academics specializing in health services research, evaluation, and implementation science. Projects were selected for funding, providing an opportunity to implement and evaluate innovations with support from academic and health system partners. Conclusions: TET aims to improve cancer outcomes by identifying and addressing local-level barriers to evidence-based practice and translating findings into consistent and equitable adoption across health systems. Phase 1 projects focus on pathway innovations in diagnosis for breast and prostate cancer. We are now launching Phase 2, focusing on colorectal cancer.

Behavioural activation to mitigate the psychological impacts of COVID-19 restrictions on older people in England and Wales (BASIL+): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Older adults were more likely to be socially isolated during the COVID-19 pandemic, with increased risk of depression and loneliness. We aimed to investigate whether a behavioural activation intervention delivered via telephone could mitigate depression and loneliness in at-risk older people during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: BASIL+ (Behavioural Activation in Social Isolation) was a pragmatic randomised controlled trial conducted among patients recruited from general practices in England and Wales, and was designed to assess the effectiveness of behavioural activation in mitigating depression and loneliness among older people during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible participants were aged 65 years and older, socially isolated, with a score of 5 or higher on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and had multiple long-term conditions. Participants were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention (behavioural activation) or control groups by use of simple randomisation without stratification. Behavioural activation was delivered by telephone; participants were offered up to eight weekly sessions with trained BASIL+ Support Workers. Behavioural activation was adapted to maintain social connections and encourage socially reinforcing activities. Participants in the control group received usual care with existing COVID-19 wellbeing resources. The primary clinical outcome was self-reported depression severity, assessed by the PHQ-9, at 3 months. Outcomes were assessed masked to allocation and analysis was by treatment allocation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN63034289). FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022, 449 eligible participants were identified and 435 from 26 general practices were recruited and randomly assigned (1:1) to the behavioural activation intervention (n=218) or to the control group (usual care with signposting; n=217). The mean age of participants was 75·7 years (SD 6·7); 270 (62·1%) of 435 participants were female, and 418 (96·1%) were White. Participants in the intervention group attended an average of 5·2 (SD 2·9) of eight remote behavioural activation sessions. The adjusted mean difference in PHQ-9 scores between the control and intervention groups at 3 months was -1·65 (95% CI -2·54 to -0·75, p=0·0003). No adverse events were reported that were attributable to the behavioural activation intervention. INTERPRETATION: Behavioural activation is an effective and potentially scalable intervention that can reduce symptoms of depression and emotional loneliness in at-risk groups in the short term. The findings of this trial add to the range of strategies to improve the mental health of older adults with multiple long-term conditions. These results can be helpful to policy makers beyond the pandemic in reducing the global burden of depression and addressing the health impacts of loneliness, particularly in at-risk groups. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Acceptability of a behavioural intervention to mitigate the psychological impacts of COVID-19 restrictions in older people with long-term conditions: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic heightened the need to address loneliness, social isolation and associated incidence of depression among older adults. Between June and October 2020, the Behavioural Activation in Social IsoLation (BASIL) pilot study investigated the acceptability and feasibility of a remotely delivered brief psychological intervention (behavioural cctivation) to prevent and reduce loneliness and depression in older people with long-term conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: An embedded qualitative study was conducted. Semi-structured interviews generated data that was analysed inductively using thematic analysis and then deductively using the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). SETTING: NHS and third sector organisations in England. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen older adults and nine support workers participating in the BASIL pilot study. RESULTS: Acceptability of the intervention was high across all constructs of the TFA: Older adults and BASIL Support Workers described a positive Affective Attitude towards the intervention linked to altruism, however the activity planning aspect of the intervention was limited due to COVID-19 restrictions. A manageable Burden was involved with delivering and participating in the intervention. For Ethicality, older adults valued social contact and making changes, support workers valued being able to observe those changes. The intervention was understood by older adults and support workers, although less understanding in older adults without low mood (Intervention Coherence). Opportunity Cost was low for support workers and older adults. Behavioural Activation was perceived to be useful in the pandemic and likely to achieve its aims (Perceived Effectiveness), especially if tailored to people with both low mood and long-term conditions. Self-efficacy developed over time and with experience for both support workers and older adults. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, BASIL pilot study processes and the intervention were acceptable. Use of the TFA provided valuable insights into how the intervention was experienced and how the acceptability of study processes and the intervention could be enhanced ahead of the larger definitive trial (BASIL+).

Behavioural Activation for Social IsoLation (BASIL+) trial (Behavioural activation to mitigate depression and loneliness among older people with long-term conditions): Protocol for a fully-powered pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Depression is a leading mental health problem worldwide. People with long-term conditions are at increased risk of experiencing depression. The COVID-19 pandemic led to strict social restrictions being imposed across the UK population. Social isolation can have negative consequences on the physical and mental wellbeing of older adults. In the Behavioural Activation in Social IsoLation (BASIL+) trial we will test whether a brief psychological intervention (based on Behavioural Activation), delivered remotely, can mitigate depression and loneliness in older adults with long-term conditions during isolation. METHODS: We will conduct a two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial across several research sites, to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the BASIL+ intervention. Participants will be recruited via participating general practices across England and Wales. Participants must be aged ≥65 with two or more long-term conditions, or a condition that may indicate they are within a 'clinically extremely vulnerable' group in relation to COVID-19, and have scored ≥5 on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9), to be eligible for inclusion. Randomisation will be 1:1, stratified by research site. Intervention participants will receive up to eight intervention sessions delivered remotely by trained BASIL+ Support Workers and supported by a self-help booklet. Control participants will receive usual care, with additional signposting to reputable sources of self-help and information, including advice on keeping mentally and physically well. A qualitative process evaluation will also be undertaken to explore the acceptability of the BASIL+ intervention, as well as barriers and enablers to integrating the intervention into participants' existing health and care support, and the impact of the intervention on participants' mood and general wellbeing in the context of the COVID-19 restrictions. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with intervention participants, participant's caregivers/supportive others and BASIL+ Support Workers. Outcome data will be collected at one, three, and 12 months post-randomisation. Clinical and cost-effectiveness will be evaluated. The primary outcome is depressive symptoms at the three-month follow up, measured by the PHQ9. Secondary outcomes include loneliness, social isolation, anxiety, quality of life, and a bespoke health services use questionnaire. DISCUSSION: This study is the first large-scale trial evaluating a brief Behavioural Activation intervention in this population, and builds upon the results of a successful external pilot trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov identifier ISRCTN63034289, registered on 5th February 2021.

The feasibility and acceptability of a brief psychological intervention for adults with long-term health conditions and subthreshold depression delivered via community pharmacies: a mixed methods evaluation-the Community Pharmacies Mood Intervention Study (CHEMIST).

BACKGROUND: Adults with long-term health conditions (LTCs) are more likely to experience depressive symptoms which can worsen health outcomes and quality of life, and increase healthcare costs. Subthreshold depression may go undetected and/or untreated. The Community Pharmacies Mood Intervention Study (CHEMIST) explored whether community pharmacies represent a suitable setting to offer brief psychological support to people with LTCs and comorbid subthreshold depression. METHODS: A feasibility intervention study with a nested mixed methods evaluation was employed. Adults with subthreshold depression and a minimum of one LTC were recruited from community pharmacies/local general practices and offered a brief psychological support intervention ('Enhanced Support Intervention' (ESI)), based on behavioural activation within a Collaborative Care framework. The intervention included up to six sessions supported by pharmacy staff ('ESI facilitators') trained to deliver the ESI within the community pharmacy setting. Recruitment, retention rates and engagement with the ESI were assessed. Semi-structured, one-to-one interviews with pharmacy staff and study participants, and a focus group with pharmacy staff, explored experiences and acceptability of the study and the ESI. Themes were mapped onto constructs of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. RESULTS: Recruitment of ESI participants was challenging and slower than anticipated despite the varied methods of recruitment employed; although, this was useful in identifying barriers and enabling factors for participation. Engagament with the ESI was good with n=17 (71%) recruited participants commencing the ESI. The ESI was found to be acceptable to participants and ESI facilitators. Retention rate at 4 months was good n=20 (87.0%). The main barriers to identifying potential participants for pharmacy staff were lack of time, resources and limited experience in research. The ESI training and support manual were acceptable to ESI facilitators. The ESI and supporting patient workbook were acceptable to people with LTCs and subthreshold depression. CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacies were viewed as an acceptable setting in which to deliver preventative brief psychological support to people with LTCs at risk of depression. This feasibility study provided important data to inform the design of a pilot randomised controlled trial in this setting and highlighted important considerations for future pharmacy-based research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN11290592.

Behavioural activation to prevent depression and loneliness among socially isolated older people with long-term conditions: The BASIL COVID-19 pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Older adults, including those with long-term conditions (LTCs), are vulnerable to social isolation. They are likely to have become more socially isolated during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, often due to advice to "shield" to protect them from infection. This places them at particular risk of depression and loneliness. There is a need for brief scalable psychosocial interventions to mitigate the psychological impacts of social isolation. Behavioural activation (BA) is a credible candidate intervention, but a trial is needed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook an external pilot parallel randomised trial (ISRCTN94091479) designed to test recruitment, retention and engagement with, and the acceptability and preliminary effects of the intervention. Participants aged ≥65 years with 2 or more LTCs were recruited in primary care and randomised by computer and with concealed allocation between June and October 2020. BA was offered to intervention participants (n = 47), and control participants received usual primary care (n = 49). Assessment of outcome was made blind to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was depression severity (measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9)). We also measured health-related quality of life (measured by the Short Form (SF)-12v2 mental component scale (MCS) and physical component scale (PCS)), anxiety (measured by the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7)), perceived social and emotional loneliness (measured by the De Jong Gierveld Scale: 11-item loneliness scale). Outcome was measured at 1 and 3 months. The mean age of participants was aged 74 years (standard deviation (SD) 5.5) and they were mostly White (n = 92, 95.8%), and approximately two-thirds of the sample were female (n = 59, 61.5%). Remote recruitment was possible, and 45/47 (95.7%) randomised to the intervention completed 1 or more sessions (median 6 sessions) out of 8. A total of 90 (93.8%) completed the 1-month follow-up, and 86 (89.6%) completed the 3-month follow-up, with similar rates for control (1 month: 45/49 and 3 months 44/49) and intervention (1 month: 45/47and 3 months: 42/47) follow-up. Between-group comparisons were made using a confidence interval (CI) approach, and by adjusting for the covariate of interest at baseline. At 1 month (the primary clinical outcome point), the median number of completed sessions for people receiving the BA intervention was 3, and almost all participants were still receiving the BA intervention. The between-group comparison for the primary clinical outcome at 1 month was an adjusted between-group mean difference of -0.50 PHQ-9 points (95% CI -2.01 to 1.01), but only a small number of participants had completed the intervention at this point. At 3 months, the PHQ-9 adjusted mean difference (AMD) was 0.19 (95% CI -1.36 to 1.75). When we examined loneliness, the adjusted between-group difference in the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale at 1 month was 0.28 (95% CI -0.51 to 1.06) and at 3 months -0.87 (95% CI -1.56 to -0.18), suggesting evidence of benefit of the intervention at this time point. For anxiety, the GAD adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 0.20 (-1.33, 1.73) and at 3 months 0.31 (-1.08, 1.70). For the SF-12 (physical component score), the adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 0.34 (-4.17, 4.85) and at 3 months 0.11 (-4.46, 4.67). For the SF-12 (mental component score), the adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 1.91 (-2.64, 5.15) and at 3 months 1.26 (-2.64, 5.15). Participants who withdrew had minimal depressive symptoms at entry. There were no adverse events. The Behavioural Activation in Social Isolation (BASIL) study had 2 main limitations. First, we found that the intervention was still being delivered at the prespecified primary outcome point, and this fed into the design of the main trial where a primary outcome of 3 months is now collected. Second, this was a pilot trial and was not designed to test between-group differences with high levels of statistical power. Type 2 errors are likely to have occurred, and a larger trial is now underway to test for robust effects and replicate signals of effectiveness in important secondary outcomes such as loneliness. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that BA is a credible intervention to mitigate the psychological impacts of COVID-19 isolation for older adults. We demonstrated that it is feasible to undertake a trial of BA. The intervention can be delivered remotely and at scale, but should be reserved for older adults with evidence of depressive symptoms. The significant reduction in loneliness is unlikely to be a chance finding, and replication will be explored in a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN94091479.

Behaviour change techniques in personalised care planning for older people: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Personalised care planning (PCP) interventions have the potential to provide better outcomes for older people and are a key focus in primary care practice. Behaviour change techniques (BCTs) can maximise effectiveness of such interventions, but it is uncertain which BCTs are most appropriate in PCP for older adults. AIM: To identify BCTs used in successful PCP interventions for older people aged ≥65 years. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review. METHOD: The authors searched 12 databases from date of inception to 30 September 2017. They identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions involving participants aged ≥65 years, and contextually related to PCP. Five areas of risk of bias were assessed. The Michie et al, BCT taxonomy was used for coding. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs involving 6489 participants (average age 74 years) described PCP interventions targeting the general older adult population and older people with specific long-term conditions (for example, heart disease, diabetes, stroke). Just over half of the studies were deemed to be at a low risk of bias. Eleven 'promising' BCTs were identified in five trials reporting significant improvements in quality of life (QoL). Six BCTs were reported in all five of these trials: 'goal setting', 'action planning', 'problem solving', 'social support', 'instructions on how to perform a behaviour', and 'information on health consequences'. Modes of delivery varied. CONCLUSION: Future PCP interventions to improve QoL for people aged ≥65 years may benefit from focusing on six specific BCTs. Better reporting of BCTs would enhance future design and implementation of such interventions.

A lifeworld theory-led action research process for humanizing services: improving "what matters" to older people to enhance humanly sensitive care.

Purpose: Using a theory-led action research process test applicability of humanizing care theory to better understand what matters to people and assess how the process can improve human dimensions of health care services. Consideration of the value of this process to guide enhancements in humanly sensitive care and investigate transferable benefits of the participatory strategy for improving human dimensions of health care services. Methods: Action research with service users, practitioners and academics, with participatory processes led through the application of theory via a novel Humanizing Care Framework in two diverse clinical settings. Results: Participants engaged in a theory-led participatory process, understood and valued the framework seeing how it relates to own experiences. Comparative analysis of settings identified transferable processes with potential to enhance human dimensions of care more generally. We offer transferable strategy with contextualized practical details of humanizing processes and outcomes that can contribute to portable pathways to enhance dignity in care through application of humanizing care theory in practice. Conclusion: The theoretical framework is a feasible and effective guide to enhance human dimensions of care. Our rigorous participative process facilitates sharing of patient and staff experience, sensitizing practitioners' understandings and helping develop new ways of providing theoretically robust person-centred care based on lifeworld approaches.

Effects of interorganisational information technology networks on patient safety: a realist synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Health services in many countries are investing in interorganisational networks, linking patients' records held in different organisations across a city or region. The aim of the systematic review was to establish how, why and in what circumstances these networks improve patient safety, fail to do so, or increase safety risks, for people living at home. DESIGN: Realist synthesis, drawing on both quantitative and qualitative evidence, and including consultation with stakeholders in nominal groups and semistructured interviews. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The coordination of services for older people living at home, and medicine reconciliation for older patients returning home from hospital. INFORMATION SOURCES: 17 sources including Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ACM Digital Library, and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts. OUTCOMES: Changes in patients' clinical risks. RESULTS: We did not find any detailed accounts of the sequences of events that policymakers and others believe will lead from the deployment of interoperable networks to improved patient safety. We were, though, able to identify a substantial number of theory fragments, and these were used to develop programme theories.There is good evidence that there are problems with the coordination of services in general, and the reconciliation of medication lists in particular, and it indicates that most problems are social and organisational in nature. There is also good evidence that doctors and other professionals find interoperable networks difficult to use. There was limited high-quality evidence about safety-related outcomes associated with the deployment of interoperable networks. CONCLUSIONS: Empirical evidence does not currently justify claims about the beneficial effects of interoperable networks on patient safety. There appears to be a mismatch between technology-driven assumptions about the effects of networks and the sociotechnical nature of coordination problems. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017073004.

Community Pharmacies Mood Intervention Study (CHEMIST): feasibility and external pilot randomised controlled trial protocol.

FEASIBILITY STUDY: Objectives:Refine a bespoke enhanced support intervention (ESI) (including self-help materials, intervention manual and training) for implementation by community pharmacy (CP) staff to people with sub-threshold depression and long-term conditions (LTCs) based upon evidence-supported interventions in primary careDevelop and refine study procedures (recruitment strategies and set up, screening, participant recruitment, assessment, suitability of outcome measures and data collection procedures) for testing in the pilot study phaseDesign: A case series/qualitative studySetting: UK community pharmacyPopulation: Adults with long-term health conditions who screen-positive for depression but who do not reach the threshold for DSM IV Moderate Depressive disorderIntervention: Enhanced support intervention (ESI) delivered by an appropriately trained community pharmacy team member involving four to six sessions over four months. ESI is a modified form of an intervention within the collaborative care framework for sub-threshold depression validated in previous studies in UK primary care which appears suitable for implementation in community settings.Sample size: 20-30 participantsOutcomes: Study implementation (recruitment and attrition rates), quality of data collection at baseline and 4 months and ESI adherence (number of contacts, DNA and drop out) as per objectives 1a/bQualitative evaluation: Semi-structured interviews with up to 10 participants and ESI facilitators and focus group(s) (range of pharmacy staff n = 8-10) will be conducted to explore the acceptability of the intervention and feasibility of the study, training and study procedures. EXTERNAL PILOT STUDY: Objectives:Quantify the flow of participants (eligibility, recruitment and follow-up rate)Evaluate proposed recruitment, assessment and outcome measure collection methodsExamine the delivery of the enhanced support intervention in a community pharmacy setting (intervention uptake, retention and dose) to inform process evaluationProcess evaluation, using semi-structured interviews with participants across a range of socio-economic settings, and pharmacy staff to explore the acceptability of the ESI within community pharmacy, elements of the intervention that were considered useful (or not) and appropriateness of study proceduresDesign: Pilot randomised controlled trial, including a prospective economic and qualitative evaluationSetting: As abovePopulation: As aboveIntervention: As above with adaptations post feasibility studyComparator: Usual careSample size: 100 participantsOutcomes: Data will be used to estimate recruitment, intervention delivery and study completion rates as per objectives 2a-d. Definitive estimates of the effectiveness of ESI will not be made.Primary outcome: Depression severity (Patient Health Questionnaire 9) at four months.Secondary outcomes: Patient acceptance, uptake and attrition. ICD10 depression status, anxiety (GAD 7), health-related quality of life (SF-12v2) and health-state utility (EQ5D 3L) will be measured at four months.Economic evaluation: The incremental cost per QALY will be calculated from both the NHS and societal perspective.Process evaluation: Using mixed methods, potential mediators/moderators of the intervention, the acceptability (to participants and pharmacy staff), barriers and facilitators to the use of ESI in community pharmacy, and impact on usual practice will be examined. Semi-structured interviews with approximately 30 study participants, 20 pharmacy staff and eight GPs near participating pharmacies will be conducted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN11290592Protocol version number: Version 4.1 (dated 16th January 2018)Study Sponsor Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust.

Facilitating a dedicated focus on the human dimensions of care in practice settings: Development of a new humanised care assessment tool (HCAT) to sensitise care.

There is limited consensus about what constitutes humanly sensitive care, or how it can be sustained in care settings. A new humanised care assessment tool may point to caring practices that are up to the task of meeting persons as humans within busy healthcare environments. This paper describes qualitative development of a tool that is conceptually sensitive to human dimensions of care informed by a life-world philosophical orientation. Items were generated to reflect eight theoretical dimensions that constitute what makes care feel humanly focused. An action research group process in 2014-2015 with researchers, service users, healthcare professionals in two diverse clinical settings (stroke rehabilitation and dermatology) was used. Feedback on conceptual content, transparency of meaning and readability was then gained from a panel in Sweden and third-year student nurses in the UK. The tool can be applied to attune staff to human dimensions of care, offering items which point to concrete examples of humanising and dehumanising features of practice in ways that have not yet been fully captured in the caring literature. Based on theoretically led experiential items, with dedicated focus on what makes people feel more, or less than human, it may offer improvement on available assessments of care.

Barriers to participation in mental health research: are there specific gender, ethnicity and age related barriers?

BACKGROUND: It is well established that the incidence, prevalence and presentation of mental disorders differ by gender, ethnicity and age, and there is evidence that there is also differential representation in mental health research by these characteristics. The aim of this paper is to a) review the current literature on the nature of barriers to participation in mental health research, with particular reference to gender, age and ethnicity; b) review the evidence on the effectiveness of strategies used to overcome these barriers. METHOD: Studies published up to December 2008 were identified using MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE using relevant mesh headings and keywords. RESULTS: Forty-nine papers were identified. There was evidence of a wide range of barriers including transportation difficulties, distrust and suspicion of researchers, and the stigma attached to mental illness. Strategies to overcome these barriers included the use of bilingual staff, assistance with travel, avoiding the use of stigmatising language in marketing material and a focus on education about the disorder under investigation. There were very few evaluations of such strategies, but there was evidence that ethnically matching recruiters to potential participants did not improve recruitment rates. Educational strategies were helpful and increased recruitment. CONCLUSION: Mental health researchers should consider including caregivers in recruitment procedures where possible, provide clear descriptions of study aims and describe the representativeness of their sample when reporting study results. Studies that systematically investigate strategies to overcome barriers to recruitment are needed.

Healthy masculinities? How ostensibly healthy men talk about lifestyle, health and gender.

Research on men's health has predominantly focussed on links between 'hegemonic' masculinities (e.g. perceived invulnerability) and health-averse practices (e.g. high fat diets). However, it seems reasonable to assume that not all men adopt conventional 'unhealthy' masculine positions, so it is important to study those men who are engaged in healthy practices to see how masculinity is constructed in this context. The research reported here derives from an interview study with men categorised as pursuing health-promoting lifestyles (regular exercise, no/low alcohol intake etc.). The focus is on how these apparently 'healthy' men (n = 10) account for their health-promoting practices, with a particular focus on the role of masculinities in framing these practices. Following intensive analysis of the interview transcripts drawing upon elements of discourse analysis, we identify a variety of accounts used by the men to frame their health-promoting practices. For example, all the men disavowed a direct interest in talking/thinking about health, construed as excessive and feminine, and instead justified their practices variously in terms of action-orientation, sporting targets, appearance concerns and being autonomous. These findings are discussed with respect to the relationships between masculinities and health, and implications for health promotion work with men are discussed.