Can uptake of childhood influenza immunisation through schools and GP practices be increased through behaviourally-informed invitation letters and reminders: two pragmatic randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The UK is rolling out a national childhood influenza immunisation programme for children, delivered through primary care and schools. Behaviourally-informed letters and reminders have been successful at increasing uptake of other public health interventions. Therefore, we investigated the effects of a behaviourally-informed letter on uptake of the vaccine at GP practices, and of a letter and a reminder (SMS/ email) on uptake at schools. METHODS AND RESULTS: Study 1 was a cluster-randomised parallel trial of 21,786 two- and three-year olds in 250 GP practices, conducted during flu season (September to January inclusive) 2016/7. The intervention was a centrally-sent behaviourally-informed invitation letter, control was usual care. The proportion of two- and three-year olds in each practice who received a vaccination by 31st January 2017 was 23.4% in the control group compared to 37.1% in the intervention group (OR = 1.93; 95% CI = 1.82, 2.05, p <  0.001). Study 2 was a 2 (behavioural letter vs standard letter) × 2 (reminder vs no reminder) factorial trial of 1108 primary schools which included 3010 school years 1-3. Letters were sent to parents from providers, and reminders sent to parents from the schools. In the standard-letter-no-reminder arm, an average of 61.6% of eligible children in each school year were vaccinated, compared to 61.9% in the behavioural-letter-no-reminder arm, 63.5% in the standard-letter-plus-reminder arm, and 62.9% in the behavioural-letter-plus reminder condition, F(3, 2990) = 2.68, p = 0.046. In a multi-level model, with demographic variables as fixed effects, the proportion of eligible students in the school year who were vaccinated increased with the reminder, ß = 0.086 (0.041), p <  0.036, but there was no effect of the letter nor any interaction effect. CONCLUSION: Sending a behaviourally informed invitation letter can increase uptake of childhood influenza vaccines at the GP surgery compared to usual practice. A reminder SMS or email can increase uptake of the influenza vaccine in schools, but the effect size was minimal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study 1: Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02921633. Study 2: Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02883972.

Location, location, location: a discrete choice experiment to inform COVID-19 vaccination programme delivery in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Large-scale vaccination is fundamental to combatting COVID-19. In March 2021, the UK's vaccination programme had delivered vaccines to large proportions of older and more vulnerable population groups; however, there was concern that uptake would be lower among young people. This research was designed to elicit the preferences of 18-29-year-olds regarding key delivery characteristics and assess the influence of these on intentions to get vaccinated, to inform planning for this cohort. METHODS: From 25 March to 2 April 2021, an online sample of 2012 UK adults aged 18-29 years participated in a Discrete Choice Experiment. Participants made six choices, each involving two SMS invitations to book a vaccination appointment and an opt-out. Invitations had four attributes (1 × 5 levels, 3 × 3 levels): delivery mode, appointment timing, proximity, and sender. These were systematically varied according to a d-optimal design. Responses were analysed using a mixed logit model. RESULTS: The main effects logit model revealed a large alternative-specific constant (ß = 1.385, SE = 0.067, p < 0.001), indicating a strong preference for 'opting in' to appointment invitations. Pharmacies were dispreferred to the local vaccination centre (ß = - 0.256, SE = 0.072, p < 0.001), appointments in locations that were 30-45 min travel time from one's premises were dispreferred to locations that were less than 15 min away (ß = - 0.408, SE = 0.054, p < 0.001), and, compared to invitations from the NHS, SMSs forwarded by 'a friend' were dispreferred (ß = - 0.615, SE = 0.056, p < 0.001) but invitations from the General Practitioner were preferred (ß = 0.105, SE = 0.048, p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that the existing configuration of the UK's vaccination programme was well-placed to deliver vaccines to 18-29-year-olds; however, some adjustments might enhance acceptance. Local pharmacies were not preferred; long travel times were a disincentive but close proximity (0-15 min from one's premises) was not necessary; and either the 'NHS' or 'Your GP' would serve as adequate invitation sources. This research informed COVID-19 policy in the UK, and contributes to a wider body of Discrete Choice Experiment evidence on citizens' preferences, requirements and predicted behaviours regarding COVID-19.

Effectiveness of digital interventions to improve household and community infection prevention and control behaviours and to reduce incidence of respiratory and/or gastro-intestinal infections: a rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Digital interventions have potential to efficiently support improved hygiene practices to reduce transmission of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence for digital interventions to improve hygiene practices within the community. METHODS: We reviewed articles published between 01 January 2000 and 26 May 2019 that presented a controlled trial of a digital intervention to improve hygiene behaviours in the community. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure and grey literature. Trials in hospitals were excluded, as were trials aiming at prevention of sexually transmitted infections; only target diseases with transmission mechanisms similar to COVID-19 (e.g. respiratory and gastrointestinal infections) were included. Trials had to evaluate a uniquely digital component of an intervention. Study designs were limited to randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after trials, and interrupted time series analyses. Outcomes could be either incidence of infections or change in hygiene behaviours. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess study quality. RESULTS: We found seven studies that met the inclusion criteria. Six studies reported successfully improving self-reported hygiene behaviour or health outcomes, but only one of these six trials, Germ Defence, confirmed improvements using objective measures (reduced consultations and antibiotic prescriptions). Settings included kindergartens, workplaces, and service station restrooms. Modes of delivery were diverse: WeChat, website, text messages, audio messages to mobiles, electronic billboards, and electronic personal care records. Four interventions targeted parents of young children with educational materials. Two targeted the general population; these also used behaviour change techniques or theory to inform the intervention. Only one trial had low risk of bias, Germ Defence; the most common concerns were lack of information about the randomisation, possible bias in reporting of behavioural outcomes, and lack of an analysis plan and possible selective reporting of results. CONCLUSION: There was only one trial that was judged to be at low risk of bias, Germ Defence, which reduced incidence and severity of illness, as confirmed by objective measures. Further evaluation is required to determine the effectiveness of the other interventions reviewed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020189919 .

Using behavioural insights to reduce sugar in primary school children's packed lunches in derby; A cluster randomised controlled trial.

Children's packed lunches contain more sugar than school-provided meals. Interventions to improve the provision of healthier packed lunches have modest effects on lunch contents. This cluster randomised controlled trial tested an intervention to encourage healthier provision of packed lunches by parents of primary school children in Derby. Schools were randomised to intervention (n = 8) or control (n = 9) using blocked random allocation. In the intervention group, parents of children who brought packed lunches to school in years 3-6 (age 7-11 years) received three bundles of materials (including packed lunch planner, shopping list, information on sugar content of popular lunchbox items and suggestions for healthier swap alternatives) in bookbags/lunchboxes over a 4-week period. Control parents received no materials. Photos of lunchbox contents were taken at baseline, immediately post-intervention and at three-month follow-up. A parental survey aimed to assess capability, opportunity and motivation for packing a healthier lunchbox. No intervention effects were observed for primary outcomes (presence and number of sugary snacks or chilled sugary desserts). The intervention had a significant impact on one secondary outcome (increased number of healthier "swap" items suggested in intervention materials) immediately post-intervention, but this effect had disappeared at three-month follow-up. No intervention effects were found on survey variables. Parent comments revealed that materials were either received positively (as they reinforced existing behaviours) or negatively (as they were not perceived to be helpful or appropriate). The results of this study suggest that providing educational materials and resources to parents of primary school children in Derby was not sufficient to increase provision of healthier packed lunches. Future research should investigate how behavioural science can support families to improve the nutritional content of primary school children's lunchboxes.

Effectiveness of Digital Interventions for Reducing Behavioral Risks of Cardiovascular Disease in Nonclinical Adult Populations: Systematic Review of Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Digital health interventions are increasingly being used as a supplement or replacement for face-to-face services as a part of predictive prevention. They may be offered to those who are at high risk of cardiovascular disease and need to improve their diet, increase physical activity, stop smoking, or reduce alcohol consumption. Despite the popularity of these interventions, there is no overall summary and comparison of the effectiveness of different modes of delivery of a digital intervention to inform policy. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to summarize the effectiveness of digital interventions in improving behavioral and health outcomes related to physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, or diet in nonclinical adult populations and to identify the effectiveness of different modes of delivery of digital interventions. METHODS: We reviewed articles published in the English language between January 1, 2009, and February 25, 2019, that presented a systematic review with a narrative synthesis or meta-analysis of any study design examining digital intervention effectiveness; data related to adults (≥18 years) in high-income countries; and data on behavioral or health outcomes related to diet, physical activity, smoking, or alcohol, alone or in any combination. Any time frame or comparator was considered eligible. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Reviews, and gray literature. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to assess review confidence ratings. RESULTS: We found 92 reviews from the academic literature (47 with meta-analyses) and 2 gray literature items (1 with a meta-analysis). Digital interventions were typically more effective than no intervention, but the effect sizes were small. Evidence on the effectiveness of digital interventions compared with face-to-face interventions was mixed. Most trials reported that intent-to-treat analysis and attrition rates were often high. Studies with long follow-up periods were scarce. However, we found that digital interventions may be effective for up to 6 months after the end of the intervention but that the effects dissipated by 12 months. There were small positive effects of digital interventions on smoking cessation and alcohol reduction; possible effectiveness in combined diet and physical activity interventions; no effectiveness for interventions targeting physical activity alone, except for when interventions were delivered by mobile phone, which had medium-sized effects; and no effectiveness observed for interventions targeting diet alone. Mobile interventions were particularly effective. Internet-based interventions were generally effective. CONCLUSIONS: Digital interventions have small positive effects on smoking, alcohol consumption, and in interventions that target a combination of diet and physical activity. Small effects may have been due to the low efficacy of treatment or due to nonadherence. In addition, our ability to make inferences from the literature we reviewed was limited as those interventions were heterogeneous, many reviews had critically low AMSTAR-2 ratings, analysis was typically intent-to-treat, and follow-up times were relatively short. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019126074; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=126074.

Infection Control Behavior at Home During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Observational Study of a Web-Based Behavioral Intervention (Germ Defence).

BACKGROUND: To control the COVID-19 pandemic, people should adopt protective behaviors at home (self-isolation, social distancing, putting shopping and packages aside, wearing face coverings, cleaning and disinfecting, and handwashing). There is currently limited support to help individuals conduct these behaviors. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to report current household infection control behaviors in the United Kingdom and examine how they might be improved. METHODS: This was a pragmatic cross-sectional observational study of anonymous participant data from Germ Defence between May 6-24, 2020. Germ Defence is an open-access fully automated website providing behavioral advice for infection control within households. A total of 28,285 users sought advice from four website pathways based on household status (advice to protect themselves generally, to protect others if the user was showing symptoms, to protect themselves if household members were showing symptoms, and to protect a household member who is at high risk). Users reported current infection control behaviors within the home and intentions to change these behaviors. RESULTS: Current behaviors varied across all infection control measures but were between sometimes (face covering: mean 1.61, SD 1.19; social distancing: mean 2.40, SD 1.22; isolating: mean 2.78, SD 1.29; putting packages and shopping aside: mean 2.75, SD 1.55) and quite often (cleaning and disinfecting: mean 3.17, SD 1.18), except for handwashing (very often: mean 4.00, SD 1.03). Behaviors were similar regardless of the website pathway used. After using Germ Defence, users recorded intentions to improve infection control behavior across all website pathways and for all behaviors (overall average infection control score mean difference 0.30, 95% CI 0.29-0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported infection control behaviors other than handwashing are lower than is optimal for infection prevention, although handwashing is much higher. Advice using behavior change techniques in Germ Defence led to intentions to improve these behaviors. Promoting Germ Defence within national and local public health and primary care guidance could reduce COVID-19 transmission.

Behavioral economics informed message content in text message reminders to improve cervical screening participation: Two pragmatic randomized controlled trials.

The objective of the reported research was to assess the impact of text message (SMS) reminders and their content on cervical screening rates. Women invited for cervical screening in Northwest London from February-October 2015 were eligible. 3133 women aged 24-29 (Study 1) were randomized (1, 1) to 'no SMS' (control), or a primary care physician (PCP) endorsed SMS (SMS-PCP). 11,405 women aged 30-64 (Study 2), were randomized (1, 1:1:1:1:1:1) to either: no SMS, an SMS without manipulation (SMS), the SMS-PCP, an SMS with a total or proportionate social norm (SMS-SNT or SMS-SNP), or an SMS with a gain-framed or loss-framed message (SMS-GF and SMS-LF). The primary outcome was participation at 18 weeks. In Study 1 participation was significantly higher in the SMS-PCP arm (31.4%) compared to control (26.4%, aOR, 1.29, 95%CI: 1.09-1·51; p = 0.002). In Study 2 participation was highest in the SMS-PCP (38.4%) and SMS (38.1%) arms compared to control (34.4%), (aOR: 1.19, 95%CI: 1.03-1.38; p = 0.02 and aOR: 1.18, 95%CI: 1.02-1.37; p = 0.03, respectively). The results demonstrate that behavioral SMSs improve cervical screening participation. The message content plays an important role in the impact of SMS. The results from this trial have already been used to designing effective policy for cervical cancer screening. The NHS Cervical Screening Programme started running a London-wide screening SMS campaign which was based on the cervical screening trial described here. According to figures published by Public Health England, after six months attendance increased by 4.8%, which is the equivalent of 13,400 more women being screened at 18 weeks.

Influences on NHS Health Check behaviours: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: National Health Service Health Checks were introduced in 2009 to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks and events. Since then, national evaluations have highlighted the need to maximise the programme's impact by improving coverage and outputs. To address these challenges it is important to understand the extent to which positive behaviours are influenced across the NHS Health Check pathway and encourage the promotion or minimisation of behavioural facilitators and barriers respectively. This study applied behavioural science frameworks to: i) identify behaviours and actors relevant to uptake, delivery and follow up of NHS Health Checks and influences on these behaviours and; ii) signpost to example intervention content. METHODS: A systematic review of studies reporting behaviours related to NHS Health Check-related behaviours of patients, health care professionals (HCPs) and commissioners. Influences on behaviours were coded using theory-based models: COM-B and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Potential intervention types and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were suggested to target key influences. RESULTS: We identified 37 studies reporting nine behaviours and influences for eight of these. The most frequently identified influences were physical opportunity including HCPs having space and time to deliver NHS Health Checks and patients having money to adhere to recommendations to change diet and physical activity. Other key influences were motivational, such as beliefs about consequences about the value of NHS Health Checks and behaviour change, and social, such as influences of others on behaviour change. The following techniques are suggested for websites or smartphone apps: Adding objects to the environment, e.g. provide HCPs with electronic schedules to guide timely delivery of Health Checks to target physical opportunity, Social support (unspecified), e.g. include text suggesting patients to ask a colleague to agree in advance to join them in taking the 'healthy option' lunch at work; Information about health consequences, e.g. quotes and/or videos from patients talking about the health benefits of changes they have made. CONCLUSIONS: Through the application of behavioural science we identified key behaviours and their influences which informed recommendations for intervention content. To ascertain the extent to which this reflects existing interventions we recommend a review of relevant evidence.

Influences on the Uptake of and Engagement With Health and Well-Being Smartphone Apps: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The public health impact of health and well-being digital interventions is dependent upon sufficient real-world uptake and engagement. Uptake is currently largely dependent on popularity indicators (eg, ranking and user ratings on app stores), which may not correspond with effectiveness, and rapid disengagement is common. Therefore, there is an urgent need to identify factors that influence uptake and engagement with health and well-being apps to inform new approaches that promote the effective use of such tools. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to understand what is known about influences on the uptake of and engagement with health and well-being smartphone apps among adults. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies. Studies conducted on adults were included if they focused on health and well-being smartphone apps reporting on uptake and engagement behavior. Studies identified through a systematic search in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, or MEDLARS Online (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsychINFO, Scopus, Cochrane library databases, DataBase systems and Logic Programming (DBLP), and Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital library were screened, with a proportion screened independently by 2 authors. Data synthesis and interpretation were undertaken using a deductive iterative process. External validity checking was undertaken by an independent researcher. A narrative synthesis of the findings was structured around the components of the capability, opportunity, motivation, behavior change model and the theoretical domains framework (TDF). RESULTS: Of the 7640 identified studies, 41 were included in the review. Factors related to uptake (U), engagement (E), or both (B) were identified. Under capability, the main factors identified were app literacy skills (B), app awareness (U), available user guidance (B), health information (E), statistical information on progress (E), well-designed reminders (E), features to reduce cognitive load (E), and self-monitoring features (E). Availability at low cost (U), positive tone, and personalization (E) were identified as physical opportunity factors, whereas recommendations for health and well-being apps (U), embedded health professional support (E), and social networking (E) possibilities were social opportunity factors. Finally, the motivation factors included positive feedback (E), available rewards (E), goal setting (E), and the perceived utility of the app (E). CONCLUSIONS: Across a wide range of populations and behaviors, 26 factors relating to capability, opportunity, and motivation appear to influence the uptake of and engagement with health and well-being smartphone apps. Our recommendations may help app developers, health app portal developers, and policy makers in the optimization of health and well-being apps.

The effectiveness of repeating a social norm feedback intervention to high prescribers of antibiotics in general practice: a national regression discontinuity design.

OBJECTIVES: Unnecessary antibiotic prescribing contributes to antimicrobial resistance. A randomized controlled trial in 2014-15 showed that a letter from England's Chief Medical Officer (CMO) to high-prescribing GPs, giving feedback about their prescribing relative to the norm, decreased antibiotic prescribing. The CMO sent further feedback letters in succeeding years. We evaluated the effectiveness of the repeated feedback intervention. METHODS: Publicly available databases were used to identify GP practices whose antibiotic prescribing was in the top 20% nationally (the intervention group). In April 2017, GPs in every practice in the intervention group (n=1439) were sent a letter from the CMO. The letter stated that, 'the great majority of practices in England prescribe fewer antibiotics per head than yours'. Practices in the control group received no communication (n=5986). We used a regression discontinuity design to evaluate the intervention because assignment to the intervention condition was exogenous, depending on a 'rating variable'. The outcome measure was the average rate of antibiotic items dispensed from April 2017 to September 2017. RESULTS: The GP practices who received the letter changed their prescribing rates by -3.69% (95% CI=-2.29 to -5.10; P<0.001), representing an estimated 124 952 fewer antibiotic items dispensed. The effect is robust to different specifications of the model. CONCLUSIONS: Social norm feedback from a high-profile messenger continues to be effective when repeated. It can substantially reduce antibiotic prescribing at low cost and on a national scale. Therefore, it is a worthwhile addition to antimicrobial stewardship programmes.

Applying behavioural science to increase uptake of the NHS Health Check: a randomised controlled trial of gain- and loss-framed messaging in the national patient information leaflet.

BACKGROUND: The NHS Health Check (NHSHC) is a national programme for the prevention of non-communicable diseases. Patients aged 40-74 without an existing cardiovascular-related condition should be invited quinquennially. Uptake is lower than anticipated. We assessed the impact on uptake of two new behaviourally-enhanced leaflets (with the current national leaflet as a control), enclosed with the invitation letter: the first trial on the leaflet. METHODS: A double-blind three-armed randomized controlled trial was conducted. The new leaflets were shorter (two pages, instead of four); one was loss-framed ('don't miss out') and the other was gain-framed ('make the most of life'). The participants were patients from 39 practices in Lewisham and 17 practices in NE Lincolnshire, who were allocated to interventions using a random-number generator and received one of the leaflets with their invitation letter from April-September 2018. The outcome measure was uptake of an NHSHC by November 2018. The trial was powered to detect a 2% effect. RESULTS: Uptake was 17.6% in the control condition (n = 3677), 17.4% in the loss-framed condition (n = 3664), and 18.2% in the gain-framed condition (n = 3697). Leaflet type was not a significant predictor of NHSHC uptake in a logistic regression that controlled for demographic variables, with GP practice as a random effect. Statistically significant predictors of uptake included location (higher uptake in Lewisham), age (increased age was associated with increased attendance) and sex (higher uptake in females). The Bayes Factor comparing the null to a hypothesis of differences between conditions was 416, which is extreme evidence in favour of the null hypothesis. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence for a meaningful effect of either a loss-framed or gain-framed behaviourally-informed leaflet type on uptake, which is surprising, given that behaviourally informed letters have improved uptake of NHSHCs. It is possible that people do not pay attention to leaflets that are enclosed with letters, or that the leaflet continues to support informed decision-making but this does not affect uptake. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03524131. Registered May 14, 2018. Retrospectively registered.

Pre-notification and reminder SMS text messages with behaviourally informed invitation letters to improve uptake of NHS Health Checks: a factorial randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The NHS Health Check (NHS HC) is a cardiovascular risk assessment to prevent cardiovascular disease. Public Health England (PHE) wants to increase uptake. METHODS: We explored the impact of behaviourally informed invitation letters and pre-notification and reminder SMS on uptake of NHS HCs. Patients at 28 General Practices in the London Borough of Southwark who were eligible to receive an NHS HC between 1st November 2013 and 31st December 2014 were included. A double-blind randomised controlled trial with a mixed 2 (pre-notification SMS - yes or no) × 4 (letter - national template control, open-ended, time-limited, social norm) × 2 (reminder SMS - yes or no) factorial design was used. The open-ended letter used simplification, behavioural instruction and a personalised planning prompt for patients to record the date and time of their NHS HC. The time-limited letter was similar but stated the NHS HC was due in a named forthcoming month. The social norms letter was similar to the open-ended letter but included a descriptive social norms message and testimonials from local residents and no planning prompt. The outcome measure was attendance at an NHS HC. RESULTS: Data for 12, 244 invites were analysed. Uptake increased in almost all letter and SMS combinations compared to the control letter without SMS (Uptake 18%), with increases of up to 12 percentage points for the time-limited letter with pre-notification and reminder (Uptake 30%; Adjusted Odds Ratio AOR 1.86; 95% CI 1.45-2.83; p < 0.00); 10 percentage points for the open-ended letter with reminder (Uptake 27%; AOR 1.68; 95% CI 1.31-2.17; p < 0.00) and a 9 percentage point increase using the time-limited letter with reminder (Uptake 27%; AOR 1.61; 95% CI 1.25-2.10; p < 0.00). The reminder SMS increased uptake for all intervention letters. The pre-notification did not add to this effect. CONCLUSIONS: This large randomised controlled trial adds support to the evidence that small, low cost behaviourally informed changes to letter-based invitations can increase uptake of NHS HCs. It also provides novel evidence on the effect of SMS reminders and pre-notification on NHS HC attendance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively Registered (24/01/2014) ISRCTN36027094 .

Randomised controlled trial comparing uptake of NHS Health Check in response to standard letters, risk-personalised letters and telephone invitations.

BACKGROUND: NHS Health Check is a primary prevention programme offering cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment to adults in England aged 40-74. Uptake remains a challenge and invitation method is a strong predictor of uptake. There is evidence of low uptake when using invitation letters. Telephone invitations might increase uptake, but are not widely used. We explored the potential to improve uptake through personalising letters to patient's CVD risk, and to compare this with generic letters and telephone invitations. METHODS: HEalth Check TRial (HECTR) was a three-arm randomised controlled trial in nine general practices in Staffordshire (UK). Eligible patients were randomised to be invited to a NHS Health Check using one of three methods: standard letter (control); telephone invitation; letter personalised to the patient's CVD risk. The primary outcome was attendance/non-attendance. Data were collected on a range of patient- and practice-level factors (e.g., patient socio-demographics, CVD risk, practice size, Health Checks outside usual working hours). Multi-level logistic regression estimated the marginal effects to explore whether invitation method predicted attendance. Invitation costs were collated from practices to estimate cost benefit. RESULTS: In total, 4614 patients were included in analysis (mean age 50.2 ± 8.0 yr.; 52.4% female). Compared with patients invited by standard letter (30.9%), uptake was significantly higher in those invited by telephone (47.6%, P < .001), but not personalised letter (31.3%, p = .812). In multi-level analysis, compared with the standard letter arm, likelihood of attendance was 18 percentage points higher in the telephone arm and 4 percentage points higher in the personalised letter arm. The effect of telephone calls appeared strongest in patients who were younger and had lower CVD risk. We estimated per 1000 patients invited, risk-personalised letters could result in 40 additional attended Health Checks (at no extra cost) and telephone invitations could result in 180 additional Health Checks at an additional cost of £240. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone invitations should be advocated to address the substantial deficit between current and required levels of NHS uptake, and could be targeted at younger and lower CVD risk adults. Risk-personalised letters should be explored further in a larger sample of high risk individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration number: ISRCTN15840751 date of registration: 24/10/2017.

Provision of social norm feedback to high prescribers of antibiotics in general practice: a pragmatic national randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary antibiotic prescribing contributes to antimicrobial resistance. In this trial, we aimed to reduce unnecessary prescriptions of antibiotics by general practitioners (GPs) in England. METHODS: In this randomised, 2 × 2 factorial trial, publicly available databases were used to identify GP practices whose prescribing rate for antibiotics was in the top 20% for their National Health Service (NHS) Local Area Team. Eligible practices were randomly assigned (1:1) into two groups by computer-generated allocation sequence, stratified by NHS Local Area Team. Participants, but not investigators, were blinded to group assignment. On Sept 29, 2014, every GP in the feedback intervention group was sent a letter from England's Chief Medical Officer and a leaflet on antibiotics for use with patients. The letter stated that the practice was prescribing antibiotics at a higher rate than 80% of practices in its NHS Local Area Team. GPs in the control group received no communication. The sample was re-randomised into two groups, and in December, 2014, GP practices were either sent patient-focused information that promoted reduced use of antibiotics or received no communication. The primary outcome measure was the rate of antibiotic items dispensed per 1000 weighted population, controlling for past prescribing. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN32349954, and has been completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 8 and Sept 26, 2014, we recruited and assigned 1581 GP practices to feedback intervention (n=791) or control (n=790) groups. Letters were sent to 3227 GPs in the intervention group. Between October, 2014, and March, 2015, the rate of antibiotic items dispensed per 1000 population was 126.98 (95% CI 125.68-128.27) in the feedback intervention group and 131.25 (130.33-132.16) in the control group, a difference of 4.27 (3.3%; incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.967 [95% CI 0.957-0.977]; p<0.0001), representing an estimated 73,406 fewer antibiotic items dispensed. In December, 2014, GP practices were re-assigned to patient-focused intervention (n=777) or control (n=804) groups. The patient-focused intervention did not significantly affect the primary outcome measure between December, 2014, and March, 2015 (antibiotic items dispensed per 1000 population: 135.00 [95% CI 133.77-136.22] in the patient-focused intervention group and 133.98 [133.06-134.90] in the control group; IRR for difference between groups 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02; p=0.105). INTERPRETATION: Social norm feedback from a high-profile messenger can substantially reduce antibiotic prescribing at low cost and at national scale; this outcome makes it a worthwhile addition to antimicrobial stewardship programmes. FUNDING: Public Health England.

The effectiveness of an enhanced invitation letter on uptake of National Health Service Health Checks in primary care: a pragmatic quasi-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service Health Check (NHS HC) is a population level public health programme. It is a primary prevention initiative offering cardiovascular risk assessment and management for adults aged 40-74 years (every five years). It was designed to reduce the incidence of major vascular disease events by preventing or delaying the onset of diabetes, heart and kidney disease, stroke and vascular dementia . Effectiveness of the programme has been modelled on a national uptake of 75% however in 2012/13 uptake, nationally, was 49%. Ensuring a high percentage of those offered an NHS HC actually receive one is key to optimising the clinical and cost effectiveness of the programme. METHODS: A pragmatic quasi-randomised controlled trial was conducted in four general practitioner practices in Medway, England with randomisation of 3511 patients. The aim was to compare attendance at the NHS HC using the standard national invitation template letter (control) compared to an enhanced invitation letter using insights from behavioural science (intervention). The intervention letter includes i) simplification - reducing letter content for less effortful processing ii) behavioural instruction - action focused language iii) personal salience - appointment due rather than invited and iv) addressing implementation intentions with a tear off slip to record the date, time and location of the appointment. Logistic Regression explored the association between control and intervention group and attendance at a health check. RESULTS: 29.3% of patients who received the control letter and 33.5% of those who received the intervention letter attended their NHS HC (adjusted odds ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.47, p < 0.01). This was an absolute difference in uptake of 4.2 percentage points for those receiving the intervention letter. CONCLUSIONS: An invitation letter applying behavioural insights was more effective than the existing national template letter at encouraging attendance at an NHS HC. Making small, no cost behaviourally informed changes to letter invitations can improve uptake of the NHS HC. Further research is required to replicate the effect with more robust methodology and powered for sub-group analysis including socio-economic status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66757664 , date of registration 28/3/2014.

Vaccination invitations sent by warm and competent medical professionals disclosing risks and benefits increase trust and booking intention and reduce inequalities between ethnic groups.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to identify vaccination invitations that foster trust and improve vaccination uptake overall, especially among ethnic minority groups who are more at risk from coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and less likely to be vaccinated. METHOD: In a preregistered 4 × 4 mixed-design experiment, we manipulated how much risk-benefit information the message included within-subjects and the message source between-subjects (N = 4,038 U.K. and U.S. participants, 50% ethnic minority). Participants read four vaccine invitations that varied in vaccination risk-benefit information (randomized order): control (no information), benefits only, risk and benefit, and risk and benefit that mentions vulnerable groups. The messages were sent by one of four sources (random allocation): control (health institution), medical professional (unnamed), warm and competent medical professional (unnamed), and named warm and competent medical professional (Sanjay/Lamar). Participants assessed how much they trusted the message and how likely they would be to book their vaccination appointment. RESULTS: Information about vaccination benefits and risks increased trust, especially among ethnic minority groups-for whom the effect replicated within each group. Trust also increased when the message was sent by a warm and competent medical professional relative to a health institution, but the importance of the source mattered less when more information was shared. CONCLUSIONS: Our research demonstrates the positive impact of outlining the benefits and disclosing the risks of COVID vaccines in vaccination invitation messages. Having a warm and competent medical professional source can also increase trust, especially where the message is limited in scope. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

An approach for embedding behavioural science in antimicrobial resistance One Health research.

Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) is a global health emergency that threatens modern medicine and incurs great cost to human health. The World Health Organization as part of a quadripartite joint initiative with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Organisation for Animal Health, and United Nations Environment Programme, has recently published a One Health Priority Research Agenda for AMR. In this article we present a multidisciplinary approach, proposed by behavioural science experts, One Health experts and AMR experts to support the implementation of the Priority Research Agenda. We review, using specific examples of complex interventions designed to tackle AMR in which behavioural science has been embedded, five main steps: Define - what behaviours are a priority in each context; Diagnose - What are the barriers and enablers to the behaviours prioritised? Design - what interventions exist and what new or enhanced interventions could work to tackle the barriers identified? and, Implement and Evaluate the intervention(s). The approach presented will be useful for funders and researchers who wish to incorporate methods, frameworks and insights from the behavioural sciences into research plans, proposals and protocols in relation to a multisectoral One Health agenda and produce findings that are more relevant to policymakers.

Applying machine-learning to rapidly analyze large qualitative text datasets to inform the COVID-19 pandemic response: comparing human and machine-assisted topic analysis techniques.

Introduction: Machine-assisted topic analysis (MATA) uses artificial intelligence methods to help qualitative researchers analyze large datasets. This is useful for researchers to rapidly update healthcare interventions during changing healthcare contexts, such as a pandemic. We examined the potential to support healthcare interventions by comparing MATA with "human-only" thematic analysis techniques on the same dataset (1,472 user responses from a COVID-19 behavioral intervention). Methods: In MATA, an unsupervised topic-modeling approach identified latent topics in the text, from which researchers identified broad themes. In human-only codebook analysis, researchers developed an initial codebook based on previous research that was applied to the dataset by the team, who met regularly to discuss and refine the codes. Formal triangulation using a "convergence coding matrix" compared findings between methods, categorizing them as "agreement", "complementary", "dissonant", or "silent". Results: Human analysis took much longer than MATA (147.5 vs. 40 h). Both methods identified key themes about what users found helpful and unhelpful. Formal triangulation showed both sets of findings were highly similar. The formal triangulation showed high similarity between the findings. All MATA codes were classified as in agreement or complementary to the human themes. When findings differed slightly, this was due to human researcher interpretations or nuance from human-only analysis. Discussion: Results produced by MATA were similar to human-only thematic analysis, with substantial time savings. For simple analyses that do not require an in-depth or subtle understanding of the data, MATA is a useful tool that can support qualitative researchers to interpret and analyze large datasets quickly. This approach can support intervention development and implementation, such as enabling rapid optimization during public health emergencies.

Using text and charts to provide social norm feedback to general practices with high overall and high broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing: a series of national randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Sending a social norms feedback letter to general practitioners who are high prescribers of antibiotics has been shown to reduce antibiotic prescribing. The 2017-9 Quality Premium for primary care in England sets a target for broad-spectrum prescribing, which should be at or below 10% of total antibiotic prescribing. We tested a social norm feedback letter that targeted broad-spectrum prescribing and the addition of a chart to a text-only letter that targeted overall prescribing. METHODS: We conducted three 2-armed randomised controlled trials, on different groups of practices: Trial A compared a broad-spectrum message and chart to the standard-practice overall prescribing letter (practices whose percentage of broad-spectrum prescribing was above 10% and who had relatively high overall prescribing). Trial C compared a broad-spectrum message and a chart to a no-letter control (practices whose percentage of broad-spectrum prescribing was above 10% and who had relatively moderate overall prescribing). Trial B compared an overall-prescribing message with a chart to the standard practice overall letter (practices whose percentage of broad-spectrum prescribing was below 10% but who had relatively high overall prescribing). Letters were posted to general practitioners, timed to be received on 1 November 2018. The primary outcomes were practices' percentage of broad-spectrum prescribing (trials A and C) and overall antibiotic prescribing (trial B) each month from November 2018 to April 2019 (all weighted by the number and characteristics of patients registered in the practice). RESULTS: We randomly assigned 1909 practices; 58 closed or merged during the trial, leaving 1851 practices: 385 in trial A, 674 in trial C, and 792 in trial B. AR(1) models showed that there were no statistically significant differences in our primary outcome measures: trial A ß = - .199, p = .13; trial C ß = .006, p = .95; trial B ß = - .0021, p = .81. In all three trials, there were statistically significant time trends, showing that overall antibiotic prescribing and total broad-spectrum prescribing were decreasing. CONCLUSION: Our broad-spectrum feedback letters had no effect on broad-spectrum prescribing; adding a bar chart to a text-only letter had no effect on overall antibiotic prescribing. Broad-spectrum and overall prescribing were both decreasing over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03862794. March 5, 2019.

Comparing antibiotic prescribing between clinicians in UK primary care: an analysis in a cohort study of eight different measures of antibiotic prescribing.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to reduce antimicrobial uses in humans. Previous studies have found variations in antibiotic (AB) prescribing between practices in primary care. This study assessed variability of AB prescribing between clinicians. METHODS: Clinical Practice Research Datalink, which collects electronic health records in primary care, was used to select anonymised clinicians providing 500+ consultations during 2012-2017. Eight measures of AB prescribing were assessed, such as overall and incidental AB prescribing, repeat AB courses and extent of risk-based prescribing. Poisson regression models with random effect for clinicians were fitted. RESULTS: 6111 clinicians from 466 general practices were included. Considerable variability between individual clinicians was found for most AB measures. For example, the rate of AB prescribing varied between 77.4 and 350.3 per 1000 consultations; percentage of repeat AB courses within 30 days ranged from 13.1% to 34.3%; predicted patient risk of hospital admission for infection-related complications in those prescribed AB ranged from 0.03% to 0.32% (5th and 95th percentiles). The adjusted relative rate between clinicians in rates of AB prescribing was 5.23. Weak correlation coefficients (<0.5) were found between most AB measures. There was considerable variability in case mix seen by clinicians. The largest potential impact to reduce AB prescribing could be around encouraging risk-based prescribing and addressing repeat issues of ABs. Reduction of repeat AB courses to prescribing habit of median clinician would save 21 813 AB prescriptions per 1000 clinicians per year. CONCLUSIONS: The wide variation seen in all measures of AB prescribing and weak correlation between them suggests that a single AB measure, such as prescribing rate, is not sufficient to underpin the optimisation of AB prescribing.