Widening or narrowing inequalities? The equity implications of digital tools to support COVID-19 contact tracing: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: As digital tools are increasingly used to support COVID-19 contact tracing, the equity implications must be considered. As part of a study to understand the public's views of digital contact tracing tools developed for the national 'Test and Protect' programme in Scotland, we aimed to explore the views of groups often excluded from such discussions. This paper reports on their views about the potential for contact tracing to exacerbate inequalities. METHODS: A qualitative study was carried out; interviews were conducted with key informants from organizations supporting people in marginalized situations, followed by interviews and focus groups with people recruited from these groups. Participants included, or represented, minority ethnic groups, asylum seekers and refugees and those experiencing multiple disadvantage including severe and enduring poverty. RESULTS: A total of 42 people participated: 13 key informants and 29 members of the public. While public participants were supportive of contact tracing, key informants raised concerns. Both sets of participants spoke about how contact tracing, and its associated digital tools, might increase inequalities. Barriers included finances (inability to afford smartphones or the data to ensure access to the internet); language (digital tools were available only in English and required a degree of literacy, even for English speakers); and trust (many marginalized groups distrusted statutory organizations and there were concerns that data may be passed to other organizations). One strength was that NHS Scotland, the data guardian, is seen as a generally trustworthy organization. Poverty was recognized as a barrier to people's ability to self-isolate. Some participants were concerned about giving contact details of individuals who might struggle to self-isolate for financial reasons. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of contact tracing and associated digital tools on marginalized populations needs careful monitoring. This should include the contact tracing process and the ability of people to self-isolate. Regular clear messaging from trusted groups and community members could help maintain trust and participation in the programme. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Our patient and public involvement coapplicant, L. L., was involved in all aspects of the study including coauthorship. Interim results were presented to our local Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement Group, who commented on interpretation and made suggestions about further recruitment.

Personalised Exercise-Rehabilitation FOR people with Multiple long-term conditions (PERFORM): protocol for a randomised feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: Personalised Exercise-Rehabilitation FOR people with Multiple long-term conditions (PERFORM) is a research programme that seeks to develop and evaluate a comprehensive exercise-based rehabilitation intervention designed for people with multimorbidity, the presence of multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs). This paper describes the protocol for a randomised trial to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the PERFORM intervention, study design and processes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, parallel two-group randomised trial with individual 2:1 allocation to the PERFORM exercise-based intervention plus usual care (intervention) or usual care alone (control). The primary outcome of this feasibility trial will be to assess whether prespecified progression criteria (recruitment, retention, intervention adherence) are met to progress to the full randomised trial. The trial will be conducted across three UK sites and 60 people with MLTCs, defined as two or more LTCs, with at least one having evidence of the beneficial effect of exercise. The PERFORM intervention comprises an 8-week (twice a week for 6 weeks and once a week for 2 weeks) supervised rehabilitation programme of personalised exercise training and self-management education delivered by trained healthcare professionals followed by two maintenance sessions. Trial participants will be recruited over a 4.5-month period, and outcomes assessed at baseline (prerandomisation) and 3 months postrandomisation and include health-related quality of life, psychological well-being, symptom burden, frailty, exercise capacity, physical activity, sleep, cognition and serious adverse events. A mixed-methods process evaluation will assess acceptability, feasibility and fidelity of intervention delivery and feasibility of trial processes. An economic evaluation will assess the feasibility of data collection and estimate the costs of the PERFORM intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been given favourable opinion by the West Midlands, Edgbaston Research Ethics Service (Ref: 23/WM/0057). Participants will be asked to give full, written consent to take part by trained researchers. Findings will be disseminated via journals, presentations and targeted communications to clinicians, commissioners, service users and patients and the public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN68786622. PROTOCOL VERSION: 2.0 (16 May 2023).

Home-based cardiac rehabilitation for people with heart failure and their caregivers: a mixed-methods analysis of the roll out an evidence-based programme in Scotland (SCOT:REACH-HF study).

AIMS: Alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) are required to improve CR access and uptake. Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) is a comprehensive home-based rehabilitation and self-management programme, facilitated by trained health professionals, for people with heart failure (HF) and their caregivers. REACH-HF was shown to be clinically effective and cost-effective in a multi-centre randomized trial. The SCOT:REACH-HF study assessed implementation of REACH-HF in routine clinical practice in NHS Scotland. METHODS AND RESULTS: A mixed-method implementation study was conducted across six regional Health Boards. Of 136 people with HF and 56 caregivers recruited, 101 people with HF and 26 caregivers provided 4-month follow-up data, after participating in the 12-week programme. Compared with baseline, REACH-HF participation resulted in substantial gains in the primary outcome of health-related quality of life, as assessed by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (mean difference: -9.8, 95% CI: -13.2 to -6.4, P < 0.001). Improvements were also seen in secondary outcomes (PROM-CR+; EQ-5D-5L; Self-Care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) domains of maintenance and symptom perception; Caregiver Contribution to Self-Care domains of symptom perception and management). Twenty qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 REACH-HF facilitators, five supporting clinicians, and four national stakeholders. Interviewees were largely positive about REACH-HF, considering it to have 'filled a gap' where centre-based CR was not an option. Key issues to support future roll-out were also identified. CONCLUSION: Our findings support wider roll-out of REACH-HF as an alternative to centre-based models, to improve CR access and uptake for people with HF.

Natural history of long-COVID in a nationwide, population cohort study.

Previous studies on the natural history of long-COVID have been few and selective. Without comparison groups, disease progression cannot be differentiated from symptoms originating from other causes. The Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) is a Scotland-wide, general population cohort of adults who had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection matched to PCR-negative adults. Serial, self-completed, online questionnaires collected information on pre-existing health conditions and current health six, 12 and 18 months after index test. Of those with previous symptomatic infection, 35% reported persistent incomplete/no recovery, 12% improvement and 12% deterioration. At six and 12 months, one or more symptom was reported by 71.5% and 70.7% respectively of those previously infected, compared with 53.5% and 56.5% of those never infected. Altered taste, smell and confusion improved over time compared to the never infected group and adjusted for confounders. Conversely, late onset dry and productive cough, and hearing problems were more likely following SARS-CoV-2 infection.

True prevalence of long-COVID in a nationwide, population cohort study.

Long-COVID prevalence estimates vary widely and should take account of symptoms that would have occurred anyway. Here we determine the prevalence of symptoms attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection, taking account of background rates and confounding, in a nationwide population cohort study of 198,096 Scottish adults. 98,666 (49.8%) had symptomatic laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and 99,430 (50.2%) were age-, sex-, and socioeconomically-matched and never-infected. While 41,775 (64.5%) reported at least one symptom 6 months following SARS-CoV-2 infection, this was also true of 34,600 (50.8%) of those never-infected. The crude prevalence of one or more symptom attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection was 13.8% (13.2%,14.3%), 12.8% (11.9%,13.6%), and 16.3% (14.4%,18.2%) at 6, 12, and 18 months respectively. Following adjustment for potential confounders, these figures were 6.6% (6.3%, 6.9%), 6.5% (6.0%, 6.9%) and 10.4% (9.1%, 11.6%) respectively. Long-COVID is characterised by a wide range of symptoms that, apart from altered taste and smell, are non-specific. Care should be taken in attributing symptoms to previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The remote diet intervention to reduce Long COVID symptoms trial (ReDIRECT): protocol for a randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a remotely delivered supported weight management programme for people with Long COVID and excess weight, with personalised improvement goals.

Objectves: The Remote Diet Intervention to Reduce Long COVID Symptoms Trial (ReDIRECT) evaluates whether the digitally delivered, evidence-based, cost-effective Counterweight-Plus weight management programme improves symptoms of Long COVID in people with overweight/obesity. Methods: Baseline randomised, non-blinded design with 240 participants allocated in a 1:1 ratio either to continue usual care or to add the remotely delivered Counterweight-Plus weight management programme, which includes a Counterweight dietitian supported delivery of 12 weeks total diet replacement, food reintroduction, and long-term weight loss maintenance. Randomisation is achieved by accessing a web-based randomisation system incorporated into the study web portal developed by a registered Clinical Trials Unit. We are using an innovative approach to outcome personalisation, with each participant selecting their most dominant Long COVID symptom as their primary outcome assessed at six months. Participants in the control arm enter the weight management programme after six months. We are recruiting participants from social media and existing networks (e.g., Long COVID Scotland groups), through newspaper advertisements and from primary care. Main inclusion criteria: people with Long COVID symptoms persisting > three months, aged 18 years or above, body mass index (BMI) above 27kg/m 2 (>25kg/m 2 for South Asians). The trial includes a process evaluation (involving qualitative interviews with participants and analysis of data on dose, fidelity and reach of the intervention) and economic evaluation (within-trial and long-term cost-utility analyses). Anticipated results: The recruitment for this study started in December 2021 and ended in July 2022. Project results are not yet available and will be shared via peer-reviewed publication once the six-months outcomes have been analysed. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12595520.

While most people infected with COVID-19 recover within a short amount of time, some people continue to have symptoms for 12 weeks or longer. This condition is known as Long COVID. Roughly two-thirds of people with Long COVID are overweight, a proportion similar to that found in the general population. Being overweight may worsen symptoms such as fatigue, breathlessness and pains. Weight management programmes in adults with overweight/obesity can reduce such symptoms, however we do not know how effective intentional weight loss is to reduce symptoms for people with Long COVID. The aim of this project is to test a well-established weight management programme, delivered and supported remotely, in people with Long COVID. The trial is conducted with 240 people with Long COVID, identified through their GP, patient groups, social media, or newspaper advertisements. A total of 120 individuals will receive the personalised, professionally supported weight management programme (treatment group), and 120 participants are allocated to usual care (control group). The one-year long weight management programme involves 12 weeks of total diet replacement (TDR) using soups and shakes, followed by food reintroduction and weight maintenance. Food based alternatives are available to those who are unable, or prefer not to, follow the TDR approach. The two groups will be compared for Long COVID symptoms, weight loss, quality of life and value for money after six months. After six months, the weight management programme will also be provided for the control group. Experiences while on the programme will be documented for 12 months for all participants. People with Long COVID have been involved extensively in developing this project. Their priorities are to reduce symptoms like fatigue, breathlessness and pain. They are keen to explore if effective weight management would help their symptoms and overall functioning, especially a programme that can be followed remotely from home. A group of patients and other stakeholders has been set up to provide advice throughout the project.

Outcomes among confirmed cases and a matched comparison group in the Long-COVID in Scotland study.

With increasing numbers infected by SARS-CoV-2, understanding long-COVID is essential to inform health and social care support. A Scottish population cohort of 33,281 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and 62,957 never-infected individuals were followed-up via 6, 12 and 18-month questionnaires and linkage to hospitalization and death records. Of the 31,486 symptomatic infections,1,856 (6%) had not recovered and 13,350 (42%) only partially. No recovery was associated with hospitalized infection, age, female sex, deprivation, respiratory disease, depression and multimorbidity. Previous symptomatic infection was associated with poorer quality of life, impairment across all daily activities and 24 persistent symptoms including breathlessness (OR 3.43, 95% CI 3.29-3.58), palpitations (OR 2.51, OR 2.36-2.66), chest pain (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.96-2.23), and confusion (OR 2.92, 95% CI 2.78-3.07). Asymptomatic infection was not associated with adverse outcomes. Vaccination was associated with reduced risk of seven symptoms. Here we describe the nature of long-COVID and the factors associated with it.

Protocol for an implementation study of an evidence-based home cardiac rehabilitation programme for people with heart failure and their caregivers in Scotland (SCOT:REACH-HF).

INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence that cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an essential component of care for people with heart failure, uptake is low. A centre-based format is a known barrier, suggesting that home-based programmes might improve accessibility. The aim of SCOT: Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) is to assess the implementation of the REACH-HF home-based CR intervention in the context of the National Health Service (NHS) in Scotland.This paper presents the design and protocol for this observational implementation study. Specific objectives of SCOT:REACH-HF are to: (1) assess service-level facilitators and barriers to the implementation of REACH-HF; (2) compare real-world patient and caregiver outcomes to those seen in a prior clinical trial; and (3) estimate the economic (health and social) impact of implementing REACH-HF in Scotland. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The REACH-HF intervention will be delivered in partnership with four 'Beacon sites' across six NHS Scotland Health Boards, covering rural and urban areas. Health professionals from each site will be trained to facilitate delivery of the 12-week programme to 140 people with heart failure and their caregivers. Patient and caregiver outcomes will be assessed at baseline and 4-month follow-up. Assessments include the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), five-dimension EuroQol 5L, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Caregiver Burden Questionnaire. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with up to 20 health professionals involved in programme delivery (eg, cardiac nurses, physiotherapists). 65 facilitator-patient consultations will be audio recorded and assessed for fidelity. Integrative analysis will address key research questions on fidelity, context and CR participant-related outcomes. The SCOT:REACH-HF findings will inform the future potential roll-out of REACH-HF in Scotland. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been given ethical approval by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Service (reference 20/WS/0038, approved 25 March 2020). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The study is listed on the ISRCTN registry with study ID ISRCTN53784122. The research team will ensure that the study is conducted in accordance with both General Data Protection Regulations and the University of Glasgow's Research Governance Framework. Findings will be reported to the funder and shared with Beacon Sites, to facilitate service evaluation, planning and good practice. To broaden interest in, and understanding of REACH-HF, we will seek to publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals and present at stakeholder events, national and international conferences.

Introducing problem-based learning into research methods teaching: student and facilitator evaluation.

The evidence base for the effectiveness of problem-based learning (PBL) has never been substantively established, although PBL is a generally accepted approach to learning in health care curricula. PBL is believed to encourage transferable skills, including problem-solving and team-working. PBL was used to deliver a postgraduate research methods module and a small evaluation study to explore its efficacy was conducted amongst the students (n = 51) and facilitators (n = 6). The study comprised of an evaluation questionnaire, distributed after each themed group of PBL sessions, and a group discussion conducted 4 weeks after the conclusion of the module, which was attended by student representatives and the facilitators. Questionnaire data was analysed using SPSS, and a transcript of the interview was subjected to content analysis. The results indicated that students felt that a PBL approach helped to make the subject matter more interesting to them and they believed that they would retain knowledge for a longer period than if their learning had used a more traditional lecture format. Students also perceived that PBL was effective in its ability to enhance students' understanding of the group process. All those involved in the PBL process reinforced the pivotal role of the facilitator. This study indicates that there is potential for PBL to be used beyond the more usual clinical scenarios constructed for health care professional education and further exploration of its use in areas such as building research capability should be undertaken.

Practice-based learning: the role of practice education facilitators in supporting mentors.

Central to the provision of high quality clinical placements for nursing and midwifery students are mentors who help engender a positive learning environment. In 2004 the Scottish Executive Health Department (now Scottish Government Health Directorates), NHS Scotland, NHS Education for Scotland, NHS Boards and Higher Education Institutions initiated and supported the establishment of the Practice Education Facilitator (PEF) role whose purpose is to ensure that the student experience, at both pre- and post-registration level, is of the highest quality, primarily through the support of mentors. A 3-year project evaluated the implementation and impact of the PEF role across Scotland. The study utilised both quantitative and qualitative data collection, with a sample comprising mentors, PEFs, students and other key stakeholders. This paper reports on selected findings from that study, specifically the perceived impact of the PEF in supporting mentors. Findings indicate that the PEF role has been accepted widely across Scotland and is seen as valuable to the development of quality clinical learning environments. PEFs provide support and guidance for mentors when dealing with 'failing' students, and encourage the identification of innovative learning opportunities. PEFs play an active part in student evaluation of their placements, but further work is needed in order that the feedback to clinical areas and mentors is timely.

Is the involvement of opinion leaders in the implementation of research findings a feasible strategy?

BACKGROUND: There is only limited empirical evidence about the effectiveness of opinion leaders as health care change agents. AIM: To test the feasibility of identifying, and the characteristics of, opinion leaders using a sociometric instrument and a self-designating instrument in different professional groups within the UK National Health Service. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers in two regions of Scotland. All physicians and surgeons (junior hospital doctors and consultants) and medical and surgical nursing staff in two district general hospitals and one teaching hospital in Scotland, as well as all Scottish obstetric and gynaecology, and oncology consultants. RESULTS: Using the sociometric instrument, the extent of social networks and potential coverage of the study population in primary and secondary care was highly idiosyncratic. In contrast, relatively complex networks with good coverage rates were observed in both national specialty groups. Identified opinion leaders were more likely to have the expected characteristics of opinion leaders identified from diffusion and social influence theories. Moreover, opinion leaders appeared to be condition-specific. The self-designating instrument identified more opinion leaders, but it was not possible to estimate the extent and structure of social networks or likely coverage by opinion leaders. There was poor agreement in the responses to the sociometric and self-designating instruments. CONCLUSION: The feasibility of identifying opinion leaders using an off-the-shelf sociometric instrument is variable across different professional groups and settings within the NHS. Whilst it is possible to identify opinion leaders using a self-designating instrument, the effectiveness of such opinion leaders has not been rigorously tested in health care settings. Opinion leaders appear to be monomorphic (different leaders for different issues). Recruitment of opinion leaders is unlikely to be an effective general strategy across all settings and professional groups; the more specialised the group, the more opinion leaders may be a useful strategy.