Social network interventions to support cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention in the management of people with heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Globally, cardiovascular diseases (CVD, that is, coronary heart (CHD) and circulatory diseases combined) contribute to 31% of all deaths, more than any other cause. In line with guidance in the UK and globally, cardiac rehabilitation programmes are widely offered to people with heart disease, and include psychosocial, educational, health behaviour change, and risk management components. Social support and social network interventions have potential to improve outcomes of these programmes, but whether and how these interventions work is poorly understood.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of social network and social support interventions to support cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention in the management of people with heart disease. The comparator was usual care with no element of social support (i.e. secondary prevention alone or with cardiac rehabilitation).  SEARCH METHODS: We undertook a systematic search of the following databases on 9 August 2022: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Science. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We reviewed the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and included primary studies, and we contacted experts to identify additional studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of social network or social support interventions for people with heart disease. We included studies regardless of their duration of follow-up, and included those reported as full text, published as abstract only, and unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using Covidence, two review authors independently screened all identified titles. We retrieved full-text study reports and publications marked 'included', and two review authors independently screened these, and conducted data extraction. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular-related mortality, all-cause hospital admission, cardiovascular-related hospital admission, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured at > 12 months follow-up.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 54 RCTs (126 publications) reporting data for a total of 11,445 people with heart disease. The median follow-up was seven months and median sample size was 96 participants. Of included study participants, 6414 (56%) were male, and the mean age ranged from 48.6 to 76.3 years. Studies included heart failure (41%), mixed cardiac disease (31%), post-myocardial infarction (13%), post-revascularisation (7%), CHD (7%), and cardiac X syndrome (1%) patients. The median intervention duration was 12 weeks. We identified notable diversity in social network and social support interventions, across what was delivered, how, and by whom.  We assessed risk of bias (RoB) in primary outcomes at > 12 months follow-up as either 'low' (2/15 studies), 'some concerns' (11/15), or 'high' (2/15). 'Some concerns' or 'high' RoB resulted from insufficient detail on blinding of outcome assessors, data missingness, and absence of pre-agreed statistical analysis plans. In particular, HRQoL outcomes were at high RoB. Using the GRADE method, we assessed the certainty of evidence as low or very low across outcomes. Social network or social support interventions had no clear effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.13, I2 = 40%) or cardiovascular-related mortality (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.10, I2 = 0%) at > 12 months follow-up. The evidence suggests that social network or social support interventions for heart disease may result in little to no difference in all-cause hospital admission (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.22, I2 = 0%), or cardiovascular-related hospital admission (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10, I2 = 16%), with a low level of certainty. The evidence was very uncertain regarding the impact of social network interventions on HRQoL at > 12 months follow-up (SF-36 physical component score: mean difference (MD) 31.53, 95% CI -28.65 to 91.71, I2 = 100%, 2 trials/comparisons, 166 participants; mental component score MD 30.62, 95% CI -33.88 to 95.13, I2 = 100%, 2 trials/comparisons, 166 participants).  Regarding secondary outcomes, there may be a decrease in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure with social network or social support interventions. There was no evidence of impact found on psychological well-being, smoking, cholesterol, myocardial infarction, revascularisation, return to work/education, social isolation or connectedness, patient satisfaction, or adverse events.  Results of meta-regression did not suggest that the intervention effect was related to risk of bias, intervention type, duration, setting, and delivery mode, population type, study location, participant age, or percentage of male participants.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no strong evidence for the effectiveness of such interventions, although modest effects were identified in relation to blood pressure. While the data presented in this review are indicative of potential for positive effects, the review also highlights the lack of sufficient evidence to conclusively support such interventions for people with heart disease. Further high-quality, well-reported RCTs are required to fully explore the potential of social support interventions in this context. Future reporting of social network and social support interventions for people with heart disease needs to be significantly clearer, and more effectively theorised, in order to ascertain causal pathways and effect on outcomes.

A peer-led, school-based social network intervention for young people in the UK, promoting sexual health via social media and conversations with friends: intervention development and optimisation of STASH.

BACKGROUND: The quality of school-based sex and relationships education (SRE) is variable in the UK. Digitally-based interventions can usefully supplement teacher-delivered lessons and positively impact sexual health knowledge. Designed to address gaps in core SRE knowledge, STASH (Sexually Transmitted infections And Sexual Health) is a peer-led social network intervention adapted from the successful ASSIST (A Stop Smoking in Schools Trial) model, and based on Diffusion of Innovation theory. This paper describes how the STASH intervention was developed and refined. METHODS: Drawing on the Six Steps in Quality Intervention Development (6SQuID) framework, we tested a provisional programme theory through three iterative stages -: 1) evidence synthesis; 2) intervention co-production; and 3) adaptation - which incorporated evidence review, stakeholder consultation, and website co-development and piloting with young people, sexual health specialists, and educators. Multi-method results were analysed in a matrix of commonalities and differences. RESULTS: Over 21 months, intervention development comprised 20 activities within the three stages. 1) We identified gaps in SRE provision and online resources (e.g. around sexual consent, pleasure, digital literacy), and confirmed critical components including the core ASSIST peer nomination process, the support of schools, and alignment to the national curriculum. We reviewed candidate social media platforms, ruling out all except Facebook on basis of functionality restrictions which precluded their use for our purposes. 2) Drawing on these findings, as well as relevant behaviour change theories and core elements of the ASSIST model, we co-developed new content with young people and other stakeholders, tailored to sexual health and to delivery via closed Facebook groups, as well as face-to-face conversations. 3) A pilot in one school highlighted practical considerations, including around peer nomination, recruitment, awareness raising, and boundaries to message sharing. From this, a revised STASH intervention and programme theory were co-developed with stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: STASH intervention development required extensive adaptation from the ASSIST model. Although labour intensive, our robust co-development approach ensured that an optimised intervention was taken forward for feasibility testing. Evidencing a rigorous approach to operationalising existing intervention development guidance, this paper also highlights the significance of balancing competing stakeholder concerns, resource availability, and an ever-changing landscape for implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN97369178.

Peer-led intervention to prevent and reduce STI transmission and improve sexual health in secondary schools (STASH): protocol for a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Young people in the UK are at highest risk of sexually transmitted infections and report higher levels of unsafe sex than any other age group. Involving peer supporters in intervention delivery is acceptable to students and effective in reducing risk behaviours via 'diffusion of innovation', particularly where peer supporters are influential in their networks. Informal peer-led interventions offer a useful alternative to peer-led didactic teaching, which has shown limited effects. Building on the successful ASSIST anti-smoking intervention, the 'STis And Sexual Health' (STASH) intervention involves identification and recruitment of the most influential students as peer supporters, training and support to these students by specialist trainers, positive sex and relationships messages, spread by peer supporters to their friendship groups in person and via social media. METHODS/DESIGN: This protocol describes a feasibility trial of the STASH intervention in six schools. It builds on an earlier study phase of intervention co-development using patient and public involvement (PPI) activities, followed by a pilot of intervention components and evaluation tools in one school. Participants are fourth year (S4) students (aged 14-16) in state-funded Scottish secondary schools who have received some level of teacher-led sex education. The previous cohort of S4 students (those completing S4 in the year prior to the intervention) will serve as controls. Data will be collected from controls (month 16), baseline (month 20-21) and follow-up (month 27-30) via a web-based questionnaire, which will measure (and test the reliability of) primary outcome measures for a phase III trial (delayed initiation of/abstinence from sex and consistent condom use), secondary outcomes and mediators of sexual behaviour (including school climate and social networks). The main feasibility outcome is whether the study meets pre-set progression criteria regarding feasibility and acceptability, measured largely via a process evaluation (basic measures in all 6 schools and in-depth in 2-4 schools). An economic evaluation reporting costs alongside consequences will be conducted. DISCUSSION: This study will inform decisions on the feasibility, design and sample size for a phase III effectiveness trial to assess whether the STASH intervention is effective in reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections in young people. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN97369178.

An MRI/US/x-ray compatible breast localization marker: in vivo evaluation.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: An in vivo evaluation of a new trimodality breast localization marker was performed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound (US), x-ray, and histopathology. The evaluation of the marker in animal tests should help define its utility for surgical biopsy localization in humans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five rabbits were used and sacrificed at 2 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 7 weeks after marker implantation. The marker placement and tissue biopsies were performed under US guidance. MRI, US, and x-ray imaging were performed to monitor the contrast of the marker, track marker migration. The biologic compatibility of the marker was demonstrated by histopathologic analysis. RESULTS: The contrast of the marker was clear and stable on each imaging modality over the 7-week study period. Acute inflammation was visible by 2 days after marker injection, with evidence of granulation tissue and angiogenesis at 2 weeks after implantation. A modest degree of chronic inflammation and angiogenesis remained evident at 4 weeks after procedure, and fibrosis persisted 7 weeks after procedure with no further tissue changes. These results suggest that the new marker is biocompatible and can remain interstitial for up to 7 weeks. Furthermore, very little marker migration was observed. On removal, the marker was found to be mechanically stable. CONCLUSION: This in vivo animal study demonstrates that the new marker may be appropriate for in vivo human testing and as an alternative to traditional wire localization currently used for breast surgery.