Acceptability and feasibility of a planned preconception weight loss intervention in women with long-acting reversible contraception: the Plan-it mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Women with overweight (a body mass index of ≥ 25 kg/m2) or obesity (a body mass index of ≥ 30 kg/m2) are at greater risk of experiencing complications during pregnancy and labour than women with a healthy weight. Women who remove their long-acting reversible contraception (i.e. coils or implants) are one of the few groups of people who contact services as part of their preparation for conception, creating an opportunity to offer a weight loss intervention. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to understand if routine NHS data captured the pathway from long-acting reversible contraception removal to pregnancy and included body mass index; to identify the suitable components of a preconception weight loss intervention; and to engage with key stakeholders to determine the acceptability and feasibility of asking women with overweight/obesity to delay the removal of their long-acting reversible contraception in order to take part in a preconception weight loss intervention. DESIGN: This was a preparatory mixed-methods study, assessing the acceptability and feasibility of a potential intervention, using routine NHS data and purposefully collected qualitative data. PARTICIPANTS: The NHS routine data included all women with a long-acting reversible contraception code. There were three groups of participants in the surveys and interviews: health-care practitioners who remove long-acting reversible contraception; weight management consultants; and women of reproductive age with experience of overweight/obesity and of using long-acting reversible contraception. SETTING: UK-based health-care practitioners recruited at professional meetings; and weight management consultants and contraceptive users recruited via social media. DATA SOURCES: Anonymised routine data from UK sexual health clinics and the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, including the Pregnancy Register; and online surveys and qualitative interviews with stakeholders. RESULTS: The records of 2,632,871 women aged 16-48 years showed that 318,040 had at least one long-acting reversible contraception event, with 62% of records including a body mass index. Given the identified limitations of the routine NHS data sets, it would not be feasible to reliably identify women with overweight/obesity who request a long-acting reversible contraception removal with an intention to become pregnant. Online surveys were completed by 100 health-care practitioners, four weight management consultants and 243 contraceptive users. Ten health-care practitioners and 20 long-acting reversible contraception users completed qualitative interviews. A realist-informed approach generated a hypothesised programme theory. The combination of weight discussions and the delay of long-acting reversible contraception removal was unacceptable as an intervention to contraceptive users for ethical and practical reasons. However, a preconception health intervention incorporating weight loss could be acceptable, and one potential programme is outlined. LIMITATIONS: There was very limited engagement with weight management consultants, and the sample of participating stakeholders may not be representative. CONCLUSIONS: An intervention that asks women to delay long-acting reversible contraception removal to participate in a preconception weight loss intervention would be neither feasible nor acceptable. A preconception health programme, including weight management, would be welcomed but requires risk communication training of health-care practitioners. FUTURE WORK: Work to improve routine data sets, increase awareness of the importance of preconception health and overcome health-care practitioner barriers to discussing weight as part of preconception care is a priority. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14733020. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 1.

If a woman has overweight or obesity when she is pregnant, then there is a greater risk of health problems for her and her baby. About half of women of childbearing age have overweight or obesity, so we need to find ways of supporting women to lose weight before they become pregnant (described here as 'preconception'). This can be difficult because women do not usually talk to a health-care practitioner (e.g. general practitioners, sexual health doctors, nurses) about becoming pregnant, but one group of women who do are those who need to have a long-acting reversible contraceptive (e.g. a coil or an implant) removed. This study was designed as preparatory work for a potential future study of a preconception weight loss intervention. We wanted to answer three questions: (1) would women with experience of overweight and of using a long-acting reversible contraceptive think that it would be acceptable to ask women to delay having their long-acting reversible contraceptive removed to take part in a weight loss intervention before pregnancy; (2) what did health-care practitioners think about that idea, and would they be happy to ask women to take part; and (3) can NHS information (routine data) tell us how many women might potentially take part in such an intervention? We looked at NHS routine data and the research on preconception weight loss interventions. A total of 100 health-care practitioners and 243 users of long-acting reversible contraceptives completed surveys, and 10 health-care practitioners and 20 users of long-acting reversible contraceptives took part in interviews. We found that routine data could not be used to identify people reliably. Designing a weight loss intervention that needed women to delay the removal of a long-acting reversible contraceptive was not acceptable to women. A population-based preconception weight loss intervention with a positive focus was acceptable, but, for such a programme to be delivered by the NHS, health-care practitioners need more knowledge, skills and confidence in talking about weight with patients.

Emergency department clinical leads' experiences of implementing primary care services where GPs work in or alongside emergency departments in the UK: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: To manage increasing demand for emergency and unscheduled care NHS England policy has promoted services in which patients presenting to Emergency Departments (EDs) with non-urgent problems are directed to general practitioners (GPs) and other primary care clinicians working within or alongside emergency departments. However, the ways that hospitals have implemented primary care services in EDs are varied. The aim of this study was to describe ED clinical leads' experiences of implementing and delivering 'primary care services' and 'emergency medicine services' where GPs were integrated into the ED team. METHODS: We conducted interviews with ED clinical leads in England (n = 19) and Wales (n = 2). We used framework analysis to analyse interview transcripts and explore differences across 'primary care services', 'emergency medicine services' and emergency departments without primary care services. RESULTS: In EDs with separate primary care services, success was reported when having a distinct workforce of primary care clinicians, who improved waiting times and flow by seeing primary care-type patients in a timely way, using fewer investigations, and enabling ED doctors to focus on more acutely unwell patients. Some challenges were: trying to align their service with the policy guidance, inconsistent demand for primary care, accessible community primary care services, difficulties in recruiting GPs, lack of funding, difficulties in agreeing governance protocols and establishing effective streaming pathways. Where GPs were integrated into an ED workforce success was reported as managing the demand for both emergency and primary care and reducing admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing a policy advocating a preferred model of service to address primary care demand was not useful for all emergency departments. To support successful and sustainable primary care services in or alongside EDs, policy makers and commissioners should consider varied ways that GPs can be employed to manage variation in local demand and also local contextual factors such as the ability to recruit and retain GPs, sustainable funding, clear governance frameworks, training, support and guidance for all staff. Whether or not streaming to a separate primary care service is useful also depended on the level of primary care demand.

The impact of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a rapid realist review.

OBJECTIVES: Worldwide, emergency healthcare systems are under intense pressure from ever-increasing demand and evidence is urgently needed to understand how this can be safely managed. An estimated 10%-43% of emergency department patients could be treated by primary care services. In England, this has led to a policy proposal and £100 million of funding (US$130 million), for emergency departments to stream appropriate patients to a co-located primary care facility so they are 'free to care for the sickest patients'. However, the research evidence to support this initiative is weak. DESIGN: Rapid realist literature review. SETTING: Emergency departments. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Articles describing general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments. AIM: To develop context-specific theories that explain how and why general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments affect: patient flow; patient experience; patient safety and the wider healthcare system. RESULTS: Ninety-six articles contributed data to theory development sourced from earlier systematic reviews, updated database searches (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane DSR & CRCT, DARE, HTA Database, BSC, PsycINFO and SCOPUS) and citation tracking. We developed theories to explain: how staff interpret the streaming system; different roles general practitioners adopt in the emergency department setting (traditional, extended, gatekeeper or emergency clinician) and how these factors influence patient (experience and safety) and organisational (demand and cost-effectiveness) outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors influence the effectiveness of emergency department streaming to general practitioners; caution is needed in embedding the policy until further research and evaluation are available. Service models that encourage the traditional general practitioner approach may have shorter process times for non-urgent patients; however, there is little evidence that this frees up emergency department staff to care for the sickest patients. Distinct primary care services offering increased patient choice may result in provider-induced demand. Economic evaluation and safety requires further research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017069741.

Shifting mindsets: a realist synthesis of evidence from self-management support training.

CONTEXT: Accompanying the growing expectation of patient self-management is the need to ensure health care professionals (HCPs) have the required attitudes and skills to provide effective self-management support (SMS). Results from existing training interventions for HCPs in SMS have been mixed and the evidence base is weaker for certain settings, including supporting people with progressive neurological conditions (PNCs). We set out to understand how training operates, and to identify barriers and facilitators to training designed to support shifts in attitudes amongst HCPs. METHODS: We undertook a realist literature synthesis focused on: (i) the influence of how HCPs, teams and organisations view and adopt self-management; and (ii) how SMS needs to be tailored for people with PNCs. A traditional database search strategy was used alongside citation tracking, grey literature searching and stakeholder recommendations. We supplemented PNC-specific literature with data from other long-term conditions. Key informant interviews and stakeholder advisory group meetings informed the synthesis process. Realist context-mechanism-outcome configurations were generated and mapped onto the stages described in Mezirow's Transformative Learning Theory. RESULTS: Forty-four original articles were included (19 relating to PNCs), from which seven refined theories were developed. The theories identified important training elements (evidence provision, building skills and confidence, facilitating reflection and generating empathy). The significant influence of workplace factors as possible barriers or facilitators was highlighted. Embracing SMS often required challenging traditional professional role boundaries. CONCLUSION: The integration of SMS into routine care is not an automatic outcome from training. A transformative learning process is often required to trigger the necessary mindset shift. Training should focus on how individual HCPs define and value SMS and how their work context (patient group and organisational constraints) influences this process. Proactively addressing potential contextual barriers may facilitate implementation. These findings could be applied to other types of training designed to shift attitudes amongst HCPs.