Cost-effectiveness analysis of two interventions to promote physical activity in a multiethnic population at high risk of diabetes: an economic evaluation of the 48-month PROPELS randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Physical activity (PA) is protective against type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, data on pragmatic long-term interventions to reduce the risk of developing T2D via increased PA are lacking. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of a pragmatic PA intervention in a multiethnic population at high risk of T2D. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We adapted the School for Public Health Research diabetes prevention model, using the PROPELS trial data and analyses of the NAVIGATOR trial. Lifetime costs, lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each intervention (Walking Away (WA) and Walking Away Plus (WA+)) versus usual care and compared with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's willingness-to-pay of £20 000-£30 000 per QALY gained. We conducted scenario analyses on the outcomes of the PROPELS trial data and a threshold analysis to determine the change in step count that would be needed for the interventions to be cost-effective. RESULTS: Estimated lifetime costs for usual care, WA, and WA+ were £22 598, £23 018, and £22 945, respectively. Estimated QALYs were 9.323, 9.312, and 9.330, respectively. WA+ was estimated to be more effective and cheaper than WA. WA+ had an ICER of £49 273 per QALY gained versus usual care. In none of our scenario analyses did either WA or WA+ have an ICER below £20 000 per QALY gained. Our threshold analysis suggested that a PA intervention costing the same as WA+ would have an ICER below £20 000/QALY if it were to achieve an increase in step count of 500 steps per day which was 100% maintained at 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: We found that neither WA nor WA+ was cost-effective at a limit of £20 000 per QALY gained. Our threshold analysis showed that interventions to increase step count can be cost-effective at this limit if they achieve greater long-term maintenance of effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN registration: ISRCTN83465245: The PRomotion Of Physical activity through structuredEducation with differing Levels of ongoing Support for those with pre-diabetes (PROPELS)https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN83465245.

Are there inequalities in the attendance and effectiveness of behavioural weight management interventions for adults in the UK? Protocol for an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: It is important to identify whether behavioural weight management interventions work well across different groups in the population so health inequalities in obesity are not widened. Previous systematic reviews of inequalities in the attendance and effectiveness of behavioural weight management interventions have been limited because few trials report relevant analyses and heterogeneity in the categorisation of inequality characteristics prevents meta-analysis. An individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) allows us to reanalyse all trials with available data in a uniform way. We aim to conduct an IPD meta-analysis of UK randomised controlled trials to examine whether there are inequalities in the attendance and effectiveness of behavioural weight interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In a recently published systematic review, we identified 17 UK-based randomised controlled trials of primary care-relevant behavioural interventions, conducted in adults living with overweight or obesity and reporting weight outcomes at baseline and 1-year follow-up. The corresponding author of each trial will be invited to contribute data to the IPD-MA. The outcomes of interest are weight at 12-months and intervention attendance (number of sessions offered vs number of sessions attended). We will primarily consider whether there is an interaction between intervention group and characteristics where inequalities occur, such as by gender/sex, socioeconomic status or age. The IPD-MA will be conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of IPD guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No further ethical approval was required as ethical approval for each individual study was obtained by the original trial investigators from appropriate ethics committees. The completed IPD-MA will be disseminated at conferences, in a peer-reviewed journal and contribute to the lead author's PhD thesis. Investigators of each individual study included in the final IPD-MA will be invited to collaborate on any publications that arise from the project.

Association between Indicators of Inequality and Weight Change following a Behavioural Weight Loss Intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Weight loss through behavioural weight management interventions can have important health benefits for people with obesity. However, to maximise the health benefits, weight loss must be maintained. Evidence suggests that behavioural weight loss interventions do not exacerbate inequalities in the short term. However, no study has yet considered whether inequalities exist in long-term weight change following intervention. We aimed to investigate if there are inequalities in weight change following weight loss intervention. METHODS: We conducted a cohort analysis of data from the Weight Loss Referrals for Adults in Primary Care (WRAP) trial (N = 1,267). WRAP randomised participants to receive a brief intervention information booklet or vouchers for 12-weeks or 52-weeks of WW (formerly WeightWatchers) and followed them for 5 years. Multiple linear regression estimated the association between exposures (indicators of inequality) and outcomes (change in weight between 1- and 5-years). Each model was adjusted for the intervention group, baseline weight, weight change between baseline and 1-year, research centre, and source of the 5-year weight data. RESULTS: Of the 1,267 participants in WRAP, 708 had weight change data available. Mean weight change between 1- and 5-years was +3.30 kg (SD 9.10 kg). A 1 year difference in age at baseline was associated with weight change of 0.11 kg ((95% CI 0.06, 0.16), p < 0.001). We did not find evidence of associations between ethnicity, gender, education, indices of multiple deprivation, household income, or other family members participating in a weight loss programme and weight change. CONCLUSION: Except for age, we did not find evidence of inequalities in weight change following a behavioural intervention. Findings further support the use of behavioural weight management interventions as part of a systems-wide approach to improving population health.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of referral to a commercial open group behavioural weight management programme in adults with overweight and obesity: 5-year follow-up of the WRAP randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that commercially available behavioural weight management programmes can lead to short-term weight loss and reductions in glycaemia. Here, we aimed to provide the 5-year impact and cost-effectiveness of these interventions compared with a brief intervention. METHODS: WRAP was a non-blinded, parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT). We recruited from primary care practices in England and randomly assigned participants to one of three interventions (brief intervention, 12-week open-group behavioural programme [WW, formerly Weight Watchers], or a 52-week open-group WW behavioural programme) in an uneven (2:5:5) allocation. Participants were followed up 5 years after randomisation using data from measurement visits at primary care practices or a research centre, review of primary care electronic medical notes, and self-report questionnaires. The primary outcome was change in weight at 5 years follow-up, assessed using analysis of covariance. We also estimated cost-effectiveness of the intervention. This study is registered at Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN64986150. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2012, and Feb 10, 2014, we recruited 1269 eligible participants (two participants were randomly assigned but not eligible and therefore excluded) and 1040 (82%) consented to be approached about additional follow-up and to have their medical notes reviewed at 5 years. The primary outcome (weight) was ascertained for 871 (69%) of 1267 eligible participants. Mean duration of follow-up was 5·1 (SD 0·3) years. Mean weight change from baseline to 5 years was -0·46 (SD 8·31) kg in the brief intervention group, -1·95 (9·55) kg in the 12-week programme group, and -2·67 (9·81) kg in the 52-week programme. The adjusted difference in weight change was -1·76 (95% CI -3·68 to 0·17) kg between the 52-week programme and the brief intervention; -0·80 (-2·13 to 0·54) kg between the 52-week and the 12-week programme; and -0·96 (-2·90 to 0·97) kg between the 12-week programme and the brief intervention. During the trial, the 12-week programme incurred the lowest cost and produced the highest quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Simulations beyond 5 years suggested that the 52-week programme would deliver the highest QALYs at the lowest cost and would be the most cost-effective. No participants reported adverse events related to the intervention. INTERPRETATION: Although the difference in weight change between groups was not statistically significant, some weight loss was maintained at 5 years after an open-group behavioural weight management programme. Health economic modelling suggests that this could have important implications to reduce the incidence of weight-related disease and these interventions might be cost-saving. FUNDING: The UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Programme Grants for Applied Research and the Medical Research Council.

A systematic review of inequalities in the uptake of, adherence to, and effectiveness of behavioral weight management interventions in adults.

The extent to which behavioral weight management interventions affect health inequalities is uncertain, as is whether trials of these interventions directly consider inequalities. We conducted a systematic review, synthesizing evidence on how different aspects of inequality impact uptake, adherence, and effectiveness in trials of behavioral weight management interventions. We included (cluster-) randomized controlled trials of primary care-applicable behavioral weight management interventions in adults with overweight or obesity published prior to March 2020. Data about trial uptake, intervention adherence, attrition, and weight change by PROGRESS-Plus criteria (place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender, religion, education, socioeconomic status, social capital, plus other discriminating factors) were extracted. Data were synthesized narratively and summarized in harvest plots. We identified 91 behavioral weight loss interventions and 12 behavioral weight loss maintenance interventions. Fifty-six of the 103 trials considered inequalities in relation to at least one of intervention or trial uptake (n = 15), intervention adherence (n = 15), trial attrition (n = 32), or weight outcome (n = 34). Most trials found no inequalities gradient. If a gradient was observed for trial uptake, intervention adherence, and trial attrition, those considered "more advantaged" did best. Alternative methods of data synthesis that enable data to be pooled and increase statistical power may enhance understanding of inequalities in behavioral weight management interventions.

Using health economic modelling to inform the design and development of an intervention: estimating the justifiable cost of weight loss maintenance in the UK.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to develop cost-effective weight loss maintenance interventions to prolong the positive impact of weight loss on health outcomes. Conducting pre-trial health economic modelling is recommended to inform the design and development of behavioural interventions. We aimed to use health economic modelling to estimate the maximum cost per-person (justifiable cost) of a cost-effective behavioural weight loss maintenance intervention, given an estimated intervention effect for individuals with: i) a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 28 kg/m2 or above without diabetes and ii) a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes prescribed a single non-insulin diabetes medication. METHODS: The School for Public Health Research Diabetes prevention model was used to estimate the lifetime Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains, healthcare costs, and maximum justifiable cost associated with a weight loss maintenance intervention. Based on a meta-analysis, the estimated effect of a weight loss maintenance intervention following a 9 kg weight loss, was a regain of 1.33 kg and 4.38 kg in years one and two respectively compared to greater regain of 2.84 kg and 5.6 kg in the control group. Sensitivity analysis was conducted around the rate of regain, duration of effect and initial weight loss. RESULTS: The justifiable cost for a weight loss maintenance intervention at an ICER of £20,000 per QALY was £104.64 for an individual with a BMI of 28 or over and £88.14 for an individual with type 2 diabetes. Within sensitivity analysis, this varied from £36.42 to £203.77 for the former, and between £29.98 and £173.05 for the latter. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers developing a weight loss maintenance intervention should consider these maximum justifiable cost estimates and the potential impact of the duration of effect and initial weight loss when designing intervention content and deciding target populations. Future research should consider using the methods demonstrated in this study to use health economic modelling to inform the design and budgetary decisions in the development of a behavioural interventions.

Cluster randomised controlled trial of screening for atrial fibrillation in people aged 70 years and over to reduce stroke: protocol for the pilot study for the SAFER trial.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia associated with 30% of strokes, as well as other cardiovascular disease, dementia and death. AF meets many criteria for screening, but there is limited evidence that AF screening reduces stroke. Consequently, no countries recommend national screening programmes for AF. The Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke (SAFER) trial aims to determine whether screening for AF is effective at reducing risk of stroke. The aim of the pilot study is to assess feasibility of the main trial and inform implementation of screening and trial procedures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SAFER is planned to be a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) of over 100 000 participants aged 70 years and over, not on long-term anticoagulation therapy at baseline, with an average follow-up of 5 years. Participants are asked to record four traces every day for 3 weeks on a hand-held single-lead ECG device. Cardiologists remotely confirm episodes of AF identified by the device algorithm, and general practitioners follow-up with anticoagulation as appropriate. The pilot study is a cluster RCT in 36 UK general practices, randomised 2:1 control to intervention, recruiting approximately 12 600 participants. Pilot study outcomes include AF detection rate, anticoagulation uptake and other parameters to incorporate into sample size calculations for the main trial. Questionnaires sent to a sample of participants will assess impact of screening on psychological health. Process evaluation and qualitative studies will underpin implementation of screening during the main trial. An economic evaluation using the pilot data will confirm whether it is plausible that screening might be cost-effective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The London-Central Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/1597) and Confidentiality Advisory Group (19/CAG/0226) provided ethical approval. Dissemination will be via publications, patient-friendly summaries, reports and engagement with the UK National Screening Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN72104369.

The impact of participant mental health on attendance and engagement in a trial of behavioural weight management programmes: secondary analysis of the WRAP randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low attendance and engagement in behavioural weight management trials are common. Mental health may play an important role, however previous research exploring this association is limited with inconsistent findings. We aimed to investigate whether mental health was associated with attendance and engagement in a trial of behavioural weight management programmes. METHODS: This is a secondary data analysis of the Weight loss referrals for adults in primary care (WRAP) trial, which randomised 1267 adults with overweight or obesity to brief intervention, WW (formerly Weight Watchers) for 12-weeks, or WW for 52-weeks. We used regression analyses to assess the association of baseline mental health (depression and anxiety (by Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), quality of life (by EQ5D), satisfaction with life (by Satisfaction with Life Questionnaire)) with programme attendance and engagement in WW groups, and trial attendance in all randomised groups. RESULTS: Every one unit of baseline depression score was associated with a 1% relative reduction in rate of WW session attendance in the first 12 weeks (Incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.99; 95% CI 0.98, 0.999). Higher baseline anxiety was associated with 4% lower odds to report high engagement with WW digital tools (Odds ratio [OR] 0.96; 95% CI 0.94, 0.99). Every one unit of global quality of life was associated with 69% lower odds of reporting high engagement with the WW mobile app (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.15, 0.64). Greater symptoms of depression and anxiety and lower satisfaction with life at baseline were consistently associated with lower odds of attending study visits at 3-, 12-, 24-, and 60-months. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were less likely to attend programme sessions, engage with resources, and attend study assessments when reporting poorer baseline mental health. Differences in attendance and engagement were small, however changes may still have a meaningful effect on programme effectiveness and trial completion. Future research should investigate strategies to maximise attendance and engagement in those reporting poorer mental health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The original trial ( ISRCTN82857232 ) and five year follow up ( ISRCTN64986150 ) were prospectively registered with Current Controlled Trials on 15/10/2012 and 01/02/2018.

The Costs and Benefits of Risk Stratification for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based On Phenotypic and Genetic Risk: A Health Economic Analysis.

Population-based screening for colorectal cancer is an effective and cost-effective way of reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Many genetic and phenotypic risk factors for colorectal cancer have been identified, leading to development of colorectal cancer risk scores with varying discrimination. However, these are not currently used by population screening programs. We performed an economic analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness, clinical outcomes, and resource impact of using risk-stratification based on phenotypic and genetic risk, taking a UK National Health Service perspective. Biennial fecal immunochemical test (FIT), starting at an age determined through risk-assessment at age 40, was compared with FIT screening starting at a fixed age for all individuals. Compared with inviting everyone from age 60, using a risk score with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.721 to determine FIT screening start age, produces 418 QALYs, costs £247,000, and results in 218 fewer colorectal cancer cases and 156 fewer colorectal cancer deaths per 100,000 people, with similar FIT screening invites. There is 96% probability that risk-stratification is cost-effective, with net monetary benefit (based on £20,000 per QALY threshold) estimated at £8.1 million per 100,000 people. The maximum that could be spent on risk-assessment and still be cost-effective is £114 per person. Lower benefits are produced with lower discrimination risk scores, lower mean screening start age, or higher FIT thresholds. Risk-stratified screening benefits men more than women. Using risk to determine FIT screening start age could improve the clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening without using significant additional screening resources. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Colorectal cancer screening is essential for early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer, but implementation is often limited by resource constraints. This work shows that risk-stratification using genetic and phenotypic risk could improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening programs, without using substantially more screening resources than are currently available.

The impact of information about different absolute benefits and harms on intention to participate in colorectal cancer screening: A think-aloud study and online randomised experiment.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable heterogeneity in individuals' risk of disease and thus the absolute benefits and harms of population-wide screening programmes. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as an exemplar, we explored how people make decisions about screening when presented with information about absolute benefits and harms, and how those preferences vary with baseline risk, between screening tests and between individuals. METHOD: We conducted two linked studies with members of the public: a think-aloud study exploring decision making in-depth and an online randomised experiment quantifying preferences. In both, participants completed a web-based survey including information about three screening tests (colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and faecal immunochemical testing) and then up to nine scenarios comparing screening to no screening for three levels of baseline risk (1%, 3% and 5% over 15 years) and the three screening tests. Participants reported, after each scenario, whether they would opt for screening (yes/no). RESULTS: Of the 20 participants in the think-aloud study 13 did not consider absolute benefits or harms when making decisions concerning CRC screening. In the online experiment (n = 978), 60% expressed intention to attend at 1% risk of CRC, 70% at 3% and 77% at 5%, with no differences between screening tests. At an individual level, 535 (54.7%) would attend at all three risk levels and 178 (18.2%) at none. The 27% whose intention varied by baseline risk were more likely to be younger, without a family history of CRC, and without a prior history of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Most people in our population were not influenced by the range of absolute benefits and harms associated with CRC screening presented. For an appreciable minority, however, magnitude of benefit was important.

Should colorectal cancer screening start at different ages for men and women? Cost-effectiveness analysis for a resource-constrained service.

BACKGROUND: Men have a greater risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) than women, but population screening currently starts at the same age for both sexes. AIM: This analysis investigates whether, in a resource-constrained setting, it would be more effective and cost-effective for men and women to start screening for CRC at different ages. METHODS AND RESULTS: An economic modeling analysis was carried out using the Microsimulation Model in Cancer of the Bowel to compare sex-stratification against screening everyone from the same age, taking an English National Health Service perspective. Screening men from age 56 and women from age 60, rather than screening everyone from age 58 using a Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) threshold of 120 µg/g is expected to produce an additional 0.0004 QALYs for a cost of £0.55 per person at model start (Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio = £1392), and to reduce CRC cases and mortality by 25 and 19 per 100 000 people respectively, while using a similar amount of screening resources. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates a 61% probability that sex-stratification is more cost-effective than screening everyone at age 58. Similar benefits of sex-stratification are found at other FIT thresholds, but become negligible if mean screening start age is reduced to 50. CONCLUSION: Where resources are constrained and it is not feasible to screen everyone from the age of 50, starting screening earlier in men than women is likely to be more cost-effective and gain more health benefits overall than strategies where men and women start screening at the same age.

Incorporating a brief intervention for personalised cancer risk assessment to promote behaviour change into primary care: a multi-methods pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 40% of cancers could be prevented if people lived healthier lifestyles. We have developed a theory-based brief intervention to share personalised cancer risk information and promote behaviour change within primary care. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of incorporating this intervention into primary care consultations. METHOD: Patients eligible for an NHS Health Check or annual chronic disease review at five general practices were invited to participate in a non-randomised pilot study. In addition to the NHS Health Check or chronic disease review, those receiving the intervention were provided with their estimated risk of developing the most common preventable cancers alongside tailored behaviour change advice. Patients completed online questionnaires at baseline, immediately post-consultation and at 3-month follow-up. Consultations were audio/video recorded. Patients (n = 12) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) (n = 7) participated in post-intervention qualitative interviews that were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: 62 patients took part. Thirty-four attended for an NHS Health Check plus the intervention; 7 for a standard NHS Health Check; 16 for a chronic disease review plus the intervention; and 5 for a standard chronic disease review. The mean time for delivery of the intervention was 9.6 min (SD 3) within NHS Health Checks and 9 min (SD 4) within chronic disease reviews. Fidelity of delivery of the intervention was high. Data from the questionnaires demonstrates potential improvements in health-related behaviours following the intervention. Patients receiving the intervention found the cancer risk information and lifestyle advice understandable, useful and motivating. HCPs felt that the intervention fitted well within NHS Health Checks and facilitated conversations around behaviour change. Integrating the intervention within chronic disease reviews was more challenging. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating a risk-based intervention to promote behaviour change for cancer prevention into primary care consultations is feasible and acceptable to both patients and HCPs. A randomised trial is now needed to assess the effect on health behaviours. When designing that trial, and other prevention activities within primary care, it is necessary to consider challenges around patient recruitment, the HCP contact time needed for delivery of interventions, and how best to integrate discussions about disease risk within routine care.

Behavioural interventions to promote physical activity in a multiethnic population at high risk of diabetes: PROPELS three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is a leading cause of mortality globally and accounts for significant health resource expenditure. Increased physical activity can reduce the risk of diabetes. However, the longer-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions in those at high risk of type 2 diabetes is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether or not Walking Away from Diabetes (Walking Away) - a low-resource, 3-hour group-based behavioural intervention designed to promote physical activity through pedometer use in those with prediabetes - leads to sustained increases in physical activity when delivered with and without an integrated mobile health intervention compared with control. DESIGN: Three-arm, parallel-group, pragmatic, superiority randomised controlled trial with follow-up conducted at 12 and 48 months. SETTING: Primary care and the community. PARTICIPANTS: Adults whose primary care record included a prediabetic blood glucose measurement recorded within the past 5 years [HbA1c ≥ 42 mmol/mol (6.0%), < 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) mmol/mol; fasting glucose ≥ 5.5 mmol/l, < 7.0 mmol/l; or 2-hour post-challenge glucose ≥ 7.8 mmol/l, < 11.1 mmol/l] were recruited between December 2013 and February 2015. Data collection was completed in July 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised (1 : 1 : 1) using a web-based tool to (1) control (information leaflet), (2) Walking Away with annual group-based support or (3) Walking Away Plus (comprising Walking Away, annual group-based support and a mobile health intervention that provided automated, individually tailored text messages to prompt pedometer use and goal-setting and provide feedback, in addition to biannual telephone calls). Participants and data collectors were not blinded; however, the staff who processed the accelerometer data were blinded to allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was accelerometer-measured ambulatory activity (steps per day) at 48 months. Other objective and self-reported measures of physical activity were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1366 individuals were randomised (median age 61 years, median body mass index 28.4 kg/m2, median ambulatory activity 6638 steps per day, women 49%, black and minority ethnicity 28%). Accelerometer data were available for 1017 (74%) and 993 (73%) individuals at 12 and 48 months, respectively. The primary outcome assessment at 48 months found no differences in ambulatory activity compared with control in either group (Walking Away Plus: 121 steps per day, 97.5% confidence interval -290 to 532 steps per day; Walking Away: 91 steps per day, 97.5% confidence interval -282 to 463). This was consistent across ethnic groups. At the intermediate 12-month assessment, the Walking Away Plus group had increased their ambulatory activity by 547 (97.5% confidence interval 211 to 882) steps per day compared with control and were 1.61 (97.5% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.45) times more likely to achieve 150 minutes per week of objectively assessed unbouted moderate to vigorous physical activity. In the Walking Away group, there were no differences compared with control at 12 months. Secondary anthropometric, biomechanical and mental health outcomes were unaltered in either intervention study arm compared with control at 12 or 48 months, with the exception of small, but sustained, reductions in body weight in the Walking Away study arm (≈ 1 kg) at the 12- and 48-month follow-ups. Lifetime cost-effectiveness modelling suggested that usual care had the highest probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Of 50 serious adverse events, only one (myocardial infarction) was deemed possibly related to the intervention and led to the withdrawal of the participant from the study. LIMITATIONS: Loss to follow-up, although the results were unaltered when missing data were replaced using multiple imputation. CONCLUSIONS: Combining a physical activity intervention with text messaging and telephone support resulted in modest, but clinically meaningful, changes in physical activity at 12 months, but the changes were not sustained at 48 months. FUTURE WORK: Future research is needed to investigate which intervention types, components and features can help to maintain physical activity behaviour change over the longer term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN83465245. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 77. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

When someone has type 2 diabetes, it means that their body no longer does a good job of controlling the sugar in their blood. This gives them a higher risk of other health problems. Fortunately, people can avoid getting type 2 diabetes if they can change their lifestyle. We wanted to know whether or not an education programme could help people at high risk of getting diabetes to become more physically active and, if so, whether or not they were still more active and healthier 4 years later. We also wanted to know whether it made a difference if we used text messages and telephone calls to support them and whether it worked better for some ethnic groups than others. We put 1366 people into one of three groups at random. The first group received an advice leaflet. The second group attended (in groups of up to 10 participants) a 3-hour education programme called 'Walking Away from Type 2 Diabetes' to help them to change their behaviour and then attended a group-based refresher session every year. The third group received the same education programme and the refresher sessions, but also received text messages and telephone calls to give them extra support. We measured how active the participants were at the start of the study, after 1 year and again 3 years after that (i.e. 4 years after the start). Then we looked at whether or not the Walking Away programme, with and without the extra support of text messages and telephone calls, did a better job of encouraging people to be more active than just giving them the advice leaflet. We found out that the Walking Away programme, when combined with text messages and telephone calls for support, did help participants to take over 500 more steps per day during the first year; however, when we checked again at 4 years, we found that the effects had worn off. Neither option proved to be good value for money.

Inequalities in the uptake of, adherence to and effectiveness of behavioural weight management interventions: systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: It has been suggested that interventions focusing on individual behaviour change, such as behavioural weight management interventions, may exacerbate health inequalities. These intervention-generated inequalities may occur at different stages, including intervention uptake, adherence and effectiveness. We will synthesise evidence on how different measures of inequality moderate the uptake, adherence and effectiveness of behavioural weight management interventions in adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will update a previous systematic literature review from the United States Preventive Services Taskforce to identify trials of behavioural weight management interventions in adults aged 18 years and over that were, or could feasibly be, conducted in or recruited from primary care. Medline, Cochrane database (CENTRAL) and PsycINFO will be searched. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs will be included. Two investigators will independently screen articles for eligibility and conduct risk of bias assessment. We will curate publication families for eligible trials. The PROGRESS-Plus acronym (place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender, religion, education, socioeconomic status, social capital, plus other discriminating factors) will be used to consider a comprehensive range of health inequalities. Data on trial uptake, intervention adherence, weight change and PROGRESS-Plus-related data will be extracted. Data will be synthesised narratively. We will present a Harvest plot for each PROGRESS-Plus criterion and whether each trial found a negative, positive or no health inequality gradient. We will also identify potential sources of unpublished original research data on these factors which can be synthesised through a future individual participant data meta-analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as no primary data are being collected. The completed systematic review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal, at conferences, and contribute to the lead author's PhD thesis. Authors of trials included in the completed systematic review may be invited to collaborate on a future individual participant data meta-analysis. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020173242.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of a diabetes education and behavioural weight management programme versus a diabetes education programme in adults with a recent diagnosis of type 2 diabetes: study protocol for the Glucose Lowering through Weight management (GLoW) randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: People with type 2 diabetes (T2D) can improve glycaemic control or even achieve remission through weight loss and reduce their use of medication and risk of cardiovascular disease. The Glucose Lowering through Weight management (GLoW) trial will evaluate whether a tailored diabetes education and behavioural weight management programme (DEW) is more effective and cost-effective than a diabetes education (DE) programme in helping people with overweight or obesity and a recent diagnosis of T2D to lower their blood glucose, lose weight and improve other markers of cardiovascular risk. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a pragmatic, randomised, single-blind, parallel group, two-arm, superiority trial. We will recruit 576 adults with body mass index>25 kg/m2 and diagnosis of T2D in the past 3 years and randomise them to a tailored DEW or a DE programme. Participants will attend measurement appointments at a local general practitioner practice or research centre at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is 12-month change in glycated haemoglobin. The effect of the intervention on the primary outcome will be estimated and tested using a linear regression model (analysis of covariance) including randomisation group and adjusted for baseline value of the outcome and the randomisation stratifiers. Participants will be included in the group to which they were randomised, under the intention-to-treat principle. Secondary outcomes include 6-month and 12-month changes in body weight, body fat percentage, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and lipid profile; probability of achieving good glycaemic control; probability of achieving remission from diabetes; probability of losing 5% and 10% body weight and modelled cardiovascular risk (UKPDS). An intention-to-treat within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted from NHS and societal perspectives using participant-level data. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with participants to understand why and how the programme achieved its results and how participants manage their weight after the programme ends. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was received from East of Scotland Research Ethics Service on 15 May 2018 (18/ES/0048). This protocol (V.3) was approved on 19 June 2019. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and communicated to other stakeholders as appropriate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18399564.

Evaluation of a very brief pedometer-based physical activity intervention delivered in NHS Health Checks in England: The VBI randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The majority of people do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. There is a need for effective, scalable interventions to promote activity. Self-monitoring by pedometer is a potentially suitable strategy. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief (5-minute) pedometer-based intervention ('Step It Up') delivered as part of National Health Service (NHS) Health Checks in primary care. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial was a two parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 3-month follow-up, conducted in 23 primary care practices in the East of England. Participants were 1,007 healthy adults aged 40 to 74 years eligible for an NHS Health Check. They were randomly allocated (1:1) using a web-based tool between October 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, to either intervention (505) or control group (502), stratified by primary care practice. Participants were aware of study group allocation. Control participants received the NHS Health Check only. Intervention participants additionally received Step It Up: a 5-minute face-to-face discussion, written materials, pedometer, and step chart. The primary outcome was accelerometer-based physical activity volume at 3-month follow-up adjusted for sex, 5-year age group, and general practice. Secondary outcomes included time spent in different intensities of physical activity, self-reported physical activity, and economic measures. We conducted an in-depth fidelity assessment on a subsample of Health Check consultations. Participants' mean age was 56 years, two-thirds were female, they were predominantly white, and two-thirds were in paid employment. The primary outcome was available in 859 (85.3%) participants. There was no significant between-group difference in activity volume at 3 months (adjusted intervention effect 8.8 counts per minute [cpm]; 95% CI -18.7 to 36.3; p = 0.53). We found no significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes of step counts per day, time spent in moderate or vigorous activity, time spent in vigorous activity, and time spent in moderate-intensity activity (accelerometer-derived variables); as well as in total physical activity, home-based activity, work-based activity, leisure-based activity, commuting physical activity, and screen or TV time (self-reported physical activity variables). Of the 505 intervention participants, 491 (97%) received the Step it Up intervention. Analysis of 37 intervention consultations showed that 60% of Step it Up components were delivered faithfully. The intervention cost £18.04 per participant. Incremental cost to the NHS per 1,000-step increase per day was £96 and to society was £239. Adverse events were reported by 5 intervention participants (of which 2 were serious) and 5 control participants (of which 2 were serious). The study's limitations include a participation rate of 16% and low return of audiotapes by practices for fidelity assessment. CONCLUSIONS: In this large well-conducted trial, we found no evidence of effect of a plausible very brief pedometer intervention embedded in NHS Health Checks on objectively measured activity at 3-month follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN72691150).

Development and usability testing of a very brief intervention for personalised cancer risk assessment to promote behaviour change in primary care using normalisation process theory.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the second leading cause of death worldwide. Lifestyle choices play an important role in the aetiology of cancer with up to 4 in 10 cases potentially preventable. Interventions delivered by healthcare professionals (HCPs) that incorporate risk information have the potential to promote behaviour change. Our aim was to develop a very brief intervention incorporating cancer risk, which could be implemented within primary care. METHODS: Guided by normalisation process theory (NPT), we developed a prototype intervention using literature reviews, consultation with patient and public representatives and pilot work with patients and HCPs. We conducted focus groups and interviews with 65 HCPs involved in delivering prevention activities. Findings were used to refine the intervention before 22 HCPs completed an online usability test and provided further feedback via a questionnaire incorporating a modified version of the NoMAD checklist. RESULTS: The intervention included a website where individuals could provide information on lifestyle risk factors view their estimated 10-year risk of developing one or more of the five most common preventable cancers and access lifestyle advice incorporating behaviour change techniques. Changes incorporated from feedback from the focus groups and interviews included signposting to local services and websites, simplified wording and labelling of risk information. In the usability testing, all participants felt it would be easy to collect the risk information. Ninety-one percent felt the intervention would enable discussion about cancer risk and believed it had potential to be easily integrated into National Health Service (NHS) Health Checks. However, only 36% agreed it could be delivered within 5 min. CONCLUSIONS: With the use of NPT, we developed a very brief intervention that is acceptable to HCPs in primary care and could be potentially integrated into NHS Health Checks. However, further work is needed to assess its feasibility and potential effectiveness.

Descriptive epidemiology of physical activity energy expenditure in UK adults (The Fenland study).

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) plays a role in the prevention of a range of diseases including obesity and cardiometabolic disorders. Large population-based descriptive studies of PA, incorporating precise measurement, are needed to understand the relative burden of insufficient PA levels and to inform the tailoring of interventions. Combined heart and movement sensing enables the study of physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) and intensity distribution. We aimed to describe the sociodemographic correlates of PAEE and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in UK adults. METHODS: The Fenland study is a population-based cohort study of 12,435 adults aged 29-64 years-old in Cambridgeshire, UK. Following individual calibration (treadmill), participants wore a combined heart rate and movement sensor continuously for 6 days in free-living, from which we derived PAEE (kJ•day- 1•kg- 1) and time in MVPA (> 3 & > 4 METs) in bouts greater than 1 min and 10 min. Socio-demographic information was self-reported. Stratum-specific summary statistics and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS: Women accumulated a mean (sd) 50(20) kJ•day- 1•kg- 1 of PAEE, and 83(67) and 33(39) minutes•day- 1 of 1-min bouted and 10-min bouted MVPA respectively. By contrast, men recorded 59(23) kJ•day- 1•kg- 1, 124(84) and 60(58) minutes•day- 1. Age and BMI were also important correlates of PA. Association with age was inverse in both sexes, more strongly so for PAEE than MVPA. Obese individuals accumulated less PA than their normal-weight counterparts, whether considering PAEE or allometrically-scaled PAEE (- 10 kJ•day- 1•kg- 1 or - 15 kJ•day- 1•kg-2/3 in men). Higher income and manual work were associated with higher PA; manual workers recorded 13-16 kJ•kg- 1•day- 1 more PAEE than sedentary counterparts. Overall, 86% of women and 96% of men accumulated a daily average of MVPA (> 3 METs) corresponding to 150 min per week. These values were 49 and 74% if only considering bouts > 10 min (15 and 31% for > 4 METs). CONCLUSIONS: PA varied by age, sex and BMI, and was higher in manual workers and those with higher incomes. Light physical activity was the main driver of PAEE; a component of PA that is currently not quantified as a target in UK guidelines.

Long-term effects of intensive multifactorial therapy in individuals with screen-detected type 2 diabetes in primary care: 10-year follow-up of the ADDITION-Europe cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The multicentre, international ADDITION-Europe study investigated the effect of promoting intensive treatment of multiple risk factors among people with screen-detected type 2 diabetes over 5 years. Here we report the results of a post-hoc 10-year follow-up analysis of ADDITION-Europe to establish whether differences in treatment and cardiovascular risk factors have been maintained and to assess effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: As previously described, general practices from four centres (Denmark, Cambridge [UK], Leicester [UK], and the Netherlands) were randomly assigned by computer-generated list to provide screening followed by routine care of diabetes, or screening followed by intensive multifactorial treatment. Population-based stepwise screening programmes among people aged 40-69 years (50-69 years in the Netherlands), between April, 2001, and December, 2006, identified patients with type 2 diabetes. Allocation was concealed from patients. Following the 5-year follow-up, no attempts were made to maintain differences in treatment between study groups. In this report, we did a post-hoc analysis of cardiovascular and renal outcomes over 10 years following randomisation, including a 5 years post-intervention follow-up. As in the original trial, the primary endpoint was a composite of first cardiovascular event, including cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular morbidity (non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke), revascularisation, and non-traumatic amputation, up to Dec 31, 2014. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. ADDITION-Europe is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00237549. FINDINGS: 343 general practices were randomly assigned to routine diabetes care (n=176) or intensive multifactorial treatment (n=167). 317 of these general practices (157 in the routine care group, 161 in the intensive treatment group) included eligible patients between April, 2001, and December, 2006. Of the 3233 individuals with screen-detected diabetes, 3057 agreed to participate (1379 in the routine care group, 1678 in the intensive treatment group), but at the 10-year follow-up 14 were lost to follow-up and 12 withdrew, leaving 3031 to enter 10-year follow-up analysis. Mean duration of follow-up was 9·61 years (SD 2·99). Sustained reductions over 10 years following diagnosis were apparent for bodyweight, HbA1c, blood pressure, and cholesterol in both study groups, but between-group differences identified at 1 and 5 years were attenuated at the 10-year follow-up. By 10 years, 443 participants had a first cardiovascular event and 465 died. There was no significant difference between groups in the incidence of the primary composite outcome (16·1 per 1000 person-years in the routine care group vs 14·3 per 1000 person-years in the intensive treatment group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·73-1·04; p=0·14) or all-cause mortality (15·6 vs 14·3 per 1000 person-years; HR 0·90, 0·76-1·07). INTERPRETATION: Sustained reductions in glycaemia and related cardiovascular risk factors over 10 years among people with screen-detected diabetes managed in primary care are achievable. The differences in prescribed treatment and cardiovascular risk factors in the 5 years following diagnosis were not maintained at 10 years, and the difference in cardiovascular events and mortality remained non-significant. FUNDING: National Health Service Denmark, Danish Council for Strategic Research, Danish Research Foundation for General Practice, Novo Nordisk, Novo Nordisk Foundation, Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment, Danish National Board of Health, Danish Medical Research Council, Aarhus University Research Foundation, Astra, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Servier, HemoCue, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK National Health Service, Merck, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UK Department of Health, and Nuts-OHRA.

Impact of sit-stand desks at work on energy expenditure, sitting time and cardio-metabolic risk factors: Multiphase feasibility study with randomised controlled component.

Uncertainties remain about the overall effect of sit-stand desks for reducing prolonged sitting among office-based workers. This study assessed the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of the impact of workplace sit-stand desks on overall energy expenditure, sitting time and cardio-metabolic outcomes. It involved four phases: Phase I: online survey; Phase II: workspace auditing; Phase III: randomised intervention (provision of sit-stand desks at work for 3 months); Phase IV: qualitative component. Participants were office-based employees of two companies in Cambridge, England. Among Phase I participants interested in the trial, 100 were randomised to Phase II. Of those with workspaces suitable for sit-stand desks, 20 were randomised to Phase III. Those allocated to the intervention completed Phase IV. Outcomes included: trial participation interest, desk-type (full desks/desk mounts) and assessment location (work/laboratory/home) preferences (Phase I); proportion of workspaces permitting sit-stand desk installation (Phase II); energy expenditure, sitting time and cardio-metabolic outcomes (Phase III); study participation experiences (Phase IV). Data were collected between May 2015 and December 2016. Recruitment and trial implementation were feasible: 92% of survey respondents expressed participation interest; 80% of workspaces could accommodate sit-stand desks; assessments were done in workplaces, preferred by 71%. Sit-stand desk provision reduced workplace sitting time by 94 min/day (95% CI 17.7-170.7). Their impact on energy expenditure and cardio-metabolic outcomes is unclear. The results confirm the feasibility of a trial assessing sit-stand desks' impact on energy expenditure, sitting time and cardio-metabolic outcomes, which should reduce uncertainty concerning the intervention's potential to reduce the health risks of prolonged sitting. Trial registration ISRCTN44827407.