Investigating midwives' barriers and facilitators to multiple health promotion practice behaviours: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework.

BACKGROUND: In addition to their more traditional clinical role, midwives are expected to perform various health promotion practice behaviours (HePPBes) such as informing pregnant women about the benefits of physical activity during pregnancy and asking women about their alcohol consumption. There is evidence to suggest several barriers exist to performing HePPBes. The aim of the study was to investigate the barriers and facilitators midwives perceive to undertaking HePPBes. METHODS: The research compromised of two studies. Study 1: midwives based in a community setting (N = 11) took part in semi-structured interviews underpinned by the theoretical domains framework (TDF). Interviews were analysed using a direct content analysis approach to identify important barriers or facilitators to undertaking HePPBes. Study 2: midwives (N = 505) completed an online questionnaire assessing views on their HePPBes including free text responses (n = 61) which were coded into TDF domains. Study 2 confirmed and supplemented the barriers and facilitators identified in study 1. RESULTS: Midwives' perceived a multitude of barriers and facilitators to carrying out HePPBes. Key barriers were requirements to perform an increasing amount of HePPBes on top of existing clinical work load, midwives' cognitive resources, the quality of relationships with pregnant women, a lack of continuity of care and difficulty accessing appropriate training. Key facilitators included midwives' motivation to support pregnant women to address their health. Study 1 highlighted strategies that midwives use to overcome the barriers they face in carrying out their HePPBes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite high levels of motivation to carry out their health promotion practice, midwives perceive numerous barriers to carrying out these tasks in a timely and effective manner. Interventions that support midwives by addressing key barriers and facilitators to help pregnant women address their health behaviours are urgently needed.

Randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of a lifestyle intervention (ActWELL) in women invited to NHS breast screening.

INTRODUCTION: In Scotland, the incidence of breast cancer is predicted to rise significantly in the next few decades and while there are measures to support reductions in morbidity and mortality, the breast cancer community is currently exploring preventative opportunities including supporting weight management programmes in postmenopausal women. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a theory-based, community delivered, minimal contact, weight management (diet, physical activity and behaviour change techniques) programme (ActWELL) in women with a body mass index (BMI) >25 kg/m2 attending routine breast cancer screening appointments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will be a four-centre, 1:1 parallel group randomised controlled trial of a 12-month weight management intervention initiated in breast cancer screening centres, delivered by trained Breast Cancer Now lifestyle coaches in community settings. The intervention programme involves two intervention meetings with coaches plus (up to) nine telephone contacts over 12 months. The programme will focus on personalised diet (including alcoholic and sugary drinks) and physical activity habits. Behaviour change techniques include self-monitoring, goal setting, implementation intentions, action and coping plans. The study has a sample size of 414 women with a BMI >25 kg/m2 attending routine National Health Service breast cancer screening appointments. Measures will be taken at baseline, 12 weeks and at 12-month follow-up, complemented by qualitative interviews exploring perceived acceptability and impact on habitual behaviours. The two co-primary outcomes are mean change in measured body weight and change in physical activity between groups to 12 months. Secondary outcomes are changes in eating habits, alcohol intake, sedentary time, quality of life, waist circumference, lipid, haemoglobin A1c and insulin profiles, blood pressure and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (17/ES/0073). All participants provide written informed consent. Dissemination will be through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11057518; Pre-results.

Effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing on adult behaviour change in health and social care settings: A systematic review of reviews.

BACKGROUND: The challenge of addressing unhealthy lifestyle choice is of global concern. Motivational Interviewing has been widely implemented to help people change their behaviour, but it is unclear for whom it is most beneficial. This overview aims to appraise and synthesise the review evidence for the effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing on health behaviour of adults in health and social care settings. METHODS: A systematic review of reviews. Methods were pre-specified and documented in a protocol (PROSPERO-CRD42016049278). We systematically searched 7 electronic databases: CDSR; DARE; PROSPERO; MEDLINE; CINAHL; AMED and PsycINFO from 2000 to May 2018. Two reviewers applied pre-defined selection criteria, extracted data using TIDIER guidelines and assessed methodological quality using the ROBIS tool. We used GRADE criteria to rate the strength of the evidence for reviews including meta-analyses. FINDINGS: Searches identified 5222 records. One hundred and four reviews, including 39 meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. Most meta-analysis evidence was graded as low or very low (128/155). Moderate quality evidence for mainly short term (<6 months) statistically significant small beneficial effects of Motivational Interviewing were found in 11 of 155 (7%) of meta-analysis comparisons. These outcomes include reducing binge drinking, frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption, substance abuse in people with dependency or addiction, and increasing physical activity participation. CONCLUSIONS: We have created a comprehensive map of reviews relating to Motivational Interviewing to signpost stakeholders to the best available evidence. More high quality research is needed to be confident about the effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing. We identified a large volume of low quality evidence and many areas of overlapping research. To avoid research waste, it is vital for researchers to be aware of existing research, and the implications arising from that research. In the case of Motivational Interviewing issues relating to monitoring and reporting fidelity of interventions need to be addressed.

Feasibility study to assess the impact of a lifestyle intervention ('LivingWELL') in people having an assessment of their family history of colorectal or breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of delivering and evaluating a weight management (WM) programme for overweight patients with a family history (FH) of breast cancer (BC) or colorectal cancer (CRC). STUDY DESIGN: A two-arm (intervention vs usual care) randomised controlled trial. SETTING: National Health Service (NHS) Tayside and NHS Grampian. PARTICIPANTS: People with a FH of BC or CRC aged≥18 years and body mass index of ≥25 kg/m2 referred to NHS genetic services. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to a control (lifestyle booklet) or 12-week intervention arm where they were given one face-to-face counselling session, four telephone consultations and web-based support. A goal of 5% reduction in body weight was set, and a personalised diet and physical activity (PA) programme was provided. Behavioural change techniques (motivational interviewing, action and coping plans and implementation intentions) were used. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Feasibility measures: recruitment, programme implementation, fidelity measures, achieved measurements and retention, participant satisfaction assessed by questionnaire and qualitative interviews. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Measured changes in weight and PA and reported diet and psychosocial measures between baseline and 12-week follow-up. RESULTS: Of 480 patients approached, 196 (41%) expressed interest in the study, and of those, 78 (40%) patients were randomised. Implementation of the programme was challenging within the time allotted and fidelity to the intervention modest (62%). Qualitative findings indicated the programme was well received. Questionnaires and anthropometric data were completed by >98%. Accelerometer data were attained by 84% and 54% at baseline and follow-up, respectively. Retention at 12 weeks was 76%. Overall, 36% of the intervention group (vs 0% in control) achieved 5% weight loss. Favourable increases in PA and reduction in dietary fat were also reported. CONCLUSIONS: A lifestyle programme for people with a family history of cancer is feasible to conduct and acceptable to participants, and indicative results suggest favourable outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13123470; Pre-results.