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.

Characteristics of smartphone-based dietary assessment tools: a systematic review.

Smartphones have become popular in assessing eating behaviour in real-life and real-time. This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of smartphone-based dietary assessment tools, focusing on how dietary data is assessed and its completeness ensured. Seven databases from behavioural, social and computer science were searched in March 2020. All observational, experimental or intervention studies and study protocols using a smartphone-based assessment tool for dietary intake were included if they reported data collected by adults and were published in English. Out of 21,722 records initially screened, 117 publications using 129 tools were included. Five core assessment features were identified: photo-based assessment (48.8% of tools), assessed serving/ portion sizes (48.8%), free-text descriptions of food intake (42.6%), food databases (30.2%), and classification systems (27.9%). On average, a tool used two features. The majority of studies did not implement any features to improve completeness of the records. This review provides a comprehensive overview and framework of smartphone-based dietary assessment tools to help researchers identify suitable assessment tools for their studies. Future research needs to address the potential impact of specific dietary assessment methods on data quality and participants' willingness to record their behaviour to ultimately improve the quality of smartphone-based dietary assessment for health research.

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.

Reducing bias in trials from reactions to measurement: the MERIT study including developmental work and expert workshop.

BACKGROUND: Measurement can affect the people being measured; for example, asking people to complete a questionnaire can result in changes in behaviour (the 'question-behaviour effect'). The usual methods of conduct and analysis of randomised controlled trials implicitly assume that the taking of measurements has no effect on research participants. Changes in measured behaviour and other outcomes due to measurement reactivity may therefore introduce bias in otherwise well-conducted randomised controlled trials, yielding incorrect estimates of intervention effects, including underestimates. OBJECTIVES: The main objectives were (1) to promote awareness of how and where taking measurements can lead to bias and (2) to provide recommendations on how best to avoid or minimise bias due to measurement reactivity in randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve health. METHODS: We conducted (1) a series of systematic and rapid reviews, (2) a Delphi study and (3) an expert workshop. A protocol paper was published [Miles LM, Elbourne D, Farmer A, Gulliford M, Locock L, McCambridge J, et al. Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance. Trials 2018;19:653]. An updated systematic review examined whether or not measuring participants had an effect on participants' health-related behaviours relative to no-measurement controls. Three new rapid systematic reviews were conducted to identify (1) existing guidance on measurement reactivity, (2) existing systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes relating to behaviour and affective outcomes and (3) experimental studies that have investigated the effects of exposure to objective measurements of behaviour on health-related behaviour. The views of 40 experts defined the scope of the recommendations in two waves of data collection during the Delphi procedure. A workshop aimed to produce a set of recommendations that were formed in discussion in groups. RESULTS: Systematic reviews - we identified a total of 43 studies that compared interview or questionnaire measurement with no measurement and these had an overall small effect (standardised mean difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.09; n = 104,096, I2 = 54%). The three rapid systematic reviews identified no existing guidance on measurement reactivity, but we did identify five systematic reviews that quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes (all focused on the question-behaviour effect, with all standardised mean differences in the range of 0.09-0.28) and 16 studies that examined reactive effects of objective measurement of behaviour, with most evidence of reactivity of small effect and short duration. Delphi procedure - substantial agreement was reached on the scope of the present recommendations. Workshop - 14 recommendations and three main aims were produced. The aims were to identify whether or not bias is likely to be a problem for a trial, to decide whether or not to collect further quantitative or qualitative data to inform decisions about if bias is likely to be a problem, and to identify how to design trials to minimise the likelihood of this bias. LIMITATION: The main limitation was the shortage of high-quality evidence regarding the extent of measurement reactivity, with some notable exceptions, and the circumstances that are likely to bring it about. CONCLUSION: We hope that these recommendations will be used to develop new trials that are less likely to be at risk of bias. FUTURE WORK: The greatest need is to increase the number of high-quality primary studies regarding the extent of measurement reactivity. STUDY REGISTRATION: The first systematic review in this study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018102511. FUNDING: Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research Programme.

When people are asked to complete measures such as questionnaires in research studies this can produce changes in the behaviour or emotions of those people. For example, people who are asked to complete questionnaires about drinking alcohol have been found to drink slightly less, on average, than people who are not asked to complete questionnaires. Current established methods of research usually ignore these reactions to measurement. The present research aimed to produce recommendations for how best to deal with reactions to measurement. The scope of these recommendations was limited to 'trials' used to test whether or not a treatment improves health. To do this, we identified relevant research studies that have investigated various different aspects of whether or not measurement affects the people being measured. We then consulted 40 experts about what the current recommendations should consider and what was not within the scope of the current recommendations. We then gathered 23 experts together for 2 days to produce a set of recommendations. We found 43 research studies that have looked at whether or not being asked to complete questionnaires or being interviewed affects the behaviour of those people invited. In general, there were some effects of completing questionnaires, but the effects were not very consistent across research studies. There were few studies that have looked at the effects of using measures of behaviour other than questionnaires (e.g. blood pressure cuffs). We could find no existing recommendations for how best to deal with reactions to measurement in research studies that examine whether or not treatments improve health. We have produced 14 recommendations for researchers to better take account of the issue of measuring affecting the people being measured. We hope that this will help future research produce more accurate answers. We also identified that there is a need for more studies of the effects of measures other than questionnaires.

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.

Assessment of the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Tailored Web- and Text-Based Smoking Cessation Support in Primary Care (iQuit in Practice II): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of smoking is declining; however, it continues to be a major public health burden. In England, primary care is the health setting that provides smoking cessation support to most smokers. However, this setting has one of the lowest success rates. The iQuit in practice intervention (iQuit) is a tailored web-based and text message intervention developed for use in primary care consultations as an adjunct to routine smoking cessation support with the aim of increasing success rates. iQuit has demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and potential effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: This definitive trial aims to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of iQuit when used as an adjunct to the usual support provided to patients who wish to quit smoking, compared with usual care alone. METHODS: The iQuit in Practice II trial is a two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a 1:1 individual allocation comparing usual care (ie, pharmacotherapy combined with multisession behavioral support)-the control-with usual care plus iQuit-the intervention. Participants were recruited through primary care clinics and talked to a smoking cessation advisor. Participants were randomized during the initial consultation, and those allocated to the intervention group received a tailored advice report and 90 days of text messaging in addition to the standard support provided to all patients. RESULTS: The primary outcome is self-reported prolonged abstinence biochemically verified using saliva cotinine at 6 months after the quit date. A sample size of 1700 participants, with 850 per arm, would yield 90% power to detect a 4.3% difference in validated quit rates between the groups at the two-sided 5% level of significance. The Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee approved the study in February 2016, and funding for the study was granted from May 2016. In total, 1671 participants were recruited between August 2016 and July 2019. Follow-up for all participants was completed in January 2020. Data analysis will begin in the summer of 2020. CONCLUSIONS: iQuit in Practice II is a definitive, pragmatic RCT assessing whether a digital intervention can augment the impact of routine smoking cessation support in primary care. Previous research has found good acceptability and feasibility for delivering iQuit among smoking cessation advisors working in primary care. If demonstrated to be cost-effective, iQuit could be delivered across primary care and other settings, such as community pharmacies. The potential benefit would likely be highest where less behavioral support is delivered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 44559004; http://www.isrctn.com /ISRCTN44559004. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/17160.

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.

Behavioural analysis of postnatal physical activity in the UK according to the COM-B model: a multi-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: Develop a behavioural analysis of factors influencing postnatal physical activity (PA) according to the 'capability, opportunity, motivation and behaviour' (COM-B) model of behaviour to inform intervention development using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW). DESIGN: Cross-sectional, multi-method study using semi-structured interviews and a quantitative questionnaire. SETTING: Children's centres and mother and baby groups in Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience samples of postnatal women were interviewed (n=16) and completed the questionnaire (n=158). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews followed a preprepared topic guide exploring the COM-B model components and analysed using framework analysis. The questionnaire, based on the self-evaluation of behaviour questionnaire, was adapted using patient and public involvement and findings from the interviews. Questionnaire participants rated their agreement with 22 predefined statements related to COM-B model components. Mean, SD and 95% CI were calculated and each item categorised according to importance. Demographic data were collected. RESULTS: The questionnaire identified that new mothers would be more active if they had more time, felt less tired, had accessible childcare, were part of a group, advised by a healthcare professional, able to develop a habit and had more motivation. Additional themes emerging from qualitative data were engaging in PA groups with other new mothers, limited physical stamina following complicated births, social interaction, enjoyment and parental beliefs as motivation, provision of child-friendly PA facilities and environments and babies' unpredictable routines. CONCLUSION: The behavioural analysis presented in this paper identifies and adds detail on the range of factors influencing the target behaviour. Some are unique to the target population, requiring targeted interventions for postnatal women, whereas some are individualised, suggesting the need for individually tailored interventions. We will use the behavioural analysis presented to design an intervention using the subsequent steps in the BCW.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a tailored text-message programme (MiQuit) for smoking cessation in pregnancy: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Smoking in pregnancy is a major international public health problem. Self-help support (SHS) increases the likelihood of women stopping smoking in pregnancy and delivering this kind of support by text message could be a cost-effective way to deliver SHS to pregnant women who smoke. SHS delivered by text message helps non-pregnant smokers to stop but the currently available message programmes are not appropriate for use in pregnancy. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) has demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of using a programme called 'MiQuit' to text SHS support to pregnant women who smoke. Another pilot RCT has shown that it would be feasible to run a larger, multi-centre trial within the UK National Health Service (NHS). The aim of this third RCT is to complete MiQuit's evaluation, demonstrating whether or not this is efficacious for smoking cessation in pregnancy. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multi-centre, parallel-group RCT. Pregnant women aged over 16 years, of less than 25 weeks' gestation who smoke one or more daily cigarettes but smoked at least five daily cigarettes before pregnancy and who understand written English and are being identified in 24 English antenatal care hospitals. Participants are randomised to control or intervention groups in a 1:1 ratio stratified by gestation (< 16 weeks versus ≥ 16 weeks). All participants receive a leaflet on stopping smoking during pregnancy; they are also able to access standard NHS smoking cessation support. Intervention group women also receive the 12-week MiQuit programme of tailored, interactive text message, and self-help cessation support. Women are followed up by telephone at 4 weeks after randomisation and 36 weeks' gestation. The RCT will recruit 692 women (346 per group), enabling a 95% confidence interval for the difference in quit rates to be estimated within ± 3%. To determine whether or not MiQuit helps pregnant smokers to stop, intervention group quit rates from this trial will be combined with those from the two earlier trials in a Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) meta-analysis to derive a pooled efficacy estimate. DISCUSSION: If effective, MiQuit will be a cheap, cost-effective method to help pregnant women to stop smoking. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03231553 . Registered on 20 July 2017.

Differences in objectively measured physical activity and sedentary behaviour between white Europeans and south Asians recruited from primary care: cross-sectional analysis of the PROPELS trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-reported data have consistently shown South Asians (SAs) to be less physically active than White Europeans (WEs) in developed countries, however objective data is lacking. Differences in sedentary time have not been elucidated in this population. This study aimed to quantify differences in objectively measured physical activity and sedentary behaviour between WEs and SAs recruited from primary care and to investigate differences in demographic and lifestyle correlates of these behaviours. METHODOLOGY: Baseline data were utilised from a randomised control trial recruiting individuals identified at high risk of type 2 diabetes from primary care. Light intensity physical activity, moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) and steps were measured using the Actigraph GT3X+, while sitting, standing and stepping time were measured using the activPAL3™. Devices were worn concurrently for seven days. Demographic (employment, sex, age, education, postcode) and behavioural (fruit and vegetable consumption, alcohol consumption, smoking status) characteristics were measured via self and interview administered questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 963 WE (age = 62 ± 8, female 51%) and 289 SA (age = 55 ± 11, female 43%) were included. Compared to WEs, SAs did less MVPA (24 vs 33 min/day, p = 0.001) and fewer steps (6404 vs 7405 per day, p ≤ 0.001), but sat less (516 vs 552 min/day, p ≤ 0.001) and stood more (328 vs 283 min/day, p ≤ 0.001). Ethnicity also modified the extent to which demographic and behavioural factors act as correlates of physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Differences between sex in levels of MVPA and sitting time were greater in SAs compared to WEs, with SA women undertaking the least amount of MVPA (19 min/day), the least sitting time (475 min/day) and most standing time (377 min/day) than any other group. Smoking and alcohol status also acted as stronger correlates of sitting time in SAs compared to WEs. In contrast, education level acted as a stronger correlate of physical activity in WEs compared to SAs. CONCLUSION: SAs were less active yet less sedentary than WEs, which demonstrates the need to tailor the behavioural targets of interventions in multi-ethnic communities. Common correlates of physical activity and sedentary behaviour also differed between ethnicities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN83465245 Trial registration date: 14/06/2012.

Evaluating practical support stroke survivors get with medicines and unmet needs in primary care: a survey.

OBJECTIVES: To design a questionnaire and use it to explore unmet needs with practical aspects of medicine taking after stroke, predictors of medicine taking and to estimate the proportion of survivors who get support with daily medication taking. DESIGN: Four workshops with stroke survivors and caregivers to design the questionnaire.A cross-sectional postal questionnaire in primary care. SETTING: 18 general practitioner practices in the East of England and London. Questionnaires posted between September 2016 and February 2017. PARTICIPANTS: 1687 stroke survivors living in the community outside institutional long-term care. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of community stroke survivors receiving support from caregivers for practical aspects of medicine taking; the proportion with unmet needs in this respect; the predictors of experiencing unmet needs and missing taking medications. RESULTS: A five-item questionnaire was developed to cover the different aspects of medicine taking. 596/1687 (35%) questionnaires were returned. 56% reported getting help in at least one aspect of taking medication and 11% needing more help. 35% reported missing taking their medicines. Unmet needs were associated with receiving help with medications (OR 5.9, P<0.001), being on a higher number of medications (OR 1.2, P<0.001) and being dependent for activities of daily living (OR 4.9, P=0.001). Missing medication was associated with having unmet needs (OR 5.3, P<0.001), receiving help with medications (OR 2.1, P<0.001), being on a higher number of medicines (OR 1.1, P=0.008) and being older than 70 years (OR 0.6, P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of patients who replied needed help with taking medication, and 1 in 10 had unmet needs in this regard. Stroke survivors dependent on others have more unmet needs, are more likely to miss medicines and might benefit from focused clinical and research attention. Novel primary care interventions focusing on the practicalities of taking medicines are warranted.

Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Analysis of Brief Interventions to Promote Physical Activity in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Brief interventions (BIs) delivered in primary care have shown potential to increase physical activity levels and may be cost-effective, at least in the short-term, when compared with usual care. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence on their longer term costs and health benefits. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of BIs to promote physical activity in primary care and to guide future research priorities using value of information analysis. METHODS: A decision model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of three classes of BIs that have been used, or could be used, to promote physical activity in primary care: 1) pedometer interventions, 2) advice/counseling on physical activity, and (3) action planning interventions. Published risk equations and data from the available literature or routine data sources were used to inform model parameters. Uncertainty was investigated with probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and value of information analysis was conducted to estimate the value of undertaking further research. RESULTS: In the base-case, pedometer interventions yielded the highest expected net benefit at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. There was, however, a great deal of decision uncertainty: the expected value of perfect information surrounding the decision problem for the National Health Service Health Check population was estimated at £1.85 billion. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that the use of pedometer BIs is the most cost-effective strategy to promote physical activity in primary care, and that there is potential value in further research into the cost-effectiveness of brief (i.e., <30 minutes) and very brief (i.e., <5 minutes) pedometer interventions in this setting.

Cost-effectiveness of personal tailored risk information and taster sessions to increase the uptake of the NHS stop smoking services: the Start2quit randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a two-component intervention designed to increase attendance at the NHS Stop Smoking Services (SSSs) in England. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial (Start2quit). SETTING: NHS SSS and general practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 4384 smokers aged 16 years or more identified from medical records in 99 participating practices, who were motivated to quit and had not attended the SSS in the previous 12 months. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention was a personalized and tailored letter sent from the general practitioner (GP) and a personal invitation and appointment to attend a taster session providing information about SSS. Control was a standard generic letter from the GP advertising SSS and asking smokers to contact the service to make an appointment. MEASUREMENTS: Costs measured from an NHS/personal social services perspective, estimated health gains in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) measured with EQ-5D and incremental cost per QALY gained during both 6 months and a life-time horizon. FINDINGS: During the trial period, the adjusted mean difference in costs was £92 [95% confidence interval (CI) = -£32 to -£216) and the adjusted mean difference in QALY gains was 0.002 (95% CI = -0.001 to 0.004). This generates an incremental cost per QALY gained of £59 401. The probability that the tailored letter and taster session is more cost-effective than the generic letter at 6 months is never above 50%. In contrast, the discounted life-time health-care cost was lower in the intervention group, while the life-time QALY gains were significantly higher. The probability that the intervention is more cost-effective is more than 83% using a £20 000-30 000 per QALY-gained decision-making threshold. CONCLUSIONS: An intervention designed to increase attendance at the NHS Stop Smoking Services (tailored letter and taster session in the services) appears less likely to be cost-effective than a generic letter in the short term, but is likely to become more cost-effective than the generic letter during the long term.

Reasons for non-adherence to cardiometabolic medications, and acceptability of an interactive voice response intervention in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes in primary care: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: This study explored the reasons for patients' non-adherence to cardiometabolic medications, and tested the acceptability of the interactive voice response (IVR) as a way to address these reasons, and support patients, between primary care consultations. DESIGN, METHOD, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: The study included face-to-face interviews with 19 patients with hypertension and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus, selected from primary care databases, and presumed to be non-adherent. Thirteen of these patients pretested elements of the IVR intervention few months later, using a think-aloud protocol. Five practice nurses were interviewed. Data were analysed using multiperspective, and longitudinalthematic analysis. RESULTS: Negative beliefs about taking medications, the complexity of prescribed medication regimens, and the limited ability to cope with the underlying affective state, within challenging contexts, were mentioned as important reasons for non-adherence. Nurses reported time constraints to address each patient's different reasons for non-adherence, and limited efficacy to support patients, between primary care consultations. Patients gave positive experiential feedback about the IVR messages as a way to support them take their medicines, and provided recommendations for intervention content and delivery mode. Specifically, they liked the voice delivering the messages and the voice recognition software. For intervention content, they preferred messages that were tailored, and included messages with 'information about health consequences', 'action plans', or simple reminders for performing the behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with hypertension and/or type 2 diabetes, and practice nurses, suggested messages tailored to each patient's reasons for non-adherence. Participants recommended IVR as an acceptable platform to support adherence to cardiometabolic medications between primary care consultations. Future studies could usefully test the acceptability, and feasibility, of tailored IVR interventions to support medication adherence, as an adjunct to primary care.

Cognitive and Behavioral Predictors of Quit Attempts and Biochemically-Validated Abstinence During Pregnancy.

INTRODUCTION: Initiating a quit attempt and achieving abstinence are distinct behaviors that have distinct correlates in general smokers. Studies predicting prenatal smoking have not addressed this. METHODS: Pregnant smokers (N = 207), recruited to a cessation intervention trial, were used as an observational cohort. Women completed measures at baseline and 12-week follow-up (mid-late pregnancy). Outcomes were having made at least one quit attempt since baseline, and cotinine-validated 7-day abstinence at follow-up in attempters. Baseline predictors included demographics (age, deprivation, partner's smoking), smoking behaviors (nicotine dependence, quit attempt history, previous prenatal smoking), and smoking beliefs (self-efficacy, determination, intention to quit, nonsmoker identity, social support, pregnancy-outcome beliefs). For each outcome, variables reaching p < .1 in logistic regression analyses were entered into a multivariate model controlling for trial arm. A complete case analysis was undertaken, with missing data assumptions tested in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-five women (85%) completed follow-up. Intention and determination to quit (p < .001), self-efficacy, nonsmoker identity, and not having previously smoked in pregnancy (p < .05) were univariate predictors of making a quit attempt, with stronger intention to quit the only independent predictor (multivariate odds ratio [OR] = 2.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-4.87). Only nicotine dependence predicted validated abstinence among those who made a quit attempt (multivariate OR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.10-0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Initiating a quit attempt and achieving abstinence during pregnancy were found to have different correlates. For women yet to make a quit attempt in their pregnancy, smoking beliefs may be important intervention targets, but once they are engaged in quitting, nicotine dependence appears of prime importance. IMPLICATIONS: This study suggests that cognitive, particularly motivational, variables predict whether pregnant smokers will make a quit attempt, but they do not predict successful abstinence in those who attempt to quit, where nicotine dependence dominates. Interventions should facilitate quit attempts by targeting motivational variables among pregnant women who continue to smoke, but should focus on managing withdrawal once a woman initiates a quit attempt.

Large multi-centre pilot randomized controlled trial testing a low-cost, tailored, self-help smoking cessation text message intervention for pregnant smokers (MiQuit).

AIMS: To estimate the effectiveness of pregnancy smoking cessation support delivered by short message service (SMS) text message and key parameters needed to plan a definitive trial. DESIGN: Multi-centre, parallel-group, single-blinded, individual randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Sixteen antenatal clinics in England. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred and seven participants were randomized to the intervention (n = 203) or usual care (n = 204). Eligible women were < 25 weeks gestation, smoked at least one daily cigarette (> 5 pre-pregnancy), were able to receive and understand English SMS texts and were not already using text-based cessation support. INTERVENTION: All participants received a smoking cessation leaflet; intervention participants also received a 12-week programme of individually tailored, automated, interactive, self-help smoking cessation text messages (MiQuit). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Seven smoking outcomes, including validated continuous abstinence from 4 weeks post-randomization until 36 weeks gestation, design parameters for a future trial and cost-per-quitter. FINDINGS: Using the validated, continuous abstinence outcome, 5.4% (11 of 203) of MiQuit participants were abstinent versus 2.0% (four of 204) of usual care participants [odds ratio (OR) = 2.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.93-9.35]. The Bayes factor for this outcome was 2.23. Completeness of follow-up at 36 weeks gestation was similar in both groups; provision of self-report smoking data was 64% (MiQuit) and 65% (usual care) and abstinence validation rates were 56% (MiQuit) and 61% (usual care). The incremental cost-per-quitter was £133.53 (95% CI = -£395.78 to 843.62). CONCLUSIONS: There was some evidence, although not conclusive, that a text-messaging programme may increase cessation rates in pregnant smokers when provided alongside routine NHS cessation care.

Start2quit: a randomised clinical controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using personal tailored risk information and taster sessions to increase the uptake of the NHS Stop Smoking Services.

BACKGROUND: The NHS Stop Smoking Services (SSSs) offer help to smokers who want to quit. However, the proportion of smokers attending the SSSs is low and current figures show a continuing downward trend. This research addressed the problem of how to motivate more smokers to accept help to quit. OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness, of an intervention consisting of proactive recruitment by a brief computer-tailored personal risk letter and an invitation to a 'Come and Try it' taster session to provide information about the SSSs, compared with a standard generic letter advertising the service, in terms of attendance at the SSSs of at least one session and validated 7-day point prevalent abstinence at the 6-month follow-up. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention with follow-up 6 months after the date of randomisation. SETTING: SSSs and general practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: All smokers aged ≥ 16 years identified from medical records in participating practices who were motivated to quit and who had not attended the SSS in the previous 12 months. Participants were randomised in the ratio 3 : 2 (intervention to control) by a computer program. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention - brief personalised and tailored letter sent from the general practitioner using information obtained from the screening questionnaire and from medical records, and an invitation to attend a taster session, run by the local SSS. Control - standard generic letter from the general practice advertising the local SSS and the therapies available, and asking the smoker to contact the service to make an appointment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Proportion of people attending the first session of a 6-week course over a period of 6 months from the receipt of the invitation letter, measured by records of attendance at the SSSs; (2) 7-day point prevalent abstinence at the 6-month follow-up, validated by salivary cotinine analysis; and (3) cost-effectiveness of the intervention. RESULTS: Eighteen SSSs and 99 practices within the SSS areas participated; 4384 participants were randomised to the intervention (n = 2636) or control (n = 1748). One participant withdrew and 4383 were analysed. The proportion of people attending the first session of a SSS course was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group [17.4% vs. 9.0%; unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.75 to 2.57; p < 0.001]. The validated 7-day point prevalent abstinence at the 6-month follow-up was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (9.0% vs. 5.6%; unadjusted OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.15; p < 0.001), as was the validated 3-month prolonged abstinence and all other periods of abstinence measured by self-report. Using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making threshold range of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, the probability that the intervention was more cost-effective than the control was up to 27% at 6 months and > 86% over a lifetime horizon. LIMITATIONS: Participating SSSs may not be representative of all SSSs in England. Recruitment was low, at 4%. CONCLUSIONS: The Start2quit trial added to evidence that a proactive approach with an intensive intervention to deliver personalised risk information and offer a no-commitment introductory session can be successful in reaching more smokers and increasing the uptake of the SSS and quit rates. The intervention appears less likely to be cost-effective in the short term, but is highly likely to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon. FUTURE WORK: Further research could assess the separate effects of these components. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76561916. FUNDING DETAILS: 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. 21, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effectiveness of personalised risk information and taster sessions to increase the uptake of smoking cessation services (Start2quit): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: National Health Service Stop Smoking Services (SSSs) offer help to smokers motivated to quit; however, attendance rates are low and recent figures show a downward trend. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a two-component personalised intervention on attendance at SSSs. METHODS: We did this randomised controlled trial in 18 SSSs in England. Current smokers (aged ≥16 years) were identified from medical records in 99 general practices and invited to participate by their general practitioner. Individuals who gave consent, were motivated to quit, and had not attended the SSS within the past 12 months, were randomly assigned (3:2), via computer-generated randomisation with permuted blocks (block size of five), to receive either an individually tailored risk letter and invitation to attend a no-commitment introductory session run by the local SSS (intervention group) or a standard generic letter advertising the local SSS (control group). Randomisation was stratified by sex. Masking of participants to receipt of a personal letter and invitation to a taster session was not possible. The personal letter was generated by a research assistant, but the remainder of the research team were masked to group allocation. General practitioners, practice staff, and SSS advisers were unaware of their patients' allocation. The primary outcome was attendance at the first session of an SSS course within 6 months from randomisation. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN 76561916. FINDINGS: Recruitment, collection of baseline data, delivery of the intervention, and follow up of participants took place between Jan 31, 2011, and July 12, 2014. We randomly assigned 4384 smokers to the intervention group (n=2636) or the control group (n=1748); 4383 participants comprised the intention-to-treat population. Attendance at the first session of an SSS course was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (458 [17·4%] vs 158 [9·0%] participants; unadjusted odds ratio 2·12 [95% CI 1·75-2·57]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Delivery of personalised risk information alongside an invitation to an introductory session more than doubled the odds of attending the SSS compared with a standard generic invitation to contact the service. This result suggests that a more proactive approach, combined with an opportunity to experience local services, can reduce patient barriers to receiving treatment and has high potential to increase uptake. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health Research Health Technology Assessment.