Description of the nationally implemented National Health Service digital diabetes prevention programme and rationale for its development: mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service (NHS) Digital Diabetes Prevention Programme (DDPP) is a behaviour change programme for adults in England who are at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Four independent providers deliver the NHS-DDPP following a competitive tendering process. Although providers work to a single service specification, there is potential for some variation in the service across providers. This study (1) assesses fidelity of the structural features of the design of the NHS-DDPP compared to the service specification, (2) describes the structural features of delivery of the NHS-DDPP as implemented (3) reports developers' views on how the structural components of the NHS-DDPP were developed and why changes were made following implementation. METHODS: Using mixed methods, we conducted a document review of providers' NHS-DDPP design and delivery documentation, and extracted information using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist, which was adapted to capture features of digital delivery. Documentation was supplemented by content analysis of interviews with 12 health coaches involved in delivering the NHS-DDPP. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with 6 programme developers employed by the digital providers. RESULTS: Provider plans for the NHS-DDPP show relatively high fidelity to the NHS service specification. Despite this, there was wide variation in structural features of delivery of the NHS-DDPP across providers, particularly for delivery of 'support' (e.g. use, dose and scheduling of health coaching and/or group support). Interviews with developers of the programmes showed that much of this variation is likely to be attributable to the origin of each provider's programme, which was usually a pre-existing programme that was adapted to conform to the NHS-DDPP service specification. The NHS-DDPP is continually improved and developed based on user experience feedback and research conducted by the providers. CONCLUSION: Indirect evidence suggests that variation in delivery of support could affect effectiveness of the NHS-DDPP. A priority for future research is ascertaining whether the variation in delivery of the NHS-DDPP across providers is related to any differences in health outcomes. It is recommended that future rounds of commissioning the NHS-DDPP pre-specify the type of support participants should receive, including expected dose and scheduling.

Optimising the delivery of breast cancer risk assessment for women aged 30-39 years: A qualitative study of women's views.

BACKGROUND: Identifying women aged 30-39 years at increased risk of developing breast cancer could allow them to consider screening and preventive strategies. Research is underway to determine the feasibility of offering breast cancer risk assessment to this age group. However, it is unclear how best to deliver and communicate risk estimates to these women, in order to avoid potential harms such as undue anxiety and increase benefits such as informed decision-making. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate women's views on, and requirements for, this proposed novel approach to risk assessment. DESIGN: A cross-sectional qualitative design was used. METHODS: Thirty-seven women aged 30-39 years with no family history or personal history of breast cancer participated in seven focus groups (n = 29) and eight individual interviews. Data were analysed thematically using a framework approach. RESULTS: Four themes were developed. Acceptability of risk assessment service concerns the positive views women have towards the prospect of participating in breast cancer risk assessment. Promoting engagement with the service describes the difficulties women in this age group experience in relation to healthcare access, including mental load and a lack of cultural awareness, and the implications of this for service design and delivery. Impact of receiving risk results focuses on the anticipated impacts of receiving different risk outcomes, namely, complacency towards breast awareness behaviours following low-risk results, an absence of reassurance following average-risk results and anxiety for high-risk results. Women's information requirements highlights women's desire to be fully informed at invite including understanding why the service is needed. In addition, women wanted risk feedback to focus on plans for management. CONCLUSION: The idea of breast cancer risk assessment was received favourably among this age group, providing that a risk management plan and support from healthcare professionals is available. Determinants of acceptability of a new service included minimising effort required to engage with service, co-development of invitation and risk feedback materials and the importance of educational campaigning about the potential benefits of participation in risk assessment.

How the Behavior Change Content of a Nationally Implemented Digital Diabetes Prevention Program Is Understood and Used by Participants: Qualitative Study of Fidelity of Receipt and Enactment.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service Digital Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-DDPP) is a program for adults in England at risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). It is based on NHS England specifications that stipulate specific behavior change techniques (BCTs), that is, active ingredients to produce behavior change to target diet and physical activity. Now rolled out nationally, the NHS-DDPP is being delivered by 4 independent providers as a 9-month intervention via apps, educational material, and remote health coaching. To optimize effectiveness, participants need to be able to understand and use behavior change content (eg, goal setting and problem solving) of an intervention delivered to them digitally. Previous research has shown that people benefit from support to aid the understanding and use of BCTs. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this qualitative study were to evaluate how participants in the NHS-DDPP understand and use BCT content, investigate how participants describe the role of health coaches in supporting their behavior change, and examine how the understanding and use of behavior change content of the NHS-DDPP varies across providers. METHODS: In total, 45 service users were interviewed twice by telephone at 2 to 4 months into, and at the end of, the program. Topics included participants' understanding and use of key BCTs to support self-regulation (eg, goal setting) and the support they received via the program. Transcripts were analyzed thematically, informed by the framework method. RESULTS: Participants described their understanding and use of some behavior change content of the program as straightforward: use of BCTs (eg, self-monitoring of behavior) delivered digitally via provider apps. Participants valued the role of health coaches in supporting their behavior change through the emotional support they offered and their direct role in delivery and application of some BCTs (eg, problem solving) to their specific circumstances. Participants expressed frustration over the lack of monitoring or feedback regarding their T2DM risk within the program. Variations in the understanding and use of behavior change content of the NHS-DDPP were present across provider programs. CONCLUSIONS: Health coaches' support in delivery of key components of the program seems to be pivotal. To improve the understanding and use of BCTs in digital interventions, it is important to consider routes of delivery that offer additional interactive human support. Understanding of some self-regulatory BCTs may benefit from this support more than others; thus, identifying the optimal mode of delivery for behavior change content is a priority for future research. The NHS-DDPP could be improved by explicitly setting out the need for health coaches to support understanding of some self-regulatory BCT content such as problem solving in the service specification and amending the discharge process so that knowledge of any change in T2DM risk is available to participants.

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Primary Prevention Advice in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Provider Attitudes and Routine Behaviours.

Implementing risk-stratified breast cancer screening is being considered internationally. It has been suggested that primary care will need to take a role in delivering this service, including risk assessment and provision of primary prevention advice. This systematic review aimed to assess the acceptability of these tasks to primary care providers. Five databases were searched up to July-August 2020, yielding 29 eligible studies, of which 27 were narratively synthesised. The review was pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42020197676). Primary care providers report frequently collecting breast cancer family history information, but rarely using quantitative tools integrating additional risk factors. Primary care providers reported high levels of discomfort and low confidence with respect to risk-reducing medications although very few reported doubts about the evidence base underpinning their use. Insufficient education/training and perceived discomfort conducting both tasks were notable barriers. Primary care providers are more likely to accept an increased role in breast cancer risk assessment than advising on risk-reducing medications. To realise the benefits of risk-based screening and prevention at a population level, primary care will need to proactively assess breast cancer risk and advise on risk-reducing medications. To facilitate this, adaptations to infrastructure such as integrated tools are necessary in addition to provision of education.

The theoretical basis of a nationally implemented type 2 diabetes prevention programme: how is the programme expected to produce changes in behaviour?

BACKGROUND: It is considered best practice to provide clear theoretical descriptions of how behaviour change interventions should produce changes in behaviour. Commissioners of the National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-DPP) specified that the four independent provider organisations must explicitly describe the behaviour change theory underpinning their interventions. The nationally implemented programme, launched in 2016, aims to prevent progression to Type 2 diabetes in high-risk adults through changing diet and physical activity behaviours. This study aimed to: (a) develop a logic model describing how the NHS-DPP is expected to work, and (b) document the behaviour change theories underpinning providers' NHS-DPP interventions. METHODS: A logic model detailing how the programme should work in changing diet and activity behaviours was extracted from information in three specification documents underpinning the NHS-DPP. To establish how each of the four providers expected their interventions to produce behavioural changes, information was extracted from their programme plans, staff training materials, and audio-recorded observations of mandatory staff training courses attended in 2018. All materials were coded using Michie and Prestwich's Theory Coding Scheme. RESULTS: The NHS-DPP logic model included information provision to lead to behaviour change intentions, followed by a self-regulatory cycle including action planning and monitoring behaviour. None of the providers described an explicit logic model of how their programme will produce behavioural changes. Two providers stated their programmes were informed by the COM-B (Capability Opportunity Motivation - Behaviour) framework, the other two described targeting factors from multiple theories such as Self-Regulation Theory and Self-Determination Theory. All providers cited examples of proposed links between some theoretical constructs and behaviour change techniques (BCTs), but none linked all BCTs to specified constructs. Some discrepancies were noted between the theory described in providers' programme plans and theory described in staff training. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of behaviour change theories were used by each provider. This may explain the variation between providers in BCTs selected in intervention design, and the mismatch between theory described in providers' programme plans and staff training. Without a logic model describing how they expect their interventions to work, justification for intervention contents in providers' programmes is not clear.