Utility of the capabilities, opportunities, motivations model for understanding changes in behavior.

BACKGROUND: Wearing face coverings to prevent airborne viral transmission has at times been legally mandated, followed by periods when rules were relaxed. The present study tracks changes in face covering and the impacts on people's perceptions of their capabilities, opportunities and motivations. METHODS: Three-wave survey. At wave 1 (25 January-6 February 2022), 10 622 UK adults reported: (a) sociodemographic characteristics; (b) face covering in work, public transport and indoor leisure settings and (c) capabilities, opportunities and motivations. Measures were repeated 1-18 March 2022 and 20 May-6 June 2022. Data were analyzed descriptively, within-participants analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Face covering decreased over time as rules around the wearing of face coverings relaxed. Perceptions of capabilities, opportunities and motivations to wear face coverings were consistently associated with the actual wearing of face coverings, with marked decreases in motivations over time. CONCLUSIONS: Decreases in motivations seem to explain best the reasons for declining levels of face covering. Further work is required to develop interventions to change people's motivations and promote the wearing of face coverings, should they be required in the future.

An Age-Progression Intervention for Smoking Cessation: A Pilot Study Investigating the Influence of Two Sets of Instructions on Intervention Efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Research on age-progression facial morphing interventions for smoking cessation has not investigated the effect of different instructions for intervention delivery. The objective of this pilot study was to investigate the influence of two instruction types used to deliver the intervention on efficacy of the intervention. METHOD: Women were recruited and randomly allocated to an age-progression intervention session with (i) neutral instructions; (ii) instructions designed to reassure; or (iii) a condition that controlled for participant engagement ("control"). The conditions were delivered in a one-time procedure, after which primary (quitting intentions) and secondary (cigarettes/week, quit attempts) outcomes were measured immediately post-intervention, and at 1 and 3 months. RESULTS: Seventy-two women (M = 25.7; SD = 0.9) were recruited and randomly allocated to condition (Neutral n = 27, Reassuring n = 22, Control n = 23). Quitting intentions were higher in the Reassuring versus Control arm (3 months post-intervention, F = 4.37, p = 0.016, 95% CI [0.231, 2.539], eta2 = 0.11); quit attempts were greater in the two intervention arms (58%) versus Control (1-month post-intervention, 15%) (χ2 = 9.83, p < 0.05, OR 1.00 [0.28, 3.63]). CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the importance of optimising instructions to enhance intervention efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Record: NCT03749382.

Impacts of the COVID-19 public health emergency on healthcare professional delivery of opportunistic behaviour change interventions: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The public health policy "Making Every Contact Count" (MECC) compels healthcare professionals to deliver health behaviour change interventions during routine consultations. As healthcare systems continue their recovery from the impacts of the COVID-19 public health emergency, supporting people to modify health behaviours is more important now than when the policy was introduced. The present study aims to: (a) examine changes in healthcare professionals' awareness of, and engagement with the policy over a five-year period, (b) examine the psychosocial drivers associated with delivering behaviour change interventions, and (c) identify targets to increase healthcare professionals' delivery of interventions. METHODS: Comparison of data from two independent representative surveys of NHS healthcare professionals working in the UK. In both surveys (July-September 2017; N = 1387, and February-March 2022; N = 1008), participants were asked to report: (1) awareness of the MECC policy, (2) the prevalence of MECC-related practice (perceived patient benefit, how often interventions were delivered, and time spent delivering interventions), and (3) perceptions of capabilities, opportunities and motivations to deliver behaviour change interventions. T- tests (independent-samples), MANOVA, multiple linear regression, and chi-square analyses were used to generate comparisons between the surveys. RESULTS: Awareness of the policy increased from 2017 (31.4%) to 2022 (52.0%). However, in 2022 compared with 2017, healthcare professionals reported (a) fewer patients would benefit from behaviour change interventions (49.1% versus 55.9%), (b) they delivered behaviour change interventions to a lower proportion of patients (38.0% versus 50.0%), and (c) they spent a lower proportion of the consultation time delivering interventions (26.5% versus 35.3%). Further, in 2022, compared with 2017, healthcare professionals reported fewer physical opportunities, fewer social opportunities, and fewer psychological capabilities to deliver behaviour change interventions. In the 2022 survey, perceptions of patient benefit and delivery of interventions was associated with greater perceptions of opportunities and motivations. CONCLUSIONS: Health behaviour change interventions remain an important part of routine healthcare in the continued recovery from COVID-19 public health emergency, however reported engagement with MECC-related practices appears to have reduced over time. Future research should consider how healthcare professionals identify patients who might benefit from opportunistic behaviour change interventions, and to increase capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to deliver interventions during routine consultations.

Reporting of auditory symptoms over time: (in)consistencies, expectations and the nocebo effect.

Objective: Consistent symptom reporting for conditions like tinnitus that do not have an associated sign is critical for evaluating severity and intervention effectiveness, and for interpreting research findings. There is little research examining reporting of tinnitus and hearing difficulty over time. We address this here by comparing reported hearing difficulty and tinnitus at two time-points.Design: A cross-sectional study comparing symptom reporting in March 2019 and August/September 2021 using data from two online surveys of the same cohort. Although each survey was designed to address a different question, both asked about symptoms of tinnitus and hearing difficulties and enabled this exploratory analysis.Study sample: 6881 members of the UK general public aged 18+ years.Results: Inconsistent reporting was evident - many participants who reported experiencing tinnitus and/or hearing difficulties in 2019, said in 2021 that they had never had such symptoms before. Additionally, reports of new tinnitus/hearing difficulties in 2021 were unexpectedly high, equating to 18-month incidence rates of 13.6% and 11.7%, respectively.Conclusions: Psychosocial factors, expectations and context impact symptom reporting. This should be considered when treating patients and interpreting research findings. Using real-time data collection methods could thus provide a better understanding of experiences of tinnitus and hearing.

What factors are associated with infant hearing aid use? A parent survey using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

OBJECTIVE: Hearing aid use is lowest in 0-3-year-olds with hearing loss, placing spoken language development at risk. Existing interventions lack effectiveness and are typically not based on a theoretically driven, comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing infant hearing aid use. The present study is the first to address this gap in understanding. DESIGN AND STUDY SAMPLE: A 55-item online survey based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was completed by 56 parents of 0-3-year-old hearing aid users. RESULTS: Participants reported a wide range of barriers across TDF domains, which were associated with parent-reported hearing aid use and more pronounced in parents of lower hearing aid users. The most strongly reported domains across participants were "emotion" (e.g. feelings of worry when using hearing aids), "beliefs about capabilities" (e.g. belief in ability to use hearing aids consistently), and "environmental context and resources" (e.g. child removing hearing aids). CONCLUSIONS: Parents report a wider range of barriers to infant hearing aid use than existing investigations suggest and current interventions address. Interventions would benefit from: (i) targeting a wider range of TDF domains in their design; and (ii) implementing the present TDF survey to identify and target family-specific barriers to infant hearing aid use.

Development and testing of a bespoke cultural intervention to support healthcare professionals with patients from a diverse background.

OBJECTIVE: Development and test of a culturally sensitive intervention for rheumatology healthcare professionals (HCPs). METHODS: Using a before and after study design, fifteen HCPs were recruited to undertake the bespoke intervention from four NHS sites across England, in areas serving a diverse population. The intervention was evaluated using the validated outcomes: [1] Patient Reported Physician Cultural Competency (PRPCC); and [2] Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI), measuring patients' perceptions of their overall healthcare delivery. Additionally, HCPs completed the Capability COM-B questionnaire (C), Opportunity (O) and Motivation (M) to perform Behaviour (B), measuring behaviour change. RESULTS: 200 patients were recruited before HCPs undertook the intervention (cohort 1), and 200 were recruited after (cohort 2) from fifteen HCPs, after exclusions 178 patients remained in cohort 1 and 186 in cohort 2. Patients identifying as White in both recruited cohorts were 60% compared with 29% and 33% of patients (cohorts 1 and 2 respectively) who identified as of South Asian origin. After the intervention, the COM-B scores indicated HCPs felt more skilled and equipped for consultations. No significant differences were noted in the average overall cultural competency score between the two cohorts in White patients (57.3 vs 56.8, p= 0.8), however, in the South Asian cohort, there was a statistically significant improvement in mean scores (64.1 vs 56.7, p= 0.014). Overall, the enablement score also showed a statistically significant improvement following intervention (7.3 vs 4.3, p< 0.001) in the White patients; and in the South Asian patients (8.0 vs 2.2, p< 0.001). CONCLUSION: This novel study provides evidence for improving cultural competency and patient enablement in rheumatology settings.

Pilot study of lung cancer screening for survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma.

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) treatment increases the risk of lung cancer. Most HL survivors are not eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) programmes developed for the general population, and the utility of these programmes has not been tested in HL survivors. We ran a LCS pilot in HL survivors to describe screening uptake, participant characteristics, impact of a decision aid and screen findings. HL survivors treated ≥5 years ago with mustine/procarbazine and/or thoracic radiation, were identified from a follow-up database and invited to participate. Participants underwent a low-dose CT (LDCT) reported using protocols validated for the general population. Two hundred and eighteen individuals were invited, 123 were eligible, 102 were screened (58% response rate): 58% female, median age 52 years, median 22 years since HL treatment. 91.4% were deemed to have made an informed decision; participation was not influenced by age, gender, years since treatment or deprivation. Only 3/35 ever-smokers met criteria for LCS through the programme aimed at the general population. Baseline LDCT results were: 90 (88.2%) negative, 10 (9.8%) indeterminate, 2 (2.0%) positive. Two 3-month surveillance scans were positive. Of 4 positive scans, 2 patients were diagnosed with small-cell lung cancer; 1 underwent curative surgery. Coronary artery calcification was detected in 36.3%, and clinically significant incidental findings in 2.9%. LDCT protocols validated in ever-smokers can detect asymptomatic early-stage lung cancers in HL survivors. This finding, together with screening uptake and low false positive rates, supports further research to implement LCS for HL survivors.

Theory-based Trial to Promote Uptake and Sustained Use of Face Coverings During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Transmission of airborne viruses can be mitigated by wearing face coverings but evidence suggests that face covering declines with the removal of relevant legislation, partly due to low automatic motivation. PURPOSE: Test whether an intervention based on implementation intentions could support people's automatic motivation and promote face covering during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Randomized controlled design. At baseline (May 20 to June 6, 2022), 7,835 UK adults reported how much time they spent wearing face coverings in work, public transport, and indoor leisure settings as well as their capabilities, opportunities, and motivations. 3,871 participants were randomized to form implementation intentions; 3,964 control participants completed questionnaires only. Measures were repeated 6 months postbaseline (November 1 to November 14, 2022). Data were analyzed using mixed measures ANOVAs and Bayes Factors to examine whether the observed data supported the experimental hypothesis. RESULTS: The proportion of time spend wearing face coverings declined substantially across the 6-month study period, from 15.28% to 9.87% in work settings, 38.31% to 24.55% on public transport, and 9.58% to 7.85% in leisure settings. Bayes Factors indicated moderate relative evidence of no effect of implementation intentions on behavior in work and leisure settings, and inconclusive evidence of a positive effect on public transport. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of declining COVID-19 rates and removal of legal mandates, implementation intentions were not effective in sustaining face covering. Further research is required to ensure that evidence-based interventions are prepared and deployed in the event of future pandemics.

The spread of viruses through the air can be reduced by people wearing face coverings. The evidence suggests that face covering reduces with the removal of relevant legislation, partly due to habits not being formed. The aim of the present study was to test whether an intervention designed to help people to form new habits could support people's face covering during the COVID-19 pandemic. We asked 7,835 UK adults how much time they spent wearing face coverings in work, public transport, and indoor leisure settings. We chose 3,871 participants at random to form new habits; 3,964 participants completed questionnaires only. Measures were repeated 6 months later. The proportion of time spend wearing face coverings declined sharply across the 6-month study period, from 15.28% to 9.87% in work settings, 38.31% to 24.55% on public transport, and 9.58% to 7.85% in leisure settings. Our analyses showed a small positive effect of forming new habits on wearing face coverings in public transport settings. In the context of declining COVID-19 rates and the removal of legal mandates, our intervention was not effective in sustaining face covering. Further research is required to ensure that evidence-based interventions are prepared and deployed in the event of future pandemics.

Cross-sectional survey of attitudes and beliefs towards dementia risk reduction among Australian older adults.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about what drives older adults' motivation to change their behaviour and whether that is associated with their personal dementia risk profile. Our aims were to (i) understand what sociodemographic factors are associated with older Australians' motivation to change behaviour to reduce their dementia risk, and (ii) explore the relationship between socio-demographic factors and motivation to reduce dementia risk with health- and lifestyle-based dementia risk scores in older adults. METHODS: A cross-sectional online postal or telephone survey was administered to community-dwelling older adults in New South Wales, Australia between January and March 2021. Measures included socioeconomic status, locality, and health status, the Motivation to Change Lifestyle and Health Behaviours for Dementia Risk Reduction (MCLHB-DRR) scale and the lifestyle-based dementia risk score (LIBRA index). Multiple linear regression analyses were used to explore the associations for (i) sociodemographic factors and motivation to reduce dementia risk (MCLHB-DRR scales) and (ii) sociodemographic factors and motivation to reduce dementia risk with health- and lifestyle-based dementia risk (LIBRA index). RESULTS: A total of 857 older adults (mean age 73.3 years, SD = 6.0, range 65-94; 70% women; 34.6% less than grade 6 education) completed the survey. Respondents reported high levels of motivation to adopt behaviour changes, agreeing on the importance of good health. Individuals who were younger were more likely to have greater motivation to modify lifestyle to reduce dementia risk and had higher perceived benefits to gain by adopting a healthy lifestyle. Dementia risk scores were moderately low (mean LIBRA index =- 2.8 [SD = 2.0], range - 5.9-3.8), indicating relatively moderate-to-good brain health. Men with low socioeconomic status and higher perceived barriers to lifestyle change had higher dementia risk scores. CONCLUSIONS: Public health campaigns need to overcome motivational barriers to support reductions in dementia risk. A multifaceted and inclusive approach targeting both sociodemographic differences and impediments to brain healthy lifestyles is required to achieve genuine change. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12621000165886, Date of registration: 17/02/2021.

Does refining an intervention based on participant feedback increase acceptability? An experimental approach.

BACKGROUND: Participant feedback is an important consideration for increasing intervention acceptability, yet whether incorporating such feedback actually improves acceptability is rarely tested. PURPOSE: The present study describes a theory-based approach to assessing whether refining an intervention based on participant feedback increases acceptability. METHODS: Three hundred and ninety-three UK adults who had previously self-harmed were exposed to the same intervention at baseline and, six months later, were randomly allocated to receive either: (a) the same version of the intervention (control group), or (b) a version of the intervention that had been refined following participant feedback (experimental group). The main outcome measure was acceptability ratings for each of the seven domains specified in the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). RESULTS: Mixed ANOVAs, with control versus experimental group as the between-participants factor and time (baseline versus follow-up) as the within participants factor showed no significant changes in acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: The null effects reported here imply that participants found both the original and modified versions of the intervention equally acceptable, and that our process of refining an intervention based on participant feedback did not impact on acceptability. Nevertheless, we have operationalised a robust approach for examining whether participant feedback impacts on the acceptability of an intervention. Further research is required to understand better how participant feedback should be incorporated into the development of healthcare interventions.

Areas of enduring COVID-19 prevalence: drivers of prevalence and mitigating strategies.

BACKGROUND: UK local authorities that experienced sustained high levels of COVID-19 between 1st March 2020 and 28th February 2021 were described by the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies as areas of enduring prevalence. This research was carried out in order to examine the views of local authority Directors of Public Health, who played a crucial role in the local response to COVID-19, on reasons for sustained high levels of prevalence in some areas, alongside an investigation of the mitigation strategies that they implemented during the course of the pandemic. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with Directors of Public Health in 19 local authority areas across England, between July and November 2021. This included nine areas identified as areas of enduring prevalence and ten 'comparison' areas. RESULTS: The outcomes of this study suggests that the geographical differences in prevalence rates are strongly influenced by health inequalities. Structural factors including deprivation, employment, and housing, due to their disproportionate impact on specific groups, converged with demographic factors, including ethnicity and age, and vaccination rates, and were identified as the main drivers of enduring prevalence. There are key differences in these drivers both within and, to a lesser extent, between local authorities. Other than these structural barriers, no major differences in facilitators or barriers to COVID-19 mitigation were identified between areas of varying prevalence. The main features of successful mitigation strategies were a locally tailored approach and partnership working involving local authority departments working with local health, community, voluntary and business organisations. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to add the voices of Directors of Public Health, who played a crucial role in the local COVID-19 response. Areas of enduring prevalence existed during the pandemic which were caused by a complex mix of structural factors related to inequalities. Participants advised that more research is needed on the effectiveness of mitigation strategies and other measures to reduce the impact of structural inequalities, to better understand the factors that drive prevalence. This would include an assessment of how these factors combine to predict transmission and how this varies between different areas.

Prevalence and correlates of perinatal depression.

PURPOSE: This systematic review of systematic reviews aims to provide the first global picture of the prevalence and correlates of perinatal depression, and to explore the commonalities and discrepancies of the literature. METHODS: Seven databases were searched from inception until April 2022. Full-text screening and data extraction were performed independently by two researchers and the AMSTAR tool was used to assess the methodological quality. RESULTS: 128 systematic reviews were included in the analysis. Mean overall prevalence of perinatal depression, antenatal depression and postnatal depression was 26.3%, 28.5% and 27.6%, respectively. Mean prevalence was significantly higher (27.4%; SD = 12.6) in studies using self-reported measures compared with structured interviews (17.0%, SD = 4.5; d = 1.0) and among potentially vulnerable populations (32.5%; SD = 16.7, e.g. HIV-infected African women) compared to the general population (24.5%; SD = 8.1; d = 0.6). Personal history of mental illness, experiencing stressful life events, lack of social support, lifetime history of abuse, marital conflicts, maternity blues, child care stress, chronic physical health conditions, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes mellitus, being exposed to second-hand smoke and sleep disturbance were among the major correlates of perinatal depression. CONCLUSION: Although the included systematic reviews were all of medium-high quality, improvements in the quality of primary research in this area should be encouraged. The standardisation of perinatal depression assessment, diagnosis and measurement, the implementation of longitudinal designs in studies, inclusions of samples that better represent the population and better control of potentially confounding variables are encouraged.

Clinician acceptability of an antibiotic prescribing knowledge support system for primary care: a mixed-method evaluation of features and context.

BACKGROUND: Overprescribing of antibiotics is a major concern as it contributes to antimicrobial resistance. Research has found highly variable antibiotic prescribing in (UK) primary care, and to support more effective stewardship, the BRIT Project (Building Rapid Interventions to optimise prescribing) is implementing an eHealth Knowledge Support System. This will provide unique individualised analytics information to clinicians and patients at the point of care. The objective of the current study was to gauge the acceptability of the system to prescribing healthcare professionals and highlight factors to maximise intervention uptake. METHODS: Two mixed-method co-design workshops were held online with primary care prescribing healthcare professionals (n = 16). Usefulness ratings of example features were collected using online polls and online whiteboards. Verbal discussion and textual comments were analysed thematically using inductive (participant-centred) and deductive perspectives (using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability). RESULTS: Hierarchical thematic coding generated three overarching themes relevant to intervention use and development. Clinician concerns (focal issues) were safe prescribing, accessible information, autonomy, avoiding duplication, technical issues and time. Requirements were ease and efficiency of use, integration of systems, patient-centeredness, personalisation, and training. Important features of the system included extraction of pertinent information from patient records (such as antibiotic prescribing history), recommended actions, personalised treatment, risk indicators and electronic patient communication leaflets. Anticipated acceptability and intention to use the knowledge support system was moderate to high. Time was identified as a focal cost/ burden, but this would be outweighed if the system improved patient outcomes and increased prescribing confidence. CONCLUSION: Clinicians anticipate that an eHealth knowledge support system will be a useful and acceptable way to optimise antibiotic prescribing at the point of care. The mixed method workshop highlighted issues to assist person-centred eHealth intervention development, such as the value of communicating patient outcomes. Important features were identified including the ability to efficiently extract and summarise pertinent information from the patient records, provide explainable and transparent risk information, and personalised information to support patient communication. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability enabled structured, theoretically sound feedback and creation of a profile to benchmark future evaluations. This may encourage a consistent user-focused approach to guide future eHealth intervention development.

Capabilities, opportunities and motivations of staff to provide hearing support to long-term care home residents with dementia.

OBJECTIVE: Many long-term care home (LTCH) residents have dementia and hearing loss, causing communication difficulties and agitation. Residents rely on staff for hearing support, but provision is often inconsistent. This study used the Behaviour Change Wheel's Capability, Opportunity and Motivation model to understand why LTCH staff do or do not, provide hearing support to residents with dementia who they believe could benefit from it. DESIGN: An online survey exploring hearing support provision, capabilities, opportunities, motivations and demographics. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, within-participants ANOVA and multiple linear regression. STUDY SAMPLE: 165 LTCH staff. RESULTS: Staff provided hearing support to 50% of residents with dementia who they thought would benefit. Self-reported physical and psychological capabilities (skills/knowledge) were significantly higher than physical opportunity (having time/resources). The physical capability was significantly higher than social opportunity (collaborative working) and reflective motivation (feeling motivated). Lower levels of hearing support provision were predicted by LTCH funding (private vs. local authority), job role (care assistant vs. nurse) and fewer physical opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: Boosting capabilities through training alone may not be as effective as increasing opportunities via environmental restructuring. Opportunities may include strengthening working relationships with audiologists and ensuring hearing and communication aids are available within LTCHs.

Implementation of national guidance for self-harm among general practice nurses: a qualitative exploration using the capabilities, opportunities, and motivations model of behaviour change (COM-B) and the theoretical domains framework.

BACKGROUND: Patients who self-harm may consult with primary care nurses, who have a safeguarding responsibility to recognise and respond to self-harm. However, the responses of nursing staff to self-harm are poorly understood, and opportunities to identify self-harm and signpost towards treatment may be missed. It is unclear how to support nursing staff to implement national guidelines. AIMS: Among primary care nursing staff to: [1] Examine reported barriers and enablers to nurses' use of, and adherence to, national guidance for self-harm; and [2] Recommend potential intervention strategies to improve implementation of the NICE guidelines. METHODS: Twelve telephone interviews partly structured around the capabilities, opportunities and motivations model of behaviour change (COM-B) were conducted with primary care nurses in the United Kingdom. The Theoretical Domains Framework was used as an analytical framework, while the Behaviour Change Wheel was used to identify exemplar behaviour change techniques and intervention functions. RESULTS: Nursing staff identified a need to learn more about risk factors (knowledge), and strategies to initiate sensitive conversations about self-harm (cognitive and interpersonal skills) to support their professional competencies (professional role and identity). Prompts may support recall of the guidance and support a patient centred approach to self-harm within practices (memory, attention, and decision making). GPs, and other practice nurses offer guidance and support (social influences), which helps nurses to navigate referrals and restricted appointment lengths (environmental context and influences). CONCLUSIONS: Two converging sets of themes relating to information delivery and resource availability need to be targeted. Nine groups of behaviour change techniques, and five intervention functions offer candidate solutions for future intervention design. Key targets for change include practical training to redress conversational skill gaps about self-harm, the integration of national guidance with local resources and practice-level protocols to support decision-making, and creating opportunities for team-based mentoring.

Dentistry responding in domestic violence and abuse (DRiDVA) feasibility study: a qualitative evaluation of the implementation experiences of dental professionals.

BACKGROUND: Domestic Violence and Abuse (DVA) is a persistent public health problem in the UK. Healthcare settings offer an opportunity to ask patients about DVA, either opportunistically or in response to the presence of injuries. However, it has been suggested that dental practices and dental teams have not been actively involved supporting adult patients when presenting with injuries that might have resulted from DVA. This qualitative study was conducted to satisfy the evaluative component of the Dentistry Responding in Domestic Violence and Abuse (DRiDVA) feasibility study. METHODS: In total, 30 participants took part in the study; nine associate dentists and practice principals/owners took part in one-to-one interviews and 21 auxiliary staff took part across two focus group discussion sessions. Data were analysed using the seven step Framework Analysis process. RESULT: Three key themes were identified from the data, focusing on barriers to enquiring about domestic violence and abuse, Facilitators of identification and referral of DVA in dental settings, and recommendations for further adaptation of intervention to dental settings. CONCLUSION: DVA training coupled with robust referral pathways to a named specialist DVA advocate increases knowledge and awareness of the signs of DVA and confidence in making onward referrals. Further research is needed to understand how to increase dental professional willingness to ask patients about DVA.

Evaluation of the I-PLAN Intervention to Promote Hearing Aid Use in New Adult Users: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Provision of information is already part of standard care and may not be sufficient to promote hearing aid use. The I-PLAN is a behavior change intervention that is designed to promote hearing aid use in adults. It consists of a prompt, an action plan and provision of information. The objective was to test the effectiveness of the I-PLAN prompt and plan components in promoting hearing aid use and benefit. Hypotheses were: there would be greater hearing aid use, benefit, self-regulation, and hearing aid use habit among participants who received the prompt or plan component, compared with no prompt or no plan component, and the effect would be the greatest in participants who received both prompt and plan; and self-regulation and habit would mediate the effect of prompt and/or plan components on hearing aid use and benefit. DESIGN: A 2 x 2 factorial randomized controlled trial design. Two hundred forty new adult patients (60 in each group) were randomized to: information (info) only; info + prompt; info + plan; or info + prompt + plan. All participants received treatment as usual in addition to I-PLAN components, which were provided in a sealed envelope at the end of the hearing aid fitting consultation. Participants in the prompt group were instructed to use their hearing aid box as a physical prompt to remind them to use the device. Participants in the plan group were instructed to write an action plan to encourage them to turn their intentions into action. Participants, audiologists, and researchers were blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome was self-reported proportion of time hearing aids were used in situations where they had listening difficulties. Secondary outcomes were hearing aid use derived from data logging, self-reported hearing aid benefit, self-reported self-regulation, and habit. Outcomes were measured at 6-week post-fitting. RESULTS: Contrary to predictions, participants who received the prompt component reported using their hearing aid less than participants without the prompt (p = 0.03; d = 0.24). The mean proportion of time hearing aid were used was 73.4% of the time in the prompt group compared with 79.9% of the time in the no prompt group. Participants who received the plan component reported using their hearing aids more frequently than those who did not receive the plan (Meanplan = 81.0% vs Meannoplan = 71.8% of the time; p = 0.01; d = 0.34). Receiving both prompt and plan components did not change self-reported proportion of time hearing aids were used but data-logging use was significantly reduced. The prompt reduced self-regulation of hearing aid use compared with the no prompt (p = 0.04; d = 0.28), while the plan promoted stronger hearing aid use habits than the no plan group (p = 0.02; d = 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Audiologists should consider using action plans to promote hearing aid use. Despite the decrease in hearing aid use when using the hearing aid box as a physical prompt, hearing aid use was still high (≈70% of the time). The hearing aid box may have slightly reduced hearing aid use by undermining self-regulation. Participants may have delegated responsibility for hearing aid use to the prompt. Subsequent studies should evaluate different prompts and test the long-term benefit of the plan on hearing aid use via habit formation.

The association between COVID-19-related fear and reported self-harm in a national survey of people with a lifetime history of self-harm.

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about the characteristics of people living in the community who have previously self-harmed and may benefit from interventions during and after COVID-19. We therefore aimed to: (a) examine the relationship between reported self-harm and COVID-19-related fear, and (b) describe the characteristics of a community sample of people who reported a lifetime history of self-harm. METHODS: A cross-sectional national online survey of UK adults who reported a lifetime history of self-harm (n = 1029) was conducted. Data were collected May - June 2020. Main outcomes were self-reported COVID-19-related fear (based on the Fear of COVID-19 scale [FCV-19S]), lifetime history of COVID-19, and lifetime history of self-harm. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression. Chi-square was used to compare characteristics of our sample with available national data. RESULTS: Overall, 75.1, 40.2 and 74.3% of the total sample reported lifetime suicidal ideation, suicidal attempts and non-suicidal self-harm respectively. When adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, social grade, and exposure to death and suicide, binary logistic regression showed higher levels of perceived symptomatic (or physiological) reactions to COVID-19 were associated with suicidal ideation (OR = 1.22, 95%CI 1.07, 1.39) and suicidal attempts (OR = 3.91, 95%CI 1.18, 12.96) in the past week. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest an urgent need to consider the impact of COVID-19 on people with a lifetime history of self-harm when designing interventions to help support people in reducing suicidal ideation and suicidal attempts. Experiencing symptomatic reactions of fear in particular is associated with self-harm. Helping to support people to develop coping plans in response to threat-related fear is likely to help people at risk of repeat self-harm during public health emergencies.

Are interventions delivered by healthcare professionals effective for weight management? A systematic review of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: There are many systematic reviews of weight management interventions delivered by healthcare professionals (HCP), but it is not clear under what circumstances interventions are effective due to differences in review methodology. This review of systematic reviews synthesises the evidence about: (a) the effectiveness of HCP-delivered weight management interventions and (b) intervention and sample characteristics related to their effectiveness. DESIGN: The review of reviews involved searching six databases (inception - October 2020). Reviews were included if they were (a) systematic, (b) weight management interventions delivered, at least partially, by HCP, (c) of randomised controlled trials and (d) written in English. Data regarding weight management outcomes (e.g. weight) and moderating factors were extracted. Secondary analyses were conducted using study-level data reported in each of the reviews. SETTING: The review included studies that were delivered by HCP in any clinical or non-clinical setting. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. RESULTS: Six systematic reviews were included (forty-six unique studies). First-level synthesis showed that weight management interventions delivered by HCP are effective. The second-level synthesis found that interventions are only successful for up to 6 months, are most effective for women, non-Caucasians and adults and are most effective if they have at least six sessions. CONCLUSIONS: As interventions are only successful for up to 6 months, they are not sufficient for achieving and maintaining a healthy weight.

The perspectives of survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma on lung cancer screening: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Hodgkin lymphoma survivors (HLS) are at excess risk of lung cancer as a consequence of HL treatment. HLS without a heavy smoking history are currently unable to access lung cancer screening (LCS) programmes aimed at ever smokers, and there is an unmet need to develop a targeted LCS programme. In this study we prospectively explored HLS perspectives on a future LCS programme, including motivating factors and potential barriers to participation, with the aim of identifying ways to optimise uptake in a future programme. METHODS: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with HLS, aged 18-80 and lymphoma-free for ≥5 years, selected from a clinical database (ADAPT). Participants provided informed consent. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Despite awareness of other late effects, most participants were unaware of their excess risk of lung cancer. Most were willing to participate in a future LCS programme, citing the potential curability of early-stage lung cancer and reassurance as motivating factors, whilst prior experience of healthcare was a facilitator. Whilst the screening test (a low dose CT scan) was considered acceptable, radiation risk was a concern for some and travel and time off work were potential barriers to participation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that most HLS would participate in a future LCS programme, motivated by perceived benefits. Their feedback identified a need to develop educational materials addressing lung cancer risk and concerns about screening, including radiation risk. Such materials could be provided upon an invitation to LCS. Uptake in a future programme may be further optimized by offering flexible screening appointments close to home.