Engaging stakeholders to level up COPD care in LMICs: lessons learned from the "Breathe Well" programme in Brazil, China, Georgia, and North Macedonia.

BACKGROUND: Effective stakeholder engagement in health research is increasingly being recognised and promoted as an important pathway to closing the gap between knowledge production and its use in health systems. However, little is known about its process and impacts, particularly in low-and middle-income countries. This opinion piece draws on the stakeholder engagement experiences from a global health research programme on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) led by clinician researchers in Brazil, China, Georgia and North Macedonia, and presents the process, outcomes and lessons learned. MAIN BODY: Each country team was supported with an overarching engagement protocol and mentored to develop a tailored plan. Patient involvement in research was previously limited in all countries, requiring intensive efforts through personal communication, meetings, advisory groups and social media. Accredited training programmes were effective incentives for participation from healthcare providers; and aligning research findings with competing policy priorities enabled interest and dialogue with decision-makers. The COVID-19 pandemic severely limited possibilities for planned engagement, although remote methods were used where possible. Planned and persistent engagement contributed to shared knowledge and commitment to change, including raised patient and public awareness about COPD, improved skills and practice of healthcare providers, increased interest and support from clinical leaders, and dialogue for integrating COPD services into national policy and practice. CONCLUSION: Stakeholder engagement enabled relevant local actors to produce and utilise knowledge for small wins such as improving day-to-day practice and for long-term goals of equitable access to COPD care. For it to be successful and sustained, stakeholder engagement needs to be valued and integrated throughout the research and knowledge generation process, complete with dedicated resources, contextualised and flexible planning, and commitment.

Randomised controlled trial testing effectiveness of feedback about lung age or exhaled CO combined with very brief advice for smoking cessation compared to very brief advice alone in North Macedonia: findings from the Breathe Well group.

INTRODUCTION: In 2019, smoking prevalence in North Macedonia was one of the world's highest at around 46% in adults. However, access to smoking cessation treatment is limited and no co-ordinated smoking cessation programmes are provided in primary care. METHODS: We conducted a three parallel-armed randomised controlled trial (n = 1368) to investigate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lung age (LA) or exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) feedback combined with very brief advice (VBA) to prompt smoking cessation compared with VBA alone, delivered by GPs in primary care in North Macedonia. All participants who decided to attempt to quit smoking were advised about accessing smoking cessation medications and were also offered behavioural support as part of the "ACT" component of VBA. Participants were aged ≥ 35 years, smoked ≥ 10 cigarettes per day, were recruited from 31 GP practices regardless of motivation to quit and were randomised (1:1:1) using a sequence generated before the start of recruitment. The primary outcome was biochemically validated 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 4 weeks (wks). Participants and GPs were not blinded to allocation after randomisation, however outcome assessors were blind to treatment allocation. RESULTS: There was no evidence of a difference in biochemically confirmed quitting between intervention and control at 4wks (VBA + LA RR 0.90 (97.5%CI: 0.35, 2.27); VBA + CO RR 1.04 (97.5%CI: 0.44, 2.44)), however the absolute number of quitters was small (VBA + LA 1.6%, VBA + CO 1.8%, VBA 1.8%). A similar lack of effect was observed at 12 and 26wks, apart from in the VBA + LA arm where the point estimate was significant but the confidence intervals were very wide. In both treatment arms, a larger proportion reported a reduction in cigarettes smoked per day at 4wks (VBA + LA 1.30 (1.10, 1.54); VBA + CO 1.23 (1.03, 1.49)) compared with VBA. The point estimates indicated a similar direction of effect at 12wks and 26wks, but differences were not statistically significant. Quantitative process measures indicated high fidelity to the intervention delivery protocols, but low uptake of behavioural and pharmacological support. VBA was the dominant intervention in the health economic analyses. CONCLUSION: Overall, there was no evidence that adding LA or CO to VBA increased quit rates. However, a small effect cannot be ruled out as the proportion quitting was low and therefore estimates were imprecise. There was some evidence that participants in the intervention arms were more likely to reduce the amount smoked, at least in the short term. More research is needed to find effective ways to support quitting in settings like North Macedonia where a strong smoking culture persists. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at http://www.isrctn.com (ISRCTN54228638) on the 07/09/2018.

Strengthening Clinician-Researchers' Communication and Knowledge Translation Skills: An Innovative Game Model From the Breathe Well Group.

Communication is a core component of a clinician's role; however, when clinicians conduct research, communicating the emerging findings and recommendations to different types of stakeholders can be unfamiliar territory. Communicating research to advocate for change can be even more challenging. Clinician researchers seeking to be agents for change need to conceive and craft specific, evidence-based messages and communicate these effectively to different stakeholders to negotiate action. As part of a global health research program, we developed and tested a novel game-based model to strengthen the communication skills of clinician researchers, from 4 countries, for improving services for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This model focused on communication with 3 key stakeholder groups for knowledge translation: Patients/carers, healthcare providers and policy makers/healthcare managers. Delivered through a series of facilitated, online meetings, this model consisted of 2 parts: developing and rehearsing advocacy messages with coaching support, and then testing them with a panel of 3 representative stakeholders, and an audience of fellow researchers. All the country teams reported increased confidence in crafting advocacy messages for specific stakeholders and have applied lessons learned from the model. Delivering this model within a global health research program requires mentoring, time, commitment, resources and translation support to address language barriers. It offers an exemplar to build the communication skills of clinician and non-clinician researchers so that they can go beyond dissemination toward translation of evidence into policy and practice.