What are the perspectives of adults aged 18-40 living with type 2 diabetes in urban settings towards barriers and opportunities for better health and well-being: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: Delivered as part of the global assessment of diabetes in urban settings, this study explores different aspects of living with type 2 diabetes, for adults aged 18-40. Primary questions were as follows: (1) can we identify subgroups of adults under 40 years old sharing specific perspectives towards health, well-being and living with type 2 diabetes and (2) do these perspectives reveal specific barriers to and opportunities for better type 2 diabetes prevention and management and improved well-being? DESIGN: The study employed a mixed-method design with data collected through demographic questionnaires, Q-sort statement sorting exercises, focus groups discussions and individual interviews. SETTING: Primary care across Greater Manchester, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Those aged between 18 and 40, with a confirmed type 2 diabetes diagnosis, and living in Greater Manchester were eligible to participate. A total of 46 people completed the Q-sort exercise and 43 were included in the final analysis. Of those, 29 (67%) identified as female and 32 (75%) as white. Most common time since diagnosis was between 5 and 10 years. RESULTS: The Q-sort analysis categorised 35 of the 43 participants (81%) into five subgroups. Based on average statement sorts for each subgroup, perspectives were characterised as: (1) stressed and calamity coping (n=13), (2) financially disadvantaged and poorly supported (n=12), (3) well-intentioned but not succeeding (n=5), (4) withdrawn and worried (n=2) and (5) young and stigmatised (n=3). Holistic analysis of our qualitative data also identified some common issues across these subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Adults under 40 with type 2 diabetes are not a homogeneous group, but fall into five identifiable subgroups. They also experience issues specific to this age group that make it particularly difficult for them to focus on their own health. More tailored support could help them to make the necessary lifestyle changes and manage their type 2 diabetes better.

Interventions for involving older patients with multi-morbidity in decision-making during primary care consultations.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with multiple health problems (multi-morbidity) value being involved in decision-making about their health care. However, they are less frequently involved than younger patients. To maximise quality of life, day-to-day function, and patient safety, older patients require support to identify unmet healthcare needs and to prioritise treatment options. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for older patients with multi-morbidity aiming to involve them in decision-making about their health care during primary care consultations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; all years to August 2018), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1966 to August 2018); Embase (OvidSP) (1988 to August 2018); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to August 2018); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (Ovid) (1982 to September 2008), then in Ebsco (2009 to August 2018); Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Databases (Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects (DARE)) (all years to August 2018); the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database (all years to August 2018); the Ongoing Reviews Database (all years to August 2018); and Dissertation Abstracts International (1861 to August 2018). SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and quasi-RCTs of interventions to involve patients in decision-making about their health care versus usual care/control/another intervention, for patients aged 65 years and older with multi-morbidity in primary care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Meta-analysis was not possible; therefore we prepared a narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies involving 1879 participants: two RCTs and one cluster-RCT. Interventions consisted of: · patient workshop and individual coaching using behaviour change techniques; · individual patient coaching utilising cognitive-behavioural therapy and motivational interviewing; and · holistic patient review, multi-disciplinary practitioner training, and organisational change. No studies reported the primary outcome 'patient involvement in decision-making' or the primary adverse outcome 'less patient involvement as a result of the intervention'. Comparing interventions (patient workshop and individual coaching, holistic patient review plus practitioner training, and organisational change) to usual care: we are uncertain whether interventions had any effect on patient reports of high self-rated health (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 5.49; very low-certainty evidence) or on patient enablement (mean difference (MD) 0.60, 95% CI -9.23 to 10.43; very low-certainty evidence) compared with usual care. Interventions probably had no effect on health-related quality of life (adjusted difference in means 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; moderate-certainty evidence) or on medication adherence (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.17; moderate-certainty evidence) but probably improved the number of patients discussing their priorities (adjusted odds ratio 1.85, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.38; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably increased the number of nurse consultations (incident rate ratio from adjusted multi-level Poisson model 1.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.61; moderate-certainty evidence) compared with usual care. Practitioner outcomes were not measured. Interventions were not reported to adversely affect rates of participant death or anxiety, emergency department attendance, or hospital admission compared with usual care. Comparing interventions (patient workshop and coaching, individual patient coaching) to attention-control conditions: we are uncertain whether interventions affect patient-reported high self-rated health (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.00, favouring attention control, with very low-certainty evidence; RR 2.17, 95% CI 0.85 to 5.52, favouring the intervention, with very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions affect patient enablement and engagement by increasing either patient activation (MD 1.20, 95% CI -8.21 to 10.61; very low-certainty evidence) or self-efficacy (MD 0.29, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.79; very low-certainty evidence); or whether interventions affect the number of general practice visits (MD 0.51, 95% CI -0.34 to 1.36; very low-certainty evidence), compared to attention-control conditions. The intervention may however lead to more patient-reported changes in management of their health conditions (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.44; low-certainty evidence). Practitioner outcomes were not measured. Interventions were not reported to adversely affect emergency department attendance nor hospital admission when compared with attention control. Comparing one form of intervention with another: not measured. There was 'unclear' risk across studies for performance bias, detection bias, and reporting bias; however, no aspects were 'high' risk. Evidence was downgraded via GRADE, most often because of 'small sample size' and 'evidence from a single study'. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited available evidence does not allow a robust conclusion regarding the objectives of this review. Whilst patient involvement in decision-making is seen as a key mechanism for improving care, it is rarely examined as an intervention and was not measured by included studies. Consistency in design, analysis, and evaluation of interventions would enable a greater likelihood of robust conclusions in future reviews.

Enacting person-centredness in integrated care: A qualitative study of practice and perspectives within multidisciplinary groups in the care of older people.

BACKGROUND: Person-centredness is important in delivering care for long-term conditions. New models of care aim to co-ordinate care through integration of health and social care which require new ways of working, often remotely from the patient. OBJECTIVE: To describe how person-centred care is enacted within multidisciplinary groups (MDGs) created as part of a new service, integrating health and social care for older people. METHODS: We followed the implementation of eight neighbourhood MDGs, observing and interviewing staff from three MDGs at different phases of programme implementation using semi-structured topic guides. RESULTS: Thirty-four MDG meetings were observed and 32 staff interviewed. Three core themes were identified which impacted on enactment of person-centred care: the structural context of MDGs enabling person-centred care; interaction of staff and knowledge sharing during the MDG meetings; and direct staff involvement of the person outside the MDG discussion. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new insights into attempts to enact person-centred care within a new model of service delivery. Teams did what they could to enact person-centred care in the absence of the "real" patient within MDG meetings. They were successful in delivering and co-ordinating some aspects of care (eg prompting medication reviews, referring to social worker, health improvement and arranging further multidisciplinary team meetings for complex cases). This "absence of patients" and time pressures within the MDGs led to reliance on the "virtual" record, enhanced by additional "soft" knowledge provided by staff, rather than ensuring the patient's voice was included.

Long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care (versus usual care) for people with mental-physical multimorbidity: cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care can support the treatment of depression in people with long-term conditions, but long-term benefits and costs are unknown.AimsTo explore the long-term (24-month) effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in people with mental-physical multimorbidity. METHOD: A cluster randomised trial compared collaborative care (integrated physical and mental healthcare) with usual care for depression alongside diabetes and/or coronary heart disease. Depression symptoms were measured by the symptom checklist-depression scale (SCL-D13). The economic evaluation was from the perspective of the English National Health Service. RESULTS: 191 participants were allocated to collaborative care and 196 to usual care. At 24 months, the mean SCL-D13 score was 0.27 (95% CI, -0.48 to -0.06) lower in the collaborative care group alongside a gain of 0.14 (95% CI, 0.06-0.21) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The cost per QALY gained was £13 069. CONCLUSIONS: In the long term, collaborative care reduces depression and is potentially cost-effective at internationally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.Declaration of interestNone.

A feasibility study for NOn-Traditional providers to support the management of Elderly People with Anxiety and Depression: The NOTEPAD study Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and depression are common among older people, with up to 20% reporting such symptoms, and the prevalence increases with co-morbid chronic physical health problems. Access to treatment for anxiety and depression in this population is poor due to a combination of factors at the level of patient, practitioner and healthcare system. There is evidence to suggest that older people with anxiety and/or depression may benefit both from one-to-one interventions and group social or educational activities, which reduce loneliness, are participatory and offer some activity. Non-traditional providers (support workers) working within third-sector (voluntary) organisations are a valuable source of expertise within the community but are under-utilised by primary care practitioners. Such a resource could increase access to care, and be less stigmatising and more acceptable for older people. METHODS: The study is in three phases and this paper describes the protocol for phase III, which will evaluate the feasibility of recruiting general practices and patients into the study, and determine whether support workers can deliver the intervention to older people with sufficient fidelity and whether this approach is acceptable to patients, general practitioners and the third-sector providers. Phase III of the NOTEPAD study is a randomised controlled trial (RCT) that is individually randomised. It recruited participants from approximately six general practices in the UK. In total, 100 participants aged 65 years and over who score 10 or more on PHQ9 or GAD7 for anxiety or depression will be recruited and randomised to the intervention or usual general practice care. A mixed methods approach will be used and follow-up will be conducted 12 weeks post-randomisation. DISCUSSION: This study will inform the design and methods of a future full-scale RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN16318986 . Registered 10 November 2016. The ISRCTN registration is in line with the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set. The present paper represents the original version of the protocol. Any changes to the protocol will be communicated to ISRCTN.

Protocol for a process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial to improve management of multimorbidity in general practice: the 3D study.

INTRODUCTION: As an increasing number of people are living with more than 1 long-term condition, identifying effective interventions for the management of multimorbidity in primary care has become a matter of urgency. Interventions are challenging to evaluate due to intervention complexity and the need for adaptability to different contexts. A process evaluation can provide extra information necessary for interpreting trial results and making decisions about whether the intervention is likely to be successful in a wider context. The 3D (dimensions of health, drugs and depression) study will recruit 32 UK general practices to a cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate effectiveness of a patient-centred intervention. Practices will be randomised to intervention or usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of the process evaluation is to understand how and why the intervention was effective or ineffective and the effect of context. As part of the intervention, quantitative data will be collected to provide implementation feedback to all intervention practices and will contribute to evaluation of implementation fidelity, alongside case study data. Data will be collected at the beginning and end of the trial to characterise each practice and how it provides care to patients with multimorbidity. Mixed methods will be used to collect qualitative data from 4 case study practices, purposively sampled from among intervention practices. Qualitative data will be analysed using techniques of constant comparison to develop codes integrated within a flexible framework of themes. Quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated to describe case study sites and develop possible explanations for implementation variation. Analysis will take place prior to knowing trial outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Study approved by South West (Frenchay) National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (14/SW/0011). Findings will be disseminated via a final report, peer-reviewed publications and practical guidance to healthcare professionals, commissioners and policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN06180958.

Effectiveness of multidisciplinary team case management: difference-in-differences analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a multidisciplinary team (MDT) case management intervention, at the individual (direct effects of intervention) and practice levels (potential spillover effects). DESIGN: Difference-in-differences design with multiple intervention start dates, analysing hospital admissions data. In secondary analyses, we stratified individual-level results by risk score. SETTING: Single clinical commissioning group (CCG) in the UK's National Health Service (NHS). PARTICIPANTS: At the individual level, we matched 2049 intervention patients using propensity scoring one-to-one with control patients. At the practice level, 30 practices were compared using a natural experiment through staged implementation. INTERVENTION: Practice Integrated Care Teams (PICTs), using MDT case management of high-risk patients together with a summary record of care versus usual care. DIRECT AND INDIRECT OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary measures of intervention effects were accident and emergency (A&E) visits; inpatient non-elective stays, 30-day re-admissions; inpatient elective stays; outpatient visits; and admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Secondary measures included inpatient length of stay; total cost of secondary care services; and patient satisfaction (at the practice level only). RESULTS: At the individual level, we found slight, clinically trivial increases in inpatient non-elective admissions (+0.01 admissions per patient per month; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.01. Effect size (ES): 0.02) and 30-day re-admissions (+0.00; 0.00 to 0.01. ES: 0.03). We found no indication that highest risk patients benefitted more from the intervention. At the practice level, we found a small decrease in inpatient non-elective admissions (-0.63 admissions per 1000 patients per month; -1.17 to -0.09. ES: -0.24). However, this result did not withstand a robustness check; the estimate may have absorbed some differences in underlying practice trends. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention does not meet its primary aim, and the clinical significance and cost-effectiveness of these small practice-level effects is debatable. There is an ongoing need to develop effective ways to reduce unnecessary attendances in secondary care for the high-risk population.

Integrated primary care for patients with mental and physical multimorbidity: cluster randomised controlled trial of collaborative care for patients with depression comorbid with diabetes or cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of an integrated collaborative care model for people with depression and long term physical conditions. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 36 general practices in the north west of England. PARTICIPANTS: 387 patients with a record of diabetes or heart disease, or both, who had depressive symptoms (≥ 10 on patient health questionaire-9 (PHQ-9)) for at least two weeks. Mean age was 58.5 (SD 11.7). Participants reported a mean of 6.2 (SD 3.0) long term conditions other than diabetes or heart disease; 240 (62%) were men; 360 (90%) completed the trial. INTERVENTIONS: Collaborative care included patient preference for behavioural activation, cognitive restructuring, graded exposure, and/or lifestyle advice, management of drug treatment, and prevention of relapse. Up to eight sessions of psychological treatment were delivered by specially trained psychological wellbeing practitioners employed by Improving Access to Psychological Therapy services in the English National Health Service; integration of care was enhanced by two treatment sessions delivered jointly with the practice nurse. Usual care was standard clinical practice provided by general practitioners and practice nurses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was reduction in symptoms of depression on the self reported symptom checklist-13 depression scale (SCL-D13) at four months after baseline assessment. Secondary outcomes included anxiety symptoms (generalised anxiety disorder 7), self management (health education impact questionnaire), disability (Sheehan disability scale), and global quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF). RESULTS: 19 general practices were randomised to collaborative care and 20 to usual care; three practices withdrew from the trial before patients were recruited. 191 patients were recruited from practices allocated to collaborative care, and 196 from practices allocated to usual care. After adjustment for baseline depression score, mean depressive scores were 0.23 SCL-D13 points lower (95% confidence interval -0.41 to -0.05) in the collaborative care arm, equal to an adjusted standardised effect size of 0.30. Patients in the intervention arm also reported being better self managers, rated their care as more patient centred, and were more satisfied with their care. There were no significant differences between groups in quality of life, disease specific quality of life, self efficacy, disability, and social support. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care that incorporates brief low intensity psychological therapy delivered in partnership with practice nurses in primary care can reduce depression and improve self management of chronic disease in people with mental and physical multimorbidity. The size of the treatment effects were modest and were less than the prespecified effect but were achieved in a trial run in routine settings with a deprived population with high levels of mental and physical multimorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN80309252.

Effect of telehealth on quality of life and psychological outcomes over 12 months (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested study of patient reported outcomes in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of second generation, home based telehealth on health related quality of life, anxiety, and depressive symptoms over 12 months in patients with long term conditions. DESIGN: A study of patient reported outcomes (the Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study; baseline n=1573) was nested in a pragmatic, cluster randomised trial of telehealth (the Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth trial, n=3230). General practice was the unit of randomisation, and telehealth was compared with usual care. Data were collected at baseline, four months (short term), and 12 months (long term). Primary intention to treat analyses tested treatment effectiveness; multilevel models controlled for clustering by general practice and a range of covariates. Analyses were conducted for 759 participants who completed questionnaire measures at all three time points (complete case cohort) and 1201 who completed the baseline assessment plus at least one other assessment (available case cohort). Secondary per protocol analyses tested treatment efficacy and included 633 and 1108 participants in the complete case and available case cohorts, respectively. SETTING: Provision of primary and secondary care via general practices, specialist nurses, and hospital clinics in three diverse regions of England (Cornwall, Kent, and Newham), with established integrated health and social care systems. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, or heart failure recruited between May 2008 and December 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Generic, health related quality of life (assessed by physical and mental health component scores of the SF-12, and the EQ-5D), anxiety (assessed by the six item Brief State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), and depressive symptoms (assessed by the 10 item Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale). RESULTS: In the intention to treat analyses, differences between treatment groups were small and non-significant for all outcomes in the complete case (0.480 ≤ P ≤ 0.904) or available case (0.181 ≤ P ≤ 0.905) cohorts. The magnitude of differences between trial arms did not reach the trial defined, minimal clinically important difference (0.3 standardised mean difference) for any outcome in either cohort at four or 12 months. Per protocol analyses replicated the primary analyses; the main effect of trial arm (telehealth v usual care) was non-significant for any outcome (complete case cohort 0.273 ≤ P ≤ 0.761; available case cohort 0.145 ≤ P ≤ 0.696). CONCLUSIONS: Second generation, home based telehealth as implemented in the Whole Systems Demonstrator Evaluation was not effective or efficacious compared with usual care only. Telehealth did not improve quality of life or psychological outcomes for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, or heart failure over 12 months. The findings suggest that concerns about potentially deleterious effect of telehealth are unfounded for most patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN43002091.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of the BRinging Information and Guided Help Together (BRIGHT) intervention for the self-management support of people with stage 3 chronic kidney disease in primary care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Improving the quality of care for people with vascular disease is a key priority. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) has recently been included as a target condition for general practices to add to registers of chronic conditions as part of the Quality and Outcome Framework. This paper outlines the implementation and evaluation of a self-management intervention involving an information guidebook, tailored access to local resources and telephone support for people with stage 3 chronic kidney disease. METHODS/DESIGN: The study involves a multi-site, longitudinal patient-level randomized controlled trial. The study will evaluate the clinical use and cost-effectiveness of a complex self-management intervention for people with stage 3 chronic kidney disease in terms of self-management capacity, health-related quality of life and blood pressure control compared to care as usual. We describe the methods of the patient-level randomized controlled trial. DISCUSSION: The management of chronic kidney disease is a developing area of research. The BRinging Information and Guided Help Together (BRIGHT) trial aims to provide evidence that a complementary package of support for people with vascular disease that targets both clinical and social need broadens the opportunities of self-management support by addressing problems related to social disadvantage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration reference: ISRCTN45433299.

Depression and diabetes: the role and impact of models of health care systems.

OBJECTIVES: Depression and diabetes often occur together and their comorbidity has a significant and detrimental impact on health outcomes. The aims of this paper are to review the existing international literature on approaches to health care for comorbid depression and diabetes and draw out the key conclusions for both research and future development in health care delivery. METHODS: Narrative review of the literature with synthesis by an international team of authors. RESULTS: The synthesized findings are discussed under four main headings: specialty and generalist care; models for co-ordinating and integrating care; community approaches to service delivery; and the role of health policy. LIMITATIONS: The review only included literature published in English. CONCLUSIONS: Translating basic and clinical research findings into improved treatment and outcomes of those with depression and diabetes remains a substantial challenge. There is little research on the difficulties of identifying and implementing best practice into routine health care. Systems need to be designed so that evidence-based interventions are provided in a timely way, with appropriate professional expertise where required.

Increasing heart-health lifestyles in deprived communities: economic evaluation of lay health trainers.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) often arises from modifiable lifestyle factors. Health care professionals may lack the skills and resources to sustain behaviour change, lay 'health trainers' (LHT) offer a potential alternative. We sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of using a LHT to improve heart-health lifestyles in deprived communities. METHODS: Participants in this randomized trial were aged ≥18 years with at least one risk factor for CVD (hypertension, raised cholesterol, diabetes, BMI>30 or current smoker). Both groups received health promotion literature. LHT were also able to provide intervention participants with information, advice and support aimed at changing beliefs and behaviour. Costs and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) changes were estimated over 6 months. The cost-utility [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)] of LHT was calculated and assessed in relation to the cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000-30 000 per QALY. The probability of LHT being cost-effective was also calculated. RESULTS: Seventy-two participants were randomized to a LHT, with 38 controls. The mean cost of the LHT intervention was £151. On average, other health and social service costs fell by £21 for controls and £75 for intervention participants giving a LHT mean overall incremental cost of £98. The mean QALY gains were 0.022 and 0.028, respectively. The ICER for LHT was £14 480, yet there was a 61% chance of making the wrong decision at a £20 000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: LHT provision was estimated to be cost-effective for people at risk of CVD. However, a large level of uncertainty was associated with that decision.