Intervention fidelity assessment: A sub-study of the Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study (NDPS).

BACKGROUND: Previous research has shown that lifestyle modification can delay or prevent the onset of type 2 diabetes in high-risk individuals. The Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study (NDPS) was a parallel, three-arm, randomized controlled trial with up to 46 months follow-up that tested a group-delivered, theory-based lifestyle intervention to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes in high-risk groups. The current study aimed to evaluate if the NDPS intervention was delivered to an acceptable standard and if any part(s) of the delivery required improvement. METHODS: A sub-sample of 30, 25 for inter-rater reliability and audio-recordings of the NDPS intervention education sessions were assessed independently by two reviewers (CT, TW) using a 12-item checklist. Each item was scored on a 0-5 scale, with a score of 3 being defined as 'adequate delivery'. Inter-rater reliability was assessed. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to assess changes in intervention fidelity as the facilitators gained experience. RESULTS: Inter-rater agreement was acceptable (86%). A mean score of 3.47 (SD = .38) was achieved across all items of the fidelity checklist and across all intervention facilitators (n = 6). There was an apparent trend for intervention fidelity scores to decrease with experience; however, this trend was non-significant (p > .05) across all domains in this small sample. CONCLUSION: The NDPS was delivered to an acceptable standard by all Diabetes Prevention Facilitators. Further research is needed to better understand how the intervention's delivery characteristics can be optimized and how they might vary over time.

A systematic review of provider-and system-level factors influencing the delivery of cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure.

BACKGROUND: There is a longstanding research-to-practice gap in the delivery of cardiac rehabilitation for patients with heart failure. Despite adequate evidence confirming that comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation can improve quality of life and decrease morbidity and mortality in heart failure patients, only a fraction of eligible patients receives it. Many studies and reviews have identified patient-level barriers that might contribute to this disparity, yet little is known about provider- and system-level influences. METHODS: A systematic review using narrative synthesis. The aims of the systematic review were to a) determine provider- and system-level barriers and enablers that affect the delivery of cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure and b) juxtapose identified barriers with possible solutions reported in the literature. A comprehensive search strategy was applied to the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, EThoS and ProQuest databases. Articles were included if they were empirical, peer-reviewed, conducted in any setting, using any study design and describing factors influencing the delivery of cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure patients. Data were synthesised using inductive thematic analysis and a triangulation protocol to identify convergence/contradiction between different data sources. RESULTS: Seven eligible studies were identified. Thematic analysis identified nine overarching categories of barriers and enablers which were classified into 24 and 26 themes respectively. The most prevalent categories were 'the organisation of healthcare system', 'the organisation of cardiac rehabilitation programmes', 'healthcare professional' factors and 'guidelines'. The most frequent themes included 'lack of resources: time, staff, facilities and equipment' and 'professional's knowledge, awareness and attitude'. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review identified a wide range of provider- and system-level barriers impacting the delivery of cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure, along with a range of potential solutions. This information may be useful for healthcare professionals to deliver, plan or commission cardiac rehabilitation services, as well as future research.

Systematic review of the effect of training interventions on the skills of health professionals in promoting health behaviour, with meta-analysis of subsequent effects on patient health behaviours.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to identify, synthesise and evaluate randomised control trial evidence on the effects of healthcare professional training on the delivery quality of health behaviour change interventions and, subsequently, on patient health behaviours. METHODS: Systematic review with narrative synthesis of effects on delivery quality and meta-analysis of health behaviour outcomes. We searched: Medline, EMBASE, PsychInfo, AMED, CINAHL Plus and the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials up to March 2019. Studies were included if they were in English and included intervention delivery quality as an outcome. The systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (registration: CRD42019124502). RESULTS: Twelve-studies were identified as suitable for inclusion. All studies were judged as being high risk of bias with respect to training quality outcomes. However with respect to behavioural outcomes, only two of the six studies included in the meta-analysis had a high risk and four had some concerns. Educational elements (e.g. presentations) were used in all studies and nine included additional practical learning tasks. In eight studies reporting delivery quality, 54% of healthcare professional communication outcomes and 55% of content delivery outcomes improved in the intervention arm compared to controls. Training that included both educational and practical elements tended to be more effective. Meta-analysis of patient health behavioural outcomes in six-studies found significant improvements (Standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.20, 95% confidence interval: 0.11 to 0.28, P < 0.0001, I2 = 0%). No significant difference was found between short (≤6-months) and long-term (> 6-months) outcomes (SMD: 0.25 vs 0.15; P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Delivery quality of health behaviour change interventions appears to improve following training and consequently to improve health behaviours. Future studies should develop more concise /integrated measures of delivery quality and develop optimal methods of training delivery.

Acute effects of breaking up prolonged sedentary time on cardiovascular disease risk markers in adults with paraplegia.

Elevated levels of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk markers are highly prevalent in people with a spinal cord injury (SCI). Breaking up prolonged sedentary time with short, regular bouts of physical activity can reduce postprandial glucose and lipid levels in able-bodied individuals. The effects in people with paraplegia are unknown. The study aims were to examine the acute postprandial glucose (primary aim), lipid, blood pressure, and psychological responses (secondary aims) to breaking up prolonged sedentary time in individuals with paraplegia. This was a randomized crossover design trial. Fourteen participants with paraplegia (age 51 ± 9 years, trunk fat mass 44.3 ± 7.7%) took part in the following two, 5.5-hour conditions: (1) uninterrupted sedentary time (SED), and (2) sedentary time interrupted with 2 minutes of moderate-intensity arm crank ergometer physical activity every 20 minutes (SED-ACT). Standardized breakfast and lunch test meals were consumed during each condition. The outcomes were compared between conditions using linear mixed models. Glucose area under the curve (AUC) was significantly lower during the lunch postprandial period in SED-ACT vs SED (incremental AUC 1.9 [95% CI 1.0, 2.7) and 3.0 [2.1, 3.9] mmol/L∙2.5 hour, respectively, P = .015, f = 0.34). There were no differences between conditions for the breakfast or total 5.5 hours postprandial periods (P > .05). Positive affect was higher in SED-ACT than SED (P = .001). Breaking up prolonged sedentary time acutely attenuates lunch postprandial glucose and improves positive affect in people with paraplegia. This may have clinical relevance for reducing CVD risk and improving psychological well-being in this population.

Cardiovascular disease risk marker responses to breaking up prolonged sedentary time in individuals with paraplegia: the Spinal Cord Injury Move More (SCIMM) randomised crossover laboratory trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Sedentary behaviour is a distinct risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and could partly explain the increased prevalence of CVD in people with spinal cord injury (SCI). Interrupting prolonged sitting periods with regular short bouts of walking acutely suppresses postprandial glucose and lipids in able-bodied individuals. However, the acute CVD risk marker response to breaking up prolonged sedentary time in people with SCI has not been investigated. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised two-condition laboratory crossover trial will compare: (1) breaking up prolonged sedentary time with 2 min moderate-intensity arm-crank activity every 20 min, with (2) uninterrupted prolonged sedentary time (control) in people with SCI. Outcomes will include acute effects on postprandial glucose, insulin, lipids and blood pressure. Blood samples will be collected and blood pressure measured at regular intervals during each 5½-hour condition. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Cambridge South National Health Service Research Ethics Committee. This research will help determine if breaking up prolonged sedentary time could be effective in lowering CVD risk in people with SCI. The findings of the research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated to relevant user groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN51868437; Pre-results.

Is there a difference in physical activity levels in patients before and up to one year after unilateral total hip replacement? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the difference in physical activity levels before and up to one year after unilateral primary total hip replacement. DATA SOURCES: A search was performed on 13 July 2016. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they presented preoperative and up to one year postoperative measures of physical activity for patients who had undergone unilateral primary total hip replacement. REVIEW METHODS: Any article that used a measure of physical activity pre and up to one year post-unilateral primary total hip replacement. Data was synthesised using a meta-analysis with 95% confidence intervals (CI), if appropriate. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme cohort study checklist was used to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: From 6024 citations, 17 studies were selected: Nine studies were analysed in a meta-analysis and eight studies were analysed qualitatively. The quality of the evidence was 'low' to 'moderate'. There was no statistically significant difference in physical activity pre- to post-total hip replacement when assessed using: movement-related activity (mean difference (MD): -0.08; 95% CI: 1.60, 1.44; I2 = 0%; n = 77), percentage of 24-hours spent walking (MD: -0.21; 95% CI: -1.36, 0.93; I2 = 12%; n = 65), 6-minute walk test (MD: -60.85; 95% CI: -122.41, 0.72; I2 = 84%; n = 113) or the cardiopulmonary exercise test (MD: -0.24; 95% CI: -1.36, 0.87; I2 = 0%; n = 76). CONCLUSION: There is no statistically significant difference in physical activity levels before and up to one year after unilateral primary total hip replacement. However, the low to moderate methodological quality of the included articles should be taken into consideration when drawing conclusions.