Nasal sprays and behavioural interventions compared with usual care for acute respiratory illness in primary care: a randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: A small amount of evidence suggests that nasal sprays, or physical activity and stress management, could shorten the duration of respiratory infections. This study aimed to assess the effect of nasal sprays or a behavioural intervention promoting physical activity and stress management on respiratory illnesses, compared with usual care. METHODS: This randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial was done at 332 general practitioner practices in the UK. Eligible adults (aged ≥18 years) had at least one comorbidity or risk factor increasing their risk of adverse outcomes due to respiratory illness (eg, immune compromise due to serious illness or medication; heart disease; asthma or lung disease; diabetes; mild hepatic impairment; stroke or severe neurological problem; obesity [BMI ≥30 kg/m2]; or age ≥65 years) or at least three self-reported respiratory tract infections in a normal year (ie, any year before the COVID-19 pandemic). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) using a computerised system to: usual care (brief advice about managing illness); gel-based spray (two sprays per nostril at the first sign of an infection or after potential exposure to infection, up to 6 times per day); saline spray (two sprays per nostril at the first sign of an infection or after potential exposure to infection, up to 6 times per day); or a brief behavioural intervention in which participants were given access to a website promoting physical activity and stress management. The study was partially masked: neither investigators nor medical staff were aware of treatment allocation, and investigators who did the statistical analysis were unaware of treatment allocation. The sprays were relabelled to maintain participant masking. Outcomes were assessed using data from participants' completed monthly surveys and a survey at 6 months. The primary outcome was total number of days of illness due to self-reported respiratory tract illnesses (coughs, colds, sore throat, sinus or ear infections, influenza, or COVID-19) in the previous 6 months, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned participants who had primary outcome data available. Key secondary outcomes were possible harms, including headache or facial pain, and antibiotic use, assessed in all randomly assigned participants. This trial was registered with ISRCTN, 17936080, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Dec 12, 2020, and April 7, 2023, of 19 475 individuals screened for eligibility, 13 799 participants were randomly assigned to usual care (n=3451), gel-based nasal spray (n=3448), saline nasal spray (n=3450), or the digital intervention promoting physical activity and stress management (n=3450). 11 612 participants had complete data for the primary outcome and were included in the primary outcome analysis (usual care group, n=2983; gel-based spray group, n=2935; saline spray group, n=2967; behavioural website group, n=2727). Compared with participants in the usual care group, who had a mean of 8·2 (SD 16·1) days of illness, the number of days of illness was significantly lower in the gel-based spray group (mean 6·5 days [SD 12·8]; adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·82 [99% CI 0·76-0·90]; p<0·0001) and the saline spray group (6·4 days [12·4]; 0·81 [0·74-0·88]; p<0·0001), but not in the group allocated to the behavioural website (7·4 days [14·7]; 0·97 [0·89-1·06]; p=0·46). The most common adverse event was headache or sinus pain in the gel-based group: 123 (4·8%) of 2556 participants in the usual care group; 199 (7·8%) of 2498 participants in the gel-based group (risk ratio 1·61 [95% CI 1·30-1·99]; p<0·0001); 101 (4·5%) of 2377 participants in the saline group (0·81 [0·63-1·05]; p=0·11); and 101 (4·5%) of 2091 participants in the behavioural intervention group (0·95 [0·74-1·22]; p=0·69). Compared with usual care, antibiotic use was lower for all interventions: IRR 0·65 (95% CI 0·50-0·84; p=0·001) for the gel-based spray group; 0·69 (0·45-0·88; p=0·003) for the saline spray group; and 0·74 (0·57-0·94; p=0·02) for the behavioural website group. INTERPRETATION: Advice to use either nasal spray reduced illness duration and both sprays and the behavioural website reduced antibiotic use. Future research should aim to address the impact of the widespread implementation of these simple interventions. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Supporting self-management of low back pain with an internet intervention with and without telephone support in primary care (SupportBack 2): a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is prevalent and a leading cause of disability. We aimed to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an accessible, scalable internet intervention for supporting behavioural self-management (SupportBack). METHODS: Participants in UK primary care with low back pain without serious spinal pathology were randomly assigned 1:1:1 using computer algorithms stratified by disability level and telephone-support centre to usual care, usual care and SupportBack, or usual care and SupportBack with physiotherapist telephone-support (three brief calls). The primary outcome was low back pain-related disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ] score) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months using a repeated measures model, analysed by intention to treat using 97·5% CIs. A parallel economic evaluation from a health services perspective was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. People with lived experience of low back pain were involved in this trial from the outset. This completed trial was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN14736486. FINDINGS: Between Nov 29, 2018, and Jan 12, 2021, 825 participants were randomly assigned (274 to usual care, 275 to SupportBack only, 276 to SupportBack with telephone-support). Participants had a mean age of 54 (SD 15), 479 (58%) of 821 were women and 342 (42%) were men, and 591 (92%) of 641 were White. Follow-up rates were 687 (83%) at 6 weeks, 598 (73%) at 3 months, 589 (72%) at 6 months, and 652 (79%) at 12 months. For the primary analysis, 736 participants were analysed (249 usual care, 245 SupportBack, and 242 SupportBack with telephone support). At a significance level of 0·025, there was no difference in RMDQ over 12 months with SupportBack versus usual care (adjusted mean difference -0·5 [97·5% CI -1·2 to 0·2]; p=0·085) or SupportBack with telephone-support versus usual care (-0·6 [-1·2 to 0·1]; p=0·048). There were no treatment-related serious adverse events. The economic evaluation showed that the SupportBack group dominated usual care, being both more effective and less costly. Both interventions were likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per quality adjusted life year compared with usual care. INTERPRETATION: The SupportBack internet interventions did not significantly reduce low back pain-related disability over 12 months compared with usual care. They were likely to be cost-effective and safe. Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety should be considered together when determining whether to apply these interventions in clinical practice. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment (16/111/78).

Rapid respiratory microbiological point-of-care-testing and antibiotic prescribing in primary care: Protocol for the RAPID-TEST randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are prescribed for over 50% of respiratory tract infections in primary care, despite good evidence of there being no benefit to the patient, and evidence of over prescribing driving microbial resistance. The high treatment rates are attributed to uncertainty regarding microbiological cause and clinical prognosis. Point-of-care-tests have been proposed as potential antibiotic stewardship tools, with some providing microbiological results in 15 minutes. However, there is little research on their impact on antibiotic use and clinical outcomes in primary care. METHODS: This is a multi-centre, individually randomised controlled trial with mixed-methods investigation of microbial, behavioural and antibiotic mechanisms on outcomes in patients aged 12 months and over presenting to primary care in the UK with a suspected respiratory tract infection, where the clinician and/or patient thinks antibiotic treatment may be, or is, necessary. Once consented, all participants are asked to provide a combined nose and throat swab sample and randomised to have a rapid microbiological point-of-care-test or no point-of-care-test. For intervention patients, clinicians review the result of the test, before contacting the patient to finalise treatment. Treatment decisions are made as per usual care in control group patients. The primary outcome is whether an antibiotic is prescribed at this point. All swab samples are sent to the central laboratory for further testing. Patients are asked to complete a diary to record the severity and duration of symptoms until resolution or day 28, and questionnaires at 2 months about their beliefs and intention to consult for similar future illnesses. Primary care medical records are also reviewed at 6-months to collect further infection consultations, antibiotic prescribing and hospital admissions. The trial aims to recruit 514 patients to achieve 90% power with 5% significance to detect a 15% absolute reduction in antibiotic prescribing. Qualitative interviews are being conducted with approximately 20 clinicians and 30 participants to understand any changes in beliefs and behaviour resulting from the point-of-care-test and generate attributes for clinician and patient discrete choice experiments. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence of efficacy, acceptability and mechanisms of action of a rapid microbiological point-of-care test on antibiotic prescribing and patient symptoms in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16039192, prospectively registered on 08/11/2022.

Online behavioural interventions for children and young people with eczema: a quantitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Two online behavioural interventions (one website for parents/carers of children with eczema; and one for young people with eczema) have been shown in randomised controlled trials to facilitate a sustained improvement in eczema severity. AIM: To describe intervention use and examine potential mediators of intervention outcomes and contextual factors that may influence intervention delivery and outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: Quantitative process evaluation in UK primary care. METHOD: Parents/carers and young people were recruited through primary care. Intervention use was recorded and summarised descriptively. Logistic regression explored sociodemographic and other factors associated with intervention engagement. Mediation analysis investigated whether patient enablement (ability to understand and cope with health issues), treatment use, and barriers to adherence were mediators of intervention effect. Subgroup analysis compared intervention effects among pre-specified participant subsets. RESULTS: A total of 340 parents/carers and 337 young people were recruited. Most parents/carers (87%, n = 148/171) and young people (91%, n = 153/168) in the intervention group viewed the core introduction by 24 weeks. At 24 weeks, users had spent approximately 20 minutes on average on the interventions. Among parents/carers, greater intervention engagement was associated with higher education levels, uncertainty about carrying out treatments, and doubts about treatment efficacy at baseline. Among young people, higher intervention use was associated with higher baseline eczema severity. Patient enablement (the ability to understand and cope with health issues) accounted for approximately 30% of the intervention effect among parents/carers and 50% among young people. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that positive intervention outcomes depended on a modest time commitment from users. This provides further support that the wider implementation of Eczema Care Online is justified.

Cost-effectiveness of two online interventions supporting self-care for eczema for parents/carers and young people.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of online behavioral interventions (EczemaCareOnline.org.uk) designed to support eczema self-care management for parents/carers and young people from an NHS perspective. METHODS: Two within-trial economic evaluations, using regression-based approaches, adjusting for baseline and pre-specified confounder variables, were undertaken alongside two independent, pragmatic, parallel group, unmasked randomized controlled trials, recruiting through primary care. Trial 1 recruited 340 parents/carers of children aged 0-12 years and Trial 2 337 young people aged 13-25 years with eczema scored ≥ 5 on Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Participants were randomized (1:1) to online intervention plus usual care or usual care alone. Resource use, collected via medical notes review, was valued using published unit costs in UK £Sterling 2021. Quality-of-life was elicited using proxy CHU-9D in Trial 1 and self-report EQ-5D-5L in Trial 2. RESULTS: The intervention was dominant (cost saving and more effective) with a high probability of cost-effectiveness (> 68%) in most analyses. The exception was the complete case cost-utility analysis for Trial 1 (omitting participants with children aged < 2), with adjusted incremental cost savings of -£34.15 (95% CI - 104.54 to 36.24) and incremental QALYs of - 0.003 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.015) producing an incremental cost per QALY of £12,466. In the secondary combined (Trials 1 and 2) cost-effectiveness analysis, the adjusted incremental cost was -£20.35 (95% CI - 55.41 to 14.70) with incremental success (≥ 2-point change on POEM) of 10.3% (95% CI 2.3-18.1%). CONCLUSION: The free at point of use online eczema self-management intervention was low cost to run and cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered prospectively with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN79282252). URL www.EczemaCareOnline.org.uk .

Experiences of using a supported digital intervention for cancer survivors in primary care: a qualitative process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Increasing healthy behaviours (e.g. physical activity) can improve cancer survivors' quality of life. Renewed is a digital intervention developed to provide behaviour change advice with brief healthcare practitioner support. A three-arm randomised controlled trial (Renewed, Renewed with support or a control condition) suggested that prostate cancer survivors in the supported arm had slightly greater estimates of improvements in quality of life compared to other cancer survivors. This study explored participants' experiences using Renewed to understand how it might have worked and why it might have provided greater benefit for prostate cancer survivors and those in the supported arm. METHODS: Thirty-three semi-structured telephone interviews with cancer survivors' (breast, colorectal, prostate) from the Renewed trial explored their experiences of using Renewed and their perceptions of the intervention. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Some participants only used Renewed modestly but still made behaviour changes. Barriers to using Renewed included low perceived need, joining the study to advance scientific knowledge or 'to give back', or due to perceived availability of support in their existing social networks. Prostate cancer survivors reported less social support outside of Renewed compared to participants with other cancers. CONCLUSION: Renewed may support healthy behaviour changes among cancer survivors even with limited use. Interventions targetting individuals who lack social support may be beneficial. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Cancer survivors' experiences may inform the development of digital interventions to better serve this population.

Understanding people's experiences of the formal health and social care system for co-occurring heavy alcohol use and depression through the lens of relational autonomy: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Heavy alcohol use and depression commonly co-occur. However, health and social care services rarely provide coordinated support for these conditions. Using relational autonomy, which recognizes how social and economic contexts and relational support alter people's capacity for agency, this study aimed to (1) explore how people experience formal care provision for co-occurring alcohol use and depression, (2) consider how this context could lead to adverse outcomes for individuals and (3) understand the implications of these experiences for future policy and practice. DESIGN: Semi-structured qualitative interviews underpinned by the methodology of interpretive description. SETTING: North East and North Cumbria, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-nine people (21 men and 18 women) with current or recent experience of co-occurring heavy alcohol use ([Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test [AUDIT] score ≥ 8]) and depression ([Patient Health Questionnaire test ≥ 5] screening tools to give an indication of their current levels of alcohol use and mental score). MEASUREMENTS: Semi-structured interview guide supported in-depth exploration of the treatment and care people had sought and received for heavy alcohol use and depression. FINDINGS: Most participants perceived depression as a key factor contributing to their heavy alcohol use. Three key themes were identified: (1) 'lack of recognition' of a relationship between alcohol use and depression and/or contexts that limit people's capacity to access help, (2) having 'nowhere to go' to access relevant treatment and care and (3) 'supporting relational autonomy' as opposed to assuming that individuals can organize their own care and recovery. Lack of access to appropriate treatment and provision that disregards individuals' differential capacity for agency may contribute to delays in help-seeking, increased distress and suicidal ideation. CONCLUSIONS: Among people with co-occurring heavy alcohol use and depression, lack of recognition of a relationship between alcohol use and depression and formal care provision that does not acknowledge people's social and economic context, including their intrinsic need for relational support, may contribute to distress and limit their capacity to get well.

Implementing Germ Defence digital behaviour change intervention via all primary care practices in England to reduce respiratory infections during the COVID-19 pandemic: an efficient cluster randomised controlled trial using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: Germ Defence ( www.germdefence.org ) is an evidence-based interactive website that promotes behaviour change for infection control within households. To maximise the potential of Germ Defence to effectively reduce the spread of COVID-19, the intervention needed to be implemented at scale rapidly. METHODS: With NHS England approval, we conducted an efficient two-arm (1:1 ratio) cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine the effectiveness of randomising implementation of Germ Defence via general practitioner (GP) practices across England, UK, compared with usual care to disseminate Germ Defence to patients. GP practices randomised to the intervention arm (n = 3292) were emailed and asked to disseminate Germ Defence to all adult patients via mobile phone text, email or social media. Usual care arm GP practices (n = 3287) maintained standard management for the 4-month trial period and then asked to share Germ Defence with their adult patients. The primary outcome was the rate of GP presentations for respiratory tract infections (RTI) per patient. Secondary outcomes comprised rates of acute RTIs, confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses and suspected COVID-19 diagnoses, COVID-19 symptoms, gastrointestinal infection diagnoses, antibiotic usage and hospital admissions. The impact of the intervention on outcome rates was assessed using negative binomial regression modelling within the OpenSAFELY platform. The uptake of the intervention by GP practice and by patients was measured via website analytics. RESULTS: Germ Defence was used 310,731 times. The average website satisfaction score was 7.52 (0-10 not at all to very satisfied, N = 9933). There was no evidence of a difference in the rate of RTIs between intervention and control practices (rate ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.96, 1.06, p = 0.70). This was similar to all other eight health outcomes. Patient engagement within intervention arm practices ranged from 0 to 48% of a practice list. CONCLUSIONS: While the RCT did not demonstrate a difference in health outcomes, we demonstrated that rapid large-scale implementation of a digital behavioural intervention is possible and can be evaluated with a novel efficient prospective RCT methodology analysing routinely collected patient data entirely within a trusted research environment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered in the ISRCTN registry (14602359) on 12 August 2020.

Study protocol for a nationwide implementation of internet-based vestibular rehabilitation for patients with chronic vestibular symptoms (I-RECOVER).

BACKGROUND: Vestibular rehabilitation is a safe and effective exercise-based treatment for patients with chronic vestibular symptoms. However, it is underused in general practice. Internet-based vestibular rehabilitation (Vertigo Training), which has proven to be effective as well, was developed to increase uptake. We now aim to improve the quality of care for patients with vestibular symptoms by carrying out a nationwide implementation of Vertigo Training. We will evaluate the effect of this implementation on primary care. METHODS: Our implementation study consists of three successive phases: 1) We will perform a retrospective observational cohort study and a qualitative interview study to evaluate the current management of patients with vestibular symptoms in primary care, in particular anti-vertigo drug prescriptions, and identify areas for improvement. We will use the results of this phase to tailor our implementation strategy to the needs of general practitioners (GPs) and patients. 2) This phase entails the implementation of Vertigo Training using a multicomponent implementation strategy, containing: guideline adaptations; marketing strategy; pharmacotherapeutic audit and feedback meetings; education; clinical decision support; and local champions. 3) In this phase, we will evaluate the effect of the implementation in three ways. a. Interrupted time series. We will use routine primary care data from adult patients with vestibular symptoms to compare the number of GP consultations for vestibular symptoms, referrals for vestibular rehabilitation, prescriptions for anti-vertigo drugs, and referrals to physiotherapy and secondary care before and after implementation. b. Prospective observational cohort study. We will extract data from Vertigo Training to investigate the usage and the characteristics of participants. We will also determine whether these characteristics are associated with successful treatment. c. Qualitative interview study. We will conduct interviews with GPs to explore their experiences with the implementation. DISCUSSION: This is one of the first studies to evaluate the effect of a nationwide implementation of an innovative treatment on Dutch primary care. Implementation strategies have been researched before, but it remains unclear which ones are the most effective and under what conditions. We therefore expect to gain relevant insights for future projects that aim to implement innovations in primary care.

Mpox knowledge, behaviours and barriers to public health measures among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in the UK: a qualitative study to inform public health guidance and messaging.

BACKGROUND: The 2022-23 mpox epidemic is the first-time sustained community transmission had been reported in countries without epidemiological links to endemic areas. During that period, the outbreak almost exclusively affected sexual networks of gay, bisexual, or other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) and people living with HIV. In efforts to control transmission, multiple public health measures were implemented, including vaccination, contact tracing and isolation. This study examines knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of mpox among a sample of GBMSM during the 2022-23 outbreak in the UK, including facilitators for and barriers to the uptake of public health measures. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 44 GBMSM between May and December 2022. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Positive and negative comments pertaining to public health measures were collated in a modified version of a 'table of changes' to inform optimisations to public health messages and guidance. RESULTS: Most interviewees were well informed about mpox transmission mechanisms and were either willing to or currently adhering to public health measures, despite low perceptions of mpox severity. Measures that aligned with existing sexual health practices and norms were considered most acceptable. Connections to GBMSM networks and social media channels were found to increase exposure to sexual health information and norms influencing protective behaviours. Those excluded or marginalized from these networks found some measures challenging to perform or adhere to. Although social media was a key mode of information sharing, there were preferences for timely information from official sources to dispel exaggerated or misleading information. CONCLUSIONS: There are differential needs, preferences, and experiences of GBMSM that limit the acceptability of some mitigation and prevention measures. Future public health interventions and campaigns should be co-designed in consultation with key groups and communities to ensure greater acceptability and credibility in different contexts and communities.

Applying machine-learning to rapidly analyze large qualitative text datasets to inform the COVID-19 pandemic response: comparing human and machine-assisted topic analysis techniques.

Introduction: Machine-assisted topic analysis (MATA) uses artificial intelligence methods to help qualitative researchers analyze large datasets. This is useful for researchers to rapidly update healthcare interventions during changing healthcare contexts, such as a pandemic. We examined the potential to support healthcare interventions by comparing MATA with "human-only" thematic analysis techniques on the same dataset (1,472 user responses from a COVID-19 behavioral intervention). Methods: In MATA, an unsupervised topic-modeling approach identified latent topics in the text, from which researchers identified broad themes. In human-only codebook analysis, researchers developed an initial codebook based on previous research that was applied to the dataset by the team, who met regularly to discuss and refine the codes. Formal triangulation using a "convergence coding matrix" compared findings between methods, categorizing them as "agreement", "complementary", "dissonant", or "silent". Results: Human analysis took much longer than MATA (147.5 vs. 40 h). Both methods identified key themes about what users found helpful and unhelpful. Formal triangulation showed both sets of findings were highly similar. The formal triangulation showed high similarity between the findings. All MATA codes were classified as in agreement or complementary to the human themes. When findings differed slightly, this was due to human researcher interpretations or nuance from human-only analysis. Discussion: Results produced by MATA were similar to human-only thematic analysis, with substantial time savings. For simple analyses that do not require an in-depth or subtle understanding of the data, MATA is a useful tool that can support qualitative researchers to interpret and analyze large datasets quickly. This approach can support intervention development and implementation, such as enabling rapid optimization during public health emergencies.

Understanding adherence to self-isolation in the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in England: a cross-sectional mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: During the early "containment" phase of the COVID-19 response in England (January-March 2020), contact tracing was managed by Public Health England (PHE). Adherence to self-isolation during this phase and how people were making those decisions has not previously been determined. The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of decisions around adherence to self-isolation during the first phase of the COVID-19 response in England. METHODS: A mixed-methods cross sectional study was conducted, including an online survey and qualitative interviews. The overall pattern of adherence was described as never leaving home, leaving home for lower-contact reasons and leaving home for higher-contact reasons. Fisher's exact test was used to test associations between adherence and potentially predictive binary factors. Factors showing evidence of association overall were then considered in relation to the three aspects of adherence individually. Qualitative data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of 250 respondents who were advised to self-isolate, 63% reported not leaving home at all during their isolation period, 20% reported leaving only for lower-contact activities (dog walking or exercise) and 16% reported leaving for higher-contact, and therefore higher-risk, reasons. Factors associated with adherence to never going out included: the belief that following isolation advice would save lives, experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, being advised to stay in their room, having help from outside and having regular contact by text message from PHE. Factors associated with non-adherence included being angry about the advice to isolate, being unable to get groceries delivered and concerns about losing touch with friends and family. Interviews highlighted that a sense of duty motivated people to adhere to isolation guidance and where people did leave their homes, these decisions were based on rational calculations of the risk of transmission - people would only leave their homes when they thought they were unlikely to come into contact with others. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding adherence to isolation and associated reasoning during the early stages of the pandemic is essential to pandemic preparedness for future emerging infectious disease outbreaks. Individuals make complex decisions around adherence by calibrating transmission risks, therefore treating adherence as binary should be avoided.

Did mpox knowledge, attitudes and beliefs affect intended behaviour in the general population and men who are gay, bisexual and who have sex with men? An online cross-sectional survey in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate rates of mpox beliefs, knowledge and intended behaviours in the general population and in gay, bisexual or other men who have sex with men (GBMSM), and factors associated with intended behaviours. To test the impact of motivational messages (vs a factual control) on intended behaviours. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey including a nested randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Data collected from 5 September 2022 to 6 October 2022. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were aged 18 years or over and lived in the UK (general population). In addition, GBMSM were male, and gay, bisexual or had sex with men. The general population sample was recruited through a market research company. GBMSM were recruited through a market research company, the dating app Grindr and targeted adverts on Meta (Facebook and Instagram). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intention to self-isolate, seek medical help, stop all sexual contact, share details of recent sexual contacts and accept vaccination. RESULTS: Sociodemographic characteristics differed by sample. There was no effect of very brief motivational messaging on behavioural intentions. Respondents from Grindr and Meta were more likely to intend to seek help immediately, completely stop sexual behaviour and be vaccinated or intend to be vaccinated, but being less likely to intend to self-isolate (ps<0.001). In the general population sample, intending to carry out protective behaviours was generally associated with being female, older, having less financial hardship, greater worry, higher perceived risk to others and higher perceived susceptibility to and severity of mpox (ps<0.001). There were fewer associations with behaviours in the Grindr sample, possibly due to reduced power. CONCLUSIONS: GBMSM were more likely to intend to enact protective behaviours, except for self-isolation. This may reflect targeted public health efforts and engagement with this group. Associations with socioeconomic factors suggest that providing financial support may encourage people to engage with protective behaviours.

Supporting patients to prepare for total knee replacement: Evidence-, theory- and person-based development of a 'Virtual Knee School' digital intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Digital delivery of pre-operative total knee replacement (TKR) education and prehabilitation could improve patient outcomes pre- and post-operatively. Rigorously developing digital interventions is vital to help ensure they achieve their intended outcomes whilst mitigating their potential drawbacks. OBJECTIVE: To develop a pre-operative TKR education and prehabilitation digital intervention, the 'Virtual Knee School' (VKS). METHODS: The VKS was developed using an evidence-, theory- and person-based approach. This involved a mixed methods design with four phases. The first three focused on planning the VKS. The final phase involved creating a VKS prototype and iteratively refining it through concurrent think-aloud interviews with nine patients who were awaiting/had undergone TKR. Meta-inferences were generated by integrating findings from all the phases. ISRCTN registration of the overall project was obtained on 24 April 2020 (ISRCTN11759773). RESULTS: Most participants found the VKS prototype acceptable overall and considered it a valuable resource. Conversely, a minority of participants felt the prototype's digital format or content did not meet their individual needs. Participants' feedback was used to refine the prototype's information architecture, design and content. Two meta-inferences were generated and recommend: 1. Comprehensive pre-operative TKR education and prehabilitation support should be rapidly accessible in digital and non-digital formats. 2. Pre-operative TKR digital interventions should employ computer- and self-tailoring to account for patients' individual needs and preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating evidence, theory and stakeholders' perspectives enabled the development of a promising VKS digital intervention for patients awaiting TKR. The findings suggest future research evaluating the VKS is warranted and provide recommendations for optimising pre-operative TKR care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) was central throughout the project. For example, PPI representatives contributed to the project planning, were valued members of the Project Advisory Group, had key roles in developing the VKS prototype and helped disseminate the project findings.

The Agile Co-production and Evaluation framework for developing public health interventions, messaging and guidance.

A lesson identified from the COVID-19 pandemic is that we need to extend existing best practice for intervention development. In particular, we need to integrate (a) state-of-the-art methods of rapidly coproducing public health interventions and messaging to support all population groups to protect themselves and their communities with (b) methods of rapidly evaluating co-produced interventions to determine which are acceptable and effective. This paper describes the Agile Co-production and Evaluation (ACE) framework, which is intended to provide a focus for investigating new ways of rapidly developing effective interventions and messaging by combining co-production methods with large-scale testing and/or real-world evaluation. We briefly review some of the participatory, qualitative and quantitative methods that could potentially be combined and propose a research agenda to further develop, refine and validate packages of methods in a variety of public health contexts to determine which combinations are feasible, cost-effective and achieve the goal of improving health and reducing health inequalities.

Determining the clinical and cost-effectiveness of nasal sprays and a physical activity and stress management intervention to reduce respiratory tract infections in primary care: A protocol for the 'Immune Defence' randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most adults in the UK experience at least one viral respiratory tract infection (RTI) per year. Individuals with comorbidities and those with recurrent RTIs are at higher risk of infections. This can lead to more severe illness, worse quality of life and more days off work. There is promising evidence that using common nasal sprays or improving immune function through increasing physical activity and managing stress, may reduce the incidence and severity of RTIs. METHODS AND DESIGN: Immune Defence is an open, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. Up to 15000 adults from UK general practices, with a comorbidity or risk factor for infection and/or recurrent infections (3 or more infections per year) will be randomly allocated to i) a gel-based nasal spray designed to inhibit viral respiratory infections; ii) a saline nasal spray, iii) a digital intervention promoting physical activity and stress management, or iv) usual care with brief advice for managing infections, for 12 months. Participants will complete monthly questionnaires online. The primary outcome is the total number of days of illness due to RTIs over 6 months. Key secondary outcomes include: days with symptoms moderately bad or worse; days where work/normal activities were impaired; incidence of RTI; incidence of COVID-19; health service contacts; antibiotic usage; beliefs about antibiotics; intention to consult; number of days of illness in total due to respiratory tract infections over 12 months. Economic evaluation from an NHS perspective will compare the interventions, expressed as incremental cost effectiveness ratios. A nested mixed methods process evaluation will examine uptake and engagement with the interventions and trial procedures. TRIAL STATUS: Recruitment commenced in December 2020 and the last participant is expected to complete the trial in April 2024. DISCUSSION: Common nasal sprays and digital interventions to promote physical activity and stress management are low cost, accessible interventions applicable to primary care. If effective, they have the potential to reduce the individual and societal impact of RTIs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered with ISRCTN registry (17936080) on 30/10/2020. SPONSOR: This RCT is sponsored by University of Southampton. The sponsors had no role in the study design, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

'Eczema shouldn't control you; you should control eczema': qualitative process evaluation of online behavioural interventions to support young people and parents/carers of children with eczema.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of well-conducted randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of theory-based online interventions for eczema. To address these deficiencies, we previously developed and demonstrated the effectiveness of two online behavioural interventions: Eczema Care Online for parents/carers of children with eczema, and Eczema Care Online for young people with eczema. OBJECTIVES: To explore the views and experiences of people who have used the Eczema Care Online interventions to provide insights into how the interventions worked and identify contextual factors that may impede users' engagement with the interventions. METHODS: Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted with 17 parents/carers of children with eczema and 17 young people with eczema. Participants were purposively sampled from two randomized controlled trials of the interventions and recruited from GP surgeries in England. Transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis, and intervention modifications were identified using the person-based approach table of changes method. RESULTS: Both young people and parents/carers found the interventions easy to use, relatable and trustworthy, and perceived that they helped them to manage their eczema, thus suggesting that Eczema Care Online may be acceptable to its target groups. Our analysis suggested that the interventions may reduce eczema severity by facilitating empowerment among its users, specifically through improved understanding of, and confidence in, eczema management, reduced treatment concerns, and improved treatment adherence and management of irritants/triggers. Reading about the experiences of others with eczema helped people to feel 'normal' and less alone. Some (mainly young people) expressed firmly held negative beliefs about topical corticosteroids, views that were not influenced by the intervention. Minor improvements to the design and navigation of the Eczema Care Online interventions and content changes were identified and made, ready for wider implementation. CONCLUSIONS: People with eczema and their families can benefit from reliable information, specifically information on the best and safest ways to use their eczema treatments early in their eczema journey. Together, our findings from this study and the corresponding trials suggest wider implementation of Eczema Care Online (EczemaCareOnline.org.uk) is justified.

Effectiveness of analgesic ear drops as add-on treatment to oral analgesics in children with acute otitis media: study protocol of the OPTIMA pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Ear pain is the most prominent symptom of childhood acute otitis media (AOM). To control the pain and reduce reliance on antibiotics, evidence of effectiveness for alternative interventions is urgently needed. This trial aims to investigate whether analgesic ear drops added to usual care provide superior ear pain relief over usual care alone in children presenting to primary care with AOM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic, two-arm, individually randomised, open, superiority trial with cost-effectiveness analysis and nested mixed-methods process evaluation in general practices in the Netherlands. We aim to recruit 300 children aged 1-6 years with a general practitioner (GP) diagnosis of AOM and ear pain. Children will be randomly allocated (ratio 1:1) to either (1) lidocaine hydrochloride 5 mg/g ear drops (Otalgan) one to two drops up to six times daily for a maximum of 7 days in addition to usual care (oral analgesics, with/without antibiotics); or (2) usual care. Parents will complete a symptom diary for 4 weeks as well as generic and disease-specific quality of life questionnaires at baseline and 4 weeks. The primary outcome is the parent-reported ear pain score (0-10) over the first 3 days. Secondary outcomes include proportion of children consuming antibiotics, oral analgesic use and overall symptom burden in the first 7 days; number of days with ear pain, number of GP reconsultations and subsequent antibiotic prescribing, adverse events, complications of AOM and cost-effectiveness during 4-week follow-up; generic and disease-specific quality of life at 4 weeks; parents' and GPs' views and experiences with treatment acceptability, usability and satisfaction. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical Research Ethics Committee Utrecht, the Netherlands, has approved the protocol (21-447/G-D). All parents/guardians of participants will provide written informed consent. Study results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and presented at relevant (inter)national scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands Trial Register: NL9500; date of registration: 28 May 2021. At the time of publication of the study protocol paper, we were unable to make any amendments to the trial registration record in the Netherlands Trial Register. The addition of a data sharing plan was required to adhere to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines. The trial was therefore reregistered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05651633; date of registration: 15 December 2022). This second registration is for modification purposes only and the Netherlands Trial Register record (NL9500) should be regarded as the primary trial registration.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions and risk of COVID-19 infection: survey of U.K. public from November 2020 - May 2021.

INTRODUCTION: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), such as handwashing, social distancing and face mask wearing, have been widely promoted to reduce the spread of COVID-19. This study aimed to explore the relationship between self-reported use of NPIs and COVID-19 infection. METHODS: We conducted an online questionnaire study recruiting members of the UK public from November 2020 to May 2021. The association between self-reported COVID-19 illness and reported use of NPIs was explored using logistic regression and controlling for participant characteristics, month of questionnaire completion, and vaccine status. Participants who had been exposed to COVID-19 in their household in the previous 2 weeks were excluded. RESULTS: Twenty-seven thousand seven hundred fifty-eight participants were included and 2,814 (10.1%) reported having a COVID-19 infection. The odds of COVID-19 infection were reduced with use of a face covering in unadjusted (OR 0.17 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.20) and adjusted (aOR 0.19, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.23) analyses. Social distancing (OR 0.27, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.31; aOR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.43) and handwashing when arriving home (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.73; aOR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.83) also reduced the odds of COVID-19. Being in crowded places of 10-100 people (OR 1.89, 95% CI: 1.70 to 2.11; aOR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.42 to 1.85) and > 100 people (OR 2.33, 95% CI: 2.11 to 2.58; aOR 1.73, 95% CI: 1.53 to 1.97) were both associated with increased odds of COVID-19 infection. Handwashing before eating, avoiding touching the face, and cleaning things with virus on were all associated with increased odds of COVID-19 infections. CONCLUSIONS: This large observational study found evidence for strong protective effects for individuals from use of face coverings, social distancing (including avoiding crowded places) and handwashing on arriving home on developing COVID-19 infection. We also found evidence for an increased risk associated with other behaviours, possibly from recall bias.

How do people with MND and caregivers experience a digital mental health intervention? A qualitative study.

Objective: We urgently need to develop and evaluate more psychological interventions to support people with Motor Neurone Disease (MND) and caregivers. We used the person-based approach to develop a digital mental health intervention and conducted two studies to explore people's experiences of using it. Methods: In Study 1, we conducted think-aloud interviews with 9 people with MND and 8 caregivers, and used findings to refine the intervention. In Study 2, 18 people with MND and 9 caregivers used the intervention for 6 weeks after which in-depth interviews were conducted. Data from both studies were combined and analysed using thematic analysis. Results: We developed 3 main themes around intervention acceptability, engagement, and usefulness. Participants highlighted the importance of accessibility and realistic presentation of information and support. Tailoring and timing intervention use to suit own needs, preferences, and disease stage was also important. Participants used the strategies presented to develop a positive outlook and regain some control. They also faced some challenges using these strategies in the context of dealing with progressive loss. Conclusion: People with MND and caregivers can find digital mental health interventions useful. Intervention accessibility and flexibility are important for developing acceptable and engaging interventions for MND.