Exploration of the uptake of asymptomatic COVID-19 lateral flow testing in Birmingham, UK: survey and qualitative research.

AIM: To examine public perspectives on lateral flow testing (LFT) for COVID-19. DESIGN: Online survey with nested semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Birmingham, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 220 Birmingham residents, 21 of whom took part in an interview. RESULTS: Fifty-six per cent of respondents had taken an LFT. Reasons for not testing included adherence to other government COVID-19 guidance, having had a vaccination and not thinking LFTs were accurate. In 16% of households with children nobody, including children, was testing. In households where children were testing, their parents or other adults were often not. Those who were testing and eligible for workplace and school testing were more likely to be testing twice weekly. In other settings, respondents were more likely to be testing on a one-off or ad hoc basis. Approximately half of respondents said that they were likely to visit friends and family after a negative test result and 10% that they were unlikely to self-isolate following a positive test result. In interviews, participants who were testing described the peace of mind that testing afforded them prior to activities or interactions with family and friends, including those they considered to be vulnerable. Interviewees who were not testing described concerns about test accuracy and also cited a lack of face-to-face interaction with others precluding the need to test. Participants were often testing flexibly according to circumstances and perceived risk of COVID-19 transmission. CONCLUSIONS: While some choose not to test, others are doing so in order to provide peace of mind to engage in personal interactions they might otherwise have avoided. This peace of mind may be a necessary pre-requisite for some to more fully re-engage in pre-pandemic activities. Despite clear concerns about test accuracy among those not testing, those who are testing held generally positive attitudes towards the continued use of LFTs.

Practice nurse-supported weight self-management delivered within the national child immunisation programme for postnatal women: a feasibility cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy is a high-risk time for excessive weight gain. The rising prevalence of obesity in women, combined with excess weight gain during pregnancy, means that there are more women with obesity in the postnatal period. This can have adverse health consequences for women in later life and increases the health risks during subsequent pregnancies. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim was to produce evidence of whether or not a Phase III trial of a brief weight management intervention, in which postnatal women are encouraged by practice nurses as part of the national child immunisation programme to self-monitor their weight and use an online weight management programme, is feasible and acceptable. DESIGN: The research involved a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial and two semistructured interview studies with intervention participants and practice nurses who delivered the intervention. Trial data were collected at baseline and 3 months later. The interview studies took place after trial follow-up. SETTING: The trial took place in Birmingham, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-eight postnatal women who were overweight/obese were recruited via Birmingham Women's Hospital or general practices. Nine intervention participants and seven nurses were interviewed. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention was delivered in the context of the national child immunisation programme. The intervention group were offered brief support that encouraged self-management of weight when they attended their practice to have their child immunised at 2, 3 and 4 months of age. The intervention involved the provision of motivation and support by nurses to encourage participants to make healthier lifestyle choices through self-monitoring of weight and signposting to an online weight management programme. The role of the nurse was to provide regular external accountability for weight loss. Women were asked to weigh themselves weekly and record this on a record card in their child's health record ('red book') or using the online programme. The behavioural goal was for women to lose 0.5-1 kg per week. The usual-care group received a healthy lifestyle leaflet. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the feasibility of a Phase III trial to test the effectiveness of the intervention, as assessed against three traffic-light stop-go criteria (recruitment, adherence to regular self-weighing and registration with an online weight management programme). RESULTS: The traffic-light criteria results were red for recruitment (28/80, 35% of target), amber for registration with the online weight loss programme (9/16, 56%) and green for adherence to weekly self-weighing (10/16, 63%). Nurses delivered the intervention with high fidelity. In the qualitative studies, participants indicated that the intervention was acceptable to them and they welcomed receiving support to lose weight at their child immunisation appointments. Although nurses raised some caveats to implementation, they felt that the intervention was easy to deliver and that it would motivate postnatal women to lose weight. LIMITATIONS: Fewer participants were recruited than planned. CONCLUSIONS: Although women and practice nurses responded well to the intervention and adherence to self-weighing was high, recruitment was challenging and there is scope to improve engagement with the intervention. FUTURE WORK: Future research should focus on investigating other methods of recruitment and, thereafter, testing the effectiveness of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12209332. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

After giving birth, many women find it hard to lose the weight that they gained during pregnancy. Research so far has focused on testing intensive weight loss programmes that cannot be given to all women who give birth because it would be too expensive. Instead, we tested a brief intervention delivered by practice nurses to mothers when they attended their practice to have their child immunised. We completed a study to test how well our recruitment methods worked, how well the intervention could be delivered by nurses during immunisation appointments and whether or not women followed the intervention. Women who were overweight/obese and had given birth at least 4 weeks previously were invited to participate. Women interested in participating were visited at home at the start and end of the study to measure their weight and to collect information about them. Participants were allocated to the intervention group or to a comparison group based on which practice they attended. For the intervention group, nurses encouraged women to monitor their weight weekly and record this on a record card in their child's health record (the 'red book') when they attended the practice to have their child immunised when their child was 2, 3 and 4 months old. Women were encouraged to use an online weight loss programme to help them lose weight and were advised to aim to lose 0.5­1 kg per week. Those in the comparison group were given a healthy living leaflet. Women and nurses were interviewed about their experiences of the study. Recruiting women to the study was difficult; however, women who did participate mostly followed the intervention well and weighed themselves weekly. Nurses liked the intervention; they felt that it could be incorporated into immunisation appointments and suggested some ideas for improvement. The study appeared feasible and acceptable, but better ways of recruiting women are needed.

Clinicians' views and experiences of prescribing oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: A qualitative meta-synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Globally, over 33 million people have atrial fibrillation (AF). In eligible patients, oral anticoagulation (OAC) is recommended for stroke risk reduction. Despite recent increases in OAC prescribing, global under-prescription to high-risk AF patients and inappropriate prescription to low-risk patients is leading to unnecessary risk of stroke and haemorrhage. This meta-synthesis explored clinicians' beliefs and experiences regarding OAC prescription to AF patients, highlighting barriers to stroke prevention and informing future clinician-focused interventions. METHODS AND RESULTS: A qualitative meta-synthesis exploring clinicians' views and experiences of prescribing OACs for stroke prevention in AF patients. Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and CINAHL were searched to June 2018, with a further Medline search to February 2020. Thematic synthesis was performed with data coding, descriptive theme categorisation and generation of analytical themes. From 3499 records, 101 full text papers were screened, with 13 eligible studies identified. Four analytical themes were found to affect clinicians' prescribing: (i) 'Clinicians' intellectual and emotional responses to the evidence'; (ii) 'Prescribing in primary and secondary care'; (iii) 'Clinicians' views of how patients' characteristics and opinions influence prescribing'; and (iv) 'Clinicians' views on their interactions with patients'. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights focal points for future clinician-focused interventions to improve guideline-adherent OAC prescription in AF patients. Interventions should aim to improve clinicians' knowledge around NOAC prescription and stroke and haemorrhage risk assessment tools as well as their emotional responses to difficult prescribing scenarios. Multidisciplinary interventions promoting cohesive care and input from different clinicians to overcome time-related barriers may increase guideline-adherent OAC prescription for AF patients.

Protocol for the feasibility and acceptability of a brief routine weight management intervention for postnatal women embedded within the national child immunisation programme: randomised controlled cluster feasibility trial with nested qualitative study (PIMMS-WL).

INTRODUCTION: On average women retain 5 to 9 kg 1 year after giving birth which can increase the risk of later obesity and chronic diseases. Some previous trials in this population have been effective in reducing weight, but are too intensive and costly to deliver at scale. There is a need for low-cost interventions to facilitate weight loss in this population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The primary aim is to assess the feasibility of delivering a weight management intervention for overweight/obese postnatal women within child immunisation appointments. We will conduct a randomised controlled cluster feasibility trial with a nested qualitative study to assess study recruitment and acceptability of the intervention. General practitioner practice (cluster) will be the unit of randomisation, with practices randomised to offer usual care plus the intervention or usual care only. Eighty women will be recruited. The intervention group will be offered brief support that encourages self-management of weight when attending child immunisation appointments. Practice nurses will encourage women to weigh themselves weekly and record this, and to make healthy lifestyle choices through using an online weight management programme. Women will be advised to aim for 0.5 to 1 kg/week weight loss. At each child immunisation the nurse will assess progress by weighing women. The comparator group will receive a healthy lifestyle leaflet. Data on weight, body fat, depression, anxiety, body image, eating behaviours and physical activity will be collected at baseline and follow-up. Women and nurses will be interviewed to ascertain their views about the intervention. The decision to proceed to the phase III trial will be based on prespecified stop-go criteria. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Data will be stored securely at the University of Birmingham. Results will be disseminated through academic publications and presentations and will inform a possible phase III trial. The National Research Ethics Committee approved the study protocol. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12209332.

Improving the Prescription of Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Oral anticoagulant (OAC) prescription for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients frequently does not follow current guidelines, with underuse in patients at high risk of stroke and substantial overuse in those at low risk. This review aims to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to improve appropriate OAC prescription in eligible AF patients for stroke prevention. METHODS: Systematic review of controlled and uncontrolled studies published up to July 2017 with interventions designed to improve appropriate OAC prescription for stroke prevention in eligible AF patients (according to risk assessment tool or guidelines). Categorization of intervention types was pre-specified. The main outcome was change in proportion of eligible AF patients prescribed OACs for stroke prevention. RESULTS: Twenty studies conducted in 392 settings were included (cluster randomized controlled trials, controlled trials and uncontrolled before-after designs; n = 29,868 patients at baseline). Fifteen studies reported significant improvements in appropriate prescription of OACs in AF patients. All interventions with a persuasive element (8/8); all studies targeting health care professional (HCP) education or guideline/protocol implementation (7/7); and all medical care programs (4/4) achieved significant increases in appropriate OAC prescription. Computerized decision support interventions (3/5) and reviews of prescribing (2/4) were less likely to report significant improvements in appropriate OAC prescription. CONCLUSION: Interventions designed to improve appropriate prescription of OACs in eligible AF patients for stroke prevention can be effective. Successful approaches include education of HCPs; implementation of local guidelines; interdisciplinary medical care programs educating both HCPs and patients and persuasive interventions utilizing peer-group experts. Protocol registration: PROSPERO (CRD42016039654).