Can uptake of childhood influenza immunisation through schools and GP practices be increased through behaviourally-informed invitation letters and reminders: two pragmatic randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The UK is rolling out a national childhood influenza immunisation programme for children, delivered through primary care and schools. Behaviourally-informed letters and reminders have been successful at increasing uptake of other public health interventions. Therefore, we investigated the effects of a behaviourally-informed letter on uptake of the vaccine at GP practices, and of a letter and a reminder (SMS/ email) on uptake at schools. METHODS AND RESULTS: Study 1 was a cluster-randomised parallel trial of 21,786 two- and three-year olds in 250 GP practices, conducted during flu season (September to January inclusive) 2016/7. The intervention was a centrally-sent behaviourally-informed invitation letter, control was usual care. The proportion of two- and three-year olds in each practice who received a vaccination by 31st January 2017 was 23.4% in the control group compared to 37.1% in the intervention group (OR = 1.93; 95% CI = 1.82, 2.05, p <  0.001). Study 2 was a 2 (behavioural letter vs standard letter) × 2 (reminder vs no reminder) factorial trial of 1108 primary schools which included 3010 school years 1-3. Letters were sent to parents from providers, and reminders sent to parents from the schools. In the standard-letter-no-reminder arm, an average of 61.6% of eligible children in each school year were vaccinated, compared to 61.9% in the behavioural-letter-no-reminder arm, 63.5% in the standard-letter-plus-reminder arm, and 62.9% in the behavioural-letter-plus reminder condition, F(3, 2990) = 2.68, p = 0.046. In a multi-level model, with demographic variables as fixed effects, the proportion of eligible students in the school year who were vaccinated increased with the reminder, ß = 0.086 (0.041), p <  0.036, but there was no effect of the letter nor any interaction effect. CONCLUSION: Sending a behaviourally informed invitation letter can increase uptake of childhood influenza vaccines at the GP surgery compared to usual practice. A reminder SMS or email can increase uptake of the influenza vaccine in schools, but the effect size was minimal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study 1: Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02921633. Study 2: Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02883972.

Encouraging healthier grocery purchases online: A randomised controlled trial and lessons learned.

Online supermarket platforms present an opportunity for encouraging healthier consumer purchases. A parallel, double-blind randomised controlled trial tested whether promoting healthier products (e.g. lower fat and lower calorie) on the Sainsbury's online supermarket platform would increase purchases of those products. Participants were Nectar loyalty membership scheme cardholders who shopped online with Sainsbury's between 20th September and 10th October 2017. Intervention arm customers saw advertisement banners and recipe ingredient lists containing healthier versions of the products presented in control arm banners and ingredient lists. The primary outcome measure was purchases of healthier products. Additional outcome measures were banner clicks, purchases of standard products, overall purchases and energy (kcal) purchased. Sample sizes were small due to customers navigating the website differently than expected. The intervention encouraged purchases of some promoted healthier products (spaghetti [B = 2.10, p < 0.001], spaghetti sauce [B = 2.06, p < 0.001], spaghetti cheese [B = 2.45, p = 0.001], sour cream [B = 2.52, p < 0.001], fajita wraps [B = 2.10, p < 0.001], fajita cheese [B = 1.19, p < 0.001], bakery aisle products (B = 3.05, p = 0.003) and cola aisle products [B = 0.97, p < 0.002]) but not others (spaghetti mince, or products in the yogurt and ice cream aisles). There was little evidence of effects on banner clicks and energy purchased. Small sample sizes may affect the robustness of these findings. We discuss the benefits of collaborating to share expertise and implement a trial in a live commercial environment, alongside key learnings for future collaborative research in similar contexts.

Interventions to change purchasing behaviour in supermarkets: a systematic review and intervention content analysis.

This systematic review and intervention content analysis used behavioural science frameworks to characterise content and function of interventions targeting supermarket shoppers' purchasing behaviour, and explore if coherence between content and function was linked to intervention effectiveness. Study eligibility: in-store interventions (physical supermarkets) with control conditions, targeting objectively measured food and/or non-alcoholic drink purchases, published in English (no date restrictions). Eleven electronic databases were searched; reference lists of systematic reviews were hand-searched. Methodological quality was assessed using the GATE checklist. A content analysis was performed to characterise intervention content and function, and theoretical coherence between these, using the Behaviour Change Wheel, Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy, and Typology of Interventions in Proximal Physical Micro-Environments (TIPPME). Forty-six articles (49 interventions) met inclusion criteria; 26 articles (32 interventions) were included in the content analysis. Twenty behaviour change techniques (BCTs), and four TIPPME intervention types were identified; three BCTs ('Prompts/cues', 'Material incentive', and 'Material reward') were more common in effective interventions. Nineteen interventions solely employed theoretically appropriate BCTs. Theoretical coherence between BCTs and intervention functions was more common in effective interventions. Effective interventions included price promotions and/or in-store merchandising. Future research should explore the effect of specific BCTs using factorial study designs. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42017071065.

A randomised experiment of health, cost and social norm message frames to encourage acceptance of swaps in a simulation online supermarket.

Offering lower-energy food swaps to customers of online supermarkets could help to decrease energy (kcal) purchased and consumed. However, acceptance rates of such food swaps tend to be low. This study aimed to see whether framing lower-energy food swaps in terms of cost savings or social norms could improve likelihood of acceptance relative to framing swaps in terms of health benefits. Participants (n = 900) were asked to shop from a 12-item shopping list in a simulation online supermarket. When a target high-energy food was identified in the shopping basket at check-out, one or two lower-energy foods would be suggested as an alternative (a "swap"). Participants were randomised to only see messages emphasising health benefits (fewer calories), cost benefits (lower price) or social norms (others preferred this product). Data were analysed for 713 participants after exclusions. Participants were offered a mean of 3.17 swaps (SD = 1.50), and 12.91% of swaps were accepted (health = 14.31%, cost = 11.49%, social norms = 13.18%). Swap acceptance was not influenced by the specific swap frame used (all p > .170). Age was significantly and positively associated with swap acceptance (b = 0.02, SE = 0.00, p < .001), but was also associated with smaller decreases in energy change (b = 0.46, SE = .19, p = .014). Overall, offering swaps reduced both energy (kcal) per product (b = -9.69, SE = 4.07, p = .017) and energy (kcal) per shopping basket (t712 = 11.09, p < .001) from pre- to post-intervention. Offering lower-energy food swaps could be a successful strategy for reducing energy purchased by customers of online supermarkets. Future research should explore alternative solutions for increasing acceptance rates of such swaps.

Using behavioural insights to reduce sugar in primary school children's packed lunches in derby; A cluster randomised controlled trial.

Children's packed lunches contain more sugar than school-provided meals. Interventions to improve the provision of healthier packed lunches have modest effects on lunch contents. This cluster randomised controlled trial tested an intervention to encourage healthier provision of packed lunches by parents of primary school children in Derby. Schools were randomised to intervention (n = 8) or control (n = 9) using blocked random allocation. In the intervention group, parents of children who brought packed lunches to school in years 3-6 (age 7-11 years) received three bundles of materials (including packed lunch planner, shopping list, information on sugar content of popular lunchbox items and suggestions for healthier swap alternatives) in bookbags/lunchboxes over a 4-week period. Control parents received no materials. Photos of lunchbox contents were taken at baseline, immediately post-intervention and at three-month follow-up. A parental survey aimed to assess capability, opportunity and motivation for packing a healthier lunchbox. No intervention effects were observed for primary outcomes (presence and number of sugary snacks or chilled sugary desserts). The intervention had a significant impact on one secondary outcome (increased number of healthier "swap" items suggested in intervention materials) immediately post-intervention, but this effect had disappeared at three-month follow-up. No intervention effects were found on survey variables. Parent comments revealed that materials were either received positively (as they reinforced existing behaviours) or negatively (as they were not perceived to be helpful or appropriate). The results of this study suggest that providing educational materials and resources to parents of primary school children in Derby was not sufficient to increase provision of healthier packed lunches. Future research should investigate how behavioural science can support families to improve the nutritional content of primary school children's lunchboxes.

Reducing catheter-associated urinary tract infections: a systematic review of barriers and facilitators and strategic behavioural analysis of interventions.

BACKGROUND: Reducing the need for antibiotics is crucial in addressing the global threat of antimicrobial resistance. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) is one of the most frequent device-related infections that may be amenable to prevention. Interventions implemented nationally in England target behaviours related to catheter insertion, maintenance and removal, but the extent to which they target barriers to and facilitators of these behaviours is unclear. This strategic behavioural analysis applied behavioural science frameworks to (i) identify barriers to and facilitators of behaviours that lead to CAUTI (CAUTI-related behaviours) in primary, community and secondary care and nursing homes; (ii) describe the content of nationally adopted interventions; and (iii) assess the extent to which intervention content is theoretically congruent with barriers and facilitators. METHODS: A mixed-methods, three-phased study: (1) systematic review of 25 studies to identify (i) behaviours relevant to CAUTI and (ii) barriers to and facilitators of CAUTI-related behaviours, classified using the COM-B model and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF); (2) content analysis of nationally adopted CAUTI interventions in England identified through stakeholder consultation, classified using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) and Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy (BCTTv1); and (3) findings from 1 and 2 were linked using matrices linking COM-B and TDF to BCW/BCTTv1 in order to signpost to intervention design and refinement. RESULTS: The most frequently reported barriers to and facilitators of CAUTI-related behaviours related to 'environmental context and resources'; 'knowledge'; 'beliefs about consequences'; 'social influences'; 'memory, attention and decision processes'; and 'social professional role and identity.' Eleven interventions aiming to reduce CAUTI were identifed. Interventions were primarily guidelines and included on average 2.3 intervention functions (1-5) and six BCTs (2-11), most frequently 'education', 'training' and 'enablement.' The most frequently used BCT was 'information about health consequences' which was used in almost all interventions. Social professional role and identity and environmental context and resources were targeted least frequently with potentially relevant BCTs. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions incorporated half the potentially relevant content to target identifed barriers to and facilitators of CAUTI-related behaviours. There were missed opportunities for intervention as most focus on shaping knowledge rather than addressing motivational, social and environmental influences. This study suggests that targeting motivational, social and environmental influences may lead to more effective intervention design and refinement.

A systematic review of factors influencing NHS health check uptake: invitation methods, patient characteristics, and the impact of interventions.

BACKGROUND: The NHS Health Check (NHSHC) is a risk assessment for those aged 40-74 without a pre-existing condition in England, with the aim of preventing stroke, kidney disease, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and dementia. Uptake has been lower than anticipated. Ensuring that a high percentage of eligible patients receive a NHSHC is key to optimising the clinical and cost effectiveness of the programme. The aim of this systematic review is to highlight interventions and invitation methods that increase the uptake of NHSHCs, and to identify whether the effectiveness of these interact with broader patient and contextual factors. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist. Papers were eligible if they explored the impact of at least one of (i) interventions, (ii) invitation methods or (iii) broader factors on NHSHC uptake. Ten databases were searched in January 2016 and seven were searched in March 2018. Nine-hundred-and-forty-five papers were identified, 238 were screened and 64 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Nine studies were included in the review. RESULTS: The nine studies were all from peer reviewed journals. They included two randomised controlled trials, one observational cohort and six cross-sectional studies. Different invitation methods may be more effective for different groups of patients based on their ethnicity and gender. One intervention to enhance invitation letters effectively increased uptake but another did not. In addition, individual patient characteristics (such as age, gender, ethnicity and risk level) were found to influence uptake. This review also finds that uptake varies significantly by GP practice, which could be due either to unidentified practice-level factors or deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of different invitation methods for different population groups. Research should examine how existing invitation methods can be enhanced to drive uptake whilst reducing health inequalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO on 22.02.2016. Registration number CRD42016035626.

Randomised controlled trial comparing uptake of NHS Health Check in response to standard letters, risk-personalised letters and telephone invitations.

BACKGROUND: NHS Health Check is a primary prevention programme offering cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment to adults in England aged 40-74. Uptake remains a challenge and invitation method is a strong predictor of uptake. There is evidence of low uptake when using invitation letters. Telephone invitations might increase uptake, but are not widely used. We explored the potential to improve uptake through personalising letters to patient's CVD risk, and to compare this with generic letters and telephone invitations. METHODS: HEalth Check TRial (HECTR) was a three-arm randomised controlled trial in nine general practices in Staffordshire (UK). Eligible patients were randomised to be invited to a NHS Health Check using one of three methods: standard letter (control); telephone invitation; letter personalised to the patient's CVD risk. The primary outcome was attendance/non-attendance. Data were collected on a range of patient- and practice-level factors (e.g., patient socio-demographics, CVD risk, practice size, Health Checks outside usual working hours). Multi-level logistic regression estimated the marginal effects to explore whether invitation method predicted attendance. Invitation costs were collated from practices to estimate cost benefit. RESULTS: In total, 4614 patients were included in analysis (mean age 50.2 ± 8.0 yr.; 52.4% female). Compared with patients invited by standard letter (30.9%), uptake was significantly higher in those invited by telephone (47.6%, P < .001), but not personalised letter (31.3%, p = .812). In multi-level analysis, compared with the standard letter arm, likelihood of attendance was 18 percentage points higher in the telephone arm and 4 percentage points higher in the personalised letter arm. The effect of telephone calls appeared strongest in patients who were younger and had lower CVD risk. We estimated per 1000 patients invited, risk-personalised letters could result in 40 additional attended Health Checks (at no extra cost) and telephone invitations could result in 180 additional Health Checks at an additional cost of £240. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone invitations should be advocated to address the substantial deficit between current and required levels of NHS uptake, and could be targeted at younger and lower CVD risk adults. Risk-personalised letters should be explored further in a larger sample of high risk individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration number: ISRCTN15840751 date of registration: 24/10/2017.

The effectiveness of an enhanced invitation letter on uptake of National Health Service Health Checks in primary care: a pragmatic quasi-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service Health Check (NHS HC) is a population level public health programme. It is a primary prevention initiative offering cardiovascular risk assessment and management for adults aged 40-74 years (every five years). It was designed to reduce the incidence of major vascular disease events by preventing or delaying the onset of diabetes, heart and kidney disease, stroke and vascular dementia . Effectiveness of the programme has been modelled on a national uptake of 75% however in 2012/13 uptake, nationally, was 49%. Ensuring a high percentage of those offered an NHS HC actually receive one is key to optimising the clinical and cost effectiveness of the programme. METHODS: A pragmatic quasi-randomised controlled trial was conducted in four general practitioner practices in Medway, England with randomisation of 3511 patients. The aim was to compare attendance at the NHS HC using the standard national invitation template letter (control) compared to an enhanced invitation letter using insights from behavioural science (intervention). The intervention letter includes i) simplification - reducing letter content for less effortful processing ii) behavioural instruction - action focused language iii) personal salience - appointment due rather than invited and iv) addressing implementation intentions with a tear off slip to record the date, time and location of the appointment. Logistic Regression explored the association between control and intervention group and attendance at a health check. RESULTS: 29.3% of patients who received the control letter and 33.5% of those who received the intervention letter attended their NHS HC (adjusted odds ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.47, p < 0.01). This was an absolute difference in uptake of 4.2 percentage points for those receiving the intervention letter. CONCLUSIONS: An invitation letter applying behavioural insights was more effective than the existing national template letter at encouraging attendance at an NHS HC. Making small, no cost behaviourally informed changes to letter invitations can improve uptake of the NHS HC. Further research is required to replicate the effect with more robust methodology and powered for sub-group analysis including socio-economic status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66757664 , date of registration 28/3/2014.