Study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of comparing enhanced acceptance and commitment therapy plus (+) added to usual aftercare versus usual aftercare only, in patients living with or beyond cancer: SUrvivors' Rehabilitation Evaluation after CANcer (SURECAN) trial.

BACKGROUND: Two million people in the UK are living with or beyond cancer and a third of them report poor quality of life (QoL) due to problems such as fatigue, fear of cancer recurrence, and concerns about returning to work. We aimed to develop and evaluate an intervention based on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), suited to address the concerns of cancer survivors and in improving their QoL. We also recognise the importance of exercise and vocational activity on QoL and therefore will integrate options for physical activity and return to work/vocational support, thus ACT Plus (+). METHODS: We will conduct a multi-centre, pragmatic, theory driven, randomised controlled trial. We will assess whether ACT+ including usual aftercare (intervention) is more effective and cost-effective than usual aftercare alone (control). The primary outcome is QoL of participants living with or beyond cancer measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General scale (FACT-G) at 52 weeks. We will recruit 344 participants identified from secondary care sites who have completed hospital-based treatment for cancer with curative intent, with low QoL (determined by the FACT-G) and randomise with an allocation ratio of 1:1 to the intervention or control. The intervention (ACT+) will be delivered by NHS Talking Therapies, specialist services, and cancer charities. The intervention consists of up to eight sessions at weekly or fortnightly intervals using different modalities of delivery to suit individual needs, i.e. face-to-face sessions, over the phone or skype. DISCUSSION: To date, there have been no robust trials reporting both clinical and cost-effectiveness of an ACT based intervention for people with low QoL after curative cancer treatment in the UK. We will provide high quality evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding ACT+ to usual aftercare provided by the NHS. If shown to be effective and cost-effective then commissioners, providers and cancer charities will know how to improve QoL in cancer survivors and their families. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN67900293 . Registered on 09 December 2019. All items from the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set for this protocol can be found in Additional file 2 Table S1.

The IMPROVE trial: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of using lay health workers to improve uptake and completion of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a programme of exercise and education and the most effective treatment for the symptoms and disability associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, the benefits of PR are limited by poor uptake and completion. This trial will determine whether using trained volunteer lay health workers, called "PR buddies," improves uptake and completion of PR and is cost-effective. This trial protocol outlines the methods for evaluating effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and acceptability. METHODS: The IMPROVE trial is a pragmatic, open, cluster randomised controlled trial planned in 38 PR services across England and Wales. PR services will be randomised to either intervention arm-offering support from PR buddies to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-or to usual care as the control arm. PR staff in trial sites randomised to the intervention arm will receive training in recruiting and training PR buddies. They will deliver training to volunteers, recruited from among people who have recently completed PR in their service. The 3-day PR-buddy training programme covers communication skills, confidentiality, boundaries of the PR-buddy role and behaviour change techniques to help patients overcome obstacles to attending PR. An internal pilot will test the implementation of the trial in eight sites (four intervention sites and four in control arm). The primary outcome of the trial is the uptake and completion of PR. A process evaluation will investigate the acceptability of the intervention to patients, PR staff and the volunteer PR buddies, and intervention fidelity. We will also conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis. DISCUSSION: Improving outcomes for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and access to PR are priorities for the UK National Health Service (NHS) in its long-term plan. The trial hypothesis is that volunteer PR buddies, who are recruited and trained by local PR teams, are an effective and cost-effective way to improve the uptake and completion rates of PR. The trial is pragmatic, since it will test whether the intervention can be incorporated into NHS PR services. Information obtained in this trial may be used to influence policy on the use of PR buddies in PR and other similar services in the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12658458. Registered on 23/01/2023.

Development of theoretically informed audit and feedback: An exemplar from a complex implementation strategy to improve asthma self-management in UK primary care.

RATIONALE: Audit and feedback is an evidence-based implementation strategy, but studies reporting the use of theory to guide design elements are limited. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Within the context of a programme of research aiming to improve the implementation of supported asthma self-management in UK primary care (IMPlementing IMProved Asthma self-management as RouTine [IMP2 ART]), we aimed to design and develop theoretically-informed audit and feedback that highlighted supported asthma self-management provision and areas for improvement in primary care general practices. METHOD: Aligned with the Medical Research Council (MRC) complex intervention framework, the audit and feedback was developed in three phases: (1) Development: literature and theory exploration, and prototype audit and feedback design; (2) Feasibility: eliciting feedback on the audit and feedback from general practice staff (n = 9); (3) Prepiloting: delivering the audit and feedback within the IMP2 ART implementation strategy (incorporating patient and professional resources and an asthma review template) and eliciting clinician feedback (n = 9). RESULTS: Audit and feedback design was guided by and mapped to existing literature suggestions and theory (e.g., Theoretical Domains Framework, Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy). Feedback on the prototype audit and feedback confirmed feasibility but identified some refinements (a need to highlight supporting self-management and importance of asthma action plans). Prepiloting informed integration with other IMP2 ART programme strategies (e.g., patient resources and professional education). CONCLUSION: We conclude that a multistage development process including theory exploration and mapping, contributed to the design and delivery of the audit and feedback. Aligned with the MRC framework, the IMP2 ART strategy (incorporating the audit and feedback) is now being tested in a UK-wide cluster randomised controlled trial.

Tailored psychological intervention for anxiety or depression in COPD (TANDEM): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The TANDEM multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial evaluated whether a tailored psychological intervention based on a cognitive behavioural approach for people with COPD and symptoms of anxiety and/or depression improved anxiety or depression compared with usual care (control). METHODS: People with COPD and moderate to very severe airways obstruction and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale subscale scores indicating mild to moderate anxiety (HADS-A) and/or depression (HADS-D) were randomised 1.25:1 (242 intervention and 181 control). Respiratory health professionals delivered the intervention face-to-face over 6-8 weeks. Co-primary outcomes were HADS-A and HADS-D measured 6 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes at 6 and 12 months included: HADS-A and HADS-D (12 months), Beck Depression Inventory II, Beck Anxiety Inventory, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, social engagement, the EuroQol instrument five-level version (EQ-5D-5L), smoking status, completion of pulmonary rehabilitation, and health and social care resource use. RESULTS: The intervention did not improve anxiety (HADS-A mean difference -0.60, 95% CI -1.40-0.21) or depression (HADS-D mean difference -0.66, 95% CI -1.39-0.07) at 6 months. The intervention did not improve any secondary outcomes at either time-point, nor did it influence completion of pulmonary rehabilitation or healthcare resource use. Deaths in the intervention arm (13/242; 5%) exceeded those in the control arm (3/181; 2%), but none were associated with the intervention. Health economic analysis found the intervention highly unlikely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: This trial has shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that this cognitive behavioural intervention delivered by trained and supervised respiratory health professionals does not improve psychological comorbidity in people with advanced COPD and depression or anxiety.

Non-randomised feasibility study testing a primary care intervention to promote engagement in an online health community for adults with troublesome asthma: protocol.

INTRODUCTION: In the UK, approximately 4.3 million adults have asthma, with one-third experiencing poor asthma control, affecting their quality of life, and increasing their healthcare use. Interventions promoting emotional/behavioural self-management can improve asthma control and reduce comorbidities and mortality. Integration of online peer support into primary care services to foster self-management is a novel strategy. We aim to co-design and evaluate an intervention for primary care clinicians to promote engagement with an asthma online health community (OHC). Our protocol describes a 'survey leading to a trial' design as part of a mixed-methods, non-randomised feasibility study to test the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Adults on the asthma registers of six London general practices (~3000 patients) will be invited to an online survey, via text messages. The survey will collect data on attitudes towards seeking online peer support, asthma control, anxiety, depression, quality of life, information on the network of people providing support with asthma and demographics. Regression analyses of the survey data will identify correlates/predictors of attitudes/receptiveness towards online peer support. Patients with troublesome asthma, who (in the survey) expressed interest in online peer support, will be invited to receive the intervention, aiming to reach a recruitment target of 50 patients. Intervention will involve a one-off, face-to-face consultation with a practice clinician to introduce online peer support, sign patients up to an established asthma OHC, and encourage OHC engagement. Outcome measures will be collected at baseline and 3 months post intervention and analysed with primary care and OHC engagement data. Recruitment, intervention uptake, retention, collection of outcomes, and OHC engagement will be assessed. Interviews with clinicians and patients will explore experiences of the intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from a National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (reference: 22/NE/0182). Written consent will be obtained before intervention receipt and interview participation. Findings will be shared via dissemination to general practices, conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05829265.

Reducing Opioid Use for Chronic Pain With a Group-Based Intervention: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Opioid use for chronic nonmalignant pain can be harmful. Objective: To test whether a multicomponent, group-based, self-management intervention reduced opioid use and improved pain-related disability compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicentered, randomized clinical trial of 608 adults taking strong opioids (buprenorphine, dipipanone, morphine, diamorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, papaveretum, pentazocine, pethidine, tapentadol, and tramadol) to treat chronic nonmalignant pain. The study was conducted in 191 primary care centers in England between May 17, 2017, and January 30, 2019. Final follow-up occurred March 18, 2020. Intervention: Participants were randomized 1:1 to either usual care or 3-day-long group sessions that emphasized skill-based learning and education, supplemented by 1-on-1 support delivered by a nurse and lay person for 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 2 primary outcomes were Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference Short Form 8a (PROMIS-PI-SF-8a) score (T-score range, 40.7-77; 77 indicates worst pain interference; minimal clinically important difference, 3.5) and the proportion of participants who discontinued opioids at 12 months, measured by self-report. Results: Of 608 participants randomized (mean age, 61 years; 362 female [60%]; median daily morphine equivalent dose, 46 mg [IQR, 25 to 79]), 440 (72%) completed 12-month follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference in PROMIS-PI-SF-8a scores between the 2 groups at 12-month follow-up (-4.1 in the intervention and -3.17 in the usual care groups; between-group difference: mean difference, -0.52 [95% CI, -1.94 to 0.89]; P = .15). At 12 months, opioid discontinuation occurred in 65 of 225 participants (29%) in the intervention group and 15 of 208 participants (7%) in the usual care group (odds ratio, 5.55 [95% CI, 2.80 to 10.99]; absolute difference, 21.7% [95% CI, 14.8% to 28.6%]; P < .001). Serious adverse events occurred in 8% (25/305) of the participants in the intervention group and 5% (16/303) of the participants in the usual care group. The most common serious adverse events were gastrointestinal (2% in the intervention group and 0% in the usual care group) and locomotor/musculoskeletal (2% in the intervention group and 1% in the usual care group). Four people (1%) in the intervention group received additional medical care for possible or probable symptoms of opioid withdrawal (shortness of breath, hot flushes, fever and pain, small intestinal bleed, and an overdose suicide attempt). Conclusions and Relevance: In people with chronic pain due to nonmalignant causes, compared with usual care, a group-based educational intervention that included group and individual support and skill-based learning significantly reduced patient-reported use of opioids, but had no effect on perceived pain interference with daily life activities. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN49470934.

IMPlementing IMProved Asthma self-management as RouTine (IMP2ART) in primary care: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common long-term condition and major public health problem. Supported self-management for asthma that includes a written personalised asthma action plan, supported by regular professional review, reduces unscheduled consultations and improves asthma outcomes and quality of life. However, despite unequivocal inter/national guideline recommendations, supported self-management is poorly implemented in practice. The IMPlementing IMProved Asthma self-management as RouTine (IMP2ART) implementation strategy has been developed to address this challenge. The aim of this implementation trial is to determine whether facilitated delivery of the IMP2ART strategy increases the provision of asthma action plans and reduces unscheduled care in the context of routine UK primary care. METHODS: IMP2ART is a parallel group, cluster randomised controlled hybrid II implementation trial. One hundred forty-four general practices will be randomly assigned to either the IMP2ART implementation strategy or control group. Following a facilitation workshop, implementation group practices will receive organisational resources to help them prioritise supported self-management (including audit and feedback; an IMP2ART asthma review template), training for professionals and resources to support patients to self-manage their asthma. The control group will continue with usual asthma care. The primary clinical outcome is the between-group difference in unscheduled care in the second year after randomisation (i.e. between 12 and 24 months post-randomisation) assessed from routine data. Additionally, a primary implementation outcome of asthma action plan ownership at 12 months will be assessed by questionnaire to a random sub-group of people with asthma. Secondary outcomes include the number of asthma reviews conducted, prescribing outcomes (reliever medication and oral steroids), asthma symptom control, patients' confidence in self-management and professional support and resource use. A health economic analysis will assess cost-effectiveness, and a mixed methods process evaluation will explore implementation, fidelity and adaptation. DISCUSSION: The evidence for supported asthma self-management is overwhelming. This study will add to the literature regarding strategies that can effectively implement supported self-management in primary care to reduce unscheduled consultations and improve asthma outcomes and quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15448074. Registered on 2 December 2019.

Chronic Headache Education and Self-Management Study (CHESS): a process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The Chronic Headache Education and Self-Management Study (CHESS) multicentre randomised trial evaluated the impact a group education and self-management support intervention with a best usual care plus relaxation control for people living with chronic headache disorders (tension type headaches or chronic migraine, with or without medication overuse headache). Here we report the process evaluation exploring potential explanations for the lack of positive effects from the CHESS intervention. METHODS: The CHESS trial included 736 (380 intervention: 356 control) people across the Midlands and London UK. We used a mixed methods approach. Our extensive process evaluation looked at context, reach, recruitment, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity and experiences of participating in the trial, and included participants and trial staff. We also looked for evidence in our qualitative data to investigate whether the original causal assumptions underpinning the intervention were realised. RESULTS: The CHESS trial reached out to a large diverse population and recruited a representative sample. Few people with chronic tension type headaches without migraine were identified and recruited. The expected 'dose'of the intervention was delivered to participants and intervention fidelity was high. Attendance ("dose received") fell below expectation, although 261/380 (69%) received at least at least the pre-identified minimum dose. Intervention participants generally enjoyed being in the groups but there was little evidence to support the causal assumptions underpinning the intervention were realised. CONCLUSIONS: From a process evaluation perspective despite our extensive data collection and analysis, we do not have a clear understanding of why the trial outcome was negative as the intervention was delivered as planned. However, the lack of evidence that the intervention causal assumptions brought about the planned behaviour change may provide some insight. Our data suggests only modest changes in managing headache behaviours and some disparity in how participants engaged with components of the intervention within the timeframe of the study. Moving forwards, we need a better understanding of how those who live with chronic headache can be helped to manage this disabling condition more effectively over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN79708100 .

Supportive Self-Management Program for People With Chronic Headaches and Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial and Economic Evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic headache disorders are a major cause of pain and disability. Education and supportive self-management approaches could reduce the burden of headache disability. We tested the effectiveness of a group educational and supportive self-management program for people living with chronic headaches. METHODS: This was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Participants were aged 18 years or older with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache, with or without medication overuse headache. We primarily recruited from general practices. Participants were assigned to either a 2-day group education and self-management program, a one-to-one nurse interview, and telephone support or to usual care plus relaxation material. The primary outcome was headache related-quality of life using the Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 at 12 months. The primary analysis used intention-to-treat principles for participants with migraine and both baseline and 12-month HIT-6 data. RESULTS: Between April 2017 and March 2019, we randomized 736 participants. Because only 9 participants just had tension-type headache, our main analyses were on the 727 participants with migraine. Of them, 376 were allocated to the self-management intervention and 351 to usual care. Data from 586 (81%) participants were analyzed for primary outcome. There was no between-group difference in HIT-6 (adjusted mean difference = -0.3, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.67) or headache days (0.9, 95% CI -0.29 to 2.05) at 12 months. The Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study intervention generated incremental adjusted costs of £268 (95% CI, £176-£377) (USD383 [95% CI USD252-USD539]) and incremental adjusted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.031 (95% CI -0.005 to 0.063). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £8,617 (USD12,322) per QALY gained. DISCUSSION: These findings conclusively show a lack of benefit for quality of life or monthly headache days from a brief group education and supportive self-management program for people living with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache with episodic migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Registered on the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number registry, ISRCTN79708100 16th December 2015 doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN79708100. The first enrollment was April 24, 2017. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that a brief group education and self-management program does not increase the probability of improvement in headache-related quality of life in people with chronic migraine.

What is the evidence behind cancer care reviews, a primary care cancer support tool? A scoping review.

PURPOSE: A "cancer care review" (CCR) is a conversation between a patient recently diagnosed with cancer and primary care practitioner soon after a diagnosis of cancer in the UK. This scoping review aimed to identify: methodology and validated outcome measures used to evaluate CCRs, the impact of CCRs on quality of life or symptoms, and the views of patients, their carers and healthcare professionals on CCRs. METHODS: A scoping review was performed and five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar) were searched systematically from January 2000 to March 2022. RESULTS: Of 4133 articles, ten met the inclusion criteria. These included surveys, qualitative research on stakeholders' views and a small study evaluating group consultation CCRs. There were no studies on methodology to evaluate CCRs or the impact of CCRs on patient quality of life or symptoms. Some primary care professionals felt CCRs were a tick-box exercise, and that they had inadequate time to deliver care, compounded by inadequate primary-secondary care coordination and lack of expertise which was echoed by patients. Interviews with patients found few recalled CCRs and those that recalled CCRs did, did not find them particularly helpful. Partners of patients would welcome CCRs to raise personal health concerns and remain updated on patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Further studies should identify the role that stakeholders believe they should have in CCRs, improve care coordination between primary care and secondary care and how to support caregivers. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of CCRs in general practice.

What do we want to get out of this? a critical interpretive synthesis of the value of process evaluations, with a practical planning framework.

BACKGROUND: Process evaluations aim to understand how complex interventions bring about outcomes by examining intervention mechanisms, implementation, and context. While much attention has been paid to the methodology of process evaluations in health research, the value of process evaluations has received less critical attention. We aimed to unpack how value is conceptualised in process evaluations by identifying and critically analysing 1) how process evaluations may create value and 2) what kind of value they may create. METHODS: We systematically searched for and identified published literature on process evaluation, including guidance, opinion pieces, primary research, reviews, and discussion of methodological and practical issues. We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis and developed a practical planning framework. RESULTS: We identified and included 147 literature items. From these we determined three ways in which process evaluations may create value or negative consequences: 1) through the socio-technical processes of 'doing' the process evaluation, 2) through the features/qualities of process evaluation knowledge, and 3) through using process evaluation knowledge. We identified 15 value themes. We also found that value varies according to the characteristics of individual process evaluations, and is subjective and context dependent. CONCLUSION: The concept of value in process evaluations is complex and multi-faceted. Stakeholders in different contexts may have very different expectations of process evaluations and the value that can and should be obtained from them. We propose a planning framework to support an open and transparent process to plan and create value from process evaluations and negotiate trade-offs. This will support the development of joint solutions and, ultimately, generate more value from process evaluations to all.

Evaluating an interactive acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) workshop delivered to trained therapists working with cancer patients in the United Kingdom: a mixed methods approach.

BACKGROUND: SURECAN (SUrvivors' Rehabilitation Evaluation after CANcer) is a multi-phase study developing and evaluating an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) intervention integrated with exercise and work when highly valued (thus we called the intervention ACT+), for people who have completed treatment for cancer but who have low quality of life. We developed a training programme for therapists working in different psychological services to be delivered over 2-3 days. Our aim was to evaluate the extent to which the training could improve therapists' knowledge and confidence to deliver ACT+ to cancer patients in a trial setting. METHODS: Three interactive workshops were delivered to 29 therapists from three clinical settings in London and in Sheffield. A mixed-methods approach was used. Questionnaires were designed to assess knowledge and confidence in using ACT+ with people who have low quality of life after cancer treatment. They were self-administered immediately prior to and after each workshop. Open text-based questions were used to elicit feedback about the workshops alongside a satisfaction scale. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of therapists (n = 12) to explore their views about the training more deeply, and how it might be optimised. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis showed that knowledge of ACT, as well as confidence in using the ACT+ intervention in this setting increased significantly after training (28.6 and 33.5% increase in the median score respectively). Qualitative analysis indicated that most therapists were satisfied with the content and structure of the programme, valued the rich resources provided and enjoyed the practice-based approach. Potential barriers/facilitators to participation in the trial and to the successful implementation of ACT+ were identified. For some therapists, delivering a manualised intervention, as well as supporting exercise- and work-related goals as non-specialists was seen as challenging. At the same time, therapists valued the opportunity to be involved in research, whilst training in a new therapy model. CONCLUSIONS: Training can effectively improve the knowledge and confidence of therapists from different clinical backgrounds to deliver a modified ACT intervention to cancer patients in a trial setting.

STOP- a training intervention to optimise treatment for smoking cessation in community pharmacies: cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacies serve people with high levels of tobacco-related illness, but throughput in NHS Stop Smoking Services in pharmacies remains relatively low. We investigated the effectiveness of a complex intervention to increase service uptake and retention. METHODS: We randomised 60 pharmacies in England and Wales to the STOP intervention or usual practice in a pragmatic, parallel-group, controlled trial over 11 months. Smokers were blind to the allocation. The intervention was theory-based consultation skills training for pharmacy staff with environmental prompts (badges, calendars and behavioural cues). The primary outcome was the number of smokers attending an initial consultation and setting a quit date. RESULTS: The intervention made no significant difference in setting a quit date, retention or quit rate. A total of 631 adult smokers (service users) enrolled and set a quit date in intervention pharmacies compared to 641 in usual practice pharmacies, a rate ratio of 0.75 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.23) adjusted for site and number of prescriptions. A total of 432 (68%) service users were retained at 4 weeks in intervention and 500 (78%) in usual practice pharmacies (odds ratio 0.80, 0.41 to 1.55). A total of 265 (42%) service users quit smoking at 4 weeks in intervention and 276 (43%) in usual practice pharmacies (0.96, 0.65 to 1.43). The pharmacy staff were positive about the intervention with 90% (56/62) stating that it had improved their skills. Sixty-eight per cent would strongly recommend the training to others although there was no difference in self-efficacy for service delivery between arms. Seventy of 131 (53%) service users did not complete the 6-month follow-up assessment. However, 55/61 (90%) service users who completed follow-up were satisfied or very satisfied with the service. All usual practice arm service users (n = 33) and all but one in the intervention arm (n = 27) would recommend the service to smokers. CONCLUSIONS: We found high levels of retention and acceptable quit rates in the NHS pharmacy stop smoking service. Despite pharmacy staff providing positive feedback on the STOP intervention, it made no difference to service throughput. Thus, other factors may currently limit service capacity to help smokers to quit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN16351033 . Retrospectively registered.

Developing a theoretically informed education programme within the context of a complex implementation strategy in UK primary care: an exemplar from the IMP2ART trial.

BACKGROUND: IMPlementing IMProved Asthma self-management as RouTine (IMP2ART) is a programme of work developing and evaluating a strategy for implementing supported asthma self-management in UK primary care. The strategy encompasses patient-facing resources, professional education, and organisational approaches to embed supported self-management. This paper reports the development of a theoretically informed interprofessional education programme which aims to raise awareness of and enable healthcare professionals to deliver effective supported self-management. METHODS: Aligned with the Medical Research Council (MRC) Complex Intervention Framework, the multidisciplinary team developed educational content in three phases: (1) developmental phase, identifying educational and behaviour change theory to guide development, in consultation with a professional advisory group; (2) feasibility pilot phase, testing the education using a 'think-aloud' method; and (3) pre-pilot phase, delivering the education within the IMP2ART strategy. RESULTS: The developmental phase identified educational and behaviour change theory and the need to provide two education modules: (1) a team module to raise awareness of supported asthma self-management for the whole team and (2) an individual study module for those who conduct asthma reviews with patients. The feasibility pilot highlighted content and design features in need of refinement and the pre-pilot identified substantial changes to the delivery strategy for the education modules. CONCLUSIONS: A multi-stage development process, aligned with the MRC Framework, contributed to the module design and delivery. Prior explorative work, multi-disciplinary team discussions, and professional advisory group consultation, informed the initial development, and in-practice testing and pre-pilot stages enabled refinement. In our experience, there were important benefits of working together as an educationalist/researcher team. The education programme, a core component of the implementation strategy, is now being tested in the IMP2ART UK-wide cluster randomised controlled trial.

Prioritising primary care respiratory research needs: results from the 2020 International Primary Care Respiratory Group (IPCRG) global e-Delphi exercise.

Respiratory diseases remain a significant cause of global morbidity and mortality and primary care plays a central role in their prevention, diagnosis and management. An e-Delphi process was employed to identify and prioritise the current respiratory research needs of primary care health professionals worldwide. One hundred and twelve community-based physicians, nurses and other healthcare professionals from 27 high-, middle- and low-income countries suggested 608 initial research questions, reduced after evidence review by 27 academic experts to 176 questions covering diagnosis, management, monitoring, self-management and prognosis of asthma, COPD and other respiratory conditions (including infections, lung cancer, tobacco control, sleep apnoea). Forty-nine questions reached 80% consensus for importance. Cross-cutting themes identified were: a need for more effective training of primary care clinicians; evidence and guidelines specifically relevant to primary care, adaption for local and low-resource settings; empowerment of patients to improve self-management; and the role of the multidisciplinary healthcare team.

People's preferences for self-management support.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and assess the preferences of people with long-term health conditions toward generalizable characteristics of self-management support interventions, with the objective to inform the design of more person-centered support services. DATA SOURCES: Primary qualitative and quantitative data collected on a representative sample of individuals with at least one of the fifteen most prevalent long-term conditions in the UK. STUDY DESIGN: Targeted literature review followed by a series of one-to-one qualitative semistructured interviews and a large-scale discrete choice experiment. DATA COLLECTION: Digital recording of one-to-one qualitative interviews, one-to-one cognitive interviews, and a series of online quantitative surveys, including two best-worst scaling and one discrete choice experiment, with individuals with long-term conditions. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: On average, patients preferred a self-management support intervention that (a) discusses the options available to the patient and make her choose, (b) is individual-based, (c) face to face (d) with doctor or nurse, (e) at the GP practice, (f) sessions shorter than 1 hour, and (g) occurring annually for two-third of the sample and monthly for the rest. We found heterogeneity in preferences via three latent classes, with class sizes of 41% (C1), 30% (C2), and 29% (C3). The individuals' gender [P < 0.05(C1), P < 0.01(C3)], age [P < 0.05(C1), P < 0.05(C2)], type of long-term condition [P < 0.05(C1), P < 0.01(C3)], and presence of comorbidity [P < 0.01(C1), P < 0.01(C3), P < 0.01(C3)] were able to characterize differences between these latent classes and help understand the heterogeneity of preferences toward the above mentioned features of self-management support interventions. These findings were then used to profile individuals into different preference groups, for each of whom the most desirable form of self-management support, one that was more likely to be adopted by the recipient, could be designed. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several factors that could be used to inform a more nuanced self-management support service design and provision that take into account the recipient's characteristics and preferences.

Supported online self-management versus care as usual for symptoms of fatigue, pain and urgency/incontinence in adults with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD-BOOST): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite being in clinical remission, many people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) live with fatigue, chronic abdominal pain and bowel urgency or incontinence that limit their quality of life. We aim to test the effectiveness of an online self-management programme (BOOST), developed using cognitive behavioural principles and a theoretically informed logic model, and delivered with facilitator support. PRIMARY RESEARCH QUESTION: In people with IBD who report symptoms of fatigue, pain or urgency and express a desire for intervention, does a facilitator-supported tailored (to patient needs) online self-management programme for fatigue, pain and faecal urgency/incontinence improve IBD-related quality of life (measured using the UK-IBDQ) and global rating of symptom relief (0-10 scale) compared with care as usual? METHODS: A pragmatic two-arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT), of a 12-session facilitator-supported online cognitive behavioural self-management programme versus care as usual to manage symptoms of fatigue, pain and faecal urgency/incontinence in IBD. Patients will be recruited through a previous large-scale survey of unselected people with inflammatory bowel disease. The UK Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire and global rating of symptom relief at 6 months are the co-primary outcomes, with multiple secondary outcomes measured also at 6 and 12 months post randomisation to assess maintenance. The RCT has an embedded pilot study, health economics evaluation and process evaluation. We will randomise 680 patients, 340 in each group. Demographic characteristics and outcome measures will be presented for both study groups at baseline. The UK-IBDQ and global rating of symptom relief at 6 and 12 months post randomisation will be compared between the study groups. DISCUSSION: The BOOST online self-management programme for people with IBD-related symptoms of fatigue, pain and urgency has been designed to be easily scalable and implemented. If it is shown to improve patients' quality of life, this trial will enable clinicians and patients to make informed management decisions. This is the first trial, to our knowledge, focused on multiple symptoms prioritised by both people with IBD and health professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN71618461 . Registered on 9 September 2019.

Embedding supervised exercise training for men on androgen deprivation therapy into standard prostate cancer care: a feasibility and acceptability study (the STAMINA trial).

Lifestyle interventions involving exercise training offset the adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy in men with prostate cancer. Yet provision of integrated exercise pathways in cancer care is sparse. This study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of an embedded supervised exercise training intervention into standard prostate cancer care in a single-arm, multicentre prospective cohort study. Feasibility included recruitment, retention, adherence, fidelity and safety. Acceptability of behaviourally informed healthcare and exercise professional training was assessed qualitatively. Despite the imposition of lockdown for the COVID-19 pandemic, referral rates into and adherence to, the intervention was high. Of the 45 men eligible for participation, 79% (n = 36) received the intervention and 47% (n = 21) completed the intervention before a government mandated national lockdown was enforced in the United Kingdom. Patients completed a mean of 27 min of aerobic exercise per session (SD = 3.48), at 77% heart rate maximum (92% of target dose), and 3 sets of 10 reps of 3 resistance exercises twice weekly for 12 weeks, without serious adverse event. The intervention was delivered by 26 healthcare professionals and 16 exercise trainers with moderate to high fidelity, and the intervention was deemed highly acceptable to patients. The impact of societal changes due to the pandemic on the delivery of this face-to-face intervention remain uncertain but positive impacts of embedding exercise provision into prostate cancer care warrant long-term investigation.

The development of a theory and evidence-based intervention to aid implementation of exercise into the prostate cancer care pathway with a focus on healthcare professional behaviour, the STAMINA trial.

BACKGROUND: Twice-weekly supervised aerobic and resistance exercise for 12 weeks reduces fatigue and improves quality of life in men on Androgen Deprivation Therapy for prostate cancer. Despite the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) proposing this as standard of care, it does not routinely take place in practice. Healthcare professionals are in a prime position to deliver and integrate these recommendations. A change in the behaviour of clinical teams is therefore required. In this paper, we describe the development of a training package for healthcare professionals using theory and evidence to promote delivery of such recommendations as standard care. METHODS: The intervention development process was guided by the Medical Research Council guidance for complex interventions and the Behaviour Change Wheel. Target behaviours were identified from the literature and thirty-five prostate cancer care healthcare professionals (including oncologists, consultant urologists, clinical nurse specialists, physiotherapists, general practitioners and commissioners) were interviewed to understand influences on these behaviours. The Theoretical Domains Framework was used to identify theoretical constructs for change. Behaviour change techniques were selected based on theory and evidence and were translated into intervention content. The intervention was refined with the input of stakeholders including healthcare professionals, patients, and exercise professionals in the form of rehearsal deliveries, focus groups and a workshop. RESULTS: Seven modifiable healthcare professional target behaviours were identified to support the delivery of the NICE recommendations including identifying eligible patients suitable for exercise, recommending exercise, providing information, exercise referral, providing support and interpret and feedback on progress. Ten domains from the Theoretical Domain's Framework were identified as necessary for change, including improving knowledge and skills, addressing beliefs about consequences, and targeting social influences. These were targeted through twenty-two behaviour change techniques delivered in a half-day, interactive training package. Based on initial feedback from stakeholders, the intervention was refined in preparation for evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: We designed an intervention based on theory, evidence, and stakeholder feedback to promote and support the delivery of NICE recommendations. Future work will aim to test this training package in a multi-centre randomised trial. If proven effective, the development and training package will provide a template for replication in other clinical populations, where exercise has proven efficacy but is insufficiently implemented.