'You just eyeball it': Parent and nursery staff perceptions and influences on child portion size: A reflexive thematic analysis.

Background: Childhood obesity is one of the most serious public health epidemics of the 21st century. Observational studies report that increases in portion size (PS) have occurred in parallel with levels of obesity. Increased PSs of high-energy-dense foods can promote overeating, and without compensatory behaviours, can contribute to childhood obesity. Caregivers make decisions about PSs for children in the home and nursery environment, thus are gatekeepers to child food intake. Understanding caregiver PS decisions can aid in the best practice of PS provision to young children. The aim of this study was to explore parent and nursery staff influences on child PS selection and their suggestions for useful tools/strategies in PS decisions. Methods: A qualitative design was employed using focus group discussions (FGDs) with parents and nursery staff of children aged 3-5 years. FGDs were employed given their ability to generate rich data, as well as permit the exploration of collective perceptions, attitudes, behaviours and experiences. Data were analysed using an inductive, semantic approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Four FGDs were conducted: two with parents (n = 13), two with nursery staff (n = 17). Four overarching themes were derived: (i) awareness of PS guidelines; (ii) control over PS; (iii) social influences on children's eating behaviours; (iv) child-specific, social and external factors influencing parent and nursery staff PS decisions. Additionally, participants discussed tools/strategies they believe would be useful in PS decisions. Conclusion: Data from the themes suggest that caregiver control, social, child-specific and external factors are more influential than PS guidelines in both parent and nursery staff PS decisions for young children aged 3-5 years. These findings can inform future childhood obesity prevention initiatives focussed on improving parent and nursery staff provision/use of age-appropriate PSs.

Participants' experiences and acceptability of a home-based walking exercise behaviour-change intervention (MOtivating Structure walking Activity in people with Intermittent Claudication (MOSAIC)).

OBJECTIVES: This study explored the experiences and acceptability of a novel, home-based, walking exercise behaviour-change intervention (MOtivating Structured walking Activity in people with Intermittent Claudication (MOSAIC)) in adults with Peripheral Arterial Disease (PAD). DESIGN AND SETTING: Individual semi-structured audio-recorded interviews were conducted with adults with Peripheral Arterial Disease who had completed the MOSAIC intervention as part of a randomised clinical trial. Data were analysed using inductive reflexive thematic analysis and interpreted using the seven-construct theoretical framework of acceptability of healthcare interventions (TFA). PARTICIPANTS: Twenty participants (mean age (range) 67(54-80) years, 70% male, 55% White British) were interviewed. RESULTS: One central theme was identified: Acceptability of walking exercise as a treatment. This theme was explained by four linked themes: Exploring walking exercise with a knowledgeable professional, Building confidence with each step, Towards self-management-learning strategies to continue walking and The impact of walking exercise. These themes were interpreted using six of the seven TFA constructs: affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Participants perceived MOSAIC as an effective, acceptable, and low burden intervention. Physiotherapists were regarded as knowledgeable and supportive professionals who helped participants understand PAD and walking exercise as a treatment. Participants developed confidence to self-manage their condition and their symptoms. As participants confidence and walking capacity improved, they expanded their activities and gained a more positive outlook on their future. MOSAIC is an acceptable intervention that may facilitate adoption of and access to exercise for people with PAD.

Exploring how members of the public access and use health research and information: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Making high-quality health and care information available to members of the general public is crucial to support populations with self-care and improve health outcomes. While attention has been paid to how the public accesses and uses health information generally (including personal records, commercial product information or reviews on healthcare practitioners and organisations) and how practitioners and policy-makers access health research evidence, no overview exists of the way that the public accesses and uses high quality health and care information. PURPOSE: This scoping review aimed to map research evidence on how the public accesses and uses a specific type of health information, namely health research and information that does not include personal, product and organisational information. METHODS: Electronic database searches [CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Social Sciences Full Text, Web of Science and SCOPUS] for English language studies of any research design published between 2010-2022 on the public's access and use of health research or information (as defined above). Data extraction and analysis was informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute protocol for scoping reviews, and reported in accordance with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. RESULTS: The search identified 4410 records. Following screening of 234 full text studies, 130 studies were included. One-hundred-and-twenty-nine studies reported on the public's sources of health-research or information; 56 reported the reasons for accessing health research or information and 14 reported on the use of this research and information. The scoping exercise identified a substantial literature on the broader concept of 'health information' but a lack of reporting of the general public's access to and use of health research. It found that 'traditional' sources of information are still relevant alongside newer sources; knowledge of barriers to accessing information focused on personal barriers and on independent searching, while less attention had been paid to barriers to access through other people and settings, people's lived experiences, and the cultural knowledge required. CONCLUSIONS: The review identified areas where future primary and secondary research would enhance current understanding of how the public accesses and utilises health research or information, and contribute to emerging areas of research.

Sabotage, Collusion, and Being a Feeder: Towards a New Model of Negative Social Support and Its Impact on Weight Management.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Whilst research indicates the positive impact of social support across a number of health domains, including weight management, not all social support is beneficial. RECENT FINDINGS: This paper reviews the evidence for both positive and negative social support in the context of behavioural interventions and surgery for obesity. It then presents a new model of negative social support focusing on sabotage ('active and intentional undermining of another person's weight goals'), feeding behaviour ('explicit over feeding of someone when they are not hungry or wishing not to eat'), and collusion ('passive and benign negative social support to avoid conflict') which can be conceptualised within the context of relationships as systems and the mechanisms of homeostasis. There is increasing evidence for the negative impact of social support. This new model could form the basis of further research and the development of interventions for family, friends, and partners to maximise weight loss outcomes.

The Use of Social Media for Dissemination of Research Evidence to Health and Social Care Practitioners: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Effective dissemination of research to health and social care practitioners enhances clinical practice and evidence-based care. Social media use has potential to facilitate dissemination to busy practitioners. OBJECTIVE: This is a protocol for a systematic review that will quantitatively synthesize evidence of the effectiveness of social media, compared with no social media, for dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. Social media platforms, formats, and sharing mechanisms used for effective dissemination of research evidence will also be identified and compared. METHODS: Electronic database searches (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, LISTA, and OpenGrey) will be conducted from January 1, 2010, to January 10, 2023, for studies published in English. Randomized, nonrandomized, pre-post study designs or case studies evaluating the effect of social media on dissemination of research evidence to postregistration health and social care practitioners will be included. Studies that do not involve social media or dissemination or those that evaluate dissemination of nonresearch information (eg, multisource educational materials) to students or members of the public only, or without quantitative data on outcomes of interest, will be excluded. Screening will be carried out by 2 independent reviewers. Data extraction and quality assessment, using either the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, will be completed by 2 independent reviewers. Outcomes of interest will be reported in 4 domains (reach, engagement, dissemination, and impact). Data synthesis will include quantitative comparisons using narrative text, tables, and figures. A meta-analysis of standardized pooled effects will be undertaken, and subgroup analyses will be applied, if appropriate. RESULTS: Searches and screening will be completed by the end of May 2023. Data extraction and analyses will be completed by the end of July 2023, after which findings will be synthesized and reported by the end of October 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review will summarize the evidence for the effectiveness of social media for the dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. The limitations of the evidence may include multiple outcomes or methodological heterogeneity that limit meta-analyses, potential risk of bias in included studies, and potential publication bias. The limitations of the study design may include potential insensitivity of the electronic database search strategy. The findings from this review will inform the dissemination practice of health and care research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022378793; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=378793. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/45684.

A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Adherence Measures in Asthma: Which Questionnaire Is Most Useful in Clinical Practice?

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal adherence to inhaled corticosteroid in asthma is a worryingly prevalent yet modifiable factor in uncontrolled disease. Several objective measures of adherence exist, but they are time-consuming. The use of patient-reported adherence measures (PRAMs) could therefore offer a time-efficient pragmatic approach to assessing adherence in clinical practice and potentially the appropriate interventions to improve it. OBJECTIVES: To identify the PRAMs available for asthma and assess their psychometric quality, accessibility, and usefulness in clinical practice, as well as to provide recommendations for clinicians based on these findings. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of six databases. Articles included in this study were English language, full-text, original, asthma-specific PRAMs or development/validation studies of a generic PRAM that had been administered to adults with asthma, investigated inhaled corticosteroid adherence in adults (aged 18 years and older), and assessed at least one COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments measurement property. RESULTS: We included 15 PRAM developmental and/or validation studies in this systematic review. Studies evaluated a range of COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments measurement properties, but none evaluated all of them. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this review, we recommend that when a PRAM is used, it should be the Test of the Adherence to Inhalers. However, the Adherence Starts with Knowledge-20 and Adherence Starts with Knowledge-12 may also be useful. Our results highlight the need for PRAM developers to assess questionnaires robustly and provide guidance for clinicians regarding how to act on PRAM answers by developing materials such as decision support tool kits.

Nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy in people with psoriasis during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from a global cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence to immune-modifying therapy is a complex behaviour which, before the COVID-19 pandemic, was shown to be associated with mental health disorders in people with immune-mediated diseases. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a rise in the global prevalence of anxiety and depression, and limited data exist on the association between mental health and nonadherence to immune-modifying therapy during the pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent of and reasons underlying nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic in individuals with psoriasis, and the association between mental health and nonadherence. METHODS: Online self-report surveys (PsoProtectMe), including validated screens for anxiety and depression, were completed globally during the first year of the pandemic. We assessed the association between anxiety or depression and nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy using binomial logistic regression, adjusting for potential cofounders (age, sex, ethnicity, comorbidity) and country of residence. RESULTS: Of 3980 participants from 77 countries, 1611 (40.5%) were prescribed a systemic immune-modifying therapy. Of these, 408 (25.3%) reported nonadherence during the pandemic, most commonly due to concerns about their immunity. In the unadjusted model, a positive anxiety screen was associated with nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy [odds ratio (OR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.76]. Specifically, anxiety was associated with nonadherence to targeted therapy (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-1.96) but not standard systemic therapy (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81-1.67). In the adjusted model, although the directions of the effects remained, anxiety was not significantly associated with nonadherence to overall systemic (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92-1.56) or targeted (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.94-1.89) immune-modifying therapy. A positive depression screen was not strongly associated with nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy in the unadjusted (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94-1.57) or adjusted models (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.87-1.49). CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate substantial nonadherence to immune-modifying therapy in people with psoriasis during the pandemic, with attenuation of the association with mental health after adjusting for confounders. Future research in larger populations should further explore pandemic-specific drivers of treatment nonadherence. Clear communication of the reassuring findings from population-based research regarding immune-modifying therapy-associated adverse COVID-19 risks to people with psoriasis is essential, to optimize adherence and disease outcomes.

Interventions Designed to Improve Adherence to Growth Hormone Treatment for Pediatric Patients and Their Families: A Narrative Review.

Even though growth hormone (GH) treatment is still the only active treatment option to correct growth failure and increase stature for patients with GH deficiencies, evidence has shown that non-adherence remains high. The aim of this review was to identify and review the existing interventional strategies that have been designed to address and improve adherence to GH treatment for pediatric patients and their families. An extensive search of several electronic databases was undertaken to identify relevant interventional studies, published in English, between 1985 and 2021. Additional search strategies included hand-searching topic review articles to identify eligible studies. Articles were screened against the inclusion eligibility criteria and data on sample characteristics, intervention features, and key findings was extracted. A total of fifteen interventional studies were included in the review. The interventions identified were divided into two broad categories: novel injection devices, and patient choice of device. In conclusions, this review acknowledges that there is a lack of evidence-based, theory-driven intervention strategies, designed with the purpose of optimizing treatment adherence and improve clinical and psychosocial outcomes.

Effect of a Home-Based, Walking Exercise Behavior Change Intervention vs Usual Care on Walking in Adults With Peripheral Artery Disease: The MOSAIC Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Home-based walking exercise interventions are recommended for people with peripheral artery disease (PAD), but evidence of their efficacy has been mixed. Objective: To investigate the effect of a home-based, walking exercise behavior change intervention delivered by physical therapists in adults with PAD and intermittent claudication compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial including 190 adults with PAD and intermittent claudication in 6 hospitals in the United Kingdom between January 2018 and March 2020; final follow-up was September 8, 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive a walking exercise behavior change intervention delivered by physical therapists trained to use a motivational approach (n = 95) or usual care (n = 95). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 6-minute walking distance at 3-month follow-up (minimal clinically important difference, 8-20 m). There were 8 secondary outcomes, 3 of which were the Walking Estimated Limitation Calculated by History (WELCH) questionnaire (score range, 0 [best performance] to 100), the Brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaire (score range, 0 to 80 [80 indicates negative perception of illness]), and the Theory of Planned Behavior Questionnaire (score range, 3 to 21 [21 indicates best attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, or intentions]); a minimal clinically important difference was not defined for these instruments. Results: Among 190 randomized participants (mean age 68 years, 30% women, 79% White race, mean baseline 6-minute walking distance, 361.0 m), 148 (78%) completed 3-month follow-up. The 6-minute walking distance changed from 352.9 m at baseline to 380.6 m at 3 months in the intervention group and from 369.8 m to 372.1 m in the usual care group (adjusted mean between-group difference, 16.7 m [95% CI, 4.2 m to 29.2 m]; P = .009). Of the 8 secondary outcomes, 5 were not statistically significant. At 6-month follow-up, baseline WELCH scores changed from 18.0 to 27.8 in the intervention group and from 20.7 to 20.7 in the usual care group (adjusted mean between-group difference, 7.4 [95% CI, 2.5 to 12.3]; P = .003), scores on the Brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaire changed from 45.7 to 38.9 in the intervention group and from 44.0 to 45.8 in the usual care group (adjusted mean between-group difference, -6.6 [95% CI, -9.9 to -3.4]; P < .001), and scores on the attitude component of the Theory of Planned Behavior Questionnaire changed from 14.7 to 15.4 in the intervention group and from 14.6 to 13.9 in the usual care group (adjusted mean between-group difference, 1.4 [95% CI, 0.3 to 2.5]; P = .02). Thirteen serious adverse events occurred in the intervention group, compared with 3 in the usual care group. All were determined to be unrelated or unlikely to be related to the study. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with PAD and intermittent claudication, a home-based, walking exercise behavior change intervention, compared with usual care, resulted in improved walking distance at 3 months. Further research is needed to determine the durability of these findings. Trial Registrations: ISRCTN Identifier: 14501418; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03238222.