Do people with type 2 diabetes find continuous and intermittent low-energy diets for weight loss and diabetes remission acceptable?

BACKGROUND: The Manchester Intermittent versus Daily Diet App Study (MIDDAS) tested the feasibility and potential efficacy of two remotely delivered low-energy diet (LED) programmes (800 kcal/day) to support weight loss and remission of type 2 diabetes: continuous [CLED] (8 weeks of daily LED) and intermittent [ILED] (2 days of LED/week for 28 weeks). Understanding participant experiences can help us to understand the acceptability of LED programmes to people with type 2 diabetes, informing future programme development and implementation. METHODS: Twenty participants (10 CLED; 10 ILED) took part in interviews conducted at the end of the active weight loss phase (CLED week 12, ILED week 28). Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically using the template analysis approach, with an a priori focus on acceptability. Four themes are presented: prospective acceptability, intervention coherence and perceived effectiveness, opportunity costs and self-efficacy. RESULTS: Both remotely supported CLED and ILED interventions appeared acceptable to participants. CLED participants found the rapid initial weight loss phase comparatively easy and highly motivating but expressed more concerns around weight maintenance. ILED participants found the more gradual weight loss initially frustrating but expressed greater confidence in their longer-term adherence. The importance of continued individualised support from healthcare professionals was emphasised, and evidence of weight loss and improvement in other medical markers through monitoring via the mobile phone app was useful. CONCLUSION: Different approaches to remotely delivered LEDs appear acceptable; therefore asking patients which approach may be more acceptable to them may be a useful way to offer individualised and tailored support.

Estimating the Cost of 3 Risk Prediction Strategies for Potential Use in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Program.

Background: Economic evaluations have suggested that risk-stratified breast cancer screening may be cost-effective but have used assumptions to estimate the cost of risk prediction. The aim of this study was to identify and quantify the resource use and associated costs required to introduce a breast cancer risk-stratification approach into the English national breast screening program. Methods: A micro-costing study, conducted alongside a cohort-based prospective trial (BC-PREDICT), identified the resource use and cost per individual (£; 2021 price year) of providing a risk-stratification strategy at a woman's first mammography. Costs were calculated for 3 risk-stratification approaches: Tyrer-Cuzick survey, Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement, and Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement and testing for 142 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP). Costs were determined for the intervention as implemented in the trial and in the health service. Results: The cost of providing the risk-stratification strategy was calculated to be £16.45 for the Tyrer-Cuzick survey approach, £21.82 for the Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement, and £102.22 for the Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement and SNP testing. Limitations: This study did not use formal expert elicitation methods to synthesize estimates. Conclusion: The costs of risk prediction using a survey and breast density measurement were low, but adding SNP testing substantially increases costs. Implementation issues present in the trial may also significantly increase the cost of risk prediction. Implications: This is the first study to robustly estimate the cost of risk-stratification for breast cancer screening. The cost of risk prediction using questionnaires and automated breast density measurement was low, but full economic evaluations including accurate costs are required to provide evidence of the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast cancer screening. Highlights: Economic evaluations have suggested that risk-stratified breast cancer screening may be a cost-effective use of resources in the United Kingdom.Current estimates of the cost of risk stratification are based on pragmatic assumptions.This study provides estimates of the cost of risk stratification using 3 strategies and when these strategies are implemented perfectly and imperfectly in the health system.The cost of risk stratification is relatively low unless single nucleotide polymorphisms are included in the strategy.

What do women think about having received their breast cancer risk as part of a risk-stratified NHS Breast Screening Programme? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Risk-stratified screening is being considered for national breast screening programmes. It is unclear how women experience risk-stratified screening and receipt of breast cancer risk information in real time. This study aimed to explore the psychological impact of undergoing risk-stratified screening within England's NHS Breast Screening Programme. METHODS: Individual telephone interviews were conducted with 40 women who participated in the BC-Predict study and received a letter indicating their estimated breast cancer risk as one of four risk categories: low (<2% 10-year risk), average (2-4.99%), above average (moderate; 5-7.99%) or high (≥8%). Audio-recorded interview transcriptions were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Two themes were produced: 'From risk expectations to what's my future health story?' highlights that women overall valued the opportunity to receive risk estimates; however, when these were discordant with perceived risk, this causes temporary distress or rejection of the information. 'Being a good (woman) citizen' where women felt positive contributing to society but may feel judged if they then cannot exert agency over the management of their risk or access follow-up support CONCLUSIONS: Risk-stratified breast screening was generally accepted without causing long-lasting distress; however, issues related to risk communication and access to care pathways need to be considered for implementation.

Quantifying the effects of risk-stratified breast cancer screening when delivered in real time as routine practice versus usual screening: the BC-Predict non-randomised controlled study (NCT04359420).

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification as a routine part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) could provide a better balance of benefits and harms. We developed BC-Predict, to offer women when invited to the NHSBSP, which collects standard risk factor information; mammographic density; and in a sub-sample, a Polygenic Risk Score (PRS). METHODS: Risk prediction was estimated primarily from self-reported questionnaires and mammographic density using the Tyrer-Cuzick risk model. Women eligible for NHSBSP were recruited. BC-Predict produced risk feedback letters, inviting women at high risk (≥8% 10-year) or moderate risk (≥5-<8% 10-year) to have appointments to discuss prevention and additional screening. RESULTS: Overall uptake of BC-Predict in screening attendees was 16.9% with 2472 consenting to the study; 76.8% of those received risk feedback within the 8-week timeframe. Recruitment was 63.2% with an onsite recruiter and paper questionnaire compared to <10% with BC-Predict only (P < 0.0001). Risk appointment attendance was highest for those at high risk (40.6%); 77.5% of those opted for preventive medication. DISCUSSION: We have shown that a real-time offer of breast cancer risk information (including both mammographic density and PRS) is feasible and can be delivered in reasonable time, although uptake requires personal contact. Preventive medication uptake in women newly identified at high risk is high and could improve the cost-effectiveness of risk stratification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04359420).

The role of knowledge, primary care and community engagement to improve breast-screening access for Pakistani women in the United Kingdom: A secondary analysis of a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer incidence is rising among Pakistani women in the United Kingdom. However, uptake of breast screening remains low. This study aimed to improve access to breast screening for British-Pakistani women by exploring their knowledge of breast cancer and the role of primary care and community networks to support screening access amongst British-Pakistani women. METHODS: We undertook a secondary qualitative analysis of 18 semi-structured interviews with British-Pakistani women from East Lancashire in the United Kingdom. Anonymized transcripts of the interviews were used for a thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were identified in the interviewees' responses: (i) 'Women's knowledge of breasts and breast cancer', which described how a cultural taboo exists around Pakistani women's bodies and around breast cancer; (ii) 'Role of primary care', which detailed how General Practitioners can support informed decisions and offer a trusted and valued information source; (iii) 'Community engagement', which described the potential to disseminate breast-screening information through the whole community, including primary care providers, all family members and mosques. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggested three main targets for future interventions to improve access to breast screening for British-Pakistani women: (i) co-produced strategies to increase knowledge of breasts and breast screening; (ii) greater collaboration with local General Practitioners to support women to make informed choices about screening; and (iii) community engagement involving General Practitioners and community leaders, to inform everyone - not just screening-age women - about breast cancer and screening.

Psychological impact of risk-stratified screening as part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme: multi-site non-randomised comparison of BC-Predict versus usual screening (NCT04359420).

BACKGROUND: Adding risk stratification to standard screening via the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) allows women at higher risk to be offered additional prevention and screening options. It may, however, introduce new harms such as increasing cancer worry. The present study aimed to assess whether there were differences in self-reported harms and benefits between women offered risk stratification (BC-Predict) compared to women offered standard NHSBSP, controlling for baseline values. METHODS: As part of the larger PROCAS2 study (NCT04359420), 5901 women were offered standard NHSBSP or BC-Predict at the invitation to NHSBSP. Women who took up BC-Predict received 10-year risk estimates: "high" (≥8%), "above average (moderate)" (5-7.99%), "average" (2-4.99%) or "below average (low)" (<2%) risk. A subset of 662 women completed questionnaires at baseline and at 3 months (n = 511) and 6 months (n = 473). RESULTS: State anxiety and cancer worry scores were low with no differences between women offered BC-Predict or NHSBSP. Women offered BC-Predict and informed of being at higher risk reported higher risk perceptions and cancer worry than other women, but without reaching clinical levels. CONCLUSIONS: Concerns that risk-stratified screening will produce harm due to increases in general anxiety or cancer worry are unfounded, even for women informed that they are at high risk.

The co-development of personalised 10-year breast cancer risk communications: a 'think-aloud' study.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratified breast cancer screening is being considered as a means of improving the balance of benefits and harms of mammography. Stratified screening requires the communication of risk estimates. We aimed to co-develop personalised 10-year breast cancer risk communications for women attending routine mammography. METHODS: We conducted think-aloud interviews on prototype breast cancer risk letters and accompanying information leaflets with women receiving breast screening through the UK National Breast Screening Programme. Risk information was redesigned following feedback from 55 women in three iterations. A deductive thematic analysis of participants' speech is presented. RESULTS: Overall, participants appreciated receiving their breast cancer risk. Their comments focused on positive framing and presentation of the risk estimate, a desire for detail on the contribution of individual risk factors to overall risk and effective risk management strategies, and clearly signposted support pathways. CONCLUSION: Provision of breast cancer risk information should strive to be personal, understandable and meaningful. Risk information should be continually refined to reflect developments in risk management. Receipt of risk via letter is welcomed but concerns remain around the acceptability of informing women at higher risk in this way, highlighting a need for co-development of risk dissemination and support pathways.

The feasibility of implementing risk stratification into a national breast cancer screening programme: a focus group study investigating the perspectives of healthcare personnel responsible for delivery.

BACKGROUND: Providing women with personalized estimates of their risk of developing breast cancer, as part of routine breast cancer screening programmes, allows women at higher risk to be offered more frequent screening or drugs to reduce risk. For this to be feasible, the concept and practicalities have to be acceptable to the healthcare professionals who would put it in to practice. The present research investigated the acceptability to healthcare professionals who were responsible for the implementation of this new approach to screening in the ongoing BC-Predict study. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted with 29 healthcare professionals from a variety of professional backgrounds working within three breast screening services in north-west England. An inductive-manifest thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Overall, healthcare professionals viewed the implementation of personalised breast cancer risk estimation as a positive step, but discussion focused on concerns. Three major themes are presented. (1) Service constraints highlights the limited capacity within current breast services and concerns about the impact of additional workload. (2) Risk communication concerns the optimal way to convey risk to women within resource constraints. (3) Accentuating inequity discusses how risk stratification could decrease screening uptake for underserved groups. CONCLUSIONS: Staff who implemented risk stratification considered it a positive addition to routine screening. They considered it essential to consider improving capacity and demands on healthcare professional time. They highlighted the need for skilled communication of risks and new pathways of care to ensure that stratification could be implemented in financially and time constrained settings without impacting negatively on women.

Manchester Intermittent versus Daily Diet App Study (MIDDAS): A pilot randomized controlled trial in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To test the feasibility and potential efficacy of remotely supported intermittent low-energy diets (ILEDs) and continuous low-energy diets (CLEDs) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial comparing the two approaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-nine adults with overweight/obesity and T2D (≤8 years duration) were randomized 1:1 to CLED (8 weeks/56 days of daily Optifast 820 kcal (3430 kJ) diet) or isoenergetic ILED (2 days of Optifast and 5 days of a Mediterranean diet/week for 28 weeks). Weight maintenance/continued weight loss was undertaken for the remainder of the 52 weeks. Both groups received frequent telephone or the Oviva app support. Feasibility outcomes included study uptake, retention, app usage, dietary adherence, weight loss and change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at 52 weeks. RESULTS: We enrolled 39 ILED and 40 CLED participants and 27 (69%) ILED and 30 CLED (75%) attended the 52-week follow-up. Eighty-nine per cent (70 of 79) started using the app and 86% (44 of 51) still used the app at 52 weeks. Intention-to-treat analysis at 52 weeks showed percentage weight loss was mean (95% confidence interval) -5.4% (-7.6, -3.1%) for ILED and -6.0% (-7.9, -4.0%) for CLED. HbA1c <48 mmol/mol was achieved in 42% of both groups. Mean (95% confidence interval) changes in the T2D medication effect score were 0.0008 (-0.3, 0.3) for ILED and -0.5 (-0.8, -0.3) for CLED. CONCLUSION: The study shows the feasibility and potential efficacy of remotely delivered ILED and CLED programmes for weight loss and HbA1c reduction, and the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial comparing the two approaches.

Testing a breast cancer prevention and a multiple disease prevention weight loss programme amongst women within the UK NHS breast screening programme-a randomised feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Excess weight and unhealthy behaviours (e.g. sedentariness, high alcohol) are common amongst women including those attending breast screening. These factors increase the risk of breast cancer and other diseases. We tested the feasibility and acceptability of a weight loss/behaviour change programme framed to reduce breast cancer risk (breast cancer prevention programme, BCPP) compared to one framed to reduce risk of breast cancer, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes (T2D) (multiple disease prevention programme, MDPP). METHODS: Women aged 47-73 years with overweight or obesity (n = 1356) in the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) were randomised (1:2) to be invited to join a BCPP or a MDPP. The BCPP included personalised information on breast cancer risk and a web and phone weight loss/behaviour change intervention. The MDPP also included an NHS Health Check (lipids, blood pressure, HbA1c and personalised feedback for risk of CVD [QRISK2] and T2D [QDiabetes and HbA1c]). Primary outcomes were uptake and retention and other feasibility outcomes which include intervention fidelity and prevalence of high CVD and T2D risk. Secondary outcomes included change in weight. RESULTS: The BCPP and MDPP had comparable rates of uptake: 45/508 (9%) vs. 81/848 (10%) and 12-month retention; 33/45 (73%) vs. 53/81 (65%). Both programmes had a high fidelity of delivery with receipt of mean (95% CI) 90 (88-98% of scheduled calls, 91 (86-95%) of scheduled e-mails and 89 (76-102) website entries per woman over the 12-month period. The MDPP identified 15% of women with a previously unknown 10-year CVD QRISK2 of ≥ 10% and 56% with 10-year Qdiabetes risk of ≥ 10%. Both groups experienced good comparable weight loss: BCPP 26/45 (58%) and MDPP 46/81 (57%) with greater than 5% weight loss at 12 months using baseline observation carried forward imputation. CONCLUSIONS: Both programmes appeared feasible. The MDPP identified previously unknown CVD and T2D risk factors but does not appear to increase engagement with behaviour change beyond a standard BCPP amongst women attending breast screening. A future definitive effectiveness trial of BCPP is supported by acceptable uptake and retention, and good weight loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN91372184 , registered 28 September 2014.

Intermittent Versus Continuous Low-Energy Diet in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensive face-to-face weight loss programs using continuous low-energy diets (CLEDs) providing approximately 800 kcal per day (3347 kJ per day) can produce significant weight loss and remission from type 2 diabetes (T2D). Intermittent low-energy diets (ILEDs) and remotely delivered programs could be viable alternatives that may support patient choice and adherence. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the protocol of a pilot randomized controlled trial to test the feasibility and potential efficacy of remotely supported isocaloric ILED and CLED programs among patients with overweight and obesity and T2D. METHODS: A total of 79 participants were recruited from primary care, two National Health Service hospital trusts, and a voluntary T2D research register in the United Kingdom. The participants were randomized to a remotely delivered ILED (n=39) or CLED (n=40). The active weight loss phase of CLED involved 8 weeks of Optifast 820 kcal/3430 kJ formula diet, followed by 4 weeks of food reintroduction. The active weight loss phase of ILED (n=39) comprised 2 days of Optifast 820 kcal/3430 kJ diet and 5 days of a portion-controlled Mediterranean diet for 28 weeks. Both groups were asked to complete 56 Optifast 820 kcal/3430 kJ days during their active weight loss phase with an equivalent energy deficit. The diets were isocaloric for the remainder of the 12 months. CLED participants were asked to follow a portion-controlled Mediterranean diet 7 days per week. ILED followed 1-2 days per week of a food-based 820 kcal/3430 kJ diet and a portion-controlled Mediterranean diet for 5-6 days per week. Participants received high-frequency (weekly, fortnightly, or monthly depending on the stage of the trial) multidisciplinary remote support from a dietitian, nurse, exercise specialist, and psychologist via telephone or the Oviva smartphone app. The primary outcomes of the study were uptake, weight loss, and changes in glycated hemoglobin at 12 months. An outcome assessment of trial retention was retrospectively added. Secondary outcomes included an assessment of adherence and adverse events. A qualitative evaluation was undertaken via interviews with participants and health care professionals who delivered the intervention. RESULTS: A total of 79 overweight or obese participants aged 18-75 years and diagnosed with T2D in the last 8 years were recruited to the Manchester Intermittent and Daily Diet Diabetes App Study (MIDDAS). Recruitment began in February 2018, and data collection was completed in February 2020. Data analysis began in June 2020, and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of the MIDDAS study will inform the feasibility of remotely delivered ILED and CLED programs in clinical practice and the requirement for a larger-scale randomized controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 15394285; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15394285. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/21116.

What are the benefits and harms of risk stratified screening as part of the NHS breast screening Programme? Study protocol for a multi-site non-randomised comparison of BC-predict versus usual screening (NCT04359420).

BACKGROUND: In principle, risk-stratification as a routine part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) should produce a better balance of benefits and harms. The main benefit is the offer of NICE-approved more frequent screening and/ or chemoprevention for women who are at increased risk, but are unaware of this. We have developed BC-Predict, to be offered to women when invited to NHSBSP which collects information on risk factors (self-reported information on family history and hormone-related factors via questionnaire; mammographic density; and in a sub-sample, Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms). BC-Predict produces risk feedback letters, inviting women at high risk (≥8% 10-year) or moderate risk (≥5 to < 8% 10-year) to have discussion of prevention and early detection options at Family History, Risk and Prevention Clinics. Despite the promise of systems such as BC-Predict, there are still too many uncertainties for a fully-powered definitive trial to be appropriate or ethical. The present research aims to identify these key uncertainties regarding the feasibility of integrating BC-Predict into the NHSBSP. Key objectives of the present research are to quantify important potential benefits and harms, and identify key drivers of the relative cost-effectiveness of embedding BC-Predict into NHSBSP. METHODS: A non-randomised fully counterbalanced study design will be used, to include approximately equal numbers of women offered NHSBSP (n = 18,700) and BC-Predict (n = 18,700) from selected screening sites (n = 7). In the initial 8-month time period, women eligible for NHSBSP will be offered BC-Predict in four screening sites. Three screening sites will offer women usual NHSBSP. In the following 8-months the study sites offering usual NHSBSP switch to BC-Predict and vice versa. Key potential benefits including uptake of risk consultations, chemoprevention and additional screening will be obtained for both groups. Key potential harms such as increased anxiety will be obtained via self-report questionnaires, with embedded qualitative process analysis. A decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analysis will identify the key uncertainties underpinning the relative cost-effectiveness of embedding BC-Predict into NHSBSP. DISCUSSION: We will assess the feasibility of integrating BC-Predict into the NHSBSP, and identify the main uncertainties for a definitive evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of BC-Predict. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04359420).

The introduction of risk stratified screening into the NHS breast screening Programme: views from British-Pakistani women.

BACKGROUND: UK national guidelines suggest women at high-risk of breast cancer should be offered more frequent screening or preventative medications. Currently, only 1 in 6 high-risk women are identified. One route to identify more high-risk women is via multifactorial risk assessment as part of the UK's NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP). As lower socioeconomic and minority ethnic populations continue to experience barriers to screening, it is important that any new service does not exacerbate issues further. To inform service development, this study explored views of women from underserved backgrounds regarding the introduction of risk stratification into the NHSBSP. METHODS: Nineteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with British-Pakistani women from low socioeconomic backgrounds from East Lancashire, UK. Fourteen interviews were conducted via an interpreter. RESULTS: Thematic analysis produced three themes. Attitudes toward risk awareness concerns the positive views women have toward the idea of receiving personalised breast cancer risk information. Anticipated barriers to accessibility emphasises the difficulties associated with women's limited English skills for accessing information, and their I.T proficiency for completing an online risk assessment questionnaire. Acceptability of risk communication strategy highlights the diversity of opinion regarding the suitability of receiving risk results via letter, with the option for support from a healthcare professional deemed essential. CONCLUSIONS: The idea of risk stratification was favourable amongst this underserved community. To avoid exacerbating inequities, this new service should provide information in multiple languages and modalities and offer women the opportunity to speak to a healthcare professional about risk. This service should also enable completion of personal risk information via paper questionnaires, as well as online.

Engagement barriers and service inequities in the NHS Breast Screening Programme: Views from British-Pakistani women.

OBJECTIVES: Previous research has largely attempted to explore breast screening experiences of South Asian women by combining opinions from Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Indian women. This research often fails to reach the most underserved sub-groups of this population, with socioeconomic status not routinely reported, and English fluency being a participation requirement. With uptake low amongst British-Pakistani women, this study explores the experiences these women encounter when accessing the NHS Breast Screening Programme. METHODS: 19 one-to-one semi-structured interviews were carried out with British-Pakistani women from East Lancashire, UK. 14 interviews were conducted via an interpreter. RESULTS: Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Three themes were identified: 'Absence of autonomy in screening and healthcare access' describes how currently the screening service does not facilitate confidentiality or independence. Access requires third-party intervention, with language barriers preventing self-expression. 'Appraisal of information sources' makes distinctions between community and NHS communication. Whereas community communication was invaluable, NHS materials were deemed inaccessible due to translation incongruences and incomprehensible terminology. 'Personal suppositions of breast screening' explores the subjective issues associated with disengagement, including, the cultural misalignment of the service, and perceiving screening as a symptomatic service. CONCLUSIONS: British-Pakistani women face some unique challenges when accessing breast screening. To promote uptake, the service needs to address the translation of screening materials and optimize upon community networks to disseminate knowledge, including knowledge of the screening environment within the context of culture to promote informed choice about attendance.

Breast cancer risk status influences uptake, retention and efficacy of a weight loss programme amongst breast cancer screening attendees: two randomised controlled feasibility trials.

BACKGROUND: Excess body weight and sub-optimal lifestyle are modifiable causes of breast cancer and other diseases. There is little evidence that behaviour change is possible within screening programmes and whether this is influenced by prior knowledge of disease risk. We determined whether breast cancer risk influences uptake, retention and efficacy of a weight control programme in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme, and whether additional cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes risk information improves uptake and retention further. METHOD: Overweight/obese women in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme identified at high, moderately increased, average and low-risk of breast cancer were randomised to receive individualised breast cancer risk information (breast cancer prevention programme), or individualised breast cancer, cardiovascular disease (QRISK2) and type 2 diabetes (QDiabetes, HbA1c) information (multiple disease prevention programme). Personalised breast cancer risk feedback was given before randomisation in Study-1, and after randomisation in Study-2. RESULTS: Recruitment was 9% (126/1356) in Study-1 and 7% (52/738) in Study-2. With respect to breast cancer risk, odds ratio of uptake for high/moderately increased vs low risk women was 1.99 (95% CI 1.24-3.17, P = 0.004) in Study-1 and 3.58 (95% CI 1.59-8.07, P = 0.002) in Study-2. Odds ratio of retention for high/moderately increased -risk vs. low risk women was 2.98 (95% CI 1.05-8.47, P = 0.041) in Study-1 and 3.88 (95% CI 1.07-14.04, P = 0.039) in Study-2. Weight loss of ≥5% at 12 months was achieved by 63% high/moderate vs. 43% low-risk women in Study-1 (P = 0.083) and 39% vs. 8% in Study-2 (P = 0.008). Uptake, retention and weight loss were equivalent in both the breast cancer prevention programme and the multiple disease prevention programme in both studies. CONCLUSIONS: Women who are informed that they are at increased breast cancer risk were significantly more likely to join and remain in the programmes and consequently lose more weight across both studies. High risk women are more likely engage in a lifetyle prevention programme and also have the greatest potential benefit fom risk reduction strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN91372184 Registered 28 September 2014.

An examination of how speech and language therapists assess and diagnose children with specific language impairment in Ireland.

Three criteria for diagnosing specific language impairment (SLI) are defined in the literature: exclusionary definitions, inclusionary definitions, and qualitative markers. However, the assessment and diagnosis of this complex impairment in clinical practice can be challenging. The aims of this research were twofold: (1) to make explicit the current assessment procedures which speech and language therapists (SLTs) use when they diagnose children with SLI in Ireland, and (2) to explore SLT's perceptions and experiences of the process of diagnosing children with SLI. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used in this study. A survey of 199 SLTs in Ireland was carried out to address aim one and a focus group was conducted to address the second aim. The findings were that SLTs use exclusionary and inclusionary definitions of SLI, and qualitative markers when assessing children who they suspect may have SLI. SLTs in Ireland consider a diagnosis of SLI when children present with a verbal-performance discrepancy, a positive family history, word finding difficulties and lack of progress in therapy. The results of the qualitative strand indicated that assessment and diagnosis of children with SLI is a complex, time-consuming process involving other professionals. What emerged was a complex picture with tensions between therapists' professional judgements, policy, evidence-based practice and resources.