"They are saying it's high, but I think it's quite low": exploring cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS health checks through video-stimulated recall interviews with patients - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: NHS Health Check (NHSHC) is a national cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk identification and management programme. However, evidence suggests a limited understanding of the most used metric to communicate CVD risk with patients (10-year percentage risk). This study used novel application of video-stimulated recall interviews to understand patient perceptions and understanding of CVD risk following an NHSHC that used one of two different CVD risk calculators. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured video-stimulated recall interviews were conducted with patients (n = 40) who had attended an NHSHC using either the QRISK2 10-year risk calculator (n = 19) or JBS3 lifetime CVD risk calculator (n = 21). Interviews were transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Analysis resulted in the development of four themes: variability in understanding, relief about personal risk, perceived changeability of CVD risk, and positive impact of visual displays. The first three themes were evident across the two patient groups, regardless of risk calculator; the latter related to JBS3 only. Patients felt relieved about their CVD risk, yet there were differences in understanding between calculators. Heart age within JBS3 prompted more accessible risk appraisal, yet mixed understanding was evident for both calculators. Event-free survival age also resulted in misunderstanding. QRISK2 patients tended to question the ability for CVD risk to change, while risk manipulation through JBS3 facilitated this understanding. Displaying information visually also appeared to enhance understanding. CONCLUSIONS: Effective communication of CVD risk within NHSHC remains challenging, and lifetime risk metrics still lead to mixed levels of understanding in patients. However, visual presentation of information, alongside risk manipulation during NHSHCs can help to increase understanding and prompt risk-reducing lifestyle changes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10443908. Registered 7th February 2017.

Psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to treatment, including inhaled therapies, is low in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). Although psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF have been developed, no previous published systematic review has evaluated the evidence for efficacy of these interventions. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the review was to assess the efficacy of psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). The secondary objective was to establish the most effective components, or behaviour change techniques (BCTs), used in these interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, which is compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched databases (PubMed; PsycINFO; EBSCO; Scopus; OpenGrey), trials registries (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov), and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, with no restrictions on language, year or publication status. Date of search: 7 August 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF of any age, or comparing psychological interventions with usual care. We included quasi-RCTs if we could reasonably assume that the baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and completed data extraction, risk of bias assessments, and BCT coding (using the BCT Taxonomy v1) for all included trials. We resolved any discrepancies by discussion, or by consultation with a third review author as necessary. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials (1642 participants) in the review (children and adolescents in four trials; adults in five trials; and children and adults in one trial). Nine trials compared a psychological intervention with usual care; we could combine data from some of these in a number of quantitative analyses. One trial compared a psychological intervention with an active comparator (education plus problem-solving (EPS)). We identified five ongoing trials. Psychological interventions were generally multi-component and complex, containing an average of 9.6 BCTs (range 1 to 28). The two most commonly used BCTs included 'problem-solving' and 'instruction on how to perform the behaviour'. Interventions varied in their type, content and mode of delivery. They included a problem-solving intervention; a paper-based self-management workbook; a telehealth intervention; a group training programme; a digital intervention comprising medication reminders and lung function self-monitoring; a life-coaching intervention; a motivational interviewing (MI) intervention; a brief MI intervention (behaviour change counselling); and a digital intervention combined with behaviour change sessions. Intervention duration ranged from 10 weeks to 12 months. Assessment time points ranged from six to eight weeks up to 23 months. Psychological interventions compared with usual care We report data here for the 'over six months and up to 12 months' time point. We found that psychological interventions probably improve adherence to inhaled therapies (primary outcome) in people with CF compared with usual care (mean difference (MD) 9.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.60 to 10.40; 1 study, 588 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups in our second primary outcome, treatment-related adverse events: anxiety (MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.40 to 1.00; 1 study, 535 participants), or depression (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.60; 1 study, 534 participants), although this was low-certainty evidence. For our secondary outcomes, there was no evidence of a difference between groups in terms of lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted MD 1.40, 95% CI -0.20 to 3.00; 1 study, 556 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of pulmonary exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.11; 1 study, 607 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or respiratory symptoms (MD 0.70, 95% CI -2.40 to 3.80; 1 study, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, psychological interventions may improve treatment burden (MD 3.90, 95% CI 1.20 to 6.60; 1 study, 539 participants; low-certainty evidence). The overall certainty of the evidence ranged from low to moderate across these outcomes. Reasons for downgrading included indirectness (current evidence included adults only whereas our review question was broader and focused on people of any age) and lack of blinding of outcome assessors. Psychological interventions compared with an active comparator For this comparison the overall certainty of evidence was very low, based on one trial (n = 128) comparing an MI intervention to EPS for 12 months. We are uncertain whether an MI intervention, compared with EPS, improves adherence to inhaled therapies, lung function, or quality of life in people with CF, or whether there is an effect on pulmonary exacerbations. The included trial for this comparison did not report on treatment-related adverse events (anxiety and depression). We downgraded all reported outcomes due to small participant numbers, indirectness (trials included only adults), and unclear risk of bias (e.g. selection and attrition bias). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limited quantity of trials included in this review, as well as the clinical and methodological heterogeneity, it was not possible to identify an overall intervention effect using meta-analysis. Some moderate-certainty evidence suggests that psychological interventions (compared with usual care) probably improve adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF, without increasing treatment-related adverse events, anxiety and depression (low-certainty evidence). In future review updates (with ongoing trial results included), we hope to be able to establish the most effective BCTs (or 'active ingredients') of interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF. Wherever possible, investigators should make use of the most objective measures of adherence available (e.g. data-logging nebulisers) to accurately determine intervention effects. Outcome reporting needs to be improved to enable combining or separation of measures as appropriate. Likewise, trial reporting needs to include details of intervention content (e.g. BCTs used); duration; intensity; and fidelity. Large trials with a longer follow-up period (e.g. 12 months) are needed in children with CF. Additionally, more research is needed to determine how to support adherence in 'under-served' CF populations.

Using social media for patient and public involvement and engagement in health research: The process and impact of a closed Facebook group.

BACKGROUND: As part of a multifaceted approach to patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE), alongside traditional methods, a closed Facebook group was established to facilitate PPIE feedback on various aspects of a project that used video-recording to examine risk communication in NHS Health Checks between June 2017 and July 2019. OBJECTIVE: To explore the process and impact of conducting PPIE through a closed Facebook group and to identify the associated benefits and challenges. METHODS: Supported by reflections and information from project meetings used to document how this engagement informed the project, we describe the creation and maintenance of the Facebook Group and how feedback from the group members was obtained. Facebook data were used to investigate levels and types of engagement in the closed Facebook group. We reflect on the challenges of using this method of engaging the public in health research. RESULTS: A total of 289 people joined the 'Risk Communication of Cardiovascular disease in NHS Health Checks' PPIE closed Facebook group. They provided feedback, which was used to inform aspects of the study, including participant-facing documents, recruitment, camera position and how the methodology being used (video-recorded Health Checks and follow-up interviews) would be received by the public. DISCUSSION: Using a closed Facebook group to facilitate PPIE offered a flexible approach for both researchers and participants, enabled a more inclusive method to PPIE (compared with traditional methods) and allowed rapid feedback. Challenges included maintaining the group, which was more labour intensive than anticipated and managing members' expectations. Suggestions for best practice include clear communication about the purpose of the group, assigning a group co-ordinator to be the main point of contact for the group, and a research team who can dedicate the time necessary to maintain the group. CONCLUSION: The use of a closed Facebook group can facilitate effective PPIE. Its flexibility can be beneficial for researchers, patients and public who wish to engage in the research process. Dedicated time for sustained group engagement is important. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient representatives were engaged with the development of the research described in this paper and a patient representative reviewed the manuscript.

Cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS Health Checks using QRISK®2 and JBS3 risk calculators: the RICO qualitative and quantitative study.

BACKGROUND: The NHS Health Check is a national cardiovascular disease prevention programme. There is a lack of evidence on how health checks are conducted, how cardiovascular disease risk is communicated to foster risk-reducing intentions or behaviour, and the impact on communication of using different cardiovascular disease risk calculators. OBJECTIVES: RIsk COmmunication in Health Check (RICO) study aimed to explore practitioner and patient understanding of cardiovascular disease risk, the associated advice or treatment offered by the practitioner, and the response of the patients in health checks supported by either the QRISK®2 or the JBS3 lifetime risk calculator. DESIGN: This was a qualitative study with quantitative process evaluation. SETTING: Twelve general practices in the West Midlands of England, stratified on deprivation of the local area (bottom 50% vs. top 50%), and with matched pairs randomly allocated to use QRISK2 or JBS3 during health checks. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 173 patients eligible for NHS Health Check and 15 practitioners. INTERVENTIONS: The health check was delivered using either the QRISK2 10-year risk calculator (usual practice) or the JBS3 lifetime risk calculator, with heart age, event-free survival age and risk score manipulation (intervention). RESULTS: Video-recorded health checks were analysed quantitatively (n = 173; JBS3, n = 100; QRISK2, n = 73) and qualitatively (n = 128; n = 64 per group), and video-stimulated recall interviews were undertaken with 40 patients and 15 practitioners, with 10 in-depth case studies. The duration of the health check varied (6.8-38 minutes), but most health checks were short (60% lasting < 20 minutes), with little cardiovascular disease risk discussion (average < 2 minutes). The use of JBS3 was associated with more cardiovascular disease risk discussion and fewer practitioner-dominated consultations than the use of QRISK2. Heart age and visual representations of risk, as used in JBS3, appeared to be better understood by patients than 10-year risk (QRISK2) and, as a result, the use of JBS3 was more likely to lead to discussion of risk factors and their management. Event-free survival age was not well understood by practitioners or patients. However, a lack of effective cardiovascular disease risk discussion in both groups increased the likelihood of a maladaptive coping response (i.e. no risk-reducing behaviour change). In both groups, practitioners often missed opportunities to check patient understanding and to tailor information on cardiovascular disease risk and its management during health checks, confirming apparent practitioner verbal dominance. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations were under-recruitment in some general practices and the resulting imbalance between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Communication of cardiovascular disease risk during health checks was brief, particularly when using QRISK2. Patient understanding of and responses to cardiovascular disease risk information were limited. Practitioners need to better engage patients in discussion of and action-planning for their cardiovascular disease risk to reduce misunderstandings. The use of heart age, visual representation of risk and risk score manipulation was generally seen to be a useful way of doing this. Future work could focus on more fundamental issues of practitioner training and time allocation within health check consultations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10443908. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

In England, NHS Health Checks aim to prevent cardiovascular diseases, such as heart attack and stroke. Health checks are conducted in primary care by a health-care assistant or practice nurse, who should measure the patient's risk of cardiovascular disease before advising them on how to reduce their risk. Cardiovascular disease risk is measured using a cardiovascular disease risk calculator. These calculators use various patient characteristics (e.g. age, sex, blood pressure and cholesterol) to predict how likely patients are to have a heart attack or stroke in the future. The aim of this study was to compare how practitioners explain cardiovascular disease risk to patients during health checks when using two risk calculators: QRISK^®2, which measures the risk of heart attack or stroke over the next 10 years (current usual practice), and JBS3 (a newer risk calculator), which gives this risk across the lifetime, is more interactive and has various visual displays of risk. We were interested to see if using JBS3 in health checks would lead to better practitioner and patient understanding of cardiovascular disease risk and result in patients intending to change, or actually changing, their behaviour to reduce their cardiovascular disease risk (compared with QRISK2). Health checks were video-recorded: 73 using QRISK2 and 100 using JBS3. Patients and members of the public advised on the study design, methods and management. Most consultations lasted < 20 minutes, with most time spent discussing the causes of cardiovascular disease. There was evidence that, compared with health checks using JBS3, those using QRISK2 led to less discussion of risk and practitioners speaking far more than patients. Sixty-four health checks from each risk calculator group were examined in depth. Opportunities to check whether or not patients understood the cardiovascular disease risk information and to encourage ways to lower risk were missed, making it less likely that patients would change their behaviour. The way that risk is presented by JBS3 seems to be more easily understood by patients than that presented by QRISK2. Nineteen patients in the QRISK2 group and 21 patients in the JBS3 group were interviewed 4 weeks after the consultation, and the practitioners were interviewed after they had completed all of their health checks. Patients found it difficult to understand and remember what they had been told about their cardiovascular disease risk during their health check. Their understanding and motivation to change behaviour appeared to be higher when they were visually shown how behaviour changes could lower their risk. Practitioners sometimes misunderstood risk and used patients' reactions to judge whether or not they understood, rather than asking them. Our findings should help to improve how cardiovascular disease risk is communicated during health checks in future, through simple changes to the consultations (e.g. using aspects of JBS3) and by highlighting a gap in practitioners' training.

Cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS Health Checks: a qualitative video-stimulated recall interview study with practitioners.

BACKGROUND: NHS Health Check (NHSHC) is a national programme to identify and manage cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Practitioners delivering the programme should be competent in discussing CVD risk, but there is evidence of limited understanding of the recommended 10-year percentage CVD risk scores. Lifetime CVD risk calculators might improve understanding and communication of risk. AIM: To explore practitioner understanding, perceptions, and experiences of CVD risk communication in NHSHCs when using two different CVD risk calculators. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative video-stimulated recall (VSR) study with NHSHC practitioners in the West Midlands. METHOD: VSR interviews were conducted with practitioners who delivered NHSHCs using either the QRISK2 10-year risk calculator (n = 7) or JBS3 lifetime CVD risk calculator (n = 8). Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: In total, nine healthcare assistants (HCAs) and six general practice nurses (GPNs) were interviewed. There was limited understanding and confidence of 10-year risk, which was used to guide clinical decisions through determining low-, medium-, or high-risk thresholds, rather than as a risk communication tool. Potential benefits of some JBS3 functions were evident, particularly heart age, risk manipulation, and visual presentation of risk. CONCLUSION: There is a gap between the expectation and reality of practitioners' understanding, competencies, and training in CVD risk communication for NHSHCs. Practitioners would welcome heart age and risk manipulation functions of JBS3 to promote patient understanding of CVD risk, but there is a more fundamental need for practitioner training in CVD risk communication.

What behavior change techniques are associated with effective interventions to reduce screen time in 0-5 year olds? A narrative systematic review.

Screen time has been linked to obesity in young children. Therefore, this systematic review aims to investigate which Behavior Change Techniques (BCTs) are associated with the effectiveness of interventions to reduce screen time in 0-5 year olds. Seven databases were searched, including PsycInfo, PubMed, and Medline. Grey literature searches were conducted. Inclusion criteria were interventions reporting pre- and post- outcomes with the primary objective of reducing screen time in 0-5 year olds. Studies were quality assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project criteria. Data extracted included participant characteristics, intervention characteristics and screen time outcomes. The BCT Taxonomy was used to extract BCTs. Interventions were categorised as "very", "quite" or "non" promising based on effect sizes. BCTs were deemed promising if they were in twice as many very/quite promising interventions as non-promising interventions. Seven randomised controlled trials were included, involving 642 participants between 2.5 and 5.0 years old. One very promising, four quite promising, and two non-promising interventions were identified. Screen time decreased by 25-39 min per day in very/quite promising interventions. Eleven BCTs were deemed promising, including "behavior substitution" and "information about social and environmental consequences". This review identified eleven promising BCTs, which should be incorporated into future screen time interventions with young children. However, most included studies were of weak quality and limited by the populations targeted. Therefore, future methodologically rigorous interventions targeting at-risk populations with higher screen time, such as those of a low socioeconomic status and children with a high BMI, should be prioritized.

Association between age at first reported e-cigarette use and subsequent regular e-cigarette, ever cigarette and regular cigarette use.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Association of electronic cigarette use and subsequent smoking has received considerable attention, although age of first use has not. This study tested differences in regular (e-cigarettes, cigarettes) and ever (cigarettes) use between e-cigarette user groups: early versus never users, late versus never users, early versus late users and effects of controlling for covariates. DESIGN: Prospective study with 12- and 24-month follow-up of e-cigarette/cigarette ever/regular use with data from an intervention. SETTING: Forty-five schools in England (Staffordshire and Yorkshire). PARTICIPANTS: Never smokers (3289 13-14-year-olds) who were part of a cluster randomized controlled trial. MEASUREMENTS: The sample was divided into groups of e-cigarette users: early users (at 13-14 years), late users (at 14-15 years) and never users (at 13-14 and 14-15 years). Dependent variables were self-reported regular e-cigarette and cigarette use and ever cigarette use at 15-16 years. Covariates were assessed. FINDINGS: Early and late users compared with never users were significantly more likely to be regular e-cigarette users [early: odds ratio (OR) = 9.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 5.38, 16.49, P < 0.001; late: OR = 6.89, 95% CI = 4.11, 11.54, P < 0.001], ever cigarette users (early: OR = 7.96, 95% CI = 6.02, 10.53, P < 0.001; late: OR = 5.13, 95% CI = 3.85, 6.84, P < 0.001) and regular cigarette users (early: OR = 7.80, 95% CI = 3.99, 15.27, P < 0.001; late: OR = 4.34, 95% CI = 1.93, 9.77, P < 0.001) at age 15-16 years. Late users compared with early users had significantly lower rates of ever use of cigarettes at 15-16 years (OR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.35, 0.66, P < 0.001), although this difference was non-significant at 12 months after first use of e-cigarettes (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.64, 1.25, P = 0.498). Controlling for covariates did not change the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents in England who report using e-cigarettes at age 13-14 years have higher rates of subsequently initiating cigarette use than adolescents who report using e-cigarettes at age 14-15 years, a difference that may be attributable to a longer period of time to initiate cigarette use in former group.

A qualitative exploration of two risk calculators using video-recorded NHS health check consultations.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to explore practitioner-patient interactions and patient responses when using QRISK®2 or JBS3 cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculators. Data were from video-recorded NHS Health Check (NHSHC) consultations captured as part of the UK RIsk COmmunication (RICO) study; a qualitative study of video-recorded NHSHC consultations from 12 general practices in the West Midlands, UK. Participants were those eligible for NHSHC based on national criteria (40-74 years old, no existing diagnoses for cardiovascular-related conditions, not on statins), and practitioners, who delivered the NHSHC. METHOD: NHSHCs were video-recorded. One hundred twenty-eight consultations were transcribed and analysed using deductive thematic analysis and coded using a template based around Protection Motivation Theory. RESULTS: Key themes used to frame the analysis were Cognitive Appraisal (Threat Appraisal, and Coping Appraisal), and Coping Modes (Adaptive, and Maladaptive). Analysis showed little evidence of CVD risk communication, particularly in consultations using QRISK®2. Practitioners often missed opportunities to check patient understanding and encourage risk- reducing behaviour, regardless of the risk calculator used resulting in practitioner verbal dominance. JBS3 appeared to better promote opportunities to initiate risk-factor discussion, and Heart Age and visual representation of risk were more easily understood and impactful than 10-year percentage risk. However, a lack of effective CVD risk discussion in both risk calculator groups increased the likelihood of a maladaptive coping response. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis demonstrates the importance of effective, shared practitioner-patient discussion to enable adaptive coping responses to CVD risk information, and highlights a need for effective and evidence-based practitioner training. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN10443908 . Registered 7th February 2017.

Quantitative examination of video-recorded NHS Health Checks: comparison of the use of QRISK2 versus JBS3 cardiovascular risk calculators.

OBJECTIVES: Quantitatively examine the content of National Health Service Health Check (NHSHC), patient-practitioner communication balance and differences when using QRISK2 versus JBS3 cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculators. DESIGN: RIsk COmmunication in NHSHC was a qualitative study with quantitative process evaluation, comparing NHSHC using QRISK2 or JBS3. We present data from the quantitative process evaluation. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twelve general practices in the West Midlands (England) conducted NHSHC using JBS3 or QRISK2 (6/group). Patients were eligible for NHSHC based on national criteria (aged 40-74, no existing cardiovascular-related diagnoses, not taking statins). Recruitment was stratified by patients' age, gender and ethnicity. METHODS: Video recordings of NHSHC were coded, second-by-second, to quantify who was speaking and what was being discussed. Outcomes included consultation duration, practitioner verbal dominance (ratio of practitioner:patient speaking time (pr:pt ratio)) and proportion of time discussing CVD risk, risk factors and risk management. RESULTS: 173 video-recorded NHSHC were analysed (73 QRISK, 100 JBS3). The sample was 51% women, 83% white British, with approximately equal proportions across age groups. NHSHC duration varied greatly (6.8-38.0 min). Most (60%) lasted less than 20 min. On average, CVD risk was discussed for less than 2 min (9.06%±4.30% of consultation time). There were indications that, compared with NHSHC using JBS3, those with QRISK2 involved less CVD risk discussion (JBS3 M=10.24%, CI: 8.01-12.48 vs QRISK2 M=7.44%, CI: 5.29-9.58) and were more verbally dominated by practitioners (pr:pt ratio JBS3 M=3.21%, CI: 2.44-3.97 vs QRISK2=2.35%, CI: 1.89-2.81). The largest proportion of NHSHC time was spent discussing causal risk factors (M=37.54%, CI: 32.92-42.17). CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variation in NHSHC duration. Many were short and practitioner-dominated, with little time discussing CVD risk. JBS3 appears to extend CVD risk discussion and patient contribution. Qualitative examination of how it is used is necessary to fully understand the potential benefits of these differences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10443908.

Evidence that an intervention weakens the relationship between adolescent electronic cigarette use and tobacco smoking: a 24-month prospective study.

BACKGROUND: The electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use to subsequent smoking relationship in adolescents has received much attention. Whether an intervention to reduce smoking initiation attenuated this relationship was assessed. METHOD: Data were from 3994 adolescent never smokers (aged 13-14 years at baseline) as part of a cluster randomised controlled trial. Self-report measures of smoking, e-cigarette use and covariates were assessed and used to predict ever smoked cigarettes, any recent tobacco smoking and regularly smoked cigarettes at 24-month follow-up. RESULTS: Baseline ever use of e-cigarettes was associated with ever smoked cigarettes (OR=4.03, 95% CI 3.33 to 4.88; controlling for covariates, OR=2.78, 95% CI 2.20 to 3.51), any recent tobacco smoking (OR=3.38, 95% CI 2.72 to 4.21; controlling for covariates, OR=2.17, 95% CI 1.76 to 2.69) and regularly smoked cigarettes (OR=3.60, 95% CI 2.35 to 5.51; controlling for covariates, OR=1.27, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.39) at follow-up. For ever smoked cigarettes only, the impact of e-cigarette use was attenuated in the intervention (OR=1.83) compared with control (OR=4.53) condition. For ever smoked cigarettes and any recent tobacco smoking, the impact of e-cigarette use was attenuated among those with friends who smoked (OR=2.05 (ever smoked); 1·53 (any tobacco use)) compared with those without friends who smoked (OR=3.32 (ever smoked); 2·17 (any tobacco use)). CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first studies to show that e-cigarette use was robustly associated with measures of smoking over 24 months and the first to show an intervention to attenuate the relationship. Further research with a broader age range of adolescents is required.

Patterns and predictors of e-cigarette, cigarette and dual use uptake in UK adolescents: evidence from a 24-month prospective study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To assess prevalence and predictors of e-cigarettes/cigarettes patterns of use in adolescents in England. DESIGN: Prospective study with 24-month follow-up of e-cigarette/cigarette ever/regular use with data from an intervention evaluation. SETTING: Forty-five schools in England (Staffordshire and Yorkshire). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3210 adolescents who, at baseline, were aged 13-14 years and had never used e-cigarettes/cigarettes. MEASUREMENTS: Based on e-cigarette/cigarette ever use at follow-up, six groups were created: (a) never user, (b) e-cigarette only, (c) cigarette only, (d) dual use-order of use unclear, (e) dual use-e-cigarettes used first and (f) dual use-cigarettes used first. Baseline measures were: gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status, impulsivity, family plus friend smoking and smoking-related beliefs (attitude and perceived behavioural control). FINDINGS: In groups (a) to (f), there were 71.5, 13.3, 3.3, 5.7, 2.9 and 3.4% adolescents, respectively. Among groups using cigarettes, regular smoking was more prevalent in group (f) (dual use-cigarettes used first) [17.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 10.4, 24.8] than in groups (c), (d) and (e) combined (7.3%, 95% CI = 4.7, 9.9). Among groups using e-cigarettes, regular use was less prevalent in group (b) (e-cigarette only) (1.9%, 95% CI = 0.6, 3.2) than in groups (d), (e) and (f) combined (12.2%, 95% CI = 8.9, 15.5). Higher impulsivity plus friends and family smoking were predictive of being in groups (b) to (f) compared with group (a) (never users). Males were more likely to be in group (b) compared to group (a); females were more likely to be in groups (c) to (f) compared to group (a). CONCLUSIONS: Regular use of e-cigarettes/cigarettes varies across groups defined by ever use of e-cigarettes/cigarettes. Interventions targeted at tackling impulsivity or adolescents whose friends and family members smoke may represent fruitful avenues for future research.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of repeated implementation intention formation on adolescent smoking initiation: A cluster randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Forming implementation intentions (if-then plans) about how to refuse cigarette offers plus antismoking messages was tested for reducing adolescent smoking. METHOD: Cluster randomized controlled trial with schools randomized (1:1) to receive implementation intention intervention and messages targeting not smoking (intervention) or completing homework (control). Adolescents (11-12 years at baseline) formed implementation intentions and read messages on 8 occasions over 4 years meaning masking treatment allocation was not possible. Outcomes were: follow-up (48 months) ever smoking, any smoking in last 30 days, regular smoking, and breath carbon monoxide levels. Analyses excluded baseline ever smokers, controlled for clustering by schools and examined effects of controlling for demographic variables. Economic evaluation (incremental cost effectiveness ratio; ICER) was conducted. Trial is registered (ISRCTN27596806). RESULTS: Schools were randomly allocated (September-October 2012) to intervention (n = 25) or control (n = 23). At follow-up, among 6,155 baseline never smokers from 45 retained schools, ever smoking was significantly lower (RR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.71, 0.97], p = .016) in intervention (29.3%) compared with control (35.8%) and remained so controlling for demographics. Similar patterns observed for any smoking in last 30 days. Less consistent effects were observed for regular smoking and breath carbon monoxide levels. Economic analysis yielded an ICER of $134 per ever smoker avoided at age 15-16 years. CONCLUSIONS: This pragmatic trial supports the use of repeated implementation intentions about how to refuse the offer of a cigarette plus antismoking messages as an effective and cost-effective intervention to reduce smoking initiation in adolescents. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

A qualitative study of cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS Health Check using different risk calculators: protocol for the RIsk COmmunication in NHS Health Check (RICO) study.

BACKGROUND: NHS Health Check is a national cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment programme for 40-74 year olds in England, in which practitioners should assess and communicate CVD risk, supported by appropriate risk-management advice and goal-setting. This requires effective communication, to equip patients with knowledge and intention to act. Currently, the QRISK®2 10-year CVD risk score is most common way in which CVD risk is estimated. Newer tools, such as JBS3, allow manipulation of risk factors and can demonstrate the impact of positive actions. However, the use, and relative value, of these tools within CVD risk communication is unknown. We will explore practitioner and patient CVD risk perceptions when using QRISK®2 or JBS3, the associated advice or treatment offered by the practitioner, and patients' responses. METHODS: RIsk COmmunication in NHS Health Check (RICO) is a qualitative study with quantitative process evaluation. Twelve general practices in the West Midlands of England will be randomised to one of two groups: usual practice, in which practitioners use QRISK®2 to assess and communicate CVD risk; intervention, in which practitioners use JBS3. Twenty Health Checks per practice will be video-recorded (n = 240, 120 per group), with patients stratified by age, gender and ethnicity. Post-Health Check, video-stimulated recall (VSR) interviews will be conducted with 48 patients (n = 24 per group) and all practitioners (n = 12-18), using video excerpts to enhance participant recall/reflection. Patient medical record reviews will detect health-protective actions in the first 12-weeks following a Health Check (e.g., lifestyle referrals, statin prescription). Risk communication, patient response and intentions for health-protective behaviours in each group will be explored through thematic analysis of video-recorded Health Checks (using Protection Motivation Theory as a framework) and VSR interviews. Process evaluation will include between-group comparisons of quantitatively coded Health Check content and post-Health Check patient outcomes. Finally, 10 patients with the most positive intentions or behaviours will be selected for case study analysis (using all data sources). DISCUSSION: This study will produce novel insights about the utility of QRISK®2 and JBS3 to promote patient and practitioner understanding and perception of CVD risk and associated implications for patient intentions with respect to health-protective behaviours (and underlying mechanisms). Recommendations for practice will be developed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN10443908 . Registered 7th February 2017.

Exploring the Facilitators and Barriers to Physical Activity in Older People With Sight Loss.

This study aimed to explore facilitators and barriers to physical activity in older people with sight loss. Focus groups were conducted with 13 community-dwelling older adults with sight loss ranging from poor to completely blind. Transcripts were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis. Facilitators and barriers are experienced in three ways: psychologically; through opportunity and access; and at a societal and policy level. Campaigns are needed to challenge unhelpful age-related stereotypes at both psychological and societal levels. Additionally, interventions grounded in evidence and theory should be trialled and evaluated for increasing physical activity in this population.

Do electronic cigarettes increase cigarette smoking in UK adolescents? Evidence from a 12-month prospective study.

BACKGROUND: In cross-sectional surveys, increasing numbers of adolescents report using both electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and cigarettes. This study assessed whether adolescent e-cigarette use was associated prospectively with initiation or escalation of cigarette use. METHODS: Data were from 2836 adolescents (aged 13-14 years at baseline) in 20 schools in England. At baseline, breath carbon monoxide levels, self-reported e-cigarette and cigarette use, sex, age, friends and family smoking, beliefs about cigarette use and percentage receiving free school meals (measure of socioeconomic status) were assessed. At 12-month follow-up, self-reported cigarette use was assessed and validated by breath carbon monoxide levels. RESULTS: At baseline, 34.2% of adolescents reported ever using e-cigarettes (16.0% used only e-cigarettes). Baseline ever use of e-cigarettes was strongly associated with subsequent initiation (n=1726; OR 5.38, 95% CI 4.02 to 7.22; controlling for covariates, OR 4.06, 95% CI 2.94 to 5.60) and escalation (n=318; OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.21; controlling for covariates, this effect became non-significant, OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.82) of cigarette use. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to report prospective relationships between ever use of e-cigarettes and initiation and escalation of cigarette use among UK adolescents. Ever use of e-cigarettes was robustly associated with initiation but more modestly related to escalation of cigarette use. Further research with longer follow-up in a broader age range of adolescents is required.

A qualitative investigation of non-response in NHS health checks.

BACKGROUND: Improving uptake of NHS Health Checks has become a priority in England, but there is a lack of data on the perceptions of programme non-attenders. This study aimed to explore how non-attenders of NHS Health Checks perceive the programme, identify reasons for non-attendance and inform strategies to improve uptake. METHOD: This qualitative study involved individuals registered at four general practices in Stoke-on-Trent, UK, who had not taken up their invitation to a NHS Health Check. Semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for Thematic Analysis. RESULTS: Interviews were completed with 19 males and 22 females (mean age 52.9 ± 8.5 years), who were socio-demographically representative of the non-attender population. Four main themes identified related to: the positive perception of the Health Check concept among non-attenders; the perceived lack of personal relevance; ineffective invitation method and appointment inconvenience were common barriers; previous experience of primary care can influence uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Fundamental requirements for improving uptake are that individuals recognise the personal relevance of Health Checks and that attendance is convenient. Incorporating more sophisticated and personalised risk communication as part of the invitation could increase impact and promote candidacy. Flexibility and convenience of appointments should be considered by participating general practices.

Method of invitation and geographical proximity as predictors of NHS Health Check uptake.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of NHS Health Checks remains below the national target. Better understanding of predictors of uptake can inform targeting and delivery. We explored invitation method and geographical proximity as predictors of uptake in deprived urban communities. METHODS: This observational cohort study used data from all 4855 individuals invited for an NHS Health Check (September 2010-February 2014) at five general practices in Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Attendance/non-attendance was the binary outcome variable. Predictor variables included the method of invitation, general practice, demographics, deprivation and distance to Health Check location. RESULTS: Mean attendance (61.6%) was above the city and national average, but varied by practice (47.5-83.3%; P < 0.001). Telephone/verbal invitations were associated with higher uptake than postal invitations (OR = 2.87, 95% CI = 2.26-3.64), yet significant practice-level variation remained. Distance to Health Check was not associated with attendance. Increasing age (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.03-1.04), female gender (OR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.30-1.68) and living in the least deprived areas (OR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.23-2.05) were all independent positive predictors of attendance. CONCLUSIONS: Using verbal or telephone invitations should be considered to improve Health Check uptake. Other differences in recruitment and delivery that might explain remaining practice-level variation in uptake warrant further exploration. Geographical proximity may not be an important predictor of uptake in urban populations.