Patient and healthcare professionals' perceptions of a combined blood and faecal immunochemical test for excluding colorectal cancer diagnosis in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the perceptions of patients and healthcare professionals on Raman-faecal immunochemical test (FIT) as an alternative test for colorectal cancer exclusion in primary care. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews within a feasibility study. SETTING: Patients presenting to primary care with colorectal symptoms and healthcare professionals working in primary and secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 23 patients and 12 healthcare professionals. METHODS: Patient participants were asked to complete a novel combined Raman-FIT test before being seen in secondary care. This study sought their opinions about the test. We also sought the views of healthcare professionals. FINDINGS: Patients and healthcare professionals agreed that Raman-FIT was a suitable test to be given in primary care. It aligned with routine practice and was a simple test for most patients to complete. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are willing and able to complete the Raman-FIT test in primary care. Raman-FIT may accelerate access to diagnosis with the potential to improve cancer outcomes. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Lay members (J. H. and I. H.) with experience and knowledge of colorectal cancer and screening contributed to developing, undertaking, and disseminating all aspects of the research. They were supported to collaborate as equal members of the research team. They were involved in developing the study as coapplicants, using personal experience to ensure that the research and its methods were relevant to the patient and public needs. Both prepared participant information sheets, coanalysed data, and contributed to study reporting and dissemination through papers, conference presentations and a lay summary.

Effectiveness of the Strengthening Families Programme in the UK at preventing substance misuse in 10-14 year-olds: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The Strengthening Families Programme 10-14 (SFP10-14) is a USA-developed universal group-based intervention aiming to prevent substance misuse by strengthening protective factors within the family. This study evaluated a proportionate universal implementation of the adapted UK version (SFP10-14UK) which brought together families identified as likely/not likely to experience/present challenges within a group setting. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled effectiveness trial, with families as the unit of randomisation and embedded process and economic evaluations. SETTING: The study took place in seven counties of Wales, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 715 families (919 parents/carers, 931 young people) were randomised. INTERVENTIONS: Families randomised to the intervention arm received the SFP10-14 comprising seven weekly sessions. Families in intervention and control arms received existing services as normal. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the number of occasions young people reported drinking alcohol in the last 30 days; and drunkenness during the same period, dichotomised as 'never' and '1-2 times or more'. Secondary outcomes examined alcohol/tobacco/substance behaviours including: cannabis use; weekly smoking (validated by salivary cotinine measures); age of alcohol initiation; frequency of drinking >5 drinks in a row; frequency of different types of alcoholic drinks; alcohol-related problems. Retention: primary analysis included 746 young people (80.1%) (alcohol consumption) and 732 young people (78.6%) (drunkenness). RESULTS: There was no evidence of statistically significant between-group differences 2 years after randomisation for primary outcomes (young people's alcohol consumption in the last 30 days adjusted OR=1.11, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.71, p=0.646; drunkenness in the last 30 days adjusted OR=1.46, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.55, p=0.185). There were no statistically significant between-group differences for other substance use outcomes, or those relating to well-being/stress, and emotional/behavioural problems. CONCLUSIONS: Previous evidence of effectiveness was not replicated. Findings highlight the importance of evaluating interventions when they are adapted for new settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN63550893.Cite Now.

An application of Extended Normalisation Process Theory in a randomised controlled trial of a complex social intervention: Process evaluation of the Strengthening Families Programme (10-14) in Wales, UK.

PURPOSE: Process evaluations generate important data on the extent to which interventions are delivered as intended. However, the tendency to focus only on assessment of pre-specified structural aspects of fidelity has been criticised for paying insufficient attention to implementation processes and how intervention-context interactions influence programme delivery. This paper reports findings from a process evaluation nested within a randomised controlled trial of the Strengthening Families Programme 10-14 (SFP 10-14) in Wales, UK. It uses Extended Normalisation Process Theory to theorise how interaction between SFP 10-14 and local delivery systems - particularly practitioner commitment/capability and organisational capacity - influenced delivery of intended programme activities: fidelity (adherence to SFP 10-14 content and implementation requirements); dose delivered; dose received (participant engagement); participant recruitment and reach (intervention attendance). METHODS: A mixed methods design was utilised. Fidelity assessment sheets (completed by practitioners), structured observation by researchers, and routine data were used to assess: adherence to programme content; staffing numbers and consistency; recruitment/retention; and group size and composition. Interviews with practitioners explored implementation processes and context. RESULTS: Adherence to programme content was high - with some variation, linked to practitioner commitment to, and understanding of, the intervention's content and mechanisms. Variation in adherence rates was associated with the extent to which multi-agency delivery team planning meetings were held. Recruitment challenges meant that targets for group size/composition were not always met, but did not affect adherence levels or family engagement. Targets for staffing numbers and consistency were achieved, though capacity within multi-agency networks reduced over time. CONCLUSIONS: Extended Normalisation Process Theory provided a useful framework for assessing implementation and explaining variation by examining intervention-context interactions. Findings highlight the need for process evaluations to consider both the structural and process components of implementation to explain whether programme activities are delivered as intended and why.