Proactive review for people with diabetes in hospital: a cluster randomised feasibility trial with process evaluation, protocol V3.1.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes inpatient specialist services vary across the country, with limited evidence to guide service delivery. Currently, referrals to diabetes inpatient specialists are usually 'reactive' after diabetes-related events have taken place, which are associated with an increased risk of morbidity/mortality and increased length of hospital stay. We propose that a proactive diabetes review model of care, delivered by diabetes inpatient specialist nurses, may contribute to the prevention of such diabetes-related events and result in a reduction in the risk of harm. METHOD: We will conduct a cluster randomised feasibility study with process evaluation. The proactive diabetes review model (PDRM) is a complex intervention that focuses on the prevention of potentially modifiable diabetes-related harms. All eligible patients will receive a comprehensive, structured diabetes review that aims to identify and prevent potentially modifiable diabetes-related harms through utilising a standardised review structure. Reviews are undertaken by a diabetes inpatient specialist nurse within one working day of admission. This differs from usual care where patients are often only seen after diabetes-related harms have taken place. The trial duration will be approximately 32 weeks, with intervention delivery throughout. There will be an initial 8-week run-in phase, followed by a 24-week data collection phase. Eight wards will be equally randomised to either PDRM or usual care. Adult patients with a known diagnosis of diabetes admitted to an included ward will be eligible. Data collection will be limited to that typically collected as part of usual care. Data collected will include descriptive data at both the ward and patient level and glucose measures, such as frequency and results of capillary glucose testing, ketonaemia and hypoglycaemic events. The analysis aims to determine the fidelity and acceptability of the intervention and the feasibility of a future definitive trial. Whilst this study is primarily about trial feasibility, the findings of the process evaluation may lead to changes to both trial processes and modifications to the intervention. A qualitative process evaluation will be conducted in parallel to the trial. A minimum of 22 patients, nurses, doctors, and managers will be recruited with methods including direct non-participant observation and semi-structured interviews. The feasibility of a future definitive trial will be assessed by evaluating recruitment and randomisation processes, staffing resources and quality of available data. DISCUSSION: The aim of this cluster randomised feasibility trial with a process evaluation is to explore the feasibility of a definitive trial and identify appropriate outcome measures. If a trial is feasible and the effectiveness of PDRM can be evaluated, this could inform the future development of inpatient diabetes services nationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UK Clinical Research Network, 51,167. ISRCTN, ISRCTN70402110. Registered on 21 February 2022.

Decentralising chronic disease management in sub-Saharan Africa: a protocol for the qualitative process evaluation of community-based integrated management of HIV, diabetes and hypertension in Tanzania and Uganda.

INTRODUCTION: Sub-Saharan Africa continues to experience a syndemic of HIV and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Vertical (stand-alone) HIV programming has provided high-quality care in the region, with almost 80% of people living with HIV in regular care and 90% virally suppressed. While integrated health education and concurrent management of HIV, hypertension and diabetes are being scaled up in clinics, innovative, more efficient and cost-effective interventions that include decentralisation into the community are required to respond to the increased burden of comorbid HIV/NCD disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes procedures for a process evaluation running concurrently with a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial (INTE-COMM) in Tanzania and Uganda that will compare community-based integrated care (HIV, diabetes and hypertension) with standard facility-based integrated care. The INTE-COMM intervention will manage multiple conditions (HIV, hypertension and diabetes) in the community via health monitoring and adherence/lifestyle advice (medicine, diet and exercise) provided by community nurses and trained lay workers, as well as the devolvement of NCD drug dispensing to the community level. Based on Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory, the process evaluation will use qualitative methods to investigate sociostructural factors shaping care delivery and outcomes in up to 10 standard care facilities and/or intervention community sites with linked healthcare facilities. Multistakeholder interviews (patients, community health workers and volunteers, healthcare providers, policymakers, clinical researchers and international and non-governmental organisations), focus group discussions (community leaders and members) and non-participant observations (community meetings and drug dispensing) will explore implementation from diverse perspectives at three timepoints in the trial implementation. Iterative sampling and analysis, moving between data collection points and data analysis to test emerging theories, will continue until saturation is reached. This process of analytic reflexivity and triangulation across methods and sources will provide findings to explain the main trial findings and offer clear directions for future efforts to sustain and scale up community-integrated care for HIV, diabetes and hypertension. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by the University College of London (UK), the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Ethics Committee (UK), the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology and the Uganda Virus Research Institute Research and Ethics Committee (Uganda) and the Medical Research Coordinating Committee of the National Institute for Medical Research (Tanzania). The University College of London is the trial sponsor. Dissemination of findings will be done through journal publications and stakeholder meetings (with study participants, healthcare providers, policymakers and other stakeholders), local and international conferences, policy briefs, peer-reviewed journal articles and publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15319595.

Doing research in non-specialist mental health services for children and young people: lessons learnt from a process evaluation of the ICALM (Interpersonal Counselling for Adolescent Low Mood) feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The rising prevalence of adolescent mild depression in the UK and the paucity of evidence-based interventions in non-specialist sectors where most cases present, creates an urgent need for early psychological interventions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for obtaining unbiased estimates of intervention effectiveness. However, the complexity of mental health settings poses great challenges for effectiveness evaluations. This paper reports learning from an embedded process evaluation of the ICALM RCT which tested the feasibility of delivering Interpersonal Counselling for Adolescents (IPC-A) plus Treatment as Usual (TAU) versus TAU only for adolescent (age 12-18) mild depression by non-qualified mental health professionals in non-specialist sectors. METHODS: A qualitative mixed methods process evaluation, drawing on Bronfenbrenner's socioecological model to investigate key influences on trial delivery across macro-(e.g. policy), meso-(e.g. service characteristics) and micro-(e.g. on-site trial processes) contextual levels. Data collection methods included 9 site questionnaires, 4 observations of team meetings, policy documents, and 18 interviews with stakeholders including therapists, heads of service and managers. Thematic analysis focused on understanding how contextual features shaped trial implementation. RESULTS: The ICALM trial concluded in 2022 having only randomised 14 out of the target 60 young people. At a macro-level, trial delivery was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, with services reporting a sharp increase in cases of (social) anxiety over low mood, and backlogs at central referral points which prolonged waiting times for mild cases (e.g. low mood). An interaction between high demand and lack of capacity at a meso-service level led to low prioritisation of trial activities at a micro-level. Unfamiliarity with research processes (e.g. randomisation) and variation in TAU support also accentuated the complexities of conducting an RCT in this setting. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting a RCT of IPC-A in non-specialist services is not feasible in the current context. Failure to conduct effectiveness trials in this setting has clinical implications, potentially resulting in escalation of mild mental health problems. Research done in this setting should adopt pragmatic and innovative recruitment and engagement approaches (e.g. creating new referral pathways) and consider alternative trial designs, e.g. cluster, stepped-wedge or non-controlled studies using complex systems approaches to embrace contextual complexity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN82180413. Registered on 31 December 2019.

Mobilising context as complex and dynamic in evaluations of complex health interventions.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between healthcare interventions and context is widely conceived as involving complex and dynamic interactions over time. However, evaluations of complex health interventions frequently fail to mobilise such complexity, reporting context and interventions as reified and demarcated categories. This raises questions about practices shaping knowledge about context, with implications for who and what we make visible in our research. Viewed through the lens of case study research, we draw on data collected for the Triple C study (focused on Case study, Context and Complex interventions), to critique these practices, and call for system-wide changes in how notions of context are operationalised in evaluations of complex health interventions. METHODS: The Triple C study was funded by the Medical Research Council to develop case study guidance and reporting principles taking account of context and complexity. As part of this study, a one-day workshop with 58 participants and nine interviews were conducted with those involved in researching, evaluating, publishing, funding and developing policy and practice from case study research. Discussions focused on how to conceptualise and operationalise context within case study evaluations of complex health interventions. Analysis focused on different constructions and connections of context in relation to complex interventions and the wider social forces structuring participant's accounts. RESULTS: We found knowledge-making practices about context shaped by epistemic and political forces, manifesting as: tensions between articulating complexity and clarity of description; ontological (in)coherence between conceptualisations of context and methods used; and reified versions of context being privileged when communicating with funders, journals, policymakers and publics. CONCLUSION: We argue that evaluations of complex health interventions urgently requires wide-scale critical reflection on how context is mobilised - by funders, health services researchers, journal editors and policymakers. Connecting with how scholars approach complexity and context across disciplines provides opportunities for creatively expanding the field in which health evaluations are conducted, enabling a critical standpoint to long-established traditions and opening up possibilities for innovating the design of evaluations of complex health interventions.

Management of chronic conditions in resource limited settings: multi stakeholders' perception and experiences with receiving and providing integrated HIV, diabetes and hypertension services in Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: The rising prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) alongside the continuing high burden of HIV poses a serious challenge to middle- and low-income countries' healthcare systems. Pilot studies of integrated models of service delivery for HIV, hypertension and diabetes have demonstrated that they are feasible and acceptable among patients and care providers. This study assessed multi-stakeholders' perspectives of the delivery and receipt of integrated care in Tanzania. METHODS: A qualitative process evaluation was conducted in Dar es Salaam region of Tanzania where the integrated service delivery model was implemented from July to November 2021. In-depth interviews were held with seven key informants at the national, regional and district levels, eight healthcare providers, two researchers working at the integrated clinic and forty patients benefiting from integrated services at a large hospital. Three focus group discussions were held with community leaders and residents of the hospital's catchment area, and clinic level observations were conducted. Thematic analysis was conducted followed by the use of Bronfenbrenner's ecological model to identify factors pertinent to sustaining and scaling up of the integrated model. RESULTS: Participants of the study at all levels were aware of the increased prevalence of NCDs specifically for hypertension and diabetes and were concerned about the trend of increasing co-morbid conditions among people living with HIV (PLHIV). The integrated service delivery model was positively perceived by stakeholders because of its multiple benefits for both patients and the healthcare system. These include stigma and discrimination reduction, improved quality of care, efficient use of limited resources, cost and time saving, reduced duplication of services and fostering of early detection for undiagnosed conditions. The organisation of the clinic was critical in increased satisfaction. Several challenges were observed, which included costs for NCD services relative to free care for HIV and inconsistent availability of NCD medications. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders reported numerous benefits of the integrated service delivery model that are fundamental in improving the health of many Tanzanians living with NCDs and HIV. These benefits highlight the need for policy and decision-makers to sustain and expand the integrated service delivery model as a solution to many challenges facing the health system especially at the primary care level.

Codesigning a systemic discharge intervention for inpatient mental health settings (MINDS): a protocol for integrating realist evaluation and an engineering-based systems approach.

INTRODUCTION: Transition following discharge from mental health hospital is high risk in terms of relapse, readmission and suicide. Discharge planning supports transition and reduces risk. It is a complex activity involving interacting systemic elements. The codesigning a systemic discharge intervention for inpatient mental health settings (MINDS) study aims to improve the process for people being discharged, their carers/supporters and staff who work in mental health services, by understanding, co-designing and evaluating implementation of a systemic approach to discharge planning. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The MINDS study integrates realist research and an engineering-informed systems approach across three stages. Stage 1 applies realist review and evaluation using a systems approach to develop programme theories of discharge planning. Stage 2 uses an Engineering Better Care framework to codesign a novel systemic discharge intervention, which will be subjected to process and economic evaluation in stage 3. The programme theories and resulting care planning approach will be refined throughout the study ready for a future clinical trial. MINDS is co-led by an expert by experience, with researchers with lived experience co-leading each stage. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: MINDS stage 1 has received ethical approval from Yorkshire & The Humber-Bradford Leeds (Research Ethics Committee (22/YH/0122). Findings from MINDS will be disseminated via high-impact journal publications and conference presentations, including those with service user and mental health professional audiences. We will establish routes to engage with public and service user communities and National Health Service professionals including blogs, podcasts and short videos. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: MINDS is funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR 133013) https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR133013. The realist review protocol is registered on PROSPERO. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021293255.

Implementing integrated care clinics for HIV-infection, diabetes and hypertension in Uganda (INTE-AFRICA): process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sub-Saharan Africa is experiencing a dual burden of chronic human immunodeficiency virus and non-communicable diseases. A pragmatic parallel arm cluster randomised trial (INTE-AFRICA) scaled up 'one-stop' integrated care clinics for HIV-infection, diabetes and hypertension at selected facilities in Uganda. These clinics operated integrated health education and concurrent management of HIV, hypertension and diabetes. A process evaluation (PE) aimed to explore the experiences, attitudes and practices of a wide variety of stakeholders during implementation and to develop an understanding of the impact of broader structural and contextual factors on the process of service integration. METHODS: The PE was conducted in one integrated care clinic, and consisted of 48 in-depth interviews with stakeholders (patients, healthcare providers, policy-makers, international organisation, and clinical researchers); three focus group discussions with community leaders and members (n = 15); and 8 h of clinic-based observation. An inductive analytical approach collected and analysed the data using the Empirical Phenomenological Psychological five-step method. Bronfenbrenner's ecological framework was subsequently used to conceptualise integrated care across multiple contextual levels (macro, meso, micro). RESULTS: Four main themes emerged; Implementing the integrated care model within healthcare facilities enhances detection of NCDs and comprehensive co-morbid care; Challenges of NCD drug supply chains; HIV stigma reduction over time, and Health education talks as a mechanism for change. Positive aspects of integrated care centred on the avoidance of duplication of care processes; increased capacity for screening, diagnosis and treatment of previously undiagnosed comorbid conditions; and broadening of skills of health workers to manage multiple conditions. Patients were motivated to continue receiving integrated care, despite frequent NCD drug stock-outs; and development of peer initiatives to purchase NCD drugs. Initial concerns about potential disruption of HIV care were overcome, leading to staff motivation to continue delivering integrated care. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing integrated care has the potential to sustainably reduce duplication of services, improve retention in care and treatment adherence for co/multi-morbid patients, encourage knowledge-sharing between patients and providers, and reduce HIV stigma. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN43896688.

TRIPLE C reporting principles for case study evaluations of the role of context in complex interventions.

BACKGROUND: Guidance and reporting principles such as CONSORT (for randomised trials) and PRISMA (for systematic reviews) have greatly improved the reporting, discoverability, transparency and consistency of published research. We sought to develop similar guidance for case study evaluations undertaken to explore the influence of context on the processes and outcomes of complex interventions. METHODS: A range of experts were recruited to an online Delphi panel, sampling for maximum diversity in disciplines (e.g. public health, health services research, organisational studies), settings (e.g. country), and sectors (e.g. academic, policy, third sector). To inform panel deliberations, we prepared background materials based on: [a] a systematic meta-narrative review of empirical and methodological literatures on case study, context and complex interventions; [b] the collective experience of a network of health systems and public health researchers; and [c] the established RAMESES II standards (which cover one kind of case study). We developed a list of topics and issues based on these sources and encouraged panel members to provide free text comments. Their feedback informed development of a set of items in the form of questions for potential inclusion in the reporting principles. We circulated these by email, asking panel members to rank each potential item twice (for relevance and validity) on a 7-point Likert scale. This sequence was repeated twice. RESULTS: We recruited 51 panel members from 50 organisations across 12 countries, who brought experience of a range of case study research methods and applications. 26 completed all three Delphi rounds, reaching over 80% consensus on 16 items covering title, abstract, definitions of terms, philosophical assumptions, research question(s), rationale, how context and complexity relates to the intervention, ethical approval, empirical methods, findings, use of theory, generalisability and transferability, researcher perspective and influence, conclusions and recommendations, and funding and conflicts of interest. CONCLUSION: The 'Triple C' (Case study, Context, Complex interventions) reporting principles recognise that case studies are undertaken in different ways for different purposes and based on different philosophical assumptions. They are designed to be enabling rather than prescriptive, and to make case study evaluation reporting on context and complex health interventions more comprehensive, accessible and useable.

A health systems intervention to strengthen the integration of tuberculosis and COVID-19 detection: Outcomes of a quasi-experimental study in a high burden tuberculosis district in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa.

OBJECTIVES: The adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on tuberculosis (TB) detection have been well documented. Despite shared symptoms, guidance for integrated screening for TBand COVID-19 are limited, and opportunities for health systems strengthening curtailed by lockdowns. We partnered with a high TB burden district in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, to co-develop an integrated approach to assessing COVID-19 and TB, delivered using online learning and quality improvement, and evaluated its performance on TB testing and detection. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study incorporating a quasi-experimental design and process evaluation in 10 intervention and 18 control clinics. Nurses in all 28 clinics were all provided access to a four-session online course to integrate TB and COVID-19 screening and testing, which was augmented with some webinar and in-person support at the 10 intervention clinics. We estimated the effects of exposure to this additional support using interrupted time series Poisson regression mixed models. Process evaluation data comprised interviews before and after the intervention. Thematic coding was employed to provide explanations for effects of the intervention. RESULTS: Clinic-level support at intervention clinics was associated with a markedly higher uptake (177 nurses from 10 intervention clinics vs. 19 from 18 control clinics). Lack of familiarity with online learning, and a preference for group learning hindered the transition from face-to-face to online learning. Even so, any exposure to training was initially associated with higher rates of GeneXpert testing (adjusted incidence ratio [IRR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.07-1.15) and higher positive TB diagnosis (IRR 1.38, 1.11-1.71). CONCLUSIONS: These results add to the knowledge base regarding the effectiveness of interventions to strengthen TB case detection during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings support the feasibility of a shift to online learning approaches in low-resource settings with appropriate support and suggest that even low-intensity interventions are capable of activating nurses to integrate existing disease control priorities during pandemic conditions.

Applying learning health systems thinking in codeveloping integrated tuberculosis interventions in the contexts of COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic reversed much of global progress made in combatting tuberculosis, with South Africa experiencing one of the largest impacts on tuberculosis detection. The aim of this paper is to share our experiences in applying learning health systems (LHS) thinking to the codevelopment of an intervention improving an integrated response to COVID-19 and tuberculosis in a South African district. A sequential partially mixed-methods study was undertaken between 2018 and 2021 in the district of Amajuba in KwaZulu-Natal. Here, we report on the formulation of a Theory of Change, codesigning and refining proposed interventions, and piloting and evaluating codesigned interventions in primary healthcare facilities, through an LHS lens. Following the establishment and formalisation of a district Learning Community, diagnostic work and a codevelopment of a theory of change, intervention packages tailored according to pandemic lockdowns were developed, piloted and scaled up. This process illustrates how a community of learning can generate more responsive, localised interventions, and suggests that the establishment of a shared space of research governance can provide a degree of resilience to facilitate adaption to external shocks. Four main lessons have been gleaned from our experience in adopting an LHS approach in a South African district, which are (1) the importance of building and sustaining relationships, (2) the utility of colearning, coproduction and adaptive capacity, (3) the centrality of theory-driven systems strengthening and (4) reflections on LHS as a framework.

Digital psychosocial intervention for depression among older adults in socioeconomically deprived areas in Brazil (PRODIGITAL-D): protocol for an individually randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression in older adults is a challenge for health systems in most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Digital strategies for the management of this condition have been emerging worldwide, but the effectiveness of most of them is still unclear, especially among older adults. Thus, we aim to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a digital psychosocial intervention to treat depression among older adults living in socioeconomically deprived areas in Guarulhos, Brazil. METHODS: We will conduct a two-arm individually randomised controlled trial with 1:1 allocation ratio. Five hundred older adults aged 60 years or over with depressive symptomatology (9-item Patient Health Questionnaire score, PHQ-9 ≥ 10) and registered with one of the primary care clinics will be recruited to participate in this study. A 6-week digital psychosocial programme, named Viva Vida, will be delivered via WhatsApp to participants allocated to the intervention arm. The Viva Vida will send psychoeducational and behavioural activation audio and visual messages 4 days a week for 6 weeks. The control arm will only receive a single message with general information about depression. The primary outcome will be the proportion of depression recovery (PHQ-9 < 10) assessed at 3 months. The cost-effectiveness of the intervention will be assessed at 5 months. A detailed process evaluation will be used to explore context and important implementation outcomes. DISCUSSION: This programme was based on the PROACTIVE intervention and designed to be delivered without face-to-face contact. If effective, it could be a simple treatment option, appropriate not only when social distancing is required, but it could also be included as a regular public health programme to initiate depression treatment, particularly in LMICs where resources allocated to mental health are scarce. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos (ReBEC), RBR-4c94dtn. Registered on 22 October 2021 (submitted on 03 August 2021).

HeAlth System StrEngThening in four sub-Saharan African countries (ASSET) to achieve high-quality, evidence-informed surgical, maternal and newborn, and primary care: protocol for pre-implementation phase studies.

To achieve universal health coverage, health system strengthening (HSS) is required to support the of delivery of high-quality care. The aim of the National Institute for Health Research Global Research Unit on HeAlth System StrEngThening in Sub-Saharan Africa (ASSET) is to address this need in a four-year programme, with three healthcare platforms involving eight work-packages. Key to effective health system strengthening (HSS) is the pre-implementation phase of research where efforts focus on applying participatory methods to embed the research programme within the existing health system. To conceptualise the approach, we provide an overview of the key methods applied across work-package to address this important phase of research conducted between 2017 and 2021.Work-packages are being undertaken in publicly funded health systems in rural and urban areas in Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. Stakeholders including patients and their caregivers, community representatives, clinicians, managers, administrators, and policymakers are the main research participants.In each work-package, initial activities engage stakeholders and build relationships to ensure co-production and ownership of HSSIs. A mixed-methods approach is then applied to understand and address determinants of high-quality care delivery. Methods such as situation analysis, cross-sectional surveys, interviews and focus group discussions are adopted to each work-package aim and context. At the end of the pre-implementation phase, findings are disseminated using focus group discussions and participatory Theory of Change workshops where stakeholders from each work package use findings to select HSSIs and develop a programme theory.ASSET places a strong emphasis of the pre-implementation phase in order to provide an in-depth and systematic diagnosis of the existing heath system functioning, needs for strengthening and stakeholder engagement. This common approach will inform the design and evaluation of the HSSIs to increase effectiveness across work packages and contexts, to better understand what works, for whom, and how.

Examining the language demands of informed consent documents in patient recruitment to cancer trials using tools from corpus and computational linguistics.

Obtaining informed consent (IC) is an ethical imperative, signifying participants' understanding of the conditions and implications of research participation. One setting where the stakes for understanding are high is randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which test the effectiveness and safety of medical interventions. However, the use of legalese and medicalese in ethical forms coupled with the need to explain RCT-related concepts (e.g. randomization) can increase patients' cognitive load when reading text. There is a need to systematically examine the language demands of IC documents, including whether the processes intended to safeguard patients by providing clear information might do the opposite through complex, inaccessible language. Therefore, the goal of this study is to build an open-access corpus of patient information sheets (PIS) and consent forms (CF) and analyze each genre using an interdisciplinary approach to capture multidimensional measures of language quality beyond traditional readability measures. A search of publicly-available online IC documents for UK-based cancer RCTs (2000-17) yielded corpora of 27 PIS and 23 CF. Textual analysis using the computational tool, Coh-Metrix, revealed different linguistic dimensions relating to the complexity of IC documents, particularly low word concreteness for PIS and low referential and deep cohesion for CF, although both had high narrativity. Key part-of-speech analyses using Wmatrix corpus software revealed a contrast between the overrepresentation of the pronoun 'you' plus modal verbs in PIS and 'I' in CF, exposing the contradiction inherent in conveying uncertainty to patients using tentative language in PIS while making them affirm certainty in their understanding in CF.

A guide to systems-level, participatory, theory-informed implementation research in global health.

Implementation research is a multidisciplinary field that addresses the complex phenomenon of how context influences our ability to deliver evidence-informed healthcare. There is increasing realisation of the importance of applying robust implementation research to scale-up life-saving interventions that meet health-related sustainable development goals. However, the lack of high-quality implementation research is impeding our ability to meet these targets, globally. Within implementation research, theory refers to the proposed hypothesis and/or explanation of how an intervention is expected to interact with the local context and actors to bring about change. Although there is increasing interest in applying theory to understand how and why implementation programmes work in real-world settings, global health actors still tend to favour impact evaluations conducted in controlled environments. This may, in part, be due to the relative novelty as well as methodological complexity of implementation research and the need to draw on divergent disciplines, including epidemiology, implementation science and social sciences. Because of this, implementation research is faced with a particular set of challenges about how to reconcile different ways of thinking and constructing knowledge about healthcare interventions. To help translate some of the ambiguity surrounding how divergent theoretical approaches and methods contribute to implementation research, we draw on our multidisciplinary expertise in the field, particularly in global health. We offer an overview of the different theoretical approaches and describe how they are applied to continuously select, monitor and evaluate implementation strategies throughout the different phases of implementation research. In doing so, we offer a relatively brief, user-focused guide to help global health actors implement and report on evaluation of evidence-based and scalable interventions, programmes and practices.

The Reflective Fostering Programme-improving the wellbeing of children in care through a group intervention for foster carers: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The needs of children in care are a government priority, yet the evidence base for effective interventions to support the emotional wellbeing of children in care is lacking. Research suggests that supporting the carer-child relationship, by promoting the carer's reflective parenting, may be an effective approach to improving the wellbeing of these children. METHODS: The study comprises a definitive, superiority, two-armed, parallel, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial, with embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation, and an internal pilot, to evaluate the effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness, of the Reflective Fostering Programme. Randomisation is at the individual level using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The study is being conducted in local authority sites across England, and is targeted at foster carers (including kinship carers) looking after children aged 4 to 13. Consenting participants are randomly allocated to the Reflective Fostering Programme (intervention arm) in addition to usual support or usual support alone (control arm). The primary outcome is behavioural and emotional wellbeing of the child 12 months post-baseline, and secondary outcomes include the following: foster carer's level of stress, quality of life, reflective capacity, compassion fatigue and burnout, placement stability, the quality of the child-carer relationship, child's capacity for emotional regulation, and achievement of personalised goals set by the carer. DISCUSSION: A feasibility study has indicated effectiveness of the Programme in improving the child-carer relationship and emotional and behavioural wellbeing of children in care. This study will test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementing the Reflective Fostering Programme as an additional aid to the support already available to local authority foster carers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 70832140 .

Evaluating complex interventions in context: systematic, meta-narrative review of case study approaches.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing need for methods that acknowledge and successfully capture the dynamic interaction between context and implementation of complex interventions. Case study research has the potential to provide such understanding, enabling in-depth investigation of the particularities of phenomena. However, there is limited guidance on how and when to best use different case study research approaches when evaluating complex interventions. This study aimed to review and synthesise the literature on case study research across relevant disciplines, and determine relevance to the study of contextual influences on complex interventions in health systems and public health research. METHODS: Systematic meta-narrative review of the literature comprising (i) a scoping review of seminal texts (n = 60) on case study methodology and on context, complexity and interventions, (ii) detailed review of empirical literature on case study, context and complex interventions (n = 71), and (iii) identifying and reviewing 'hybrid papers' (n = 8) focused on the merits and challenges of case study in the evaluation of complex interventions. RESULTS: We identified four broad (and to some extent overlapping) research traditions, all using case study in a slightly different way and with different goals: 1) developing and testing complex interventions in healthcare; 2) analysing change in organisations; 3) undertaking realist evaluations; 4) studying complex change naturalistically. Each tradition conceptualised context differently-respectively as the backdrop to, or factors impacting on, the intervention; sets of interacting conditions and relationships; circumstances triggering intervention mechanisms; and socially structured practices. Overall, these traditions drew on a small number of case study methodologists and disciplines. Few studies problematised the nature and boundaries of 'the case' and 'context' or considered the implications of such conceptualisations for methods and knowledge production. CONCLUSIONS: Case study research on complex interventions in healthcare draws on a number of different research traditions, each with different epistemological and methodological preferences. The approach used and consequences for knowledge produced often remains implicit. This has implications for how researchers, practitioners and decision makers understand, implement and evaluate complex interventions in different settings. Deeper engagement with case study research as a methodology is strongly recommended.

Implementing supportive exercise interventions in the colorectal cancer care pathway: a process evaluation of the PREPARE-ABC randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A colorectal resection is standard treatment for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the procedure results in significant post-operative mortality and reduced quality of life. Maximising pre-operative cardiopulmonary fitness could improve post-surgical outcomes. PREPARE-ABC is a multi-centre, three-armed, randomised controlled trial investigating the effects of exercise interventions, with motivational support on short and longer-term recovery outcomes in CRC patients undergoing major lower-gastrointestinal surgery. The trial included an internal pilot phase with parallel process evaluation. The aim of the process evaluation was to optimise intervention implementation for the main trial. METHODS: Mixed methods process evaluation conducted in 14 UK hospitals between November 2016 and March 2018. Data included a site profile questionnaire and telephone scoping interview with hospital staff, 34 qualitative observations of standard care and 14 observations of intervention delivery, 13 semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals (HCPs) and 28 semi-structured interviews with patients. Data analysis focused on describing intervention delivery within each arm, assessing fidelity, acceptability and how variation in delivery was linked to contextual characteristics. RESULTS: Standard care exercise advice was typically limited to maintaining current activity levels, and with lead-in time to surgery affecting whether any exercise advice was provided. Variation in HCP capacity affected the ability of colorectal units to deploy staff to deliver the intervention. Patients' exercise history and motivation prior to surgery influenced HCP perceptions and delivery of the motivational components. Observations indicated a high level of fidelity to delivery of the exercise interventions. All but one of the 28 interviewed patients reported increasing exercise levels as a result of receiving the intervention, with most finding them motivational and greatly valuing the enhanced level of social support (versus standard care) provided by staff. CONCLUSION: Hospital-supervised and home-based exercise interventions were highly acceptable for most patients undergoing surgery for CRC. Delivery of pre- and post-operative exercise within the CRC care pathway is feasible but systematic planning of capacity and resources is required to optimise implementation.

Mental health, well-being and support interventions for UK ambulance services staff: an evidence map, 2000 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: Prior to COVID-19 there had been a renewed policy focus in the National Health Service on the health and well-being of the healthcare workforce, with the ambulance sector identified as a priority area. This focus is more important than ever as the sector deals with the acute and longer-term consequences of a pandemic. AIM: To systematically identify, summarise and map the evidence regarding mental health, well-being and support interventions for United Kingdom ambulance services staff and to identify evidence gaps. METHOD: Evidence mapping methodology of published and grey original research published in English from 1 January 2000 to 23 May 2020 describing the health risk, mental health and/or well-being of UK ambulance services staff including retired staff, volunteers and students. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and AMED databases, plus EThOS, Zetoc, OpenGrey and Google, were searched, alongside hand-searching of grey literature and bibliographies. Information was extracted on study aims, sample, design and methodology, funding source, country and key findings. Included studies were categorised into seven a priori theme areas. RESULTS: Of 1862 identified articles, 45 peer-reviewed studies are included as well as 24 grey literature documents. Peer-reviewed research was largely observational and focused on prevalence studies, post-traumatic stress disorder or organisational and individual social factors related to health and well-being. Most grey literature reported the development and testing of interventions. Across all study types, underpinning theory was often not cited. CONCLUSION: To date, intervention research has largely been funded by charities and published in the grey literature. Few studies were identified on self-harm, bullying, sleep and fatigue or alcohol and substance use. Theoretically informed intervention development and testing, including adaptation of innovations from other countries and 24-hour workforces, is needed. This evidence map provides important context for planning of staff well-being provision and research as the sector responds to and recovers from the pandemic. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018104659.

Implementation science protocol for a participatory, theory-informed implementation research programme in the context of health system strengthening in sub-Saharan Africa (ASSET-ImplementER).

OBJECTIVES: ASSET (Health System Strengthening in sub-Saharan Africa) is a health system strengthening (HSS) programme involving eight work-packages (ie, a research study that addresses a specific need for HSS) that aims to develop solutions that support high-quality care. Here we present the protocol for the implementation science (IS) theme within ASSET (ASSET-ImplmentER) that aims to understand what HSS interventions work, for whom and how, and how IS methodologies can be adapted to improve the HSS interventions within resource-poor contexts. SETTINGS: Publicly funded health facilities in rural and urban areas in in Ethiopia, South Africa, Sierra Leone, and Zimbabwe. PARTICIPANTS: Research staff including principal investigators, coinvestigators, field staff, PhD students, and research assistants. INTERVENTIONS: Work-packages use a mixed-methods effectiveness-effectiveness hybrid designs. At the end of the pre-implementation phase, a workshop is held whereby the IS theme, jointly with ASSET work-packages apply IS determinant frameworks to research findings to identify factors that influence the effectiveness of delivering evidence-informed care. Determinants are used to select a set of HSS interventions for further evaluation, where work-packages also theorise selective mechanisms.In the piloting and rolling implementation phase, work-packages pilot the HSS interventions. An iterative process then begins involving evaluation, reflection and adaptation. Throughout this phase, IS determinant frameworks are applied to monitor and identify barriers/enablers to implementation. Selective mechanisms of action are also investigated. Implementation outcomes are evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods. The psychometric properties of outcome measures including acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility are also evaluated. In a final workshop, work-packages come together, to reflect and explore the utility of the selected IS methods and provide suggestions for future use.Structured templates are used to organise and analyse common and heterogeneous patterns across work-packages. Qualitative data are analysed using thematic analysis and quantitative data are analysed using means and proportions. CONCLUSIONS: We use a novel combination of IS methods at a programmatic level to facilitate comparisons of determinants and mechanisms that influence the effectiveness of HSS interventions in achieving implementation outcomes across different contexts. The study also contributes conceptual development and clarification at the underdeveloped interface of IS, HSS and global health.The ASSET-ImplementER theme is considered minimal risk as we only interview researchers involved in the different work-packages. To this effect we have received approval from King's College London Ethics Committee for research that is considered minimal risk (Reference number: MRA-20/21-21772).

Identifying contextual determinants of problems in tuberculosis care provision in South Africa: a theory-generating case study.

BACKGROUND: Despite progress towards End TB Strategy targets for reducing tuberculosis (TB) incidence and deaths by 2035, South Africa remains among the top ten high-burden tuberculosis countries globally. A large challenge lies in how policies to improve detection, diagnosis and treatment completion interact with social and structural drivers of TB. Detailed understanding and theoretical development of the contextual determinants of problems in TB care is required for developing effective interventions. This article reports findings from the pre-implementation phase of a study of TB care in South Africa, contributing to HeAlth System StrEngThening in Sub-Saharan Africa (ASSET)-a five-year research programme developing and evaluating health system strengthening interventions in sub-Saharan Africa. The study aimed to develop hypothetical propositions regarding contextual determinants of problems in TB care to inform intervention development to reduce TB deaths and incidence whilst ensuring the delivery of quality integrated, person-centred care. METHODS: Theory-building case study design using the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework to identify contextual determinants of problems in TB care. Between February and November 2019, we used mixed methods in six public-sector primary healthcare facilities and one public-sector hospital serving impoverished urban and rural communities in the Amajuba District of KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa. Qualitative data included stakeholder interviews, observations and documentary analysis. Quantitative data included routine data on sputum testing and TB deaths. Data were inductively analysed and mapped onto the seven CICI contextual domains. RESULTS: Delayed diagnosis was caused by interactions between fragmented healthcare provision; limited resources; verticalised care; poor TB screening, sputum collection and record-keeping. One nurse responsible for TB care, with limited integration of TB with other conditions, and policy focused on treatment adherence contributed to staff stress and limited consideration of patients' psychosocial needs. Patients were lost to follow up due to discontinuity of information, poverty, employment restrictions and limited support for treatment side-effects. Infection control measures appeared to be compromised by efforts to integrate care. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed diagnosis, limited psychosocial support for patients and staff, patients lost to follow-up and inadequate infection control are caused by an interaction between multiple interacting contextual determinants. TB policy needs to resolve tensions between treating TB as epidemic and individually-experienced social problem, supporting interventions which strengthen case detection, infection control and treatment, and also promote person-centred support for healthcare professionals and patients.