Correction: Mobile App Intervention of a Randomized Controlled Trial for Patients With Obesity and Those Who Are Overweight in General Practice: User Engagement Analysis Quantitative Study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/45942.].

Community health navigator-assisted transition of care from hospital to community: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this parallel group, randomised controlled trial is to evaluate a community health navigator (CHN) intervention provided to patients aged over 40 years and living with chronic health conditions to transition from hospital inpatient care to their homes. Unplanned hospital readmissions are costly for the health system and negatively impact patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients are randomised post hospital discharge to the CHN intervention or usual care. A comparison of outcomes between intervention and control groups will use multivariate regression techniques that adjust for age, sex and any independent variables that are significantly different between the two groups, using multiple imputation for missing values. Time-to-event analysis will examine the relationship between seeing a CHN following discharge from the index hospitalisation and reduced rehospitalisations in the subsequent 60 days and 6 months. Secondary outcomes include medication adherence, health literacy, quality of life, experience of healthcare and health service use (including the cost of care). We will also conduct a qualitative assessment of the implementation of the navigator role from the viewpoint of stakeholders including patients, health professionals and the navigators themselves. ETHICS APPROVAL: Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics and Governance Office, Sydney Local Health District, on 21 January 2022 (Protocol no. X21-0438 and 2021/ETH12171). The findings of the trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and national and international conference presentations. Data will be deposited in an institutional data repository at the end of the trial. This is subject to Ethics Committee approval, and the metadata will be made available on request. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12622000659707). ARTICLE SUMMARY: The objective of this trial is to evaluate a CHN intervention provided to patients aged over 40 years and living with chronic health conditions to transition from hospital inpatient care to their homes.

Mobile App Intervention of a Randomized Controlled Trial for Patients With Obesity and Those Who Are Overweight in General Practice: User Engagement Analysis Quantitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The Health eLiteracy for Prevention in General Practice trial is a primary health care-based behavior change intervention for weight loss in Australians who are overweight and those with obesity from lower socioeconomic areas. Individuals from these areas are known to have low levels of health literacy and are particularly at risk for chronic conditions, including diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The intervention comprised health check visits with a practice nurse, a purpose-built patient-facing mobile app (mysnapp), and a referral to telephone coaching. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess mysnapp app use, its user profiles, the duration and frequency of use within the Health eLiteracy for Prevention in General Practice trial, its association with other intervention components, and its association with study outcomes (health literacy and diet) to determine whether they have significantly improved at 6 months. METHODS: In 2018, a total of 22 general practices from 2 Australian states were recruited and randomized by cluster to the intervention or usual care. Patients who met the main eligibility criteria (ie, BMI>28 in the previous 12 months and aged 40-74 years) were identified through the clinical software. The practice staff then provided the patients with details about this study. The intervention consisted of a health check with a practice nurse and a lifestyle app, a telephone coaching program, or both depending on the participants' choice. Data were collected directly through the app and combined with data from the 6-week health check with the practice nurses, the telephone coaching, and the participants' questionnaires at baseline and 6-month follow-up. The analyses comprised descriptive and inferential statistics. RESULTS: Of the 120 participants who received the intervention, 62 (52%) chose to use the app. The app and nonapp user groups did not differ significantly in demographics or prior recent hospital admissions. The median time between first and last app use was 52 (IQR 4-95) days, with a median of 5 (IQR 2-10) active days. App users were significantly more likely to attend the 6-week health check (2-sided Fisher exact test; P<.001) and participate in the telephone coaching (2-sided Fisher exact test; P=.007) than nonapp users. There was no association between app use and study outcomes shown to have significantly improved (health literacy and diet) at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment and engagement were difficult for this study in disadvantaged populations with low health literacy. However, app users were more likely to attend the 6-week health check and participate in telephone coaching, suggesting that participants who opted for several intervention components felt more committed to this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617001508369; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=373505. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023239.

Barriers and facilitators to the participation and engagement of primary care in shared-care arrangements with community mental health services for preventive care of people with serious mental illness: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: People with serious mental illness die about 20 years earlier than the general population from preventable diseases. Shared-care arrangements between general practitioners and mental health services can improve consumers' access to preventive care, but implementing shared care is challenging. This scoping review sought to describe current evidence on the barriers and facilitators to the participation and engagement of primary care (specifically general practitioners) in shared-care arrangements with community mental health services for preventive health care of this population. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, APA PsychINFO and EBM Reviews from 2010 to 2022. Data was extracted against a Microsoft Excel template developed for the review. Data was synthesised through tabulation and narrative methods. RESULTS: We identified 295 records. After eligibility screening and full-text review, seven studies were included. Facilitators of engagement included a good fit with organisation and practice and opportunities to increase collaboration, specific roles to promote communication and coordination and help patients to navigate appointments, multidisciplinary teams and teamwork, and access to shared medical/health records. Barriers included a lack of willingness and motivation on the part of providers and low levels of confidence with tasks, lack of physical structures to produce capacity, poor alignment of funding/incentives, inability to share patient information and challenges engaging people with severe mental illness in the service and with their care. CONCLUSION: Our results were consistent with other research on shared care and suggests that the broader literature is likely to be applicable to the context of general practitioner/mental health services shared care. Specific challenges relating to this cohort present difficulties for recruitment and retention in shared care programs. Sharing "goals and knowledge, mutual respect" and engaging in "frequent, timely, accurate, problem-solving communication", supported by structures such as shared information systems are likely to engage primary care in shared care arrangements more than the traditional focus on incentives, education, and guidelines.

Preventing chronic disease in overweight and obese patients with low health literacy using eHealth and teamwork in primary healthcare (HeLP-GP): a cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a multifaceted intervention on diet, physical activity and health literacy of overweight and obese patients attending primary care. DESIGN: A pragmatic two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Urban general practices in lower socioeconomic areas in Sydney and Adelaide. PARTICIPANTS: We aimed to recruit 800 patients in each arm. Baseline assessment was completed by 215 patients (120 intervention and 95 control). INTERVENTION: A practice nurse-led preventive health check, a mobile application and telephone coaching. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were measured at baseline, 6 and 12 months, and included patient health and eHealth literacy, weight, waist circumference and blood pressure. Secondary outcomes included changes in diet and physical activity, preventive advice and referral, blood lipids, quality of life and costs. Univariate and multivariate analyses of difference-in-differences (DiD) estimates for each outcome were conducted. RESULTS: At 6 months, the intervention group, compared with the control group, demonstrated a greater increase in Health Literacy Questionnaire domain 8 score (ability to find good health information; mean DiD 0.22; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.44). There were similar differences for domain 9 score (understanding health information well enough to know what to do) among patients below the median at baseline. Differences were reduced and non-statistically significant at 12 months. There was a small improvement in diet scores at 6 months (DiD 0.78 (0.10 to 1.47); p=0.026) but not at 12 months. There were no differences in eHealth literacy, physical activity scores, body mass index, weight, waist circumference or blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted recruitment and engagement were challenging in this population. While the intervention was associated with some improvements in health literacy and diet, substantial differences in other outcomes were not observed. More intensive interventions and using codesign strategies to engage the practices earlier may produce a different result. Codesign may also be valuable when targeting lower socioeconomic populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12617001508369) (http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12617001508369.aspx). TRIAL PROTOCOL: The protocol for this trial has been published (open access; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/6/e023239).

Preventing chronic disease in patients with low health literacy using eHealth and teamwork in primary healthcare: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Adults with lower levels of health literacy are less likely to engage in health-promoting behaviours. Our trial evaluates the impacts and outcomes of a mobile health-enhanced preventive intervention in primary care for people who are overweight or obese. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-arm pragmatic practice-level cluster randomised trial will be conducted in 40 practices in low socioeconomic areas in Sydney and Adelaide, Australia. Forty patients aged 40-70 years with a body mass index ≥28 kg/m2 will be enrolled per practice. The HeLP-general practitioner (GP) intervention includes a practice-level quality improvement intervention (medical record audit and feedback, staff training and practice facilitation visits) to support practices to implement the clinical intervention for patients. The clinical intervention involves a health check visit with a practice nurse based on the 5As framework (assess, advise, agree, assist and arrange), the use of a purpose-built patient-facing app, my snapp, and referral for telephone coaching. The primary outcomes are change in health literacy, lifestyle behaviours, weight, waist circumference and blood pressure. The study will also evaluate changes in quality of life and health service use to determine the cost-effectiveness of the intervention and examine the experiences of practices in implementing the programme. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the University of New South Wales (UNSW) Human Research Ethics Committee (HC17474) and ratified by the University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics committee. There are no restrictions on publication, and findings of the study will be made available to the public via the Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity website and through conference presentations and research publications. Deidentified data and meta-data will be stored in a repository at UNSW and made available subject to ethics committee approval. TRIAL REGISTRATIONREGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617001508369; Pre-results.

An Australian general practice based strategy to improve chronic disease prevention, and its impact on patient reported outcomes: evaluation of the preventive evidence into practice cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Implementing evidence-based chronic disease prevention with a practice-wide population is challenging in primary care. METHODS: PEP Intervention practices received education, clinical audit and feedback and practice facilitation. Patients (40­69 years) without chronic disease from trial and control practices were invited to participate in baseline and 12 month follow up questionnaires. Patient-recalled receipt of GP services and referral, and the proportion of patients at risk were compared over time and between intervention and control groups. Mean difference in BMI, diet and physical activity between baseline and follow up were calculated and compared using a paired t-test. Change in the proportion of patients meeting the definition for physical activity diet and weight risk was calculated using McNemar's test and multilevel analysis was used to determine the effect of the intervention on follow-up scores. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty nine patients completed both questionnaires. No significant changes were found in the proportion of patients reporting a BP, cholesterol, glucose or weight check in either group. Less than one in six at-risk patients reported receiving lifestyle advice or referral at baseline with little change at follow up. More intervention patients reported attempts to improve their diet and reduce weight. Mean score improved for diet in the intervention group (p = 0.04) but self-reported BMI and PA risk did not significantly change in either group. There was no significant change in the proportion of patients who reported being at-risk for diet, PA or weight, and no changes in PA, diet and BMI in multilevel linear regression adjusted for patient age, sex, practice size and state. There was good fidelity to the intervention but practices varied in their capacity to address changes. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of measurable effect within this trial may be attributable to the complexities around behaviour change and/or system change. This trial highlights some of the challenges in providing suitable chronic disease preventive interventions which are both scalable to whole practice populations and meet the needs of diverse practice structures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12612000578808 (29/5/2012). This trial registration is retrospective as our first patient returned their consent on the 21/5/2012. Patient recruitment was ongoing until 31/10/2012.

The impact of health literacy and life style risk factors on health-related quality of life of Australian patients.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists regarding the relationship between health literacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in Australian patients from primary care. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of health literacy on HRQoL in a large sample of patients without known vascular disease or diabetes and to examine whether the difference in HRQoL between low and high health literacy groups was clinically significant. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of baseline data from a cluster randomised trial. The study included 739 patients from 30 general practices across four Australian states conducted in 2012 and 2013 using the standard Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) version 2. SF-12 physical component score (PCS-12) and mental component score (MCS-12) are derived using the standard US algorithm. Health literacy was measured using the Health Literacy Management Scale (HeLMS). Multilevel regression analysis (patients at level 1 and general practices at level 2) was applied to relate PCS-12 and MCS-12 to patient reported life style risk behaviours including health literacy and demographic factors. RESULTS: Low health literacy patients were more likely to be smokers (12 % vs 6 %, P = 0.005), do insufficient physical activity (63 % vs 47 %, P < 0.001), be overweight (68 % vs 52 %, P < 0.001), and have lower physical health and lower mental health with large clinically significant effect sizes of 0.56 (B (regression coefficient) = -5.4, P < 0.001) and 0.78(B = -6.4, P < 0.001) respectively after adjustment for confounding factors. Patients with insufficient physical activity were likely to have a lower physical health score (effect size = 0.42, B = -3.1, P < 0.001) and lower mental health (effect size = 0.37, B = -2.6, P < 0.001). Being overweight tended to be related to a lower PCS-12 (effect size = 0.41, B = -1.8, P < 0.05). Less well-educated, unemployed and smoking patients with low health literacy reported worse physical health. Health literacy accounted for 45 and 70 % of the total between patient variance explained in PCS-12 and MCS-12 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing health literacy related barriers to preventive care may help reduce some of the disparities in HRQoL. Recognising and tailoring health related communication to those with low health literacy may improve health outcomes including HRQoL in general practice.

Implementing guidelines to routinely prevent chronic vascular disease in primary care: the Preventive Evidence into Practice cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an intervention to improve implementation of guidelines for the prevention of chronic vascular disease. SETTING: 32 urban general practices in 4 Australian states. RANDOMISATION: Stratified randomisation of practices. PARTICIPANTS: 122 general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses (PNs) were recruited at baseline and 97 continued to 12 months. 21,848 patient records were audited for those aged 40-69 years who attended the practice in the previous 12 months without heart disease, stroke, diabetes, chronic renal disease, cognitive impairment or severe mental illness. INTERVENTION: The practice level intervention over 6 months included small group training of practice staff, feedback on audited performance, practice facilitation visits and provision of patient education and referral information. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: 1. Change in proportion of patients aged 40-69 years with smoking status, alcohol intake, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), blood pressure (BP) recorded and for those aged 45-69 years with lipids, fasting blood glucose and cardiovascular risk in the medical record. 2. Change in the level of risk for each factor. SECONDARY: change in self-reported frequency and confidence of GPs and PNs in assessment. RESULTS: Risk recording improved in the intervention but not the control group for WC (OR 2.52 (95% CI 1.30 to 4.91)), alcohol consumption (OR 2.19 (CI 1.04 to 4.64)), smoking status (OR 2.24 (1.17 to 4.29)) and cardiovascular risk (OR 1.50 (1.04 to 2.18)). There was no change in recording of BP, lipids, glucose or BMI and no significant change in the level of risk factors based on audit data. The confidence but not reported practices of GPs and PNs in the intervention group improved in the assessment of some risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: This intervention was associated with improved recording of some risk factors but no change in the level of risk at the follow-up audit. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12612000578808, results.

Shared care in mental illness: A rapid review to inform implementation.

BACKGROUND: While integrated primary healthcare for the management of depression has been well researched, appropriate models of primary care for people with severe and persistent psychotic disorders are poorly understood. In 2010 the NSW (Australia) Health Department commissioned a review of the evidence on "shared care" models of ambulatory mental health services. This focussed on critical factors in the implementation of these models in clinical practice, with a view to providing policy direction. The review excluded evidence about dementia, substance use and personality disorders. METHODS: A rapid review involving a search for systematic reviews on The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). This was followed by a search for papers published since these systematic reviews on Medline and supplemented by limited iterative searching from reference lists. RESULTS: Shared care trials report improved mental and physical health outcomes in some clinical settings with improved social function, self management skills, service acceptability and reduced hospitalisation. Other benefits include improved access to specialist care, better engagement with and acceptability of mental health services. Limited economic evaluation shows significant set up costs, reduced patient costs and service savings often realised by other providers. Nevertheless these findings are not evident across all clinical groups. Gains require substantial cross-organisational commitment, carefully designed and consistently delivered interventions, with attention to staff selection, training and supervision. Effective models incorporated linkages across various service levels, clinical monitoring within agreed treatment protocols, improved continuity and comprehensiveness of services. CONCLUSIONS: "Shared Care" models of mental health service delivery require attention to multiple levels (from organisational to individual clinicians), and complex service re-design. Re-evaluation of the roles of specialist mental health staff is a critical requirement. As expected, no one model of "shared" care fits diverse clinical groups. On the basis of the available evidence, we recommended a local trial that examined the process of implementation of core principles of shared care within primary care and specialist mental health clinical services.

Truth-telling in discussing prognosis in advanced life-limiting illnesses: a systematic review.

Many health professionals (HPs) express discomfort at having to broach the topic of prognosis, including limited life expectancy, and may withhold information or not disclose prognosis. A systematic review was conducted of 46 studies relating to truth-telling in discussing prognosis with patients with progressive, advanced life-limiting illnesses and their caregivers. Relevant studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified by searching computerized databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials) up to November 2004, with handsearching of studies, as well as inclusion of studies satisfying selection criteria reported in 2005 by the authors. The reference lists of identified studies were hand-searched for further relevant studies. Inclusion criteria were studies of any design evaluating communication of prognostic information that included adult patients with an advanced, life-limiting illness; their caregivers; and qualified HPs. Results showed that although the majority of HPs believed that patients and caregivers should be told the truth about the prognosis, in practice, many either avoid discussing the topic or withhold information. Reasons include perceived lack of training, stress, no time to attend to the patient's emotional needs, fear of a negative impact on the patient, uncertainty about prognostication, requests from family members to withhold information and a feeling of inadequacy or hopelessness regarding the unavailability of further curative treatment. Studies suggest that patients can discuss the topic without it having a negative impact on them. Differences and similarities in findings from different cultures are explored.

Discrepant perceptions about end-of-life communication: a systematic review.

Little research has compared the perceptions of health professionals (HPs), patients, and caregivers about the communication of prognostic information. The objectives of this literature review were to determine 1) patient and caregiver perceptions of levels of information received about prognosis and end-of-life (EoL) issues regarding a life-limiting illness; 2) patient perceptions of and factors related to their understanding and awareness of prognosis; 3) HPs' perceptions of patients' wishes about disclosure of prognosis and factors related to their decision whether to disclose; and 4) concordance between HPs and patients/caregivers regarding the information given by HPs about prognostic and EoL issues. Relevant studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified by searching computerized databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials [Central]) up to November 2004. The reference lists of identified studies were hand searched for further relevant studies. Inclusion criteria were studies of any design evaluating communication of prognostic information that included adult patients with an advanced, life-limiting illness; their caregivers; and qualified HPs. Fifty-one studies were identified. There was a large discrepancy between patients/caregivers and HPs regarding the amount of information they believed had been given. Patients' understanding and awareness of information received conflicted with the HPs' perceptions of patients' understanding and awareness of the information that had been given. HPs tended to underestimate patients' need for information and overestimate patients' understanding and awareness of their prognosis and EoL issues. HPs need to repeatedly check patients' understanding and preferences for information.

A systematic review of prognostic/end-of-life communication with adults in the advanced stages of a life-limiting illness: patient/caregiver preferences for the content, style, and timing of information.

Evidence-based recommendations concerning how to discuss dying, life expectancy, and likely future symptoms with patients with a limited life expectancy and their families are lacking. The aim of this systematic review was to review studies regarding prognostic/end-of-life communication with adult patients in the advanced stages of a life-limiting illness and their caregivers. Relevant studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified by searching computerized databases up to November 2004. One hundred twenty-three studies met the criteria for the full review, and 46 articles reported on patient/caregiver preferences for content, style, and timing of information. The majority of the research was descriptive. Although there were individual differences, patients/caregivers in general had high levels of information need at all stages of the disease process regarding the illness itself, likely future symptoms and their management, and life expectancy and information about clinical treatment options. Patient and caregiver information needs showed a tendency to diverge as the illness progressed, with caregivers needing more and patients wanting less information. Patients and caregivers preferred a trusted health professional who showed empathy and honesty, encouraged questions, and clarified each individual's information needs and level of understanding. In general, most patients/caregivers wanted at least some discussion of these topics at the time of diagnosis of an advanced, progressive, life-limiting illness, or shortly after. However, they wanted to negotiate the content and extent of this information.