Disease management interventions for heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in treatment, the increasing and ageing population makes heart failure an important cause of morbidity and death worldwide. It is associated with high healthcare costs, partly driven by frequent hospital readmissions. Disease management interventions may help to manage people with heart failure in a more proactive, preventative way than drug therapy alone. This is the second update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of different disease management interventions for heart failure (which are not purely educational in focus), with usual care, in terms of death, hospital readmissions, quality of life and cost-related outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL for this review update on 9 January 2018 and two clinical trials registries on 4 July 2018. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least six months' follow-up, comparing disease management interventions to usual care for adults who had been admitted to hospital at least once with a diagnosis of heart failure. There were three main types of intervention: case management; clinic-based interventions; multidisciplinary interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Outcomes of interest were mortality due to heart failure, mortality due to any cause, hospital readmission for heart failure, hospital readmission for any cause, adverse effects, quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness. MAIN RESULTS: We found 22 new RCTs, so now include 47 RCTs (10,869 participants). Twenty-eight were case management interventions, seven were clinic-based models, nine were multidisciplinary interventions, and three could not be categorised as any of these. The included studies were predominantly in an older population, with most studies reporting a mean age of between 67 and 80 years. Seven RCTs were in upper-middle-income countries, the rest were in high-income countries.Only two multidisciplinary-intervention RCTs reported mortality due to heart failure. Pooled analysis gave a risk ratio (RR) of 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.95), but the very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain of the effect on mortality due to heart failure. Based on this limited evidence, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) is 12 (95% CI 9 to 126).Twenty-six case management RCTs reported all-cause mortality, with low-quality evidence indicating that these may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.90; NNTB 25, 95% CI 17 to 54). We pooled all seven clinic-based studies, with low-quality evidence suggesting they may make little to no difference to all-cause mortality. Pooled analysis of eight multidisciplinary studies gave moderate-quality evidence that these probably reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; NNTB 17, 95% CI 12 to 32).We pooled data on heart failure readmissions from 12 case management studies. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that they probably reduce heart failure readmissions (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.78; NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 13). We were able to pool only two clinic-based studies, and the moderate-quality evidence suggested that there is probably little or no difference in heart failure readmissions between clinic-based interventions and usual care (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). Pooled analysis of five multidisciplinary interventions gave low-quality evidence that these may reduce the risk of heart failure readmissions (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92; NNTB 11, 95% CI 7 to 44).Meta-analysis of 14 RCTs gave moderate-quality evidence that case management probably slightly reduces all-cause readmissions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01); a decrease from 491 to 451 in 1000 people (95% CI 407 to 495). Pooling four clinic-based RCTs gave low-quality and somewhat heterogeneous evidence that these may result in little or no difference in all-cause readmissions (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12). Low-quality evidence from five RCTs indicated that multidisciplinary interventions may slightly reduce all-cause readmissions (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01); a decrease from 450 to 383 in 1000 people (95% CI 320 to 455).Neither case management nor clinic-based intervention RCTs reported adverse effects. Two multidisciplinary interventions reported that no adverse events occurred. GRADE assessment of moderate quality suggested that there may be little or no difference in adverse effects between multidisciplinary interventions and usual care.Quality of life was generally poorly reported, with high attrition. Low-quality evidence means we are uncertain about the effect of case management and multidisciplinary interventions on quality of life. Four clinic-based studies reported quality of life but we could not pool them due to differences in reporting. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may result in little or no difference in quality of life.Four case management programmes had cost-effectiveness analyses, and seven reported cost data. Low-quality evidence indicates that these may reduce costs and may be cost-effective. Two clinic-based studies reported cost savings. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may reduce costs slightly. Low-quality data from one multidisciplinary intervention suggested this may be cost-effective from a societal perspective but less so from a health-services perspective. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found limited evidence for the effect of disease management programmes on mortality due to heart failure, with few studies reporting this outcome. Case management may reduce all-cause mortality, and multidisciplinary interventions probably also reduce all-cause mortality, but clinic-based interventions had little or no effect on all-cause mortality. Readmissions due to heart failure or any cause were probably reduced by case-management interventions. Clinic-based interventions probably make little or no difference to heart failure readmissions and may result in little or no difference in readmissions for any cause. Multidisciplinary interventions may reduce the risk of readmission for heart failure or for any cause. There was a lack of evidence for adverse effects, and conclusions on quality of life remain uncertain due to poor-quality data. Variations in study location and time of occurrence hamper attempts to review costs and cost-effectiveness.The potential to improve quality of life is an important consideration but remains poorly reported. Improved reporting in future trials would strengthen the evidence for this patient-relevant outcome.

Community pharmacy interventions for health promotion: effects on professional practice and health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacies are an easily accessible and cost-effective platform for delivering health care worldwide, and the range of services provided has undergone rapid expansion in recent years. Thus, in addition to dispensing medication, pharmacy workers within community pharmacies now give advice on a range of health-promoting behaviours that aim to improve health and to optimise the management of long-term conditions. However, it remains uncertain whether these health-promotion interventions can change the professional practice of pharmacy workers, improve health behaviours and outcomes for pharmacy users and have the potential to address health inequalities. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of health-promotion interventions to change community pharmacy workers' professional practice and improve outcomes for users of community pharmacies. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, six other databases and two trials registers to 6 February 2018. We also conducted reference checking, citation searches and contacted study authors to identify any additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials of health-promotion interventions in community pharmacies targeted at, or delivered by, pharmacy workers that aimed to improve the health-related behaviour of people attending the pharmacy compared to no treatment, or usual treatment received in the community pharmacy. We excluded interventions where there was no interaction between pharmacy workers and pharmacy users, and those that focused on medication use only. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard procedures recommended by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care review group for both data collection and analysis. We compared intervention to no intervention or to usual treatment using standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) (higher scores represent better outcomes for pharmacy user health-related behaviour and quality of life, and lower scores represent better outcomes for clinical outcomes, costs and adverse events). Interpretation of effect sizes (SMD) was in line with Cochrane recommendations. MAIN RESULTS: We included 57 randomised trials with 16,220 participants, described in 83 reports. Forty-nine studies were conducted in high-income countries, and eight in middle-income countries. We found no studies that had been conducted in low-income countries. Most interventions were educational, or incorporated skills training. Interventions were directed at pharmacy workers (n = 8), pharmacy users (n = 13), or both (n = 36). The clinical areas most frequently studied were diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and modification of cardiovascular risk. Duration of follow-up of interventions was often unclear. Only five studies gave details about the theoretical basis for the intervention, and studies did not provide sufficient data to comment on health inequalities. The most common sources of bias were lack of protection against contamination - mainly in individually randomised studies - and inadequate blinding of participants. The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was moderate. We downgraded the certainty because of the heterogeneity across studies and evidence of potential publication bias. Professional practice outcomes We conducted a narrative analysis for pharmacy worker behaviour due to high heterogeneity in the results. Health-promotion interventions probably improve pharmacy workers' behaviour (2944 participants; 9 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) when compared to no intervention. These studies typically assessed behaviour using a simulated patient (mystery shopper) methodology. Pharmacy user outcomes Health-promotion interventions probably lead to a slight improvement in health-related behaviours of pharmacy users when compared to usual treatment (SMD 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.72; I2 = 89%; 10 trials; 2138 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). These interventions probably also lead to a slight improvement in intermediate clinical outcomes, such as levels of cholesterol or glycated haemoglobin, for pharmacy users (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.21; I2 = 90%; 20 trials; 3971 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We identified no studies that evaluated the impact of health-promotion interventions on event-based clinical outcomes, such as stroke or myocardial infarction, or the psychological well-being of pharmacy users. Health-promotion interventions probably lead to a slight improvement in quality of life for pharmacy users (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.50; I2= 82%; 10 trials, 2687 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events No studies reported adverse events for either pharmacy workers or pharmacy users. Costs We found that health-promotion interventions are likely to be cost-effective, based on moderate-certainty evidence from five of seven studies that reported an economic evaluation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Health-promotion interventions in the community pharmacy context probably improve pharmacy workers' behaviour and probably have a slight beneficial effect on health-related behaviour, intermediate clinical outcomes, and quality of life for pharmacy users. Such interventions are likely to be cost-effective and the effects are seen across a range of clinical conditions and health-related behaviours. Nevertheless the magnitude of the effects varies between conditions, and more effective interventions might be developed if greater consideration were given to the theoretical basis of the intervention and mechanisms for effecting behaviour change.

The lay health worker-patient relationship in promoting pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in COPD: What makes it work?

Lay health workers (LHWs) can improve access to services and adherence to treatment, as well as promoting self-care and prevention. Their effect in promoting uptake and adherence in pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been tested. PR is the most effective treatment for the symptoms and disability of COPD, but this effectiveness is undermined by poor rates of completion. Trained LHWs with COPD, who also have first-hand experience of PR, are well placed to help overcome the documented barriers to its completion. The relationship between LHWs and patients may be one of the keys to their effectiveness but it has been little explored. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were used with the aim of examining the LHW-patient partnership in a feasibility study of trained PR-experienced LHWs used to support COPD patients referred to PR. Twelve volunteers with COPD who completed LHW training supported 66 patients referred for PR. All 12 of these LHWs gave end-of-study interviews, 21 COPD patients supported by LHWs were also interviewed. Patients reported that the LHWs were keen to share their experiences of PR, and that this had a positive impact. The enthusiasm of the LHWs for PR was striking. The common bond between LHWs and patients of having COPD together with the LHWs positive, first-hand experience of PR were dominant and recurring themes in their relationship.

Interventions for promoting habitual exercise in people living with and beyond cancer.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in the Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9. Despite good evidence for the health benefits of regular exercise for people living with or beyond cancer, understanding how to promote sustainable exercise behaviour change in sedentary cancer survivors, particularly over the long term, is not as well understood. A large majority of people living with or recovering from cancer do not meet current exercise recommendations. Hence, reviewing the evidence on how to promote and sustain exercise behaviour is important for understanding the most effective strategies to ensure benefit in the patient population and identify research gaps. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions designed to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer and to address the following secondary questions: Which interventions are most effective in improving aerobic fitness and skeletal muscle strength and endurance? Which interventions are most effective in improving exercise behaviour amongst patients with different cancers? Which interventions are most likely to promote long-term (12 months or longer) exercise behaviour? What frequency of contact with exercise professionals and/or healthcare professionals is associated with increased exercise behaviour? What theoretical basis is most often associated with better behavioural outcomes? What behaviour change techniques (BCTs) are most often associated with increased exercise behaviour? What adverse effects are attributed to different exercise interventions? SEARCH METHODS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We updated our 2013 Cochrane systematic review by updating the searches of the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, PsycLIT/PsycINFO, SportDiscus and PEDro up to May 2018. We also searched the grey literature, trial registries, wrote to leading experts in the field and searched reference lists of included studies and other related recent systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an exercise intervention with usual care or 'waiting list' control in sedentary people over the age of 18 with a homogenous primary cancer diagnosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: In the update, review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify studies that might meet the inclusion criteria, or that could not be safely excluded without assessment of the full text (e.g. when no abstract is available). We extracted data from all eligible papers with at least two members of the author team working independently (RT, LS and RG). We coded BCTs according to the CALO-RE taxonomy. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. When possible, and if appropriate, we performed a fixed-effect meta-analysis of study outcomes. If statistical heterogeneity was noted, a meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. For continuous outcomes (e.g. cardiorespiratory fitness), we extracted the final value, the standard deviation (SD) of the outcome of interest and the number of participants assessed at follow-up in each treatment arm, to estimate the standardised mean difference (SMD) between treatment arms. SMD was used, as investigators used heterogeneous methods to assess individual outcomes. If a meta-analysis was not possible or was not appropriate, we narratively synthesised studies. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach with the GRADE profiler. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 studies in this review, involving a total of 1372 participants (an addition of 10 studies, 724 participants from the original review); 227 full texts were screened in the update and 377 full texts were screened in the original review leaving 35 publications from a total of 23 unique studies included in the review. We planned to include all cancers, but only studies involving breast, prostate, colorectal and lung cancer met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen studies incorporated a target level of exercise that could meet current recommendations for moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (i.e.150 minutes per week); or resistance exercise (i.e. strength training exercises at least two days per week).Adherence to exercise interventions, which is crucial for understanding treatment dose, is still reported inconsistently. Eight studies reported intervention adherence of 75% or greater to an exercise prescription that met current guidelines. These studies all included a component of supervision: in our analysis of BCTs we designated these studies as 'Tier 1 trials'. Six studies reported intervention adherence of 75% or greater to an aerobic exercise goal that was less than the current guideline recommendations: in our analysis of BCTs we designated these studies as 'Tier 2 trials.' A hierarchy of BCTs was developed for Tier 1 and Tier 2 trials, with programme goal setting, setting of graded tasks and instruction of how to perform behaviour being amongst the most frequent BCTs. Despite the uncertainty surrounding adherence in some of the included studies, interventions resulted in improvements in aerobic exercise tolerance at eight to 12 weeks (SMD 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70; 604 participants, 10 studies; low-quality evidence) versus usual care. At six months, aerobic exercise tolerance was also improved (SMD 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.72; 591 participants; 7 studies; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the last version of this review, none of the new relevant studies have provided additional information to change the conclusions. We have found some improved understanding of how to encourage previously inactive cancer survivors to achieve international physical activity guidelines. Goal setting, setting of graded tasks and instruction of how to perform behaviour, feature in interventions that meet recommendations targets and report adherence of 75% or more. However, long-term follow-up data are still limited, and the majority of studies are in white women with breast cancer. There are still a considerable number of published studies with numerous and varied issues related to high risk of bias and poor reporting standards. Additionally, the meta-analyses were often graded as consisting of low- to very low-certainty evidence. A very small number of serious adverse effects were reported amongst the studies, providing reassurance exercise is safe for this population.

How Online Communities of People With Long-Term Conditions Function and Evolve: Network Analysis of the Structure and Dynamics of the Asthma UK and British Lung Foundation Online Communities.

BACKGROUND: Self-management support can improve health and reduce health care utilization by people with long-term conditions. Online communities for people with long-term conditions have the potential to influence health, usage of health care resources, and facilitate illness self-management. Only recently, however, has evidence been reported on how such communities function and evolve, and how they support self-management of long-term conditions in practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying online self-management support systems by analyzing the structure and dynamics of the networks connecting users who write posts over time. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal network analysis of anonymized data from 2 patients' online communities from the United Kingdom: the Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation (BLF) communities in 2006-2016 and 2012-2016, respectively. RESULTS: The number of users and activity grew steadily over time, reaching 3345 users and 32,780 posts in the Asthma UK community, and 19,837 users and 875,151 posts in the BLF community. People who wrote posts in the Asthma UK forum tended to write at an interval of 1-20 days and six months, while those in the BLF community wrote at an interval of two days. In both communities, most pairs of users could reach one another either directly or indirectly through other users. Those who wrote a disproportionally large number of posts (the superusers) represented 1% of the overall population of both Asthma UK and BLF communities and accounted for 32% and 49% of the posts, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that the removal of superusers would cause the communities to collapse. Thus, interactions were held together by very few superusers, who posted frequently and regularly, 65% of them at least every 1.7 days in the BLF community and 70% every 3.1 days in the Asthma UK community. Their posting activity indirectly facilitated tie formation between other users. Superusers were a constantly available resource, with a mean of 80 and 20 superusers active at any one time in the BLF and Asthma UK communities, respectively. Over time, the more active users became, the more likely they were to reply to other users' posts rather than to write new ones, shifting from a help-seeking to a help-giving role. This might suggest that superusers were more likely to provide than to seek advice. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we uncover key structural properties related to the way users interact and sustain online health communities. Superusers' engagement plays a fundamental sustaining role and deserves research attention. Further studies are needed to explore network determinants of the effectiveness of online engagement concerning health-related outcomes. In resource-constrained health care systems, scaling up online communities may offer a potentially accessible, wide-reaching and cost-effective intervention facilitating greater levels of self-management.

Clinical-effectiveness of self-management interventions in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: An overview of reviews.

Self-management (SM) is defined as the provision of interventions to increase patients' skills and confidence, empowering the individual to take an active part in their disease management. There is uncertainty regarding the optimal format and the short- and long-term benefits of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) SM interventions in adults. Therefore, a high-quality overview of reviews was updated to examine their clinical effectiveness. Sixteen reviews were identified, interventions were broadly classified as education or action plans, complex interventions with an SM focus, pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), telehealth and outreach nursing. Systematic review and meta-analysis quality and the risk of bias of underlying primary studies were assessed. Strong evidence was found that PR is associated with significant improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Limited to moderate evidence for complex interventions (SM focus) with limited evidence for education, action plans, telehealth interventions and outreach nursing for HRQoL was found. There was strong evidence that education is associated with a significant reduction in COPD-related hospital admissions, moderate to strong evidence that telehealth interventions and moderate evidence that complex interventions (SM focus) are associated with reduced health care utilization. These findings from a large body of evidence suggesting that SM, through education or as a component of PR, confers significant health gains in people with COPD in terms of HRQoL. SM supported by telehealth confers significant reductions in healthcare utilization, including hospitalization and emergency department visits.

Prevalence of multimorbidity in survivors of 28 cancer sites: an English nationwide cross-sectional study.

Multimorbidity, the presence of a chronic condition in addition to cancer, is of particular importance to cancer survivors. It has an impact on the progression, stage at diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of cancer patients. Evidence is scarce on the prevalence of specific comorbidities in survivors of different cancers to inform prevention and management of multimorbidity. The objective of this study is to address this evidence gap by using large scale electronic health data from multiple linked UK healthcare databases to examine the prevalence of multimorbidity in 28 cancer sites. For this population-based cross-sectional study, we linked primary and secondary healthcare data from the UK Clinical Research Practice Datalink (CPRD) GOLD dataset and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). We identified survivors of 28 common cancers aged 18 years or older at diagnosis who survived 2 years of cancer and compared their multimorbidity with matched controls without a history of cancer. To compare prevalence of individual comorbidity, multivariable logistic regression models, adjusted for confounding factors were used. Between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2020, we identified 347,028 cancer survivors and 804,299 controls matched on age, sex and general practice. Cancer survivors had a higher prevalence of multimorbidity compared to non-cancer controls across all the cancer sites. Hypertension (56.2%), painful conditions (39.8%), osteoarthritis (38.0%), depression (31.8%) and constipation (31.4%) were the five most frequent chronic conditions reported. Compared to the controls, higher odds of constipation were found in survivors of 25 of the 28 cancer sites and higher odds of anaemia were found in 23 cancer sites. Prevalence of constipation, anaemia and painful conditions were higher after cancer diagnosis compared to before diagnosis. Since these comorbidities are not uniformly assessed as part of any of the comorbidity scales, they tend to be underreported among cancer survivors. The elevated risk of certain comorbidities in cancer survivors suggests the potential for preventative efforts in this population to lower disease burden and improve quality of life. Long-term conditions should not be viewed as the inevitable result of cancer diagnosis and treatment. We need to consider integrated management of chronic conditions tailored to specific cancers to improve cancer survivorship.

Comparing performance of primary care clinicians in the interpretation of SPIROmetry with or without Artificial Intelligence Decision support software (SPIRO-AID): a protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Spirometry is a point-of-care lung function test that helps support the diagnosis and monitoring of chronic lung disease. The quality and interpretation accuracy of spirometry is variable in primary care. This study aims to evaluate whether artificial intelligence (AI) decision support software improves the performance of primary care clinicians in the interpretation of spirometry, against reference standard (expert interpretation). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A parallel, two-group, statistician-blinded, randomised controlled trial of primary care clinicians in the UK, who refer for, or interpret, spirometry. People with specialist training in respiratory medicine to consultant level were excluded. A minimum target of 228 primary care clinician participants will be randomised with a 1:1 allocation to assess fifty de-identified, real-world patient spirometry sessions through an online platform either with (intervention group) or without (control group) AI decision support software report. Outcomes will cover primary care clinicians' spirometry interpretation performance including measures of technical quality assessment, spirometry pattern recognition and diagnostic prediction, compared with reference standard. Clinicians' self-rated confidence in spirometry interpretation will also be evaluated. The primary outcome is the proportion of the 50 spirometry sessions where the participant's preferred diagnosis matches the reference diagnosis. Unpaired t-tests and analysis of covariance will be used to estimate the difference in primary outcome between intervention and control groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been reviewed and given favourable opinion by Health Research Authority Wales (reference: 22/HRA/5023). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, presented at relevant national and international conferences, disseminated through social media, patient and public routes and directly shared with stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05933694.

A tailored psychological intervention for anxiety and depression management in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: TANDEM RCT and process evaluation.

Background: People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have high levels of anxiety and depression, which is associated with increased morbidity and poor uptake of effective treatments, such as pulmonary rehabilitation. Cognitive-behavioural therapy improves mental health of people with long-term conditions and could potentially increase uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation, enabling synergies that could enhance the mental health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Aim: Our aim was to develop and evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a tailored cognitive-behavioural approach intervention, which links into, and optimises the benefits of, routine pulmonary rehabilitation. Design: We carried out a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial using a 1.25 : 1 ratio (intervention : control) with a parallel process evaluation, including assessment of fidelity. Setting: Twelve NHS trusts and five Clinical Commissioning Groups in England were recruited into the study. The intervention was delivered in participant's own home or at a local NHS facility, and by telephone. Participants: Between July 2017 and March 2020 we recruited adults with moderate/very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mild/moderate anxiety and/or depression, meeting eligibility criteria for assessment for pulmonary rehabilitation. Carers of participants were invited to participate. Intervention: The cognitive-behavioural approach intervention (i.e. six to eight 40- to 60-minute sessions plus telephone support throughout pulmonary rehabilitation) was delivered by 31 trained respiratory healthcare professionals to participants prior to commencing pulmonary rehabilitation. Usual care included routine pulmonary rehabilitation referral. Main outcome measures: Co-primary outcomes were Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - anxiety and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression at 6 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes at 6 and 12 months included health-related quality of life, smoking status, uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation and healthcare use. Results: We analysed results from 423 randomised participants (intervention, n = 242; control, n = 181). Forty-three carers participated. Follow-up at 6 and 12 months was 93% and 82%, respectively. Despite good fidelity for intervention delivery, mean between-group differences in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 6 months ruled out clinically important effects (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - anxiety mean difference -0.60, 95% confidence interval -1.40 to 0.21; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression mean difference -0.66, 95% confidence interval -1.39 to 0.07), with similar results at 12 months. There were no between-group differences in any of the secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses did not alter these conclusions. More adverse events were reported for intervention participants than for control participants, but none related to the trial. The intervention did not generate quality-of-life improvements to justify the additional cost (adjusted mean difference £770.24, 95% confidence interval -£27.91 to £1568.39) to the NHS. The intervention was well received and many participants described positive affects on their quality of life. Facilitators highlighted the complexity of participants' lives and considered the intervention to be of potential valuable; however, the intervention would be difficult to integrate within routine clinical services. Our well-powered trial delivered a theoretically designed intervention with good fidelity. The respiratory-experienced facilitators were trained to deliver a low-intensity cognitive-behavioural approach intervention, but high-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy might have been more effective. Our broad inclusion criteria specified objectively assessed anxiety and/or depression, but participants were likely to favour talking therapies. Randomisation was concealed and blinding of outcome assessment was breached in only 15 participants. Conclusions: The tailored cognitive-behavioural approach intervention delivered with fidelity by trained respiratory healthcare professionals to people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Alternative approaches that are integrated with routine long-term condition care are needed to address the unmet, complex clinical and psychosocial needs of this group of patients. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN59537391. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/146/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

People with long-standing lung problems, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, often also have anxiety and depression, which further reduces their quality of life. Two existing treatments could help. Pulmonary rehabilitation (a programme of exercise and education) improves both the physical and mental health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cognitive­behavioural therapy (a talking therapy) may reduce anxiety and depression. The TANDEM [Tailored intervention for Anxiety and Depression Management in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)] intervention linked these two treatments by providing talking therapy based on cognitive­behavioural therapy during the waiting time following referral for pulmonary rehabilitation. The TANDEM treatment was delivered by respiratory healthcare professionals (e.g. nurses or physiotherapists) trained to deliver the talking therapy in six to eight weekly sessions. The sessions were conducted in the participant's home (or another convenient location), with brief telephone support during the pulmonary rehabilitation. Of 423 participants recruited to the study, 242 participants received TANDEM talking therapy and 181 participants received usual care (including a referral to pulmonary rehabilitation). We measured mental health, quality of life, social life, attendance at pulmonary rehabilitation and healthcare use in both groups at 6 and 12 months. Forty-three carers joined the study and we assessed their mental well-being. We interviewed patients, carers and health professionals to find out their views and experience of the TANDEM treatment. We also examined whether or not the TANDEM treatment was good value for money. The TANDEM treatment did not improve the mental or the physical health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In addition, the TANDEM treatment cost the NHS an extra £770 per patient, which was not good value for money. The TANDEM treatment was well received, and many participants told us how it had helped them. Heath-care professionals noted how participants did not just have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but were coping with many physical, mental and social problems. The TANDEM intervention was not effective and, therefore, other strategies will be needed to help people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mental health problems live with their condition.

Multimorbidity in people living with and beyond cancer: a scoping review.

Globally, both cancer incidence and survival are increasing. Early cancer detection and improved treatment means many people with cancer will survive for ten or more years following diagnosis. Multimorbidity, defined as two or more chronic conditions, is up to three times higher in people living with and beyond cancer (LWBC) compared to the general population. This scoping review summarises the research evidence on the association between cancer and multimorbidity in people LWBC. It explores five key domains in people LWBC: 1) prevalence of multimorbidity, 2) association between ethnicity and socio-economic status (SES) and multimorbidity, 3) association between health status and multimorbidity, 4) adverse health consequences of cancer and related treatments, and 5) whether being a cancer survivor impacts treatment received for multimorbidity. It focuses on ten common cancers with high survival rates: prostate, breast, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, bowel/colorectal, kidney, head and neck, bladder, leukaemia, uterine and myeloma. A search of Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsychINFO and Web of Science databases identified 9,460 articles, 115 of which met the inclusion criteria. Articles were included in the review that involved multimorbidity in adult cancer patients. An evaluation of the evidence was performed, and a summary of findings was generated according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. This review included work from 20 countries, most studies were from the US (44%). The results showed that the most common long-term conditions in people LWBC were: hypertension, heart conditions, depression, COPD, and diabetes. The most reported incident comorbidities after a cancer diagnosis were congestive heart failure, chronic pain, and chronic fatigue. Multimorbidity tended to be higher amongst people LWBC from ethnic minority groups and those with lower SES. Quality of life was poorer in people LWBC with multimorbidity. The review identified the need for a uniform approach to measure multimorbidity in cancer patients across the world. Further research is required to compare multimorbidity before and after a cancer diagnosis, to explore the association of multimorbidity with ethnicity and socio-economic status and to determine whether a cancer diagnosis impacts care received for multimorbidity in people LWBC.

Spirometry services in England post-pandemic and the potential role of AI support software: a qualitative study of challenges and opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Spirometry services to diagnose and monitor lung disease in primary care were identified as a priority in the NHS Long Term Plan, and are restarting post-COVID-19 pandemic in England; however, evidence regarding best practice is limited. AIM: To explore perspectives on spirometry provision in primary care, and the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) decision support software to aid quality and interpretation. DESIGN AND SETTING: Semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in spirometry services across England. METHOD: Participants were recruited by snowball sampling. Interviews explored the pre- pandemic delivery of spirometry, restarting of services, and perceptions of the role of AI. Transcripts were analysed thematically. RESULTS: In total, 28 participants (mean years' clinical experience = 21.6 [standard deviation 9.4, range 3-40]) were interviewed between April and June 2022. Participants included clinicians (n = 25) and commissioners (n = 3); eight held regional and/or national respiratory network advisory roles. Four themes were identified: 1) historical challenges in provision of spirometry services; 2) inequity in post- pandemic spirometry provision and challenges to restarting spirometry in primary care; 3) future delivery closer to patients' homes by appropriately trained staff; and 4) the potential for AI to have supportive roles in spirometry. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders highlighted historic challenges and the damaging effects of the pandemic contributing to inequity in provision of spirometry, which must be addressed. Overall, stakeholders were positive about the potential of AI to support clinicians in quality assessment and interpretation of spirometry. However, it was evident that validation of the software must be sufficiently robust for clinicians and healthcare commissioners to have trust in the process.

Development and testing of an opioid tapering self-management intervention for chronic pain: I-WOTCH.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the design, development and pilot of a multicomponent intervention aimed at supporting withdrawal of opioids for people with chronic non-malignant pain for future evaluation in the Improving the Wellbeing of people with Opioid Treated CHronic pain (I-WOTCH) randomised controlled trial. DESIGN: The I-WOTCH intervention draws on previous literature and collaboration with stakeholders (patient and public involvement). Intervention mapping and development activities of Behaviour Change Taxonomy are described. SETTING: The intervention development was conducted by a multidisciplinary team with clinical, academic and service user perspectives. The team had expertise in the development and testing of complex health behaviour interventions, opioid tapering and pain management in primary and secondary care, I.T programming, and software development-to develop an opioid tapering App. PARTICIPANTS: The I-WOTCH trial participants are adults (18 years and over) with chronic non-malignant pain using strong opioids for at least 3 months and on most days in the preceding month. OUTCOMES: A multicomponent self-management support package to help people using opioids for chronic non-malignant pain reduce opioid use. INTERVENTIONS AND RESULTS: Receiving information on the impact of long-term opioid use, and potential adverse effects were highlighted as important facilitators in making the decision to reduce opioids. Case studies of those who have successfully stopped taking opioids were also favoured as a facilitator to reduce opioid use. Barriers included the need for a 'trade-off to fill the deficit of the effect of the drug'. The final I-WOTCH intervention consists of an 8-10 week programme incorporating: education; problem-solving; motivation; group and one to one tailored planning; reflection and monitoring. A detailed facilitator manual was developed to promote consistent delivery of the intervention across the UK. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the development of an opioid reduction intervention package suitable for testing in the I-WOTCH randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN49470934.

Understanding how patients establish strategies for living with asthma: a qualitative study in UK primary care as part of IMP2ART.

BACKGROUND: In the context of a variable condition such as asthma, patient recognition of deteriorating control and knowing what prompt action to take is crucial. Yet, implementation of recommended self-management strategies remains poor. AIM: To explore how patients with asthma and parents/carers of children with asthma develop and establish recommended self-management strategies for living with asthma, and how clinicians can best support the process. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study in UK primary care. METHOD: Patients with asthma and parents/carers of children with asthma from 10 general practices were purposively sampled (using age, sex, and duration of asthma) to participate in focus groups or interviews between May 2016 and August 2016. Participants' experiences of health care, management of asthma, and views on supported self-management were explored. Interviews and focus group sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Iterative thematic analysis was conducted, guided by the research questions and drawing on habit theory in discussion with a multidisciplinary research team. RESULTS: A total of 49 participants (45 patients; 4 parents/carers) took part in 32 interviews and five focus groups. Of these, 11 reported using an action plan. Patients learnt how to self-manage over time, building knowledge from personal experience and other sources, such as the internet. Some regular actions, for example, taking medication, became habitual. Dealing with new or unexpected scenarios required reflective abilities, which may be supported by a tailored action plan. CONCLUSION: Patients reported learning intuitively how to self-manage. Some regular actions became habitual; dealing with the unexpected required more reflective cognitive skills. In order to support implementation of optimal asthma self- management, clinicians should consider both these aspects of self-management and support, and educate patients proactively.

Self-Management education for adults with poorly controlled epILEpsy [SMILE (UK)]: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a common neurological condition resulting in recurrent seizures. Research evidence in long-term conditions suggests that patients benefit from self-management education and that this may improve quality of life (QoL). Epilepsy self-management education has yet to be tested in a UK setting. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Self-Management education for people with poorly controlled epILEpsy [SMILE (UK)]. DESIGN: A parallel pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Participants were recruited from eight hospitals in London and south-east England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 16 years with epilepsy and two or more epileptic seizures in the past year, who were currently being prescribed antiepileptic drugs. INTERVENTION: A 2-day group self-management course alongside treatment as usual (TAU). The control group received TAU. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is QoL in people with epilepsy at 12-month follow-up using the Quality Of Life In Epilepsy 31-P (QOLIE-31-P) scale. Other outcomes were seizure control, impact of epilepsy, medication adverse effects, psychological distress, perceived stigma, self-mastery and medication adherence. Cost-effectiveness analyses and a process evaluation were undertaken. RANDOMISATION: A 1 : 1 ratio between trial arms using fixed block sizes of two. BLINDING: Participants were not blinded to their group allocation because of the nature of the study. Researchers involved in data collection and analysis remained blinded throughout. RESULTS: The trial completed successfully. A total of 404 participants were enrolled in the study [SMILE (UK), n = 205; TAU, n = 199] with 331 completing the final follow-up at 12 months [SMILE (UK), n = 163; TAU, n = 168]. In the intervention group, 61.5% completed all sessions of the course. No adverse events were found to be related to the intervention. At baseline, participants had a mean age of 41.7 years [standard deviation (SD) 14.1 years], and had epilepsy for a median of 18 years. The mean QOLIE-31-P score for the whole group at baseline was 66.0 out of 100.0 (SD 14.2). Clinically relevant levels of anxiety symptoms were reported in 53.6% of the group and depression symptoms in 28.0%. The results following an intention-to-treat analysis showed no change in any measures at the 12-month follow-up [QOLIE-31-P: SMILE (UK) mean: 67.4, SD 13.5; TAU mean: 69.5, SD 14.8]. The cost-effectiveness study showed that SMILE (UK) was possibly cost-effective but was also associated with lower QoL. The process evaluation with 20 participants revealed that a group course increased confidence by sharing with others and improved self-management behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: For people with epilepsy and persistent seizures, a 2-day self-management education course is cost-saving, but does not improve QoL after 12-months or reduce anxiety or depression symptoms. A psychological intervention may help with anxiety and depression. Interviewed participants reported attending a group course increased their confidence and helped them improve their self-management. FUTURE WORK: More research is needed on self-management courses, with psychological components and integration with routine monitoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN57937389. 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. 22, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Asthma prescribing, ethnicity and risk of hospital admission: an analysis of 35,864 linked primary and secondary care records in East London.

Inappropriate prescribing in primary care was implicated in nearly half of asthma deaths reviewed in the UK's recent National Review of Asthma Deaths. Using anonymised EMIS-Web data for 139 ethnically diverse general practices (total population 942,511) extracted from the North and East London Commissioning Support Unit, which holds hospital Secondary Uses Services (SUS)-linked data, we examined the prevalence of over-prescribing of short-acting ß2-agonist inhalers (SABA), under-prescribing of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) inhalers and solo prescribing of long-acting ß2-agonists (LABA) to assess the risk of hospitalisation for people with asthma for 1 year ending August 2015. In a total asthma population of 35,864, multivariate analyses in adults showed that the risk of admission increased with greater prescription of SABA inhalers above a baseline of 1-3 (4-12 SABA: odds ratio (OR) 1.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-2.46, ⩾13 SABA: OR 3.22; 95% CI 2.04-5.07) with increasing British Thoracic Society step (Step 3: OR 2.90; 95% CI 1.79-4.69, Step 4/5: OR 9.42; 95% CI 5.27-16.84), and among Black (OR 2.30; 95% CI 1.64-3.23) and south Asian adult populations (OR 1.83; 95% CI 1.36-2.47). Results in children were similar, but risk of hospitalisation was not related to ethnic group. There is a progressive risk of hospital admission associated with the prescription of more than three SABA inhalers a year. Adults (but not children) from Black and South Asian groups are at an increased risk of admission. Further work is needed to target care for these at-risk groups.

Do self-management interventions in COPD patients work and which patients benefit most? An individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Self-management interventions are considered effective in patients with COPD, but trials have shown inconsistent results and it is unknown which patients benefit most. This study aimed to summarize the evidence on effectiveness of self-management interventions and identify subgroups of COPD patients who benefit most. METHODS: Randomized trials of self-management interventions between 1985 and 2013 were identified through a systematic literature search. Individual patient data of selected studies were requested from principal investigators and analyzed in an individual patient data meta-analysis using generalized mixed effects models. RESULTS: Fourteen trials representing 3,282 patients were included. Self-management interventions improved health-related quality of life at 12 months (standardized mean difference 0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-0.16) and time to first respiratory-related hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94) and all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.90), but had no effect on mortality. Prespecified subgroup analyses showed that interventions were more effective in males (6-month COPD-related hospitalization: interaction P=0.006), patients with severe lung function (6-month all-cause hospitalization: interaction P=0.016), moderate self-efficacy (12-month COPD-related hospitalization: interaction P=0.036), and high body mass index (6-month COPD-related hospitalization: interaction P=0.028 and 6-month mortality: interaction P=0.026). In none of these subgroups, a consistent effect was shown on all relevant outcomes. CONCLUSION: Self-management interventions exert positive effects in patients with COPD on respiratory-related and all-cause hospitalizations and modest effects on 12-month health-related quality of life, supporting the implementation of self-management strategies in clinical practice. Benefits seem similar across the subgroups studied and limiting self-management interventions to specific patient subgroups cannot be recommended.

Coping with persistent pain, effectiveness research into self-management (COPERS): statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Coping with Persistent Pain, Effectiveness Research into Self-management (COPERS) trial assessed whether a group-based self-management course is effective in reducing pain-related disability in participants with chronic musculoskeletal pain. This article describes the statistical analysis plan for the COPERS trial. METHODS AND DESIGN: COPERS was a pragmatic, multicentre, unmasked, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. This article describes (a) the overall analysis principles (including which participants will be included in each analysis, how results will be presented, which covariates will be adjusted for, and how we will account for clustering in the intervention group); (b) the primary and secondary outcomes, and how each outcome will be analysed; (c) sensitivity analyses; (d) subgroup analyses; and (e) adherence-adjusted analyses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN24426731.