Using a picture-based book to support epilepsy care in clinical consultations for people with intellectual disabilities.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: People with intellectual disabilities are more likely to have epilepsy than the general population. A picture-based book, Getting on with Epilepsy, may help to improve their epilepsy management and quality of life. The present study aimed to explore how the book could be best used in routine clinical care. METHODS: Twenty people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities were video-recorded using the Getting on with Epilepsy book with a nurse or doctor. This was analysed using conversation analytic methods. Eighteen patients and five clinicians took part in interviews to explore their views on book use, which were thematically analysed. All data were then synthesised to form themes. RESULTS: Three themes were identified which demonstrated the importance of (1) understanding the book depicted seizures (2) relating the book to the participants' experiences (3) using the book as an education and information tool. The themes highlighted the techniques and approaches that clinicians used to facilitate understanding. Some tensions and differences were noted between training and implementation in routine practice, particularly around prompts in themes 1 and 3 intended to correct or change participants' interpretation of the book. CONCLUSIONS: The Getting on with Epilepsy book can be used in routine clinical practice to support people with intellectual disabilities and epilepsy. There was a balance between exploring patients' narratives and understanding with the need to convey clinical information, and this may also apply to the use of other accessible resources.

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.

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.