Planning a digital intervention for adolescents with asthma (BREATHE4T): A theory-, evidence- and Person-Based Approach to identify key behavioural issues.

OBJECTIVES: To describe a transparent approach to planning a digital intervention for adolescents to self-manage their asthma using breathing retraining (BRT), based on an existing, effective adult intervention (BREATHE). METHODS: A theory-, evidence-, and Person-Based Approach was used to maximise the effectiveness and persuasiveness of the intervention. A scoping review and semistructured interviews with target intervention users (N = 18, adolescents aged 12-17 years with asthma and parents) were carried out to explore user perspectives, barriers, and facilitators towards the intended behaviours and potential intervention features. The combined evidence was used alongside and to inform theory-based activities and enabled iterative planning of the intervention. RESULTS: The scoping review identified themes relating to user-specific self-management issues, content, education, training needs, and features for a digital intervention. Interviews elicited potential barriers to intended behaviours such as the anticipated embarrassment of using BRT and concerns around remaining calm. Facilitators included BRT delivered by adolescents who share experiences of asthma and information for performing exercises discreetly. Relevant theoretical frameworks ensured that appropriate psychological constructs were targeted. A behavioural analysis identified six intervention functions and thirty behaviour change techniques. Logic modelling mapped the programme theory and mechanisms, which aims to improve adolescent asthma-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: This study gives a transparent insight into the approach followed to plan a self-guided BRT intervention for adolescents and has led to identification of key behavioural issues, enabling relevant intervention content to be chosen. Insight has been given into adolescent perceptions of BRT, which facilitated development of the prototype intervention.

Public attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2: a mixed-methods study.

Background: Human challenge studies involve the deliberate exposure of healthy volunteers to an infectious micro-organism in a highly controlled and monitored way. They are used to understand infectious diseases and have contributed to the development of vaccines. In early 2020, the UK started exploring the feasibility of establishing a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2. Given the significant public interest and the complexity of the potential risks and benefits, it is vital that public views are considered in the design and approval of any such study and that investigators and ethics boards remain accountable to the public. Methods: Mixed methods study comprising online surveys conducted with 2,441 UK adults and in-depth virtual focus groups with 57 UK adults during October 2020 to explore the public's attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 taking place in the UK. Results: There was overall agreement across the surveys and focus groups that a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 should take place in the UK. Transparency of information, trust and the necessity to provide clear information on potential risks to study human challenge study participants were important. The perceived risks of taking part included the risk of developing long-term effects from COVID, impact on personal commitments and mental health implications of isolation. There were a number of practical realities to taking part that would influence a volunteer's ability to participate (e.g. Wi-Fi, access to exercise, outside space and work, family and pet commitments). Conclusions: The results identified practical considerations for teams designing human challenge studies. Recommendations were grouped: 1) messaging to potential study participants, 2) review of the protocol and organisation of the study, and 3) more broadly, making the study more inclusive and relevant. This study highlights the value of public consultation in research, particularly in fields attracting public interest and scrutiny .

The role of public involvement in the design of the first SARS-CoV-2 human challenge study during an evolving pandemic.

High quality health care research must involve patients and the public. This ensures research is important, relevant and acceptable to those it is designed to benefit. The world's first human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 undertook detailed public involvement to inform study design despite the urgency to review and establish the study. The work was integral to the UK Research Ethics Committee review and approval of the study. Discussion with individuals from ethnic minorities within the UK population supported decision-making around the study exclusion criteria. Public review of study materials for consent processes led to the addition of new information, comparisons and visual aids to help volunteers consider the practicalities and risks involved in participating. A discussion exploring the acceptability of a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 taking place in the UK, given the current context of the pandemic, identified overall support for the study. Public concern for the wellbeing of trial participants, as a consequence of isolation, was identified. We outline our approach to public involvement and its impact on study design.