scholarly journals Tailored digital behaviour change intervention with e-referral system to increase attendance at NHS stop smoking services (the MyWay project): study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e028721
Author(s):  
Emily Fulton ◽  
Katie Newby ◽  
Kajal Gokal ◽  
Kayleigh Kwah ◽  
Lauren Schumacher ◽  
...  

IntroductionIn the UK, smokers who use stop smoking services (SSSs) are four times more likely to stop smoking than smokers who do not. Attendance has declined, warranting the development of interventions to address this. StopApp is a novel, brief online behaviour change intervention designed to address common barriers to SSS attendance. It links to widely commissioned service management software that enables instant appointment booking at a user’s location and time of choice.Methods and analysisA two-arm parallel group, individual participant feasibility randomised controlled trial of StopApp (intervention) compared with the standard promotion of and referral to SSSs (control). The study includes a nested qualitative process evaluation to assess the acceptability of the research processes, with a subsample of participants. Smokers aged over 16 years will be recruited via three routes: General Practice (GP), community settings and online. After consenting and the collection of baseline data, participants will be randomised to control or intervention groups. Participants in the intervention group receive a link to StopApp and those in the control group receive standard web-based information about the SSSs. All participants are told they can book a SSS appointment but are under no obligation to do so. Online follow-up 2 months post randomisation includes data on SSS use and carbon monoxide verified 4-week quit rates. The study aims to recruit 162 smokers.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been granted by the West Midlands—Edgbaston NHS Research Ethics Committee. The findings will be reported in conferences and peer-reviewed publications; and will be used to design the parameters necessary for a definitive trial to ascertain the effectiveness of StopApp at increasing booking and attendance at SSSs compared with existing methods for encouraging uptake.

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M. A. Greidanus ◽  
A. E. de Rijk ◽  
A. G. E. M. de Boer ◽  
M. E. M. M. Bos ◽  
P. W. Plaisier ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Employers express a need for support during sickness absence and return to work (RTW) of cancer survivors. Therefore, a web-based intervention (MiLES) targeted at employers with the objective of enhancing cancer survivors’ successful RTW has been developed. This study aimed to assess feasibility of a future definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) on the effectiveness of the MiLES intervention. Also preliminary results on the effectiveness of the MiLES intervention were obtained. Methods A randomised feasibility trial of 6 months was undertaken with cancer survivors aged 18–63 years, diagnosed with cancer < 2 years earlier, currently in paid employment, and sick-listed < 1 year. Participants were randomised to an intervention group, with their employer receiving the MiLES intervention, or to a waiting-list control group (2:1). Feasibility of a future definitive RCT was determined on the basis of predefined criteria related to method and protocol-related uncertainties (e.g. reach, retention, appropriateness). The primary effect measure (i.e. successful RTW) and secondary effect measures (e.g. quality of working life) were assessed at baseline and 3 and 6 months thereafter. Results Thirty-five cancer survivors were included via medical specialists (4% of the initially invited group) and open invitations, and thereafter randomised to the intervention (n = 24) or control group (n = 11). Most participants were female (97%) with breast cancer (80%) and a permanent employment contract (94%). All predefined criteria for feasibility of a future definitive RCT were achieved, except that concerning the study’s reach (90 participants). After 6 months, 92% of the intervention group and 100% of the control group returned to work (RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.81–1.03); no difference were found with regard to secondary effect measures. Conclusions With the current design a future definitive RCT on the effectiveness of the MiLES intervention on successful RTW of cancer survivors is not feasible, since recruitment of survivors fell short of the predefined minimum for feasibility. There was selection bias towards survivors at low risk of adverse work outcomes, which reduced generalisability of the outcomes. An alternative study design is needed to study effectiveness of the MiLES intervention. Trial registration The study has been registered in the Dutch Trial Register (NL6758/NTR7627).


BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e017159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynsay Matthews ◽  
Juliana Pugmire ◽  
Laurence Moore ◽  
Mark Kelson ◽  
Alex McConnachie ◽  
...  

IntroductionHelpMeDoIt! will test the feasibility of an innovative weight loss intervention using a smartphone app and website. Goal setting, self-monitoring and social support are three key facilitators of behaviour change. HelpMeDoIt! incorporates these features and encourages participants to invite ‘helpers’ from their social circle to help them achieve their goal(s).AimTo test the feasibility of the intervention in supporting adults with obesity to achieve weight loss goals.Methods and analysis12-month feasibility randomised controlled trial and accompanying process evaluation. Participants (n=120) will be adults interested in losing weight, body mass index (BMI)>30 kg/m2and smartphone users. The intervention group will use the app/website for 12 months. Participants will nominate one or more helpers to support them. Helpers have access to the app/website. The control group will receive a leaflet on healthy lifestyle and will have access to HelpMeDoIt! after follow-up. The key outcome of the study is whether prespecified progression criteria have been met in order to progress to a larger randomised controlled effectiveness trial. Data will be collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Outcomes focus on exploring the feasibility of delivering the intervention and include: (i) assessing three primary outcomes (BMI, physical activity and diet); (ii) secondary outcomes of waist/hip circumference, health-related quality of life, social support, self-efficacy, motivation and mental health; (iii) recruitment and retention; (iv) National Health Service (NHS) resource use and participant borne costs; (v) usability and acceptability of the app/website; and (vi) qualitative interviews with up to 50 participants and 20 helpers on their experiences of the intervention. Statistical analyses will focus on feasibility outcomes and provide initial estimates of intervention effects. Thematic analysis of qualitative interviews will assess implementation, acceptability, mechanisms of effect and contextual factors influencing the intervention.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol has been approved by the West of Scotland NHS Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 15/WS/0288) and the University of Glasgow MVLS College Ethics Committee (Ref: 200140108). Findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.Trial registration numberISRCTN85615983.


Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Ussher ◽  
C. Best ◽  
S. Lewis ◽  
J. McKell ◽  
T. Coleman ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Financial incentives are an effective way of helping women to stop smoking during pregnancy. Unfortunately, most women who stop smoking at this time return to smoking within 12 months of the infant’s birth. There is no evidence for interventions that are effective at preventing postpartum smoking relapse. Financial incentives provided after the birth may help women to sustain cessation. This randomised controlled trial will assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of financial incentives to help women who are abstinent from smoking at end-of-pregnancy to avoid return to smoking up to 12 months postpartum. Methods This is a UK-based, multi-centre, three-arm, superiority, parallel group, individually randomised controlled trial, with 1:1:1 allocation. It will compare the effectiveness of two financial incentive interventions with each other (one intervention for up to 3 months postpartum offering up to £120 of incentives (£60 for the participant and £60 for a significant other support); the other for up to 12 months postpartum with up to £300 of incentives (£240 for the participant and £60 for a significant other support) and with a no incentives/usual care control group. Eligible women will be between 34 weeks gestation and 2 weeks postpartum, abstinent from smoking for at least 4 weeks, have an expired carbon monoxide (CO) reading < 4 parts per million (ppm), aged at least 16 years, intend remaining abstinent from smoking after the birth and able to speak and read English. The primary outcome is self-reported, lapse-free, smoking abstinence from the last quit attempt in pregnancy until 12 months postpartum, biochemically validated by expired CO and/or salivary cotinine or anabasine. Outcomes will be analysed by intention-to-treat and regression models used to compare the proportion of abstinent women between the two intervention groups and between each intervention group and the control group. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness of offering incentives and a qualitative process evaluation will examine barriers and facilitators to trial retention, effectiveness and implementation. Discussion This pragmatic randomised controlled trial will test whether offering financial incentives is effective and cost-effective for helping women to avoid smoking relapse during the 12 months after the birth of their baby. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number 55218215. Registered retrospectively on 5th June 2019


2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 640-647
Author(s):  
John Young ◽  
John Green ◽  
Amanda Farrin ◽  
Michelle Collinson ◽  
Suzanne Hartley ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective to provide a preliminary estimate of the effectiveness of the prevention of delirium (POD) system of care in reducing incident delirium in acute hospital wards and gather data for a future definitive randomised controlled trial. Design cluster randomised and controlled feasibility trial. Setting sixteen acute care of older people and orthopaedic trauma wards in eight hospitals in England and Wales. Participants patients 65 years and over admitted to participating wards during the trial period. Interventions participating wards were randomly assigned to either the POD programme or usual care, determined by existing local policies and practices. The POD programme is a manualised multicomponent delirium prevention intervention that targets 10 risk factors for delirium. The intervention wards underwent a 6-month implementation period before trial recruitment commenced. Main outcome measure incidence of new-onset delirium measured using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) measured daily for up to 10 days post consent. Results out of 4449, 3274 patients admitted to the wards were eligible. In total, 714 patients consented (713 registered) to the trial, thirty-three participants (4.6%) withdrew. Adherence to the intervention was classified as at least medium for seven wards. Rates of new-onset delirium were lower than expected and did not differ between groups (24 (7.0%) of participants in the intervention group versus 33 (8.9%) in the control group; odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 0.68 (0.37–1.26); P = 0.2225). Conclusions based on these findings, a definitive trial is achievable and would need to recruit 5220 patients in 26 two-ward hospital clusters. Trial registration: ISRCTN01187372. Registered 13 March 2014.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (14) ◽  
pp. 1907-1918 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer M Ryan ◽  
Jennifer Fortune ◽  
Andrea Stennett ◽  
Cherry Kilbride ◽  
Grace Lavelle ◽  
...  

Background: There is limited information regarding the safety, feasibility and acceptability of behaviour-change interventions to increase physical activity (PA) and reduce sedentary behaviour among people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Prior to evaluating efficacy, it is important to identify problems with feasibility and acceptability, which may undermine effectiveness. Objective: To examine the safety, feasibility and acceptability of a behaviour-change intervention to increase PA and reduce sedentary behaviour among people with MS. Methods: Sixty people received a 3-month intervention or usual care. Fatigue, pain and adverse events (AEs) were assessed. Feasibility and acceptability were explored through focus groups with physiotherapists and interviews with participants. Fidelity to intervention content, delivery skills, programme receipt and programme task were assessed. Results: There was no difference in AE rate between groups ( p = 0.965). Fatigue and pain were not higher in the intervention group at 3 or 9 months. Therapists reported the intervention was feasible to deliver and fidelity was acceptable. Twenty-nine participants (97%) attended at least 75% of sessions. Participants found the intervention acceptable but suggested some amendments were required to intervention components. Conclusions: The intervention was safe, feasible and acceptable. Although modifications are required to intervention components, the intervention warrants further evaluation in a future trial.


2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hazel Gilbert ◽  
Stephen Sutton ◽  
Richard Morris ◽  
Irene Petersen ◽  
Qi Wu ◽  
...  

BackgroundThe NHS Stop Smoking Services (SSSs) offer help to smokers who want to quit. However, the proportion of smokers attending the SSSs is low and current figures show a continuing downward trend. This research addressed the problem of how to motivate more smokers to accept help to quit.ObjectivesTo assess the relative effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness, of an intervention consisting of proactive recruitment by a brief computer-tailored personal risk letter and an invitation to a ‘Come and Try it’ taster session to provide information about the SSSs, compared with a standard generic letter advertising the service, in terms of attendance at the SSSs of at least one session and validated 7-day point prevalent abstinence at the 6-month follow-up.DesignRandomised controlled trial of a complex intervention with follow-up 6 months after the date of randomisation.SettingSSSs and general practices in England.ParticipantsAll smokers aged ≥ 16 years identified from medical records in participating practices who were motivated to quit and who had not attended the SSS in the previous 12 months. Participants were randomised in the ratio 3 : 2 (intervention to control) by a computer program.InterventionsIntervention – brief personalised and tailored letter sent from the general practitioner using information obtained from the screening questionnaire and from medical records, and an invitation to attend a taster session, run by the local SSS. Control – standard generic letter from the general practice advertising the local SSS and the therapies available, and asking the smoker to contact the service to make an appointment.Main outcome measures(1) Proportion of people attending the first session of a 6-week course over a period of 6 months from the receipt of the invitation letter, measured by records of attendance at the SSSs; (2) 7-day point prevalent abstinence at the 6-month follow-up, validated by salivary cotinine analysis; and (3) cost-effectiveness of the intervention.ResultsEighteen SSSs and 99 practices within the SSS areas participated; 4384 participants were randomised to the intervention (n = 2636) or control (n = 1748). One participant withdrew and 4383 were analysed. The proportion of people attending the first session of a SSS course was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group [17.4% vs. 9.0%; unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.75 to 2.57;p < 0.001]. The validated 7-day point prevalent abstinence at the 6-month follow-up was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (9.0% vs. 5.6%; unadjusted OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.15;p < 0.001), as was the validated 3-month prolonged abstinence and all other periods of abstinence measured by self-report. Using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making threshold range of £20,000–30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, the probability that the intervention was more cost-effective than the control was up to 27% at 6 months and > 86% over a lifetime horizon.LimitationsParticipating SSSs may not be representative of all SSSs in England. Recruitment was low, at 4%.ConclusionsThe Start2quit trial added to evidence that a proactive approach with an intensive intervention to deliver personalised risk information and offer a no-commitment introductory session can be successful in reaching more smokers and increasing the uptake of the SSS and quit rates. The intervention appears less likely to be cost-effective in the short term, but is highly likely to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon.Future workFurther research could assess the separate effects of these components.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN76561916.Funding detailsThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (72) ◽  
pp. 1-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gail Gilchrist ◽  
Davina Swan ◽  
April Shaw ◽  
Ada Keding ◽  
Sarah Towers ◽  
...  

Background Opioid substitution therapy and needle exchanges have reduced blood-borne viruses (BBVs) among people who inject drugs (PWID). Some PWID continue to share injecting equipment. Objectives To develop an evidence-based psychosocial intervention to reduce BBV risk behaviours and increase transmission knowledge among PWID, and conduct a feasibility trial among PWID comparing the intervention with a control. Design A pragmatic, two-armed randomised controlled, open feasibility trial. Service users were Steering Group members and co-developed the intervention. Peer educators co-delivered the intervention in London. Setting NHS or third-sector drug treatment or needle exchanges in Glasgow, London, Wrexham and York, recruiting January and February 2016. Participants Current PWID, aged ≥ 18 years. Interventions A remote, web-based computer randomisation system allocated participants to a three-session, manualised, psychosocial, gender-specific group intervention delivered by trained facilitators and BBV transmission information booklet plus treatment as usual (TAU) (intervention), or information booklet plus TAU (control). Main outcome measures Recruitment, retention and follow-up rates measured feasibility. Feedback questionnaires, focus groups with participants who attended at least one intervention session and facilitators assessed the intervention’s acceptability. Results A systematic review of what works to reduce BBV risk behaviours among PWID; in-depth interviews with PWID; and stakeholder and expert consultation informed the intervention. Sessions covered improving injecting technique and good vein care; planning for risky situations; and understanding BBV transmission. Fifty-six per cent (99/176) of eligible PWID were randomised: 52 to the intervention group and 47 to the control group. Only 24% (8/34) of male and 11% (2/18) of female participants attended all three intervention sessions. Overall, 50% (17/34) of men and 33% (6/18) of women randomised to the intervention group and 47% (14/30) of men and 53% (9/17) of women randomised to the control group were followed up 1 month post intervention. Variations were reported by location. The intervention was acceptable to both participants and facilitators. At 1 month post intervention, no increase in injecting in ‘risky’ sites (e.g. groin, neck) was reported by participants who attended at least one session. PWID who attended at least one session showed a trend towards greater reduction in injecting risk behaviours, a greater increase in withdrawal planning and were more confident about finding a vein. A mean cost of £58.17 per participant was calculated for those attending one session, £148.54 for those attending two sessions and £270.67 for those attending all three sessions, compared with £0.86 in the control group. Treatment costs across the centres vary as a result of the different levels of attendance, as total session costs are divided by attendees to obtain a cost per attendee. The economic analysis suggests that a cost-effectiveness study would be feasible given the response rates and completeness of data. However, we have identified aspects where the service use questionnaire could be abbreviated given the low numbers reported in several care domains. No adverse events were reported. Conclusions As only 19% of participants attended all three intervention sessions and 47% were followed up 1 month post intervention, a future definitive randomised controlled trial of the intervention is not feasible. Exposure to information on improving injecting techniques did not encourage riskier injecting practices or injecting frequency, and benefits were reported among attendees. The intervention has the potential to positively influence BBV prevention. Harm reduction services should ensure that the intervention content is routinely delivered to PWID to improve vein care and prevent BBVs. Future work The intervention did not meet the complex needs of some PWID, more tailoring may be needed to reach PWID who are more frequent injectors, who are homeless and female. Limitations Intervention delivery proved more feasible in London than other locations. Non-attendance at the York trial site substantially influenced the results. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66453696 and PROSPERO 014:CRD42014012969. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 72. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Ussher ◽  
Cath Best ◽  
Sarah Lewis ◽  
Jennifer McKell ◽  
Tim Coleman ◽  
...  

Abstract BackgroundFinancial incentives are an effective way of helping women to stop smoking during pregnancy. Unfortunately, most women who stop smoking at this time return to smoking within 12 months of the infant’s birth. There is no evidence for interventions that are effective at preventing postpartum smoking relapse. Financial incentives provided after the birth may help women to sustain cessation. This randomised controlled trial will assess the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of financial incentives to help women who are abstinent from smoking at end of pregnancy to avoid return to smoking up to 12 months postpartum. MethodsThis is a UK-based, multi-centre, three-arm, superiority, parallel group, individually randomised controlled trial, with 1:1:1 allocation. It will compare the effectiveness of two financial incentive interventions with each other (one intervention for up to three months postpartum offering up to £120 of incentives, the other for up to 12 months postpartum with up to £300 of incentives) and with a no incentives/usual care control group. Eligible women will be between 34 weeks gestation and two weeks postpartum, abstinent from smoking for at least four weeks, have an expired carbon monoxide (CO) reading <4 parts per million (ppm), aged at least 16 years, intend remaining abstinent from smoking after the birth and able to speak and read English. The primary outcome is self-reported, lapse-free, smoking abstinence from the last quit attempt in pregnancy until 12 months postpartum, biochemically validated by expired CO and/or salivary cotinine or anabasine. Outcomes will be analysed by intention-to-treat and regression models used to compare the proportion of abstinent women between the two intervention groups and between each intervention group and the control group. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness of offering incentives and a qualitative process evaluation will examine barriers and facilitators to trial retention, effectiveness and implementation. DiscussionThis pragmatic randomised controlled trial will test whether offering financial incentives is effective and cost-effective for helping women to avoid smoking relapse during the 12 months after the birth of their baby. Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: 55218215. Registered retrospectively on 5 th June 2019.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e029185
Author(s):  
Richard Collings ◽  
Jennifer A Freeman ◽  
Jos Latour ◽  
Patricia Jane Vickery ◽  
Sam Glasser ◽  
...  

IntroductionFoot ulceration is a multifactorial complication of diabetes. Therapeutic insoles and footwear are frequently used to reduce elevated tissue pressures associated with risk of foot ulceration. A novel protocol using in-shoe pressure measurement technology to provide an instant optimised insole and house shoe solution has been developed, with the aim of reducing foot ulceration.AimThis study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting a multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of a novel instant optimised insole with a standard insole for people with diabetic neuropathy.Methods and analysisThis study is a participant and assessor blinded, randomised, multicentre parallel group feasibility trial with embedded qualitative study. Seventy-six participants will be recruited from three podiatry clinics and randomised to an optimised insole plus usual care (intervention group) or standard insole plus usual care (control group) using a minimisation by randomisation procedure by study centre and previous ulcer status. Assessment visits and data collection will be at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. Feasibility and acceptability of the trial procedures will be determined in terms of recruitment and retention rates, data completion rates, intervention adherence and effectiveness of the blinding.Assessment of the appropriateness and performance of outcome measures will inform selection of the primary and secondary outcomes and sample size estimate for the anticipated definitive randomised controlled trial. Clinical outcomes include incidence of plantar foot ulceration and change in peak plantar pressure. Twelve participants (four from each centre) and three treating podiatrists (one from each centre) will be interviewed to explore their experiences of receiving and delivering the intervention.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the South-West Exeter Research Ethics Committee. Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations, public platforms and academic publications.Trials registration numberISRCTN16011830; Pre-results.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e040108
Author(s):  
Rowan W Johnson ◽  
Sian A Williams ◽  
Daniel F Gucciardi ◽  
Natasha Bear ◽  
Noula Gibson

ObjectiveDetermine the adherence to and effectiveness of an 8-week home exercise programme for children with disabilities delivered using Physitrack, an online exercise prescription tool, compared with traditional paper-based methods.DesignSingle-blinded, parallel-groups, randomised controlled trial (RCT).SettingIntervention took place in participants’ homes in Western Australia.ParticipantsChildren aged 6 to 17 years, with neurodevelopmental disabilities including cerebral palsy (CP), receiving community therapy services.InterventionAll participants completed an individualised home exercise programme, which was delivered to the intervention group using Physitrack and conventional paper-based methods for the control group.Primary outcome measuresAdherence to exercise programme, goal achievement and exercise performance.Secondary outcome measuresEnjoyment, confidence and usability of Physitrack.ResultsFifty-four participants with CP (n=37) or other neurodevelopmental disabilities (n=17) were recruited. Fifty-three were randomised after one early withdrawal. Forty-six completed the 8-week programme, with 24 in the intervention group and 22 in the control group. There was no difference between the two groups for percentage of exercises completed (intervention (n=22): 62.8% (SD 27.7), control (n=22): 55.8% (SD 19.4), between group mean difference −7.0% (95% CI: −21.6 to 7.5, p=0.34)). Both groups showed significant improvement in their self-rated performance of individualised goal activities, however there was no statistically significant difference between groups for goal achievement, quality of exercise performance, enjoyment, confidence or preferred method of delivery. There were no adverse events.ConclusionPhysitrack provides a therapist with a new means of providing an exercise programme with online tools such as exercise videos, but our preliminary findings indicate that it may be no better than a traditional paper-based method for improving exercise adherence or the other outcomes measured. Exercise programmes remain an intervention supported by evidence, but a larger RCT is required to fully evaluate online delivery methods.Trial registration detailsAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; ACTRN12616000743460.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document