HealthMap: A cluster randomised trial of interactive health plans and self-management support to prevent coronary heart disease in people with HIV

Background The leading causes of morbidity and mortality for people in high-income countries living with HIV are now non-AIDS malignancies, cardiovascular disease and other non-communicable diseases associated with ageing. This protocol describes the trial of HealthMap, a model of care for people with HIV (PWHIV) that includes use of an interactive shared health record and self-management support. The aims of the HealthMap trial are to evaluate engagement of PWHIV and healthcare providers with the model, and its effectiveness for reducing coronary heart disease risk, enhancing self-management, and improving mental health and quality of life of PWHIV. Methods/Design The study is a two-arm cluster randomised trial involving HIV clinical sites in several states in Australia. Doctors will be randomised to the HealthMap model (immediate arm) or to proceed with usual care (deferred arm). People with HIV whose doctors are randomised to the immediate arm receive 1) new opportunities to discuss their health status and goals with their HIV doctor using a HealthMap shared health record; 2) access to their own health record from home; 3) access to health coaching delivered by telephone and online; and 4) access to a peer moderated online group chat programme. Data will be collected from participating PWHIV (n = 710) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months and from participating doctors (n = 60) at baseline and 12 months. The control arm will be offered the HealthMap intervention at the end of the trial. The primary study outcomes, measured at 12 months, are 1) 10-year risk of non-fatal acute myocardial infarction or coronary heart disease death as estimated by a Framingham Heart Study risk equation; and 2) Positive and Active Engagement in Life Scale from the Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ). Discussion The study will determine the viability and utility of a novel technology-supported model of care for maintaining the health and wellbeing of people with HIV. If shown to be effective, the HealthMap model may provide a generalisable, scalable and sustainable system for supporting the care needs of people with HIV, addressing issues of equity of access. Trial registration Universal Trial Number (UTN) U111111506489; ClinicalTrial.gov Id NCT02178930 submitted 29 June 2014

Reducing the incidence of coronary heart disease

The incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) has been significantly reduced by the introduction of the National Service Framework in 2000 but has not yet reached set targets. This article analyses the adverse effects of specific CHD risk factors to the cardiovascular system and proposes local and national strategies for further reduction in the incidence, morbidity and mortality of CHD. It provides an example of how nurses can use a health promotion programme to support patients in giving up smoking, a major contributing factor in CHD. The programme uses cognitive behaviour therapy to improve patients' uptake and adherence.

The contribution of qualitative research in designing a complex intervention for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in two different healthcare systems

Background: Developing complex interventions for testing in randomised controlled trials is of increasing importance in healthcare planning. There is a need for careful design of interventions for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD). It has been suggested that integrating qualitative research in the development of a complex intervention may contribute to optimising its design but there is limited evidence of this in practice. This study aims to examine the contribution of qualitative research in developing a complex intervention to improve the provision and uptake of secondary prevention of CHD within primary care in two different healthcare systems.

Methods: In four general practices, one rural and one urban, in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, patients with CHD were purposively selected. Four focus groups with patients (N = 23) and four with staff (N = 29) informed the development of the intervention by exploring how it could be tailored and integrated with current secondary prevention activities for CHD in the two healthcare settings. Following an exploratory trial the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention were discussed in four focus groups (17 patients) and 10 interviews (staff). The data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results: Integrating qualitative research into the development of the intervention provided depth of information about the varying impact, between the two healthcare systems, of different funding and administrative arrangements, on their provision of secondary prevention and identified similar barriers of time constraints, training needs and poor patient motivation. The findings also highlighted the importance to patients of stress management, the need for which had been underestimated by the researchers. The qualitative evaluation provided depth of detail not found in evaluation questionnaires. It highlighted how the intervention needed to be more practical by minimising administration, integrating role plays into behaviour change training, providing more practical information about stress management and removing self-monitoring of lifestyle change.

Conclusion: Qualitative research is integral to developing the design detail of a complex intervention and tailoring its components to address individuals' needs in different healthcare systems. The findings highlight how qualitative research may be a valuable component of the preparation for complex interventions and their evaluation.

Development of a Complex Intervention for Secondary Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease in Primary Care Using the UK Medical Research Council Framework

Objective: To apply the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for development and evaluation of trials of complex interventions to a primary healthcare intervention to promote secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Study Design: Case report of intervention development. Methods: First, literature relating to secondary prevention and lifestyle change was reviewed. Second, a preliminary intervention was modeled, based on literature findings and focus group interviews with patients (n = 23) and staff (n = 29) from 4 general practices. Participants’ experiences of and attitudes toward key intervention components were explored. Third, the preliminary intervention was pilot-tested in 4 general practices. After delivery of the pilot intervention, practitioners evaluated the training sessions, and qualitative data relating to experiences of the intervention were collected using semistructured interviews with staff (n = 10) and patient focus groups (n = 17). Results: Literature review identified 3 intervention components: a structured recall system, practitioner training, and patient information. Initial qualitative data identified variations in recall system design, training requirements (medication prescribing, facilitating behavior change), and information appropriate to the prospective study participants. Identifying detailed structures within intervention components clarified how the intervention could be tailored to individual practice, practitioner, and patient needs while preserving the theoretical functions of the components. Findings from the pilot phase informed further modeling of the intervention, reducing administrative time, increasing practical content of training, and omitting unhelpful patient information. Conclusion: Application of the MRC framework helped to determine the feasibility and development of a complex intervention for primary care research.