Behavior change theory, content and delivery of interventions to enhance adherence in chronic respiratory disease: A systematic review

Background: We sought to describe the theory used to design treatment adherence interventions, the content delivered, and the mode of delivery of these interventions in chronic respiratory disease. Methods: We included randomized controlled trials of adherence interventions (compared to another intervention or control) in adults with chronic respiratory disease (8 databases searched; inception until March 2015). Two reviewers screened and extracted data: post-intervention adherence (measured objectively); behavior change theory, content (grouped into psychological, education and self-management/supportive, telemonitoring, shared decision-making); and delivery. “Effective” studies were those with p < 0.05 for adherence rate between groups. We conducted a narrative synthesis and assessed risk of bias. Results: 12,488 articles screened; 46 included studies (n = 42,91% in OSA or asthma) testing 58 interventions (n = 27, 47% were effective). Nineteen (33%) interventions (15 studies) used 12 different behavior change theories. Use of theory (n = 11,41%) was more common amongst effective interventions. Interventions were mainly educational, self-management or supportive interventions (n = 27,47%). They were commonly delivered by a doctor (n = 20,23%), in face-to-face (n = 48,70%), one-to-one (n = 45,78%) outpatient settings (n = 46,79%) across 2–5 sessions (n = 26,45%) for 1–3 months (n = 26,45%). Doctors delivered a lower proportion (n = 7,18% vs n = 13,28%) and pharmacists (n = 6,15% vs n = 1,2%) a higher proportion of effective than ineffective interventions. Risk of bias was high in >1 domain (n = 43, 93%) in most studies. Conclusions: Behavior change theory was more commonly used to design effective interventions. Few adherence interventions have been developed using theory, representing a gap between intervention design recommendations and research practice.

An investigation of routes to cancer diagnosis in 10 international jurisdictions, as part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: survey development and implementation

Objectives This paper describes the methods used in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 Survey (ICBPM4) which examines time intervals and routes to cancer diagnosis in 10 jurisdictions. We present the study design with defining and measuring time intervals, identifying patients with cancer, questionnaire development, data management and analyses.
Design and setting Recruitment of participants to the ICBPM4 survey is based on cancer registries in each jurisdiction. Questionnaires draw on previous instruments and have been through a process of cognitive testing and piloting in three jurisdictions followed by standardised translation and adaptation. Data analysis focuses on comparing differences in time intervals and routes to diagnosis in the jurisdictions.
Participants Our target is 200 patients with symptomatic breast, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer in each jurisdiction. Patients are approached directly or via their primary care physician (PCP). Patients’ PCPs and cancer treatment specialists (CTSs) are surveyed, and ‘data rules’ are applied to combine and reconcile conflicting information. Where CTS information is unavailable, audit information is sought from treatment records and databases.
Main outcomes Reliability testing of the patient questionnaire showed that agreement was complete (κ=1) in four items and substantial (κ=0.8, 95% CI 0.333 to 1) in one item. The identification of eligible patients is sufficient to meet the targets for breast, lung and colorectal cancer. Initial patient and PCP survey response rates from the UK and Sweden are comparable with similar published surveys. Data collection was completed in early 2016 for all cancer types.
Conclusion An international questionnaire-based survey of patients with cancer, PCPs and CTSs has been developed and launched in 10 jurisdictions. ICBPM4 will help to further understand international differences in cancer survival by comparing time intervals and routes to cancer diagnosis.