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.

Risk of Several Cancers is Higher in Urban Areas after Adjusting for Socioeconomic Status. Results from a Two-Country Population-Based Study of 18 Common Cancers

Some studies suggest that there are urban-rural variations in cancer incidence but whether these simply reflect urban-rural socioeconomic variation is unclear. We investigated whether there were urban-rural variations in the incidence of 18 cancers, after adjusting for socioeconomic status. Cancers diagnosed between 1995 and 2007 were extracted from the population-based National Cancer Registry Ireland and Northern Ireland Cancer Registry and categorised by urban-rural status, based on population density of area of residence at diagnosis (rural 15 people per hectare). Relative risks (RR) were calculated by negative binomial regression, adjusting for age, country and three area-based markers of socioeconomic status. Risks were significantly higher in both sexes in urban than rural residents with head and neck (males RR urban vs. rural = 1.53, 95 % CI 1.42-1.64; females RR = 1.29, 95 % CI 1.15-1.45), esophageal (males 1.21, 1.11-1.31; females 1.21, 1.08-1.35), stomach (males 1.36, 1.27-1.46; females 1.19, 1.08-1.30), colorectal (males 1.14, 1.09-1.18; females 1.04, 1.00-1.09), lung (males 1.54, 1.47-1.61; females 1.74, 1.65-1.84), non-melanoma skin (males 1.13, 1.10-1.17; females 1.23, 1.19-1.27) and bladder (males 1.30, 1.21-1.39; females 1.31, 1.17-1.46) cancers. Risks of breast, cervical, kidney and brain cancer were significantly higher in females in urban areas. Prostate cancer risk was higher in rural areas (0.94, 0.90-0.97). Other cancers showed no significant urban-rural differences. After adjusting for socioeconomic variation, urban-rural differences were evident for 12 of 18 cancers. Variations in healthcare utilization and known risk factors likely explain some of the observed associations. Explanations for others are unclear and, in the interests of equity, warrant further investigation. © 2014 The New York Academy of Medicine.