Developing a complex intervention to reduce time to presentation with symptoms of lung cancer

Background - Lung cancer is the commonest cause of cancer in Scotland and is usually advanced at diagnosis. Median time between symptom onset and consultation is 14 weeks, so an intervention to prompt earlier presentation could support earlier diagnosis and enable curative treatment in more cases. Aim - To develop and optimise an intervention to reduce the time between onset and first consultation with symptoms that might indicate lung cancer. Design and setting - Iterative development of complex healthcare intervention according to the MRC Framework conducted in Northeast Scotland. Method - The study produced a complex intervention to promote early presentation of lung cancer symptoms. An expert multidisciplinary group developed the first draft of the intervention based on theory and existing evidence. This was refined following focus groups with health professionals and high-risk patients. Results - First draft intervention components included: information communicated persuasively, demonstrations of early consultation and its benefits, behaviour change techniques, and involvement of spouses/partners. Focus groups identified patient engagement, achieving behavioural change, and conflict at the patient–general practice interface as challenges and measures were incorporated to tackle these. Final intervention delivery included a detailed self-help manual and extended consultation with a trained research nurse at which specific action plans were devised. Conclusion -The study has developed an intervention that appeals to patients and health professionals and has theoretical potential for benefit. Now it requires evaluation.

Developing a complex educational–behavioural intervention:the TREAT intervention for patients with atrial fibrillation

This article describes the theoretical and pragmatic development of a patient-centred intervention for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Theoretical models (Common Sense Model, Necessity-Concerns Framework), clinical frameworks, and AF patient feedback contributed to the design of a one-off hour-long behaviour-change intervention package. Intervention materials consisted of a DVD, educational booklet, diary and worksheet, which were patient-centred and easy to administer. The intervention was evaluated within a randomised controlled trial. Several “active theoretical ingredients” were identified (for e.g., where patients believed their medication was less harmful they spent more time within the therapeutic range (TTR), with general harm scores predicting TTR at 6 months). Allowing for social comparison and adopting behaviour change techniques enabled accurate patient understanding of their condition and medication. The process of developing the intervention using theory-derived content and evaluation tools allowed a greater understanding of the mechanisms by which this intervention was successful. Alleviating concerns about treatment medication by educating patients can help to improve adherence. This process of intervention development could be adopted for a range of chronic illnesses and treatments. Critical elements should include the use of: (1) clinical guidelines; (2) appropriate theoretical models; (3) patient input; and (4) appropriate evaluation tools.

Description and preliminary results from a structured specialist behavioural weight management group intervention:Specialist Lifestyle Management (SLiM) programme

Background -  Specialist Lifestyle Management (SLiM) is a structured patient education and self-management group weight management programme. Each session is run monthly over a 6-month period providing a less intensive long-term approach. The groups are patient-centred incorporating educational, motivational, behavioural and cognitive elements. The theoretical background, programme structure and preliminary results of SLiM are presented. Subjects/methods - The study was a pragmatic service evaluation of obese patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥35 kg/m2 with comorbidity or ≥40 kg/m2 without comorbidity referred to a specialist weight management service in the West Midlands, UK. 828 patients were enrolled within SLiM over a 48-month period. Trained facilitators delivered the programme. Preliminary anonymised data were analysed using the intention-to-treat principle. The primary outcome measure was weight loss at 3 and 6 months with comparisons between completers and non-completers performed. The last observation carried forward was used for missing data. Results - Of the 828 enrolled within SLiM, 464 completed the programme (56%). The mean baseline weight was 135 kg (BMI=49.1 kg/m2) with 87.2% of patients having a BMI≥40 kg/m2 and 12.4% with BMI≥60 kg/m2. The mean weight change of all patients enrolled was −4.1 kg (95% CI −3.6 to −4.6 kg, p=0.0001) at the end of SLiM, with completers (n=464) achieving −5.5 kg (95% CI −4.2 to −6.2 kg, p=0.0001) and non-completers achieving −2.3 kg (p=0.0001). The majority (78.6%) who attended the 6-month programme achieved weight loss with 32.3% achieving a ≥5% weight loss. Conclusions - The SLiM programme is an effective group intervention for the management of severe and complex obesity.