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.

Monitoring treatment fidelity in a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention.

Aim. This paper is a report of a study to describe how treatment fidelity is being enhanced and monitored, using a model from the National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium. Background. The objective of treatment fidelity is to minimize errors in interpreting research trial outcomes, and to ascribe those outcomes directly to the intervention at hand. Treatment fidelity procedures are included in trials of complex interventions to account for inferences made from study outcomes. Monitoring treatment fidelity can help improve study design, maximize reliability of results, increase statistical power, determine whether theory-based interventions are responsible for observed changes, and inform the research dissemination process. Methods. Treatment fidelity recommendations from the Behavior Change Consortium were applied to the SPHERE study (Secondary Prevention of Heart DiseasE in GeneRal PracticE), a randomized controlled trial of a complex intervention. Procedures to enhance and monitor intervention implementation included standardizing training sessions, observing intervention consultations, structuring patient recall systems, and using written practice and patient care plans. The research nurse plays an important role in monitoring intervention implementation. Findings. Several methods of applying treatment fidelity procedures to monitoring interventions are possible. The procedure used may be determined by availability of appropriate personnel, fiscal constraints, or time limits. Complex interventions are not straightforward and necessitate a monitoring process at trial stage. Conclusion. The Behavior Change Consortium’s model of treatment fidelity is useful for structuring a system to monitor the implementation of a complex intervention, and helps to increase the reliability and validity of evaluation findings.

Developing the clinical components of a complex intervention for a glaucoma screening trial:a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is a leading cause of avoidable blindness worldwide. Open angle glaucoma is the most common type of glaucoma. No randomised controlled trials have been conducted evaluating the effectiveness of glaucoma screening for reducing sight loss. It is unclear what the most appropriate intervention to be evaluated in any glaucoma screening trial would be. The purpose of this study was to develop the clinical components of an intervention for evaluation in a glaucoma (open angle) screening trial that would be feasible and acceptable in a UK eye-care service.

METHODS: A mixed-methods study, based on the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for complex interventions, integrating qualitative (semi-structured interviews with 46 UK eye-care providers, policy makers and health service commissioners), and quantitative (economic modelling) methods. Interview data were synthesised and used to revise the screening interventions compared within an existing economic model.

RESULTS: The qualitative data indicated broad based support for a glaucoma screening trial to take place in primary care, using ophthalmic trained technical assistants supported by optometry input. The precise location should be tailored to local circumstances. There was variability in opinion around the choice of screening test and target population. Integrating the interview findings with cost-effectiveness criteria reduced 189 potential components to a two test intervention including either optic nerve photography or screening mode perimetry (a measure of visual field sensitivity) with or without tonometry (a measure of intraocular pressure). It would be more cost-effective, and thus acceptable in a policy context, to target screening for open angle glaucoma to those at highest risk but for both practicality and equity arguments the optimal strategy was screening a general population cohort beginning at age forty.

CONCLUSIONS: Interventions for screening for open angle glaucoma that would be feasible from a service delivery perspective were identified. Integration within an economic modelling framework explicitly highlighted the trade-off between cost-effectiveness, feasibility and equity. This study exemplifies the MRC recommendation to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods in developing complex interventions. The next step in the development pathway should encompass the views of service users.

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.

A randomised controlled trial evaluating a rehabilitation complex intervention for patients following intensive care discharge: the RECOVER study.

Introduction: Patients who survive an intensive care unit admission frequently suffer physical and psychological morbidity for many months after discharge. Current rehabilitation pathways are often fragmented and little is known about the optimum method of promoting recovery. Many patients suffer reduced quality of life. Methods and analysis: The authors plan a multicentre randomised parallel group complex intervention trial with concealment of group allocation from outcome assessors. Patients who required more than 48 h of mechanical ventilation and are deemed fit for intensive care unit discharge will be eligible. Patients with primary neurological diagnoses will be excluded. Participants will be randomised into one of the two groups: the intervention group will receive standard ward-based care delivered by the NHS service with additional treatment by a specifically trained generic rehabilitation assistant during ward stay and via telephone contact after hospital discharge and the control group will receive standard ward-based care delivered by the current NHS service. The intervention group will also receive additional information about their critical illness and access to a critical care physician. The total duration of the intervention will be from randomisation to 3 months postrandomisation. The total duration of follow-up will be 12 months from randomisation for both groups. The primary outcome will be the Rivermead Mobility Index at 3 months. Secondary outcomes will include measures of physical and psychological morbidity and function, quality of life and survival over a 12-month period. A health economic evaluation will also be undertaken. Groups will be compared in relation to primary and secondary outcomes; quantitative analyses will be supplemented by focus groups with patients, carers and healthcare workers. Ethics and dissemination: Consent will be obtained from patients and relatives according to patient capacity. Data will be analysed according to a predefined analysis plan.

Potential uses of Bayesian networks as tools for synthesis of systematic reviews of complex interventions

Bayesian networks (BNs) are tools for representing expert knowledge or evidence. They are especially useful for synthesising evidence or belief concerning a complex intervention, assessing the sensitivity of outcomes to different situations or contextual frameworks and framing decision problems that involve alternative types of intervention. Bayesian networks are useful extensions to logic maps when initiating a review or to facilitate synthesis and bridge the gap between evidence acquisition and decision-making. Formal elicitation techniques allow development of BNs on the basis of expert opinion. Such applications are useful alternatives to ‘empty’ reviews, which identify knowledge gaps but fail to support decision-making. Where review evidence exists, it can inform the development of a BN. We illustrate the construction of a BN using a motivating example that demonstrates how BNs can ensure coherence, transparently structure the problem addressed by a complex intervention and assess sensitivity to context, all of which are critical components of robust reviews of complex interventions. We suggest that BNs should be utilised to routinely synthesise reviews of complex interventions or empty reviews where decisions must be made despite poor evidence.

Coconstruction des composantes d'un programme d'intervention en soutien à la résilience de familles dont un adolescent est atteint d'un traumatisme craniocérébral

La vie de famille avec un adolescent comporte son lot de défis. Les émotions de l’adolescent qui se présentent parfois comme des montagnes russes peuvent rendre les relations tendues et difficiles au sein de la cellule familiale, voire même au-delà de celle-ci. Par son caractère inattendu, l’avènement d’un traumatisme craniocérébral (TCC) chez l’adolescent vient fragiliser encore davantage la dynamique familiale. En outre, la myriade d’impacts engendrés par le TCC contraint la famille à modifier son projet de vie en s’investissant ensemble pour le reconstruire. La résilience devant une situation de traumatisme ne se manifeste pas de la même façon pour toutes les familles qui y sont confrontées. Certaines d’entre elles réussissent à se transformer positivement, tandis que d’autres n’y parviennent pas ou manifestent plus de difficultés. Il convient alors d’actualiser des approches de soins interdisciplinaires centrées sur la famille qui favoriseraient la reconnaissance des éléments pouvant soutenir son processus de résilience à travers cette épreuve et, enfin, aider à transformer son projet de vie. Avec comme perspective disciplinaire le modèle humaniste des soins infirmiers (Cara, 2012; Cara & Girard, 2013; Girard & Cara, 2011), cette étude qualitative et inductive (LoBiondo-Wood, Haber, Cameron, & Singh, 2009), soutenue par une approche collaborative de recherche (Desgagné, 1997), a permis la coconstruction des composantes d’un programme d’intervention en soutien à la résilience familiale, avec des familles dont un adolescent est atteint d’un TCC modéré ou sévère et des professionnels de la réadaptation. Le modèle de développement et de validation d’interventions complexes (Van Meijel, Gamel, Van Swieten-Duijfjes, & Grypdonck, 2004) a structuré la collecte des données en trois volets. Le premier volet consistait à identifier les composantes du programme d’intervention selon les familles (n=6) et les professionnels de la réadaptation (n=5). La priorisation et la validation des composantes du programme d’intervention, soit respectivement le deuxième et troisième volets, se sont réalisées auprès de ces mêmes familles (n=6 au volet 2 et n=4 au volet 3) et professionnels de la réadaptation (n=5 aux volets 2 et 3). Le processus d’analyse des données (Miles & Huberman, 2003) a repéré cinq thèmes intégrateurs, considérés comme les composantes du programme d’intervention en soutien à la résilience familiale à la suite du TCC modéré ou sévère d’un adolescent. Ce sont : 1) les caractéristiques de la famille et ses influences; 2) les stratégies familiales positives; 3) le soutien familial et social; 4) la prise en charge de l’aspect occupationnel et; 5) l’apport de la communauté et des professionnels de la santé. Les résultats issus de ce processus de coconstruction ont produit une matrice solide, suffisamment flexible pour pouvoir s’adapter aux différents contextes dans lesquels évoluent les familles et les professionnels de la réadaptation. Cette étude offre en outre des avenues intéressantes tant pour les praticiens que pour les gestionnaires et les chercheurs en sciences infirmières et dans d’autres disciplines quant à la mise en place de stratégies concrètes visant à soutenir le processus de résilience des familles dans des situations particulièrement difficiles de leur vie.

Protocol for the PINCER trial: a cluster randomised trial comparing the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led IT-based intervention with simple feedback in reducing rates of clinically important errors in medicines management in general practices

Background: Medication errors are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in primary care. The aims of this study are to determine the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and acceptability of a pharmacist-led information-technology-based complex intervention compared with simple feedback in reducing proportions of patients at risk from potentially hazardous prescribing and medicines management in general (family) practice. Methods: Research subject group: "At-risk" patients registered with computerised general practices in two geographical regions in England. Design: Parallel group pragmatic cluster randomised trial. Interventions: Practices will be randomised to either: (i) Computer-generated feedback; or (ii) Pharmacist-led intervention comprising of computer-generated feedback, educational outreach and dedicated support. Primary outcome measures: The proportion of patients in each practice at six and 12 months post intervention: - with a computer-recorded history of peptic ulcer being prescribed non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs - with a computer-recorded diagnosis of asthma being prescribed beta-blockers - aged 75 years and older receiving long-term prescriptions for angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or loop diuretics without a recorded assessment of renal function and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. Secondary outcome measures; These relate to a number of other examples of potentially hazardous prescribing and medicines management. Economic analysis: An economic evaluation will be done of the cost per error avoided, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS), comparing the pharmacist-led intervention with simple feedback. Qualitative analysis: A qualitative study will be conducted to explore the views and experiences of health care professionals and NHS managers concerning the interventions, and investigate possible reasons why the interventions prove effective, or conversely prove ineffective. Sample size: 34 practices in each of the two treatment arms would provide at least 80% power (two-tailed alpha of 0.05) to demonstrate a 50% reduction in error rates for each of the three primary outcome measures in the pharmacist-led intervention arm compared with a 11% reduction in the simple feedback arm. Discussion: At the time of submission of this article, 72 general practices have been recruited (36 in each arm of the trial) and the interventions have been delivered. Analysis has not yet been undertaken.

PINCER trial: a cluster randomised trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-led IT-based intervention with simple feedback in reducing rates of clinically important errors in medicines management in general practices

Background: Medication errors in general practice are an important source of potentially preventable morbidity and mortality. Building on previous descriptive, qualitative and pilot work, we sought to investigate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and likely generalisability of a complex pharm acist-led IT-based intervention aiming to improve prescribing safety in general practice. Objectives: We sought to: • Test the hypothesis that a pharmacist-led IT-based complex intervention using educational outreach and practical support is more effective than simple feedback in reducing the proportion of patients at risk from errors in prescribing and medicines management in general practice. • Conduct an economic evaluation of the cost per error avoided, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS). • Analyse data recorded by pharmacists, summarising the proportions of patients judged to be at clinical risk, the actions recommended by pharmacists, and actions completed in the practices. • Explore the views and experiences of healthcare professionals and NHS managers concerning the intervention; investigate potential explanations for the observed effects, and inform decisions on the future roll-out of the pharmacist-led intervention • Examine secular trends in the outcome measures of interest allowing for informal comparison between trial practices and practices that did not participate in the trial contributing to the QRESEARCH database. Methods Two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of 72 English general practices with embedded economic analysis and longitudinal descriptive and qualitative analysis. Informal comparison of the trial findings with a national descriptive study investigating secular trends undertaken using data from practices contributing to the QRESEARCH database. The main outcomes of interest were prescribing errors and medication monitoring errors at six- and 12-months following the intervention. Results: Participants in the pharmacist intervention arm practices were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID without a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) if they had a history of peptic ulcer (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.38, 0.89), to have been prescribed a beta-blocker if they had asthma (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58, 0.91) or (in those aged 75 years and older) to have been prescribed an ACE inhibitor or diuretic without a measurement of urea and electrolytes in the last 15 months (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34, 0.78). The economic analysis suggests that the PINCER pharmacist intervention has 95% probability of being cost effective if the decision-maker’s ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 (6 months) or £85 (12 months) per error avoided. The intervention addressed an issue that was important to professionals and their teams and was delivered in a way that was acceptable to practices with minimum disruption of normal work processes. Comparison of the trial findings with changes seen in QRESEARCH practices indicated that any reductions achieved in the simple feedback arm were likely, in the main, to have been related to secular trends rather than the intervention. Conclusions Compared with simple feedback, the pharmacist-led intervention resulted in reductions in proportions of patients at risk of prescribing and monitoring errors for the primary outcome measures and the composite secondary outcome measures at six-months and (with the exception of the NSAID/peptic ulcer outcome measure) 12-months post-intervention. The intervention is acceptable to pharmacists and practices, and is likely to be seen as costeffective by decision makers.

The food choice at work study: effectiveness of complex workplace dietary interventions on dietary behaviours and diet-related disease risk - study protocol for a clustered controlled trial

Background: Dietary behaviour interventions have the potential to reduce diet-related disease. Ample opportunity exists to implement these interventions in the workplace. The overall aim is to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of complex dietary interventions focused on environmental dietary modification alone or in combination with nutrition education in large manufacturing workplace settings. Methods/design: A clustered controlled trial involving four large multinational manufacturing workplaces in Cork will be conducted. The complex intervention design has been developed using the Medical Research Council's framework and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines and will be reported using the TREND statement for the transparent reporting of evaluations with non-randomized designs. It will draw on a soft paternalistic 'nudge' theoretical perspective. It will draw on a soft paternalistic "nudge" theoretical perspective. Nutrition education will include three elements: group presentations, individual nutrition consultations and detailed nutrition information. Environmental dietary modification will consist of five elements: (a) restriction of fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt, (b) increase in fibre, fruit and vegetables, (c) price discounts for whole fresh fruit, (d) strategic positioning of healthier alternatives and (e) portion size control. No intervention will be offered in workplace A (control). Workplace B will receive nutrition education. Workplace C will receive nutrition education and environmental dietary modification. Workplace D will receive environmental dietary modification alone. A total of 448 participants aged 18 to 64 years will be selected randomly. All permanent, full-time employees, purchasing at least one main meal in the workplace daily, will be eligible. Changes in dietary behaviours, nutrition knowledge, health status with measurements obtained at baseline and at intervals of 3 to 4 months, 7 to 9 months and 13 to 16 months will be recorded. A process evaluation and cost-effectiveness economic evaluation will be undertaken. Discussion: A 'Food Choice at Work' toolbox (concise teaching kit to replicate the intervention) will be developed to inform and guide future researchers, workplace stakeholders, policy makers and the food industry. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN35108237.

A rehabilitation intervention to promote physical recovery following intensive care: a detailed description of construct development, rationale and content together with proposed taxonomy to capture processes in a randomised controlled trial.

Background: increasing numbers of patients are surviving critical illness, but survival may be associated with a constellation of physical and psychological sequelae that can cause on going disability and reduced health-related quality of life. Limited evidence currently exists to guide the optimum structure, timing, and content of rehabilitation programmes. There is a need to both develop and evaluate interventions to support and expedite recovery during the post-ICU discharge period. This paper describes the construct development for a complex rehabilitation intervention intended to promote physical recovery following critical illness. The intervention is currently being evaluated in a randomised trial (ISRCTN09412438; funder Chief Scientists Office, Scotland). Methods: the intervention was developed using the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing complex healthcare interventions. We ensured representation from a wide variety of stakeholders including content experts from multiple specialties, methodologists, and patient representation. The intervention construct was initially based on literature review, local observational and audit work, qualitative studies with ICU survivors, and brainstorming activities. Iterative refinement was aided by the publication of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline (No. 83), publicly available patient stories (Healthtalkonline), a stakeholder event in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, and local piloting. Modelling and further work involved a feasibility trial and development of a novel generic rehabilitation assistant (GRA) role. Several rounds of external peer review during successive funding applications also contributed to development. Results: the final construct for the complex intervention involved a dedicated GRA trained to pre-defined competencies across multiple rehabilitation domains (physiotherapy, dietetics, occupational therapy, and speech/language therapy), with specific training in post-critical illness issues. The intervention was from ICU discharge to 3 months post-discharge, including inpatient and post-hospital discharge elements. Clear strategies to provide information to patients/families were included. A detailed taxonomy was developed to define and describe the processes undertaken, and capture them during the trial. The detailed process measure description, together with a range of patient, health service, and economic outcomes were successfully mapped on to the modified CONSORT recommendations for reporting non-pharmacologic trial interventions. Conclusions: the MRC complex intervention framework was an effective guide to developing a novel post-ICU rehabilitation intervention. Combining a clearly defined new healthcare role with a detailed taxonomy of process and activity enabled the intervention to be clearly described for the purpose of trial delivery and reporting. These data will be useful when interpreting the results of the randomised trial, will increase internal and external trial validity, and help others implement the intervention if the intervention proves clinically and cost effective.

Development of an intervention to support medication management in patients with multimorbidity in primary care

The overarching aim of this thesis was to develop an intervention to support patient-centred prescribing in the context of multimorbidity in primary care. Methods A range of research methods were used to address different components of the Medical Research Council, UK (MRC) guidance on the development and evaluation of complex interventions in health care. The existing evidence on GPs’ perceptions of the management of multimorbidity was systematically reviewed. In qualitative interviews, chart-stimulated recall was used to explore the challenges experienced by GPs when prescribing for multimorbid patients. In a cross-sectional study, the psychosocial issues that complicate the management of multimorbidity were examined. To develop the complex intervention, the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) was used to integrate behavioural theory with the findings of these three studies. A feasibility study of the new intervention was then conducted with GPs. Results The systematic review revealed four domains of clinical practice where GPs experienced difficulties in multimorbidity. The qualitative interview study showed that GPs responded to these difficulties by ‘satisficing’. In multimorbid patients perceived as stable, GPs preferred to ‘maintain the status quo’ rather than actively change medications. In the cross-sectional study, the significant association between multimorbidity and negative psychosocial factors was shown. These findings informed the development of the ‘Multimorbidity Collaborative Medication Review and Decision-making’ (MY COMRADE) intervention. The intervention involves peer support: two GPs review the medications prescribed to a complex multimorbid patient together. In the feasibility study, GPs reported that the intervention was appropriate for the context of general practice; was widely applicable to their patients with multimorbidity; and recommendations for optimising medications arose from all collaborative reviews. Conclusion Applying theory to empirical data has led to an intervention that is implementable in clinical practice, and has the potential to positively change GPs’ behaviour in the management of medications for patients with multimorbidity.