'It just wasn't going to be heard': A mixed methods study to compare different ways of involving people with diabetes and health-care professionals in health intervention research

Development of the 'ACT now & check-it-out' intervention to support patient-initiated follow up for Head and Neck cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Current Head and Neck cancer (HNC) follow-up models are considered sub-optimal at detecting recurrences. We describe the development of a patient-initiated follow up (PIFU) trial intervention support package, to support HNC patients to engage in PIFU self-care behaviors.

METHODS

An intervention mapping approach, informed by evidence synthesis, theory and stakeholder consultation, guided intervention development. Data sources included a patient survey (n = 144), patient interviews (n = 30), 7 workshops with patients (n = 25) and caregivers (n = 3) and 5 workshops with health professionals (n = 21).

RESULTS

The intervention ('ACT now & check-it-out') comprises an education and support session with a health professional and an app and/or a booklet for patients. The main targets for change in patient self-care behaviors were: assessing what is normal for them; regularly checking for symptom changes; prompt help-seeking for persistent/new symptoms; self-management of fear of recurrence; engaging with the intervention over time.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed an evidence, person and theory-based intervention to support PIFU self-care behaviors in HNC patients.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A trial is underway to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. If successful, this intervention could be adapted for patients with other cancers or diseases, which is important given the recent shift towards PIFU pathways.

Pathway From Type 2 Diabetes Diagnosis to Action: How to Move People Forward

Seven self-care behaviors-healthy coping, healthy eating, being active, taking medication, monitoring, reducing risk, and problem-solving-are recommended for individuals with diabetes to achieve optimal health and quality of life. People newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes may find it challenging to learn and properly incorporate all of these self-care behaviors into their life. This qualitative study explored the experiences and perceived immediate self-management and psychosocial support needs in individuals newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Data analysis revealed the significant challenges individuals encounter after a type 2 diabetes diagnosis. Five main themes were identified: 1) type 2 diabetes diagnosis competes with other complex life challenges, 2) difficulty in performing behavior modification actions, 3) lack of support, 4) emergence of emotional and psychological issues, and 5) need for planned individualized follow-up support after a type 2 diabetes diagnosis. This study revealed a gap in care after type 2 diabetes diagnosis. Individualized support is needed to assist people in moving successfully from diagnosis to being well equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to properly manage the condition.

What and how do different stakeholders contribute to intervention development? A mixed methods study

Background: UK Medical Research Council guidelines recommend end-user involvement in intervention development. There is limited evidence on the contributions of different end-users to this process. The aim of this Study Within A Trial (SWAT) was to identify and compare contributions from two groups of end-users - people with diabetes' (PWD) and healthcare professionals' (HCPs), during consensus meetings to inform an intervention to improve retinopathy screening uptake. Methods: A mixed method, explanatory sequential design comprising a survey and three semi-structured consensus meetings was used. PWD were randomly assigned to a diabetes only or combined meeting. HCPs attended a HCP only or combined meeting, based on availability. In the survey, participants rated intervention proposals on acceptability and feasibility. Survey results informed the meeting topic guide. Transcripts were analysed deductively to compare feedback on intervention proposals, suggestions for new content, and contributions to the final intervention. Results: Overall, 13 PWD and 17 HCPs completed the survey, and 16 PWD and 15 HCPs attended meetings. For 31 of the 39 intervention proposals in the survey, there were differences (≥10%) between the proportion of HCPs and PWD who rated proposals as acceptable and/or feasible. End-user groups shared and unique concerns about proposals; both were concerned about informing but not scaring people when communicating risk, while concerns about resources were mostly unique to HCPs and concerns about privacy were mostly unique to PWD.  Fewer suggestions for new intervention content from the combined meeting were integrated into the final intervention as they were not feasible for implementation in general practice. Participants contributed four new behaviour change techniques not present in the original proposals: goal setting (outcome), restructuring the physical environment, material incentive (behaviour) and punishment. Conclusions: Preferences for intervention content may differ across end-user groups, with feedback varying depending on whether end-users are involved simultaneously or separately.

What and how do different stakeholders contribute to intervention development? A mixed methods study

Background: UK Medical Research Council guidelines recommend end-user involvement in intervention development. There is limited evidence on the contributions of different end-users to this process. The aim of this Study Within A Trial (SWAT) was to identify and compare contributions from two groups of end-users - people with diabetes' (PWD) and healthcare professionals' (HCPs), during consensus meetings to inform an intervention to improve retinopathy screening uptake. Methods: A mixed method, explanatory sequential design comprising a survey and three semi-structured consensus meetings was used. PWD were randomly assigned to a PWD only or combined meeting. HCPs attended a HCP only or combined meeting, based on availability. In the survey, participants rated intervention proposals on acceptability and feasibility. Survey results informed the meeting topic guide. Transcripts were analysed deductively to compare feedback on intervention proposals, suggestions for new content, and contributions to the final intervention. Results: Overall, 13 PWD and 17 HCPs completed the survey, and 16 PWD and 15 HCPs attended meetings. For 31 of the 39 intervention proposals in the survey, there were differences (≥10%) between the proportion of HCPs and PWD who rated proposals as acceptable and/or feasible. End-user groups shared and unique concerns about proposals; both were concerned about informing but not scaring people when communicating risk, while concerns about resources were mostly unique to HCPs and concerns about privacy were mostly unique to PWD.  Fewer suggestions for new intervention content from the combined meeting were integrated into the final intervention as they were not feasible for implementation in general practice. Participants contributed four new behaviour change techniques not present in the original proposals: goal setting (outcome), restructuring the physical environment, material incentive (behaviour) and punishment. Conclusions: Preferences for intervention content may differ across end-user groups, with feedback varying depending on whether end-users are involved simultaneously or separately.

A micro costing analysis of the development of a primary care intervention to improve the uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening

Background

The application of economic analysis within implementation science is still developing and the cost of intervention development, which differs markedly from the costs of initial implementation and maintenance, is often overlooked. Our aim was to retrospectively cost the development of a multifaceted intervention in primary care to improve attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening.

Methods

A retrospective micro costing of developing the intervention from the research funder perspective was conducted. It was based on a systematic intervention development process involving analysis of existing audit data and interviews with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs), conducting consensus meetings with patients and HCPs, and using these data together with a rapid review of the effectiveness of interventions, to inform the final intervention. Both direct (non-personnel, e.g. travel, stationary, room hire) and indirect (personnel) costs were included. Data sources included researcher time logs, payroll data, salary scales, an online financial management system, invoices and purchase orders. Personnel involved in the intervention development were consulted to determine the activities they conducted and the duration of their involvement. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to estimate uncertainty around parameters and scope.

Results

The total cost of intervention development (July 2014–January 2019) was €40,485 of which 78% were indirect (personnel) costs (€31,451). In total, personnel contributed 1368 h to intervention development. Highest cost activities were the patient interviews, and consensus process, contributing 23% and 34% of the total cost. Varying estimated time spent on intervention development activities by + 10% increased total intervention development cost by 6% to €42,982.

Conclusions

Our results highlight that intervention development requires a significant amount of human capital input, combining research experience, patient and public experience, and expert knowledge in relevant fields. The time committed to intervention development is critical but has a significant opportunity cost. With limited resources for research on developing and implementing interventions, capturing intervention development costs and incorporating them as part of assessment of cost-effective interventions, could inform research priority and resource allocation decisions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01085-4.

Development of an intervention to facilitate implementation and uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening

BACKGROUND

'Implementation interventions' refer to methods used to enhance the adoption and implementation of clinical interventions such as diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS). DRS is effective, yet uptake is often suboptimal. Despite most routine management taking place in primary care and the central role of health care professionals (HCP) in referring to DRS, few interventions have been developed for primary care. We aimed to develop a multifaceted intervention targeting both professionals and patients to improve DRS uptake as an example of a systematic development process combining theory, stakeholder involvement, and evidence.

METHODS

First, we identified target behaviours through an audit in primary care of screening attendance. Second, we interviewed patients (n = 47) and HCP (n = 30), to identify determinants of uptake using the Theoretical Domains Framework, mapping these to behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to develop intervention content. Thirdly, we conducted semi-structured consensus groups with stakeholders, specifically users of the intervention, i.e. patients (n = 15) and HCPs (n = 16), regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and local relevance of selected BCTs and potential delivery modes. We consulted representatives from the national DRS programme to check intervention 'fit' with existing processes. We applied the APEASE criteria (affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, side effects, and equity) to select the final intervention components, drawing on findings from the previous steps, and a rapid evidence review of operationalised BCT effectiveness.

RESULTS

We identified potentially modifiable target behaviours at the patient (consent, attendance) and professional (registration) level. Patient barriers to consent/attendance included confusion between screening and routine eye checks, and fear of a negative result. Enablers included a recommendation from friends/family or professionals and recognising screening importance. Professional barriers to registration included the time to register patients and a lack of readily available information on uptake in their local area/practice. Most operationalised BCTs were acceptable to patients and HCPs while the response to feasibility varied. After considering APEASE, the core intervention, incorporating a range of BCTs, involved audit/feedback, electronic prompts targeting professionals, HCP-endorsed reminders (face-to-face, by phone and letter), and an information leaflet for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the example of an intervention to improve DRS uptake, this study illustrates an approach to integrate theory with user involvement. This process highlighted tensions between theory-informed and stakeholder suggestions, and the need to apply the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)/BCT structure flexibly. The final intervention draws on the trusted professional-patient relationship, leveraging existing services to enhance implementation of the DRS programme. Intervention feasibility in primary care will be evaluated in a randomised cluster pilot trial.

'It just wasn't going to be heard': A mixed methods study to compare different ways of involving people with diabetes and health-care professionals in health intervention research

Background

Guidelines recommend involving intervention users in the intervention development process. However, there is limited guidance on how to involve users in a meaningful and effective way.

Objective

The aim of this Study within a trial was to compare participants’ experiences of taking part in one of three types of consensus meetings—people with diabetes‐only, combined people with diabetes and health‐care professionals (HCPs) or HCP‐only meeting.

Design

The study used a mixed methods convergent design. Quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (observation notes and semi‐structured telephone interviews) data were collected to explore participants’ experiences. A triangulation protocol was used to compare quantitative and qualitative findings.

Participants

People with diabetes (recruited via multiple strategies) were randomly assigned to attend the people with diabetes or combined meeting. HCPs (recruited through professional networks) attended the HCP or combined meeting based on their availability.

Results

Sixteen people with diabetes and 15 HCPs attended meetings, of whom 18 participated in a telephone interview. Participants’ questionnaire responses suggested similar positive experiences across the three meetings. Observation and semi‐structured interviews highlighted differences experienced by participants in the combined meeting relating to: perceived lack of common ground; feeling empowered versus undervalued; needing to feel safe and going off task to fill the void.

Conclusions

The qualitative theme ‘needing to feel safe’ may explain the dissonance (disagreement) between quantitative and qualitative data. In this study, involving patients and HCPs simultaneously in a consensus process was not found to be as suitable as involving each stakeholder group separately.