Development and validation of the physical exercise program "Active Mums" for postpartum recovery: application of the CReDECI-2 guidelines

Postpartum physical activity is a public health issue. Reporting on the quality of exercise interventions designs must be ensured in view of the reproducibility and successful implementation of such studies. The objective was to develop and preliminary validate a physical exercise program for postpartum recovery, aiming to promote physical fitness and health of the new mothers. The study was carried out through the three stages of development, piloting, and evaluation. The Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) was used to describe the postpartum exercise program. The Criteria for Reporting the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions in Healthcare (CReDECI2) was followed to develop and preliminary validate the program. A tailored postpartum exercise program was developed based on evidence-based international recommendations to be implemented by qualified exercise professionals. A pilot intervention of 16 weeks was carried out, engaging a group of postpartum women. The viability of the program was subsequently evaluated by all participants. The present work provided guidance to develop a study protocol with a larger sample in order to prove the effectiveness of a supervised postpartum exercise program on selected parameters of health.

Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients

BACKGROUND

Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Treatment options for established delirium are limited and so prevention of delirium is desirable. Non-pharmacological interventions are thought to be important in delirium prevention.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients outside intensive care units (ICU).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, with additional searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Portal/ICTRP to 16 September 2020. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters were used to restrict the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised adults cared for outside intensive care or high dependency settings. We only included non-pharmacological interventions which were designed and implemented to prevent delirium.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently examined titles and abstracts identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data from full-text articles. Any disagreements on eligibility and inclusion were resolved by consensus. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were: incidence of delirium; inpatient and later mortality; and new diagnosis of dementia. We included secondary and adverse outcomes as pre-specified in the review protocol. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes and between-group mean differences for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. A complementary exploratory analysis was undertaker using a Bayesian component network meta-analysis fixed-effect model to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the individual components of multicomponent interventions and describe which components were most strongly associated with reducing the incidence of delirium.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 RCTs that recruited a total of 5718 adult participants. Fourteen trials compared a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with usual care. Two trials compared liberal and restrictive blood transfusion thresholds. The remaining six trials each investigated a different non-pharmacological intervention. Incidence of delirium was reported in all studies.  Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, we identified risks of bias in all included trials. All were at high risk of performance bias as participants and personnel were not blinded to the interventions. Nine trials were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors and three more were at unclear risk in this domain.  Pooled data showed that multi-component non-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (10.5% incidence in the intervention group, compared to 18.4% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.71, I² = 39%; 14 studies; 3693 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to risk of bias).  There may be little or no effect of multicomponent interventions on inpatient mortality compared to usual care (5.2% in the intervention group, compared to 4.5% in the control group, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74, I² = 15%; 10 studies; 2640 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision).  No studies of multicomponent interventions reported data on new diagnoses of dementia.  Multicomponent interventions may result in a small reduction of around a day in the duration of a delirium episode (mean difference (MD) -0.93, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.14 days, I² = 65%; 351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multicomponent interventions on delirium severity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.14, I²=64%; 147 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and serious imprecision). Multicomponent interventions may result in a reduction in hospital length of stay compared to usual care (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.56 to -0.04 days, I²=91%; 3351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency), but little to no difference in new care home admission at the time of hospital discharge (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07; 536 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Reporting of other adverse outcomes was limited.  Our exploratory component network meta-analysis found that re-orientation (including use of familiar objects), cognitive stimulation and sleep hygiene were associated with reduced risk of incident delirium. Attention to nutrition and hydration, oxygenation, medication review, assessment of mood and bowel and bladder care were probably associated with a reduction in incident delirium but estimates included the possibility of no benefit or harm.  Reducing sensory deprivation, identification of infection, mobilisation and pain control all had summary estimates that suggested potential increases in delirium incidence, but the uncertainty in the estimates was substantial.  Evidence from two trials suggests that use of a liberal transfusion threshold over a restrictive transfusion threshold probably results in little to no difference in incident delirium (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.36; I² = 9%; 294 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias).  Six other interventions were examined, but evidence for each was limited to single studies and we identified no evidence of delirium prevention.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality. There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain. Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.

Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients

BACKGROUND

Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Treatment options for established delirium are limited and so prevention of delirium is desirable. Non-pharmacological interventions are thought to be important in delirium prevention.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients outside intensive care units (ICU).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, with additional searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Portal/ICTRP to 16 September 2020. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters were used to restrict the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised adults cared for outside intensive care or high dependency settings. We only included non-pharmacological interventions which were designed and implemented to prevent delirium.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently examined titles and abstracts identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data from full-text articles. Any disagreements on eligibility and inclusion were resolved by consensus. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were: incidence of delirium; inpatient and later mortality; and new diagnosis of dementia. We included secondary and adverse outcomes as pre-specified in the review protocol. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes and between-group mean differences for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. A complementary exploratory analysis was undertaker using a Bayesian component network meta-analysis fixed-effect model to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the individual components of multicomponent interventions and describe which components were most strongly associated with reducing the incidence of delirium.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 RCTs that recruited a total of 5718 adult participants. Fourteen trials compared a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with usual care. Two trials compared liberal and restrictive blood transfusion thresholds. The remaining six trials each investigated a different non-pharmacological intervention. Incidence of delirium was reported in all studies.  Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, we identified risks of bias in all included trials. All were at high risk of performance bias as participants and personnel were not blinded to the interventions. Nine trials were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors and three more were at unclear risk in this domain.  Pooled data showed that multi-component non-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (10.5% incidence in the intervention group, compared to 18.4% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.71, I2 = 39%; 14 studies; 3693 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to risk of bias).  There may be little or no effect of multicomponent interventions on inpatient mortality compared to usual care (5.2% in the intervention group, compared to 4.5% in the control group, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74, I2 = 15%; 10 studies; 2640 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision).  No studies of multicomponent interventions reported data on new diagnoses of dementia.  Multicomponent interventions may result in a small reduction of around a day in the duration of a delirium episode (mean difference (MD) -0.93, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.14 days, I2 = 65%; 351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multicomponent interventions on delirium severity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.14, I2=64%; 147 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and serious imprecision). Multicomponent interventions may result in a reduction in hospital length of stay compared to usual care (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.56 to -0.04 days, I2=91%; 3351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency), but little to no difference in new care home admission at the time of hospital discharge (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07; 536 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Reporting of other adverse outcomes was limited.  Our exploratory component network meta-analysis found that re-orientation (including use of familiar objects), cognitive stimulation and sleep hygiene were associated with reduced risk of incident delirium. Attention to nutrition and hydration, oxygenation, medication review, assessment of mood and bowel and bladder care were probably associated with a reduction in incident delirium but estimates included the possibility of no benefit or harm.  Reducing sensory deprivation, identification of infection, mobilisation and pain control all had summary estimates that suggested potential increases in delirium incidence, but the uncertainty in the estimates was substantial.  Evidence from two trials suggests that use of a liberal transfusion threshold over a restrictive transfusion threshold probably results in little to no difference in incident delirium (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.36; I2 = 9%; 294 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias).  Six other interventions were examined, but evidence for each was limited to single studies and we identified no evidence of delirium prevention.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality. There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain. Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.

Can you see frailty? An exploratory study of the use of a patient photograph in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation programme

BACKGROUND

Frailty is an important consideration in the assessment of transcatheter aortic valve implantation patients. The documentation of a patient photograph to augment the objective measurement of frailty has been adopted by some transcatheter aortic valve implantation multidisciplinary (TAVI) programmes.

METHODS

We used a prospective two-part multimethod study design. In part A, we examined the concordance between the Essential Frailty Toolset (EFT) and the score attributed by healthcare professionals based on visual rating of photographs using kappa estimates and linear regression. In part B, we conducted a content analysis qualitative study to elicit information about how the TAVI multidisciplinary team used photographs to form impressions about frailty.

FINDINGS

Part A: 94 healthcare professionals (registered nurses/allied health 65%; physicians 35%) rated 40 representative photographs (women 42.5%; mean age 83.4±7.5; mobility aid 40%) between 0 (robust) and 5 (very frail). The estimate of weighted kappa was 0.2575 (95% confidence interval 0.082-0.433), indicating fair agreement between median healthcare professional visual and EFT score, especially when the EFT was 1 or 4. There was significant discordance among raters (kappa estimate 0.110, 95% confidence interval 0.079-0.141). Age, sex and mobility aid did not have a significant effect on score discordance. Part B: 12 members of the TAVI multidisciplinary team (registered nurses 27.5%; physicians 72.5%) were shown a series of six representative patient photographs. The following themes emerged from the data: (a) looking at the outside; (b) thinking about the inside; (c) use but with caution; and (d) a better approach.

CONCLUSION

A patient photograph offers complementary information to the multimodality assessment of TAVI patients.

A complex interprofessional intervention to improve the management of painful procedures in neonates

During hospitalization, neonates are exposed to a stressful environment and a high number of painful procedures. If pain is not treated adequately, short‐ and long‐term complications may develop. Despite evidence about neonatal pain and available guidelines, procedural pain remains undertreated. This gap between research and practice is mostly due to limited implementation of evidence‐based knowledge and time constraints. This study describes in detail the development process of a complex interprofessional intervention to improve the management of procedural pain in neonates called NEODOL© (NEOnato DOLore). The framework of the Medical Research Council (MRC) for the development and evaluation of complex interventions was used as a methodological guide for the design of the NEODOL© intervention. The development of the intervention is based on several steps and multiple methods. To report this process, we used the Criteria for Reporting the Development of Complex Interventions in Healthcare (CReDECI 2). Additionally, we evaluated the content of the intervention using a Delphi method to obtain consensus from experts, stakeholders, and parents. The complex interprofessional intervention, NEODOL©, is developed and designed for three groups: healthcare professionals, parents, and neonates for a level IIb neonatal unit at a regional hospital in southern Switzerland. A total of 16 panelists participated in the Delphi process. At the end of the Delphi process, the panelists endorsed the NEODOL© intervention as important and feasible. Following the MRC guidelines, a multimethod process was used to develop a complex interprofessional intervention to improve the management of painful procedures in newborns. Complex interprofessional interventions need theoretical bases, careful development, and integration of stakeholders to provide a comprehensive approach. The NEODOL intervention consists of promising components and has the potential to improve the management of painful procedures and should facilitate the knowledge translation into practice.

Systematic scoping review of frameworks used to develop rehabilitation interventions for older adults

OBJECTIVES

Rehabilitation interventions for older adults are complex as they involve a number of interacting components, have multiple outcomes of interest and are influenced by a number of contextual factors. The importance of rigorous intervention development prior to formal evaluation has been acknowledged and a number of frameworks have been developed. This review explored which frameworks have been used to guide the development of rehabilitation interventions for older adults.

DESIGN

Systematic scoping review.

SETTING

Studies were not limited for inclusion based on setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Studies were included that featured older adults (>65 years of age).

INTERVENTIONS

Studies were included that reported the development of a rehabilitation intervention.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Data were extracted on study population, setting, type of intervention developed and frameworks used. The primary outcome of interest was the type of intervention development framework.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were included. There was a range of underlying medical conditions including mild cognitive impairment and dementia (n=5), cardiac (n=4), stroke (n=3), falls (n=3), hip fracture (n=2), diabetes (n=2), breast cancer (n=1), Parkinson's disease (n=1), depression (n=1), chronic health problems (n=1), osteoarthritis (n=1), leg ulcer (n=1), neck pain (n=1) and foot problems (n=1). The intervention types being developed included multicomponent, support based, cognitive, physical activities, nursing led, falls prevention and occupational therapy led. Twelve studies (34%) did not report using a framework. Five frameworks were reported with the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions being the most frequently cited (77%, n=17).

CONCLUSION

At present, the MRC framework is the most popular for developing rehabilitation interventions for older adults. Many studies do not report using a framework. Further, specific guidance to assist this complex field of rehabilitation research is required.

The use of the Medical Research Council framework in the study of complex interventions in nursing: a literature review

BACKGROUND

Nursing care addresses several complex interventions and international research into complex interventions is growing. The Medical Research Council framework (MRC-f) is the most cited framework describing the development and evaluation of interventions, but little is known about its use in nursing sciences.

AIM

To review the literature for uses of MRC-f in developing complex interventions.

DISCUSSION

Of 287 studies initially identified; the final sample comprised 13 papers. Most studies referred to the development or feasibility phase and were performed in the community. They were mainly focused on the physical dimension and few had a holistic approach. The lack of time and financial support, the subjective nature of these interventions, and difficulties in the recruitment of participants were reported as barriers.

CONCLUSION

The use of MRC-f in the study of complex interventions is recent in nursing research, but it enhances the design of more feasible and effective nursing interventions. The lack of time, difficulties in the recruitment of adequate sample sizes and lack of financial support were identified as important barriers in the development of complex nursing interventions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nurse researchers need to develop skills in planning and conducting research into complex interventions. Academic courses may also be helpful in improving such skills.

Increasing value and reducing waste by optimizing the development of complex interventions: Enriching the development phase of the Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework

BACKGROUND

In recent years there has been much emphasis on 'research waste' caused by poor question selection, insufficient attention to previous research results, and avoidable weakness in research design, conduct and analysis. Little attention has been paid to the effect of inadequate development of interventions before proceeding to a full clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

We therefore propose to enrich the development phase of the MRC Framework by adding crucial elements to improve the likelihood of success and enhance the fit with clinical practice METHODS: Based on existing intervention development guidance and synthesis, a comprehensive iterative intervention development approach is proposed. Examples from published reports are presented to illustrate the methodology that can be applied within each element to enhance the intervention design.

RESULTS

A comprehensive iterative approach is presented by combining the elements of the MRC Framework development phase with essential elements from existing guidance including: problem identification, the systematic identification of evidence, identification or development of theory, determination of needs, the examination of current practice and context, modelling the process and expected outcomes leading to final element: the intervention design. All elements are drawn from existing models to provide intervention developers with a greater chance of producing an intervention that is well adopted, effective and fitted to the context.

CONCLUSION

This comprehensive approach of developing interventions will strengthen the internal and external validity, minimize research waste and add value to health care research. In complex interventions in health care research, flaws in the development process immediately impact the chances of success. Knowledge regarding the causal mechanisms and interactions within the intended clinical context is needed to develop interventions that fit daily practice and are beneficial for the end-user.

Optimisation of complex health interventions prior to a randomised controlled trial: a scoping review of strategies used

BACKGROUND

Many complex intervention trials fail to show an intervention effect. Although this may be due to genuine ineffectiveness, it may also be the result of sub-optimal intervention design, implementation failure or a combination of these. Given current financial constraints and the pressure to reduce waste and increase value in health services research, pre-trial strategies are needed to reduce the likelihood of design or implementation failure and to maximise the intervention's potential for effectiveness. In this scoping review, we aimed to identify and synthesise the available evidence relating to the strategies and methods used to 'optimise' complex interventions at the pre-trial stage.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO and ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source for papers published between January 2000 and March 2015. We included intervention development and optimisation studies that explored potential intervention weaknesses and limitations before moving to a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT). Two reviewers independently applied selection criteria and systematically extracted information relating to the following: study characteristics; intervention under development; framework used to guide the development process; areas of focus of the optimisation process, methods used and outcomes of the optimisation process. Data were tabulated and summarised in a narrative format.

RESULTS

We screened 3968 titles and 231 abstracts for eligibility. Eighty-nine full-text papers were retrieved; 27 studies met our selection criteria. Optimisation strategies were used for a range of reasons: to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention to patients and healthcare professionals; to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different combinations of intervention components; and to identify potential barriers to implementation. Methods varied widely across studies, from interviews and focus groups to economic modelling and probability analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The review identifies a range of optimisation strategies currently used. Although a preliminary classification of these strategies can be proposed, a series of questions remain as to which methods to use for different interventions and how to determine when the intervention is ready or 'optimised enough' to be tested in a RCT. Future research should explore potential answers to the questions raised, to guide researchers in the development and evaluation of more effective interventions.

The Feasibility and Acceptability of LISTEN for Loneliness

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to present the initial feasibility and acceptability of LISTEN (Loneliness Intervention using Story Theory to Enhance Nursing-sensitive outcomes), a new intervention for loneliness. Loneliness is a significant stressor and known contributor to multiple chronic health conditions in varied populations. In addition, loneliness is reported as predictive of functional decline and mortality in large samples of older adults from multiple cultures. Currently, there are no standard therapies recommended as effective treatments for loneliness. The paucity of interventions has limited the ability of healthcare providers to translate what we know about the problem of loneliness to active planning of clinical care that results in diminished loneliness. LISTEN was developed using the process for complex intervention development suggested by the Medical Research Council (MRC) [1] [2].

METHODS

Feasibility and acceptability of LISTEN were evaluated as the first objective of a longitudinal randomized trial which was set in a university based family medicine center in a rural southeastern community in Appalachia. Twenty-seven older adults [(24 women and 3 men, mean age: 75 (SD 7.50)] who were lonely, community-dwelling, and experiencing chronic illness, participated. Feasibility was evaluated by tracking recruitment efforts, enrollment, attendance to intervention sessions, attrition, and with feedback evaluations from study personnel. Acceptability was assessed using quantitative and qualitative evaluation data from participants.

RESULTS

LISTEN was evaluated as feasible to deliver with no attrition and near perfect attendance. Participants ranked LISTEN as highly acceptable for diminishing loneliness with participants requesting a continuation of the program or development of additional sessions.

CONCLUSIONS

LISTEN is feasible to deliver in a primary healthcare setting and has the potential to diminish loneliness which could result in improvement of the long-term negative known sequelae of loneliness such as hypertension, depression, functional decline, and mortality. Feedback from study participants is being used to inform future trials of LISTEN with consideration for developing additional sessions. Longitudinal randomized trials are needed in varied populations to assess long-term health and healthcare system benefits of diminishing loneliness, and to assess the potential scalability of LISTEN as a reimbursable treatment for loneliness.