Explore the vast range of titles available.

Aim: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is one of the most common chronic conditions in children and adolescents. Approximately 1.5 million young people are currently living with T1D throughout the world. Despite recent improvement in overall indices of metabolic control in children and adolescents with T1D, control remains suboptimal and additional approaches are needed. The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of educational and psychoeducational self‐management interventions, to help optimize future interventions including physical activity support. Methods: A systematic review and meta‐analysis were conducted according to our registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42022295932) and are reported in line with the PRISMA 2020 guidance. We searched five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO [via Ovid], CINAHL [via EBSCO], Cochrane Library) from 1994 up to May 2024. We included randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of self‐management interventions. Outcomes of interest included HbA1c and quality of life (QoL) as well as self‐care behaviors, diabetes knowledge, and self‐efficacy. Meta‐analyses were conducted using a random effects model. Results: In total, 46 papers were included, reporting on 30 interventions. Meta‐analyses showed small short‐term improvements in HbA1c (MD = −2.58 mmol/L, 95% CI −4.44 to −0.71, p = 0.007) and QoL (mean difference [MD] = 1.37, 95% CI 0.19–2.54, p = 0.02). Prespecified subgroup analyses suggested no significant difference in effectiveness of psychoeducational and education‐only interventions. Quality of included studies was low with 27 having a high risk of bias. Conclusion: There is a lack of robust evidence that current self‐management interventions result in clinically meaningful improvements in HbA1c and QoL. Future research should focus on redefining approaches to supporting and encouraging self‐management.

Introduction T1 Diabetes (T1D) is one of the most common chronic diseases in children and young people [ 1 ] with almost 34 000 aged 18 years or less living with T1D [ 2 ]. Physical activity is promoted as one of a number of management tools for people living with diabetes, being associated with significant health benefits including improved glycaemic control. The benefits of physical activity on quality of life in children with T1D is unclear with confounding effects of disease duration and co-morbidities in studies. Aim To determine the effect of physical activity interventions on quality of life of children with type 1 diabetes. Methods A systematic review was conducted and reported in line with PRISMA 2009 guidance. The CINAHL, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Medline, PubMed and PsychINFO databases were searched for the period January 1994 to March 2025. Papers were included in the present review if they included a study intervention in children under 19 years of age that was more than a single exercise session and had a control group (with or without T1D) as a comparator group. The primary outcome measure was Quality of Life (QoL) indicators. Results We assessed 3020 records, of which three randomised controlled trials (RCT) published between 2007 and 2020 met study inclusion criteria. There was significant heterogeneity in study design, methods and reporting. Benefits of physical activity were not consistently seen across studies. Conclusion There remains limited data on QoL outcomes or even a standardisation for measuring QoL in this cohort as seen by the various validated tools used across studies. There continues to be a need for further work to understand the additional framework (psychological underpinning) to cause longer term impactful changes on both physical and psychological health in children with T1D.

Background Physical inactivity is a leading cause of premature mortality and morbidity worldwide. Primary care settings provide an opportunity for effective lifestyle interventions, including physical activity (PA) promotion. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a rural community-based multi-component, 12-week exercise, nutrition, education and peer-support programme on participants health and wellbeing. Methods This retrospective service evaluation included patients referred to the programme between January 2020 and December 2022 from primary care settings. Quantitative data (including body composition measures, mental wellbeing and patient activation) were collected at the entry and exit of the 12-week program. Participants also self-reported healthcare attendance in the 3 months prior to the baseline and post-intervention data-collection. Results Of the 424 people who participated in the programme, 84.7% ( n  = 359) indicated that they had achieved their goals. Significant improvements in BMI, weight, blood pressure, wellbeing, patient activation, muscle mass, body-fat mass and reduced healthcare attendance over a 12-week intervention were identified by repeated measure ANOVA. Post-hoc tests with a Bonferroni correction found that younger participants were significantly more likely to decrease their BMI and increase their mental wellbeing (as measured by WEMWBS) over the course of the programme. Higher attendance at the programme was also associated with greater reductions in BMI and greater improvements in patient activation. Discussion The findings support the effectiveness of multicomponent community-based exercise, nutrition, education and peer support interventions in improving health outcomes and reducing healthcare utilisation. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term health outcomes of the education-exercise referral programme, across settings, and its potential to contribute to a sustainable healthcare system.

Introduction Patient and public involvement in research is anchored in moral and epistemological rationales. Moral rationales relate to the public having a right to influence how knowledge about them is generated. Epistemological rationales relate to how research design and implementation can improve when informed by experiential, as well as technical, knowledge. In other words, public involvement can increase the epistemological resources of researchers, and contribute to research that is fit for purpose and has high external validity. Methods This article presents an analysis of 3 meetings and 11 interviews with public collaborators and researchers in three UK‐based health research studies. Data comprised transcripts of audio‐recorded research meetings and interviews with public collaborators and researchers. Data were first analysed to develop a data‐informed definition of experiential knowledge, then thematically to investigate how this experiential knowledge was considered and received within the research space. Results At meetings, public collaborators shared their experiential knowledge as stories, comments, questions, answers and when referring to their own roles. They were aware of crossing a boundary from everyday life, and some adapted their contributions to fit within the research space. Although researchers and public collaborators made efforts to create an inclusive climate, obstacles to impact were identified. Conclusions Considering experiential knowledge as a boundary object highlights that this knowledge has a different form to other kinds of knowledge that contribute to research. To enable impact from experiential knowledge, researchers need to create a space where public collaborators experience epistemic justice. Patient and Public Contribution The Peninsula Public Engagement Group (PenPEG) was involved in the planning and conceptualization of the study, including the development of the ethics application and the interview schedules. One member of this group (Richard Fitzgerald) and one from outside the group (Leon Farmer), were full members of the author team and were involved in the data analysis. Leon Farmer has since become a member of PenPEG. Richard Fitzgerald and Leon Farmer were not involved in the three research studies sampled for this study. Sadly Richard Fitzgerald died during the course of this study.

The use of web-based services within primary care (PC) in the National Health Service in England is increasing, with medically underserved populations being less likely to engage with web-based services than other patient groups. Digital facilitation-referring to a range of processes, procedures, and personnel that seek to support patients in the uptake and use of web-based services-may be a way of addressing these challenges. However, the models and impact of digital facilitation currently in use are unclear. This study aimed to identify, characterize, and differentiate between different approaches to digital facilitation in PC; establish what is known about the effectiveness of different approaches; and understand the enablers of digital facilitation. Adopting scoping review methodology, we searched academic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and gray literature published between 2015 and 2020. We conducted snowball searches of reference lists of included articles and articles identified during screening as relevant to digital facilitation, but which did not meet the inclusion criteria because of article type restrictions. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by 2 reviewers. Data from eligible studies were analyzed using a narrative synthesis approach. A total of 85 publications were included. Most (71/85, 84%) were concerned with digital facilitation approaches targeted at patients (promotion of services, training patients to improve their technical skills, or other guidance and support). Further identified approaches targeted PC staff to help patients (eg, improving staff knowledge of web-based services and enhancing their technical or communication skills). Qualitative evidence suggests that some digital facilitation may be effective in promoting the uptake and use of web-based services by patients (eg, recommendation of web-based services by practice staff and coaching). We found little evidence that providing patients with initial assistance in registering for or accessing web-based services leads to increased long-term use. Few studies have addressed the effects of digital facilitation on health care inequalities. Those that addressed this suggested that providing technical training for patients could be effective, at least in part, in reducing inequalities, although not entirely. Factors affecting the success of digital facilitation include perceptions of the usefulness of the web-based service, trust in the service, patients' trust in providers, the capacity of PC staff, guidelines or regulations supporting facilitation efforts, and staff buy-in and motivation. Digital facilitation has the potential to increase the uptake and use of web-based services by PC patients. Understanding the approaches that are most effective and cost-effective, for whom, and under what circumstances requires further research, including rigorous evaluations of longer-term impacts. As efforts continue to increase the use of web-based services in PC in England and elsewhere, we offer an early typology to inform conceptual development and evaluations. PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020189019; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189019.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) refers to patients and/or members of the public being involved in research, not as subjects or participants, but as active partners and decision makers alongside researchers. In Health Service research, PPI is common place, and is often an essential requirement for grant funding. Sports Medicine has a lot in common with this field and should strongly consider integrating PPI within their work. Involving patients and members of the public in research decisions can help to ensure that the research is relevant and appropriate, while improving participant recruitment and retention too. This piece draws upon my own experiences from the research fields of Sports medicine and Health Service research, and addresses how PPI could benefit researchers within Sports medicine.

Background Many children and adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) don’t meet the recommended levels of physical activity. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) have a key role in supporting and encouraging children and adolescents with T1DM to be physically active. This study aims to understand the perspectives of HCPs in relation to supporting physical activity and implementing guidelines relating to physical activity. Methods An online mixed methods survey was circulated to HCPs in pediatric diabetes units in England and Wales. Participants were asked about how they support physical activity in their clinic and their perceptions of barriers/enablers of providing physical activity support to children and adolescents with T1DM. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. An deductive thematic approach was applied to the free text responses using the Capability Opportunity Motivation model of Behaviour (COM-B) as a framework. Results Responses were received from 114 individuals at 77 different pediatric diabetes units (45% of pediatric diabetes units in England and Wales). HCPs surveyed felt that the promotion of physical activity is important (90%) and advised patients to increase levels of physical activity (88%). 19% of the respondents felt they did not have sufficient knowledge to provide support. HCPs reported limited knowledge and confidence, time and resources as barriers to providing support. They also felt the current guidance was too complicated with few practical solutions. Conclusion Pediatric HCPs need training and support to be able to encourage and support children and adolescents with T1D to be a physical activity. In addition, resources that provide simple and practical advice to manage glucose around exercise are needed.

Background Patient experience of nursing care is associated with safety, care quality, treatment outcomes, costs and service use. Effective nursing care includes meeting patients’ fundamental physical, relational and psychosocial needs, which may be compromised by the challenges of SARS-CoV-2. No evidence-based nursing guidelines exist for patients with SARS-CoV-2. We report work to develop such a guideline. Our aim was to identify views and experiences of nursing staff on necessary nursing care for inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 (not invasively ventilated) that is omitted or delayed (missed care) and any barriers to this care. Methods We conducted an online mixed methods survey structured according to the Fundamentals of Care Framework. We recruited a convenience sample of UK-based nursing staff who had nursed inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 not invasively ventilated. We asked respondents to rate how well they were able to meet the needs of SARS-CoV-2 patients, compared to non-SARS-CoV-2 patients, in 15 care categories; select from a list of barriers to care; and describe examples of missed care and barriers to care. We analysed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using Framework Analysis, integrating data in side-by-side comparison tables. Results Of 1062 respondents, the majority rated mobility, talking and listening, non-verbal communication, communicating with significant others, and emotional wellbeing as worse for patients with SARS-CoV-2. Eight barriers were ranked within the top five in at least one of the three care areas. These were (in rank order): wearing Personal Protective Equipment, the severity of patients’ conditions, inability to take items in and out of isolation rooms without donning and doffing Personal Protective Equipment, lack of time to spend with patients, lack of presence from specialised services e.g. physiotherapists, lack of knowledge about SARS-CoV-2, insufficient stock, and reluctance to spend time with patients for fear of catching SARS-CoV-2. Conclusions Our respondents identified nursing care areas likely to be missed for patients with SARS-CoV-2, and barriers to delivering care. We are currently evaluating a guideline of nursing strategies to address these barriers, which are unlikely to be exclusive to this pandemic or the environments represented by our respondents. Our results should, therefore, be incorporated into global pandemic planning.

Background Public involvement in research is seen as a quality marker by funders. To understand the process and impact of involvement, more in‐depth studies are needed on how members of the public contribute in meetings with researchers. Objectives This study aimed to observe and reflect on what is said by public advisers in involvement. We wanted to understand (a) what knowledge and experience is shared during research meetings, and (b) how this knowledge is shared with researchers. Methods Data were collected in November 2016 as part of the public involvement in a health technology assessment of lung cancer screening using low‐dose computed tomography. Three meetings were audio recorded and observed with the purpose of understanding how members of the public contributed during the meetings. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and data analysed using a thematic approach, with the coding framework developed inductively. We also included reflections from a community drop‐in session. Results Members of the public brought three different ‘sources’ of knowledge and experience to meetings with researchers: direct lived personal experience; learnt knowledge; and the experience and values of others. The data suggest that group settings allow for dynamic discussions and sharing of different types of knowledge. Conclusion Group‐based involvement meetings allow for the synergistic combination of individual knowledge and experience. This gives researchers a broader understanding of the topic, which can be the vehicle for patient impact on the research. A combination of group meeting and community drop‐in can enable more varied input into research planning and conduct.

BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in research involves an active collaboration between patients/members of the public and researchers in equal partnership. PPI in health research ensures the research benefits those most impacted by the research and is a well-established necessity of high-quality research. PPI for large programmes of work involving multiple studies frequently relies on a single PPI group that oversees the entire programme. We believe that this ‘traditional’ approach can negatively contribute to the power imbalance between researchers and PPI members, since PPI members have a very wide remit and are unable to embed themselves fully in all aspects of the research.AimThe study aimed to evaluate a novel PPI approach, the ‘Patient Bridge Role’, designed to promote a more equal distribution of power between public collaborators and researchers in a large research programme. The Patient Bridge Role involves assigning specific public collaborators to each work package, facilitating deeper engagement and communication.Main argumentThe Patient Bridge Role addresses the limitations of traditional PPI. This approach requires clear role definitions and collaborative development of guidelines to ensure effective communication and shared decision-making. Despite initial challenges related to role clarity and boundaries, the Patient Bridge Roles successfully promoted a more balanced partnership between researchers and public collaborators.ConclusionsActive partnerships between public collaborators and researchers are critical to creating more relevant and higher quality research. Yet, there are many practical and conceptual barriers to this. The Patient Bridge Role offers a promising strategy for enhancing PPI in large research programmes.