Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Process evaluations are increasingly conducted within pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of health services interventions and provide vital information to enhance understanding of RCT findings. However, issues pertaining to process evaluation in this specific context have been little discussed. We aimed to describe the frequency, characteristics, labelling, value, practical conduct issues, and accessibility of published process evaluations within pragmatic RCTs in health services research. Methods We used a 2-phase systematic search process to (1) identify an index sample of journal articles reporting primary outcome results of pragmatic RCTs published in 2015 and then (2) identify all associated publications. We used an operational definition of process evaluation based on the Medical Research Council’s process evaluation framework to identify both process evaluations reported separately and process data reported in the trial results papers. We extracted and analysed quantitative and qualitative data to answer review objectives. Results From an index sample of 31 pragmatic RCTs, we identified 17 separate process evaluation studies. These had varied characteristics and only three were labelled ‘process evaluation’. Each of the 31 trial results papers also reported process data, with a median of five different process evaluation components per trial. Reported barriers and facilitators related to real-world collection of process data, recruitment of participants to process evaluations, and health services research regulations. We synthesised a wide range of reported benefits of process evaluations to interventions, trials, and wider knowledge. Visibility was often poor, with 13/17 process evaluations not mentioned in the trial results paper and 12/16 process evaluation journal articles not appearing in the trial registry. Conclusions In our sample of reviewed pragmatic RCTs, the meaning of the label ‘process evaluation’ appears uncertain, and the scope and significance of the term warrant further research and clarification. Although there were many ways in which the process evaluations added value, they often had poor visibility. Our findings suggest approaches that could enhance the planning and utility of process evaluations in the context of pragmatic RCTs. Trial registration Not applicable for PROSPERO registration

There is considerable policy interest in promoting self-management in patients with long-term conditions, but it remains uncertain whether these interventions are effective in stroke patients. Systematic meta-review of the evidence for self-management support interventions with stroke survivors to inform provision of healthcare services. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, AMED, BNI, Database of Abstracts of Reviews for Effectiveness, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews of self-management support interventions for stroke survivors. Quality was assessed using the R-AMSTAR tool, and data extracted using a customised data extraction form. We undertook a narrative synthesis of the reviews' findings. From 12,400 titles we selected 13 systematic reviews (published 2003-2012) representing 101 individual trials. Although the term 'self-management' was rarely used, key elements of self-management support such as goal setting, action planning, and problem solving were core components of therapy rehabilitation interventions. We found high quality evidence that supported self-management in the context of therapy rehabilitation delivered soon after the stroke event resulted in short-term (< 1 year) improvements in basic and extended activities of daily living, and a reduction in poor outcomes (dependence/death). There is some evidence that rehabilitation and problem solving interventions facilitated reintegration into the community. Self-management terminology is rarely used in the context of stroke. However, therapy rehabilitation currently successfully delivers elements of self-management support to stroke survivors and their caregivers with improved outcomes. Future research should focus on managing the emotional, medical and social tasks of long-term survivorship.

Chronic musculoskeletal pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. The effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for chronic pain is often limited, and there is growing concern about the adverse effects of these treatments, including opioid dependence. Nonpharmacological approaches to chronic pain may be an attractive alternative or adjunctive treatment. We describe the effectiveness of a novel, theoretically based group pain management support intervention for chronic musculoskeletal pain. We conducted a multi-centre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled effectiveness and cost-effectiveness (cost-utility) trial across 27 general practices and community musculoskeletal services in the UK. We recruited 703 adults with musculoskeletal pain of at least 3 mo duration between August 1, 2011, and July 31, 2012, and randomised participants 1.33:1 to intervention (403) or control (300). Intervention participants were offered a participative group intervention (COPERS) delivered over three alternate days with a follow-up session at 2 wk. The intervention introduced cognitive behavioural approaches and was designed to promote self-efficacy to manage chronic pain. Controls received usual care and a relaxation CD. The primary outcome was pain-related disability at 12 mo (Chronic Pain Grade [CPG] disability subscale); secondary outcomes included the CPG disability subscale at 6 mo and the following measured at 6 and 12 mo: anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), pain acceptance (Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire), social integration (Health Education Impact Questionnaire social integration and support subscale), pain-related self-efficacy (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire), pain intensity (CPG pain intensity subscale), the census global health question (2011 census for England and Wales), health utility (EQ-5D-3L), and health care resource use. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle, accounted for clustering by course in the intervention arm, and used multiple imputation for missing or incomplete primary outcome data. The mean age of participants was 59.9 y, with 81% white, 67% female, 23% employed, 85% with pain for at least 3 y, and 23% on strong opioids. Symptoms of depression and anxiety were common (baseline mean HADS scores 7.4 [standard deviation 4.1] and 9.2 [4.6], respectively). Overall, 282 (70%) intervention participants met the predefined intervention adherence criterion. Primary outcome data were obtained from 88% of participants. There was no significant difference between groups in pain-related disability at 6 or 12 mo (12 mo: difference -1.0, intervention versus control, 95% CI -4.9 to 3.0), pain intensity, or the census global health question. Anxiety, depression, pain-related self-efficacy, pain acceptance, and social integration were better in the intervention group at 6 mo; at 12 mo, these differences remained statistically significant only for depression (-0.7, 95% CI -1.2 to -0.2) and social integration (0.8, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2). Intervention participants received more analgesics than the controls across the 12 mo. The total cost of the course per person was £145 (US$214). The cost-utility analysis showed there to be a small benefit in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (0.0325, 95% CI -0.0074 to 0.0724), and on the cost side the intervention was a little more expensive than usual care (i.e., £188 [US$277], 95% CI -£125 [-US$184] to £501 [US$738]), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £5,786 (US$8,521) per QALY. Limitations include the fact that the intervention was relatively brief and did not include any physical activity components. While the COPERS intervention was brief, safe, and inexpensive, with a low attrition rate, it was not effective for reducing pain-related disability over 12 mo (primary outcome). For secondary outcomes, we found sustained benefits on depression and social integration at 6 and 12 mo, but there was no effect on anxiety, pain-related self-efficacy, pain acceptance, pain intensity, or the census global health question at 12 mo. There was some evidence that the intervention may be cost-effective based on a modest difference in QALYs between groups. ISRCTN Registry 24426731.

Background Process evaluations aim to understand how complex interventions bring about outcomes by examining intervention mechanisms, implementation, and context. While much attention has been paid to the methodology of process evaluations in health research, the value of process evaluations has received less critical attention. We aimed to unpack how value is conceptualised in process evaluations by identifying and critically analysing 1) how process evaluations may create value and 2) what kind of value they may create. Methods We systematically searched for and identified published literature on process evaluation, including guidance, opinion pieces, primary research, reviews, and discussion of methodological and practical issues . We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis and developed a practical planning framework. Results We identified and included 147 literature items. From these we determined three ways in which process evaluations may create value or negative consequences: 1) through the socio-technical processes of ‘doing’ the process evaluation, 2) through the features/qualities of process evaluation knowledge, and 3) through using process evaluation knowledge. We identified 15 value themes. We also found that value varies according to the characteristics of individual process evaluations, and is subjective and context dependent. Conclusion The concept of value in process evaluations is complex and multi-faceted. Stakeholders in different contexts may have very different expectations of process evaluations and the value that can and should be obtained from them. We propose a planning framework to support an open and transparent process to plan and create value from process evaluations and negotiate trade-offs. This will support the development of joint solutions and, ultimately, generate more value from process evaluations to all.

Depression is common and is associated with poor outcomes among elderly care-home residents. Exercise is a promising low-risk intervention for depression in this population. We tested the hypothesis that a moderate intensity exercise programme would reduce the burden of depressive symptoms in residents of care homes. We did a cluster-randomised controlled trial in care homes in two regions in England; northeast London, and Coventry and Warwickshire. Residents aged 65 years or older were eligible for inclusion. A statistician independent of the study randomised each home (1 to 1·5 ratio, stratified by location, minimised by type of home provider [local authority, voluntary, private and care home, private and nursing home] and size of home [<32 or ≥32 residents]) into intervention and control groups. The intervention package included depression awareness training for care-home staff, 45 min physiotherapist-led group exercise sessions for residents (delivered twice weekly), and a whole home component designed to encourage more physical activity in daily life. The control consisted of only the depression awareness training. Researchers collecting follow-up data from individual participants and the participants themselves were inevitably aware of home randomisation because of the physiotherapists' activities within the home. A researcher masked to study allocation coded NHS routine data. The primary outcome was number of depressive symptoms on the geriatric depression scale-15 (GDS-15). Follow-up was for 12 months. This trial is registered with ISRCTN Register, number ISRCTN43769277. Care homes were randomised between Dec 15, 2008, and April 9, 2010. At randomisation, 891 individuals in 78 care homes (35 intervention, 43 control) had provided baseline data. We delivered 3191 group exercise sessions attended on average by five study participants and five non-study residents. Of residents with a GDS-15 score, 374 of 765 (49%) were depressed at baseline; 484 of 765 (63%) provided 12 month follow-up scores. Overall the GDS-15 score was 0·13 (95% CI −0·33 to 0·60) points higher (worse) at 12 months for the intervention group compared with the control group. Among residents depressed at baseline, GDS-15 score was 0·22 (95% CI −0·52 to 0·95) points higher at 6 months in the intervention group than in the control group. In an end of study cross-sectional analysis, including 132 additional residents joining after randomisation, the odds of being depressed were 0·76 (95% CI 0·53 to 1·09) for the intervention group compared with the control group. This moderately intense exercise programme did not reduce depressive symptoms in residents of care homes. In this frail population, alternative strategies to manage psychological symptoms are required. National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is commonly associated with anxiety/depression which can affect self-management and quality of life. The TANDEM trial evaluated a cognitive behavioural approach intervention targeting COPD-related symptoms of anxiety and/or depression, comprising up to eight one-to-one sessions delivered by respiratory healthcare professionals prior to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). The intervention showed no improvement in anxiety/depression or uptake/completion of PR. We present patient perspectives of the intervention to help understand these results. Method Semi-structured individual interviews, using a semi-structured topic guide informed by Sekhon’s Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, were conducted with 19 patients between September 2019 and April 2020. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Results The following could have limited the impact of the intervention: (1) The lives of patients were complex and commonly affected by competing comorbidities or other external stressors which they managed through previously adopted long-standing coping strategies. (2) Some patients were reluctant to talk about their mood despite the Facilitators' training and person centred-skills which aimed to enable patients to talk freely about mood. (3) The intervention handouts and ‘home-practice’ were perceived as helpful for some, but not suitable for all. (4) Many patients perceived improvements in their physical and mental health, but this was not sustained due to a mix of personal and external factors, and some did not perceive any benefits. (5) PR non-attendance/non-completion was a result of personal and PR service-related reasons. (6) Discussing COPD and mental health with the Facilitator was a novel experience. Many patients felt that TANDEM could be of benefit if it was offered earlier on/at different time points in the COPD illness journey. Conclusion We found the delivery of TANDEM prior to PR was not helpful for patients with advanced COPD often experiencing other comorbidities, and/or difficult personal/external events. These patients already utilised long-standing coping strategies to manage their COPD. Holistic interventions, that address the impact of COPD in relation to wider aspects of a patients’ life, may be more beneficial. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry 59,537,391. Registration date 20 March 2017.

Implementation studies are often poorly reported and indexed, reducing their potential to inform initiatives to improve healthcare services. The Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) initiative aimed to develop guidelines for transparent and accurate reporting of implementation studies. Informed by the findings of a systematic review and a consensus-building e-Delphi exercise, an international working group of implementation science experts discussed and agreed the StaRI Checklist comprising 27 items. It prompts researchers to describe both the implementation strategy (techniques used to promote implementation of an underused evidence-based intervention) and the effectiveness of the intervention that was being implemented. An accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document (published in BMJ Open, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013318) details each of the items, explains the rationale, and provides examples of good reporting practice. Adoption of StaRI will improve the reporting of implementation studies, potentially facilitating translation of research into practice and improving the health of individuals and populations.

Background Supporting self-management is a core response of health care systems globally to the increasing prevalence of long-term conditions. Lack of a comprehensive taxonomy (or classification) of self-management support components hinders characterization and, ultimately, understanding of these frequently complex, multi-component interventions. Objective To develop a comprehensive, descriptive taxonomy of self-management support components. Methods Components were derived from the 969 unique randomized controlled trials described in the 102 systematic reviews and 61 implementation trials, examining 14 diverse long-term conditions included in the Practical Reviews in Self-Management Support (PRISMS) project followed by discussion at an expert stakeholder workshop. The utility of the taxonomy was then tested using a self-management support intervention for cancer survivors. Results The PRISMS taxonomy comprises 14 components that might be used to support self-management (e.g. information about condition/management, provision of equipment, social support), when delivered to someone with a long-term condition or their carer. Overarching dimensions are delivery mode; personnel delivering the support; intervention targeting; and intensity, frequency and duration of the intervention. The taxonomy does not consider the effectiveness or otherwise of the different components or the overarching dimensions. Conclusions The PRISMS taxonomy offers a framework to researchers describing self-management support interventions, to reviewers synthesizing evidence and to developers of health services for people with long-term conditions.

Background Despite being in clinical remission, many people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) live with fatigue, chronic abdominal pain and bowel urgency or incontinence that limit their quality of life. We aim to test the effectiveness of an online self-management programme (BOOST), developed using cognitive behavioural principles and a theoretically informed logic model, and delivered with facilitator support. Primary research question In people with IBD who report symptoms of fatigue, pain or urgency and express a desire for intervention, does a facilitator-supported tailored (to patient needs) online self-management programme for fatigue, pain and faecal urgency/incontinence improve IBD-related quality of life (measured using the UK-IBDQ) and global rating of symptom relief (0–10 scale) compared with care as usual? Methods A pragmatic two-arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT), of a 12-session facilitator-supported online cognitive behavioural self-management programme versus care as usual to manage symptoms of fatigue, pain and faecal urgency/incontinence in IBD. Patients will be recruited through a previous large-scale survey of unselected people with inflammatory bowel disease. The UK Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire and global rating of symptom relief at 6 months are the co-primary outcomes, with multiple secondary outcomes measured also at 6 and 12 months post randomisation to assess maintenance. The RCT has an embedded pilot study, health economics evaluation and process evaluation. We will randomise 680 patients, 340 in each group. Demographic characteristics and outcome measures will be presented for both study groups at baseline. The UK-IBDQ and global rating of symptom relief at 6 and 12 months post randomisation will be compared between the study groups. Discussion The BOOST online self-management programme for people with IBD-related symptoms of fatigue, pain and urgency has been designed to be easily scalable and implemented. If it is shown to improve patients’ quality of life, this trial will enable clinicians and patients to make informed management decisions. This is the first trial, to our knowledge, focused on multiple symptoms prioritised by both people with IBD and health professionals. Trial registration ISRCTN71618461. Registered on 9 September 2019.

Background SURECAN (SUrvivors’ Rehabilitation Evaluation after CANcer) is a multi-phase study developing and evaluating an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) intervention integrated with exercise and work when highly valued (thus we called the intervention ACT+), for people who have completed treatment for cancer but who have low quality of life. We developed a training programme for therapists working in different psychological services to be delivered over 2–3 days. Our aim was to evaluate the extent to which the training could improve therapists’ knowledge and confidence to deliver ACT+ to cancer patients in a trial setting. Methods Three interactive workshops were delivered to 29 therapists from three clinical settings in London and in Sheffield. A mixed-methods approach was used. Questionnaires were designed to assess knowledge and confidence in using ACT+ with people who have low quality of life after cancer treatment. They were self-administered immediately prior to and after each workshop. Open text-based questions were used to elicit feedback about the workshops alongside a satisfaction scale. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of therapists ( n  = 12) to explore their views about the training more deeply, and how it might be optimised. Results Quantitative analysis showed that knowledge of ACT, as well as confidence in using the ACT+ intervention in this setting increased significantly after training (28.6 and 33.5% increase in the median score respectively). Qualitative analysis indicated that most therapists were satisfied with the content and structure of the programme, valued the rich resources provided and enjoyed the practice-based approach. Potential barriers/facilitators to participation in the trial and to the successful implementation of ACT+ were identified. For some therapists, delivering a manualised intervention, as well as supporting exercise- and work-related goals as non-specialists was seen as challenging. At the same time, therapists valued the opportunity to be involved in research, whilst training in a new therapy model. Conclusions Training can effectively improve the knowledge and confidence of therapists from different clinical backgrounds to deliver a modified ACT intervention to cancer patients in a trial setting.