Complex Intervention For People Research Articles

Effectiveness of motivational interviewing on medication adherence for the prevention of recurrent stroke or transient ischemic attack: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

This systematic review examines the effectiveness of motivational interviewing (MI) on medication adherence for preventing recurrent stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA). MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 12 June 2023. Randomized controlled trials comparing MI with usual care or interventions without MI in participants with any stroke type were identified and summarized descriptively. Primary outcome was medication adherence. Secondary outcomes were quality of life (QoL) and different clinical outcomes. We assessed risk of bias with RoB 2 (revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool) and intervention complexity with the iCAT_SR (intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews). We screened 691 records for eligibility and included four studies published in five articles. The studies included a total of 2751 participants, and three were multicentric. Three studies had a high risk of bias, and interventions varied in complexity. Two studies found significantly improved medication adherence, one at 9 (96.9% vs. 88.2%, risk ratio = 1.098, 95% confidence interval = 1.03-1.17) and one at 12 months (97.0% vs. 95.0%, p = 0.026), but not at other time points, whereas two other studies reported no significant changes. No significant differences were found in QoL or clinical outcomes. Evidence on MI appears inconclusive for improving medication adherence for recurrent stroke and TIA prevention, with no benefits on QoL and clinical outcomes. There is a need for robustly designed studies and process evaluations of MI as a complex intervention for people with stroke. PROSPERO (CRD42023433284).

The DemWG study: reducing the risk of hospitalisation through a complex intervention for people with dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in German shared-housing arrangements: study protocol of a prospective, mixed-methods, multicentre, cluster-randomised controlled trial

IntroductionShared-housing arrangements (SHAs) are small, home-like care environments in Germany. Residents are predominantly people with dementia. The risk for all-cause hospitalisation is consistently higher for people with dementia compared with...

Barriers and enablers to collaborative working between GPs and pharmacists: a qualitative interview study.

Many UK GP practices now employ a practice pharmacist, but little is known about how GPs and pharmacists work together to optimise medications for complex patients with multimorbidity. To explore GP and pharmacist perspectives on collaborative working within the context of optimising medications for patients with multimorbidity. A qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with GPs and pharmacists working in the West of England, Northern England, and Scotland. Thirteen GPs and 10 pharmacists were sampled from practices enrolled in the 3D trial (a complex intervention for people with multimorbidity). Participants' views on collaborative working were explored with interviews that were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Saturation of data was achieved with no new insights arising from later interviews. GPs from surgeries that employed a pharmacist tended to value their expertise more than GPs who had not worked with one. Three key themes were identified: resources and competing priorities; responsibility; and professional boundaries. GPs valued pharmacist recommendations that were perceived to improve patient safety, as opposed to those that were technical and unlikely to benefit the patient. Pharmacists who were not known to GPs felt undervalued and wanted feedback from the GPs about their recommendations, particularly those that were not actioned. A good working relationship between the GP and pharmacist, where each profession understood the other's skills and expertise, was key. The importance of face-to-face meetings and feedback should be considered in future studies of interdisciplinary interventions, and by GP practices that employ pharmacists and other allied health professionals.

Mobilising knowledge between practitioners and researchers to iteratively refine a complex intervention (DAFNEplus) pre-trial: protocol for a structured, collaborative working group process

BackgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of complex interventions often begin with a pilot phase to test the proposed methods and refine the intervention before it is trialled. Although the Medical Research Council (MRC) recommends regular communication between the practitioners delivering the intervention and the researchers evaluating it during the pilot phase, there is a lack of practical guidance about how to undertake this aspect of pre-trial work. This paper describes a novel structured process for collaborative working, which we developed to iteratively refine a complex intervention prior to an RCT. We also describe an in-built qualitative study to learn lessons about how this approach could be used by future study teams.MethodsThis work forms part of a broader research programme to develop and trial a complex intervention for people with type 1 diabetes, called DAFNEplus. The intervention is being piloted in three National Health Service (NHS) diabetes centres in two waves, with refinements being incrementally implemented between each wave in response to real-time, collective learning (combining practitioner experience, process evaluation data and patient and public involvement via an advisory group). A structured ‘Collaborative Working Group’ (CWG) process, comprising monthly teleconferences and four strategically timed face-to-face meetings, is being used to identify and respond systematically to emerging implementation challenges and research findings. The group involves 25 members of the study team, including the multi-disciplinary practitioners delivering the intervention, the research teams conducting the process evaluation, the study manager and Chief Investigator. An in-built qualitative study comprising documentary analysis of meeting materials, discourse analysis of meeting transcripts, reflexive note taking, and thematic analysis of focus groups and interviews with CWG members is being undertaken to explore how the CWG works and how its processes and procedures might be improved.DiscussionThe CWG process offers a potential model for collaborative working in future pre-trial pilot phases and intervention development studies that operationalises MRC guidance to progressively develop a complex intervention and foster shared ownership through genuine collaboration. The findings from the qualitative study will provide insight into how to best support collaborative working to achieve optimal intervention design.

Development of a complex intervention for people with chronic pain after knee replacement: the STAR care pathway

BackgroundApproximately 20% of people who have total knee replacement experience chronic pain afterwards, but there is little evidence about effective interventions for managing this type of pain. This article describes the systematic development and refinement of a complex intervention for people with chronic pain after knee replacement. The intervention is a care pathway involving an assessment clinic and onward referral, with telephone follow-up as required. In the design of this multistage study, we chose to focus on ensuring that the intervention was deliverable, implementable and acceptable.MethodsIn line with the UK Medical Research Council’s recommendations for comprehensive development of complex interventions, multiple phases of work were undertaken. Following on from initial development work to design the intervention, the draft intervention content was refined through consensus questionnaires with 22 health professionals and discussion at meetings with 18 healthcare professionals. Testing of intervention delivery and acceptability to patients was undertaken by two health professionals delivering the assessment clinic to ten patients. Views about future implementation within the context of a randomised trial were evaluated through a questionnaire based on the Normalisation Measure Development (NoMAD) instrument with ten health professional stakeholders.ResultsConsensus work with health professionals ensured the components of the intervention were appropriate and informed a number of substantive changes to improve the intervention. Testing of intervention delivery identified a number of logistical issues that were then addressed in the development of a comprehensive intervention training manual. Engagement with stakeholders indicated that the intervention could be successfully implemented in a clinical setting for evaluation in a randomised trial.ConclusionsThis work has informed the development and refinement of a complex intervention for people with chronic pain after knee replacement. The next stage is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the STAR care pathway in a multicentre randomised trial.