We conducted a pilot randomised controlled trial (the PHaCT study), including a process evaluation to assess the acceptability of a housing-led Critical Time Intervention (CTI) for prison leavers and the use of a trial design. This paper presents the process evaluation findings.

To explore the acceptability of both the intervention and the trial design to participants and those delivering the intervention, and to assess whether the intervention was delivered with fidelity.

A process evaluation following Medical Research Council guidelines. Data collection included semi-structured interviews with participants and CTI caseworkers and observations of intervention delivery. A thematic analysis of interviews and observations was conducted to understand the intervention’s implementation and contextual factors as well as the trial process acceptability.

Participants for the pilot trial were recruited from three prisons in England and Wales where the intervention was being delivered.

While 28 out of 34 trial participants consented to interviews, only one was completed. Seven caseworkers were interviewed.

A housing-led CTI to support people leaving prison at risk of homelessness, involving phased, time-limited support from caseworkers, starting prerelease and continuing postrelease, to help secure stable housing and build independence, without directly providing housing.

The intervention’s acceptability was primarily reflected through the positive feedback and success stories shared by CTI caseworkers, as well as observational data indicating high acceptance among service users. The trial design’s acceptability was challenged by concerns about randomisation and equipoise, with staff viewing randomisation as unethical due to limited support for vulnerable populations. The fidelity to the CTI intervention housing-led approach was adhered to as best as possible; stable housing was prioritised for service users before addressing other needs. Despite these efforts, both sites encountered significant challenges due to limited housing availability and complex systems for securing social housing, particularly for single men leaving prison.

This wider study faced significant challenges which impacted the process evaluation. Despite these issues, the evaluation provides important insights into the challenges of conducting trials on interventions for people leaving prison. The challenges experienced should inform future study designs with similar populations and in similar settings.

ISRCTN46969988.

To determine whether a full-scale randomised control trial (RCT) assessing the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a housing led Critical Time Intervention (CTI) is feasible and acceptable.

Pilot parallel two-arm individual level RCT, including process evaluation and embedded exploratory health economic evaluation.

Four prisons for men across England and Wales, UK.

Men leaving prison at risk of homelessness and intervention delivery staff.

CTI has four components: (1) pre-engagement phase: assessing the needs of the client and implementing a plan pre-discharge; (2) transition to community: forming relationships and goal setting; (3) try out: encouraging problem-solving and managing practical issues and (4) transfer of care: developing long-term goals and transferring responsibilities to community providers.

Progression criteria: recruitment, retention, acceptability of the processes (CTI and trial method) and fidelity of intervention delivery. We also assessed the completeness of primary, secondary and exploratory outcome measures and estimated intervention costs.

The recruitment progression criterion was met, with 92% (34/37) of approached individuals consenting to participate (target: 50%). However, the overall recruitment target of 80 was not achieved, and retention was low, only 18% (6/34) provided follow-up data, well below the 60% threshold. Retention was hindered by systemic challenges, including changes to prison release policies and reduced probation support. While the CTI model was acceptable to staff and service users, the trial design, particularly randomisation, was not. Intervention fidelity met the progression criteria. Baseline data collection for health economics and resource use was feasible, and intervention costs were estimated.

This pilot trial identified significant challenges to conducting a full-scale RCT of CTI in this context, particularly around retention, trial acceptability and systemic instability. While CTI remains a promising model, a traditional RCT design may not be viable in this setting without substantial structural and ethical adaptations.

ISRCTN46969988.

Surgical oncology patients often experience doubts and uncertainties in the preoperative and postoperative periods, which can be addressed remotely through telenursing. Expanding telenursing services could contribute to more comprehensive perioperative care. We conducted a scoping review to characterise these telenursing services, identify their outcome indicators and examine the content of the care delivered.

A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) recommendations.

MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Virtual Health Library (VHL), with searches performed up to 5 May 2025.

We included studies that implemented telenursing interventions in the preoperative or postoperative period in adult oncology patients.

Two independent reviewers used a standardised search to select and extract data from the included studies. Study characteristics were presented descriptively using absolute and relative frequencies, and the content of telenursing interventions was organised into a circular thematic matrix.

A total of 37 studies were included, published between 1996 and 2024, conducted in 12 countries and primarily focused on postoperative telenursing via telephone or video calls. Preoperative care focused on psychosocial support and guidance related to surgical preparation. Postoperative topics included surgical wound care; handling of devices such as drains, ostomy bags and catheters; instructions for returning to work and support groups for financial and social assistance. Outcome indicators were primarily related to care, including levels of anxiety, stress, depression and quality of life.

Oncologic surgical telenursing remains primarily focused on postoperative care and the delivery of personalised support. Reporting on the protocols used, frequency and duration of sessions, nurse training and profiles, integration with in-person care workflows and operational cost data could strengthen the knowledge base for perioperative telenursing in oncology.