Conectar
For people whose stroke risk would be reduced by taking a long-term oral anticoagulant (OAC), it is important to implement effective strategies to support medication initiation, adherence and persistence. To do this, a better understanding of the factors associated with implementation of interventions to optimise OAC management is needed.
This scoping review aimed to summarise the evidence-based characteristics associated with implementing interventions designed to optimise long-term OAC adherence.
Primary research (published post-2000) evaluating any intervention designed to optimise implementation of long-term OAC for stroke prevention by way of change in OAC services, staff or patient behaviour.
Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycInfo, Cochrane Library) were searched from 1 January 2000 to 4 August 2023 using a combination of terms relating to population, intervention and study design.
Titles/abstracts were screened by at least one reviewer. Data from each full text were abstracted (with 20% double-checked for accuracy) and its implementation content reviewed, guided by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change strategies.
216 studies were included, with varying descriptive reporting of implementation strategies, and only 61 (28%) self-identifying as an implementation study. The median number of implementation strategies used was three, with recently published studies (2015 onwards), those including patients receiving either direct OACs (DOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and those including multiple intervention targets (service, staff or patients) associated with using more implementation strategies. ‘Train and educate stakeholders’ strategies were the most commonly used, and ‘Adapt and tailor to the context’ strategies were the least used by included studies. Conversely, self-defined implementation studies were less likely to use ‘Train and educate stakeholders’ strategies, although they were positively associated with use of ‘Adapt and tailor to the context’. ‘Use evaluative & iterative’ strategies were used more frequently in studies where patients used either VKAs or DOACs, or were published more recently.
Studies need to self-define as implementation studies, improve implementation strategy reporting and be transparently registered, alongside conducting process evaluations or more richly describing implementation processes. Future research could explore why some implementation strategies are used more than others and whether aligning strategy clusters with intervention targets results in clinically significant differences in patient care.
Limited literature has focused on people with cancers' preference for care providers in scenarios where trade-offs may have to be made.
To report the results of a comprehensive search and synthesis of discrete choice experiments or best-worst scaling studies (± willingness to pay estimates) in scenarios involving cancer nurses, with a focus on: (1) preferred care provider; and (2) relative importance of attributes of care provision for people with cancer.
A search was conducted across: CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EconLit, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar for discrete choice experiments published between January and July 2025. Data were extracted and appraised by two authors. Results were narratively synthesised.
Of 461 studies screened, 11 were included, published in Australia (n = 3), UK (n = 3), and China (n = 5) including people with breast (n = 4), gastric (n = 4), prostate (n = 1), or mixed cancers (n = 2). In six studies exploring scenarios of follow-up care (i.e., survivorship/surveillance), cancer medical specialists were the preferred care provider, followed by cancer nurses, and then general practitioners. In four of the five studies of supportive care scenarios (i.e., diet and exercise advice, anxiety and depression screening), cancer nurses were the preferred care provider, followed by allied health professionals, then cancer medical specialists. The highest WTP estimate was $US226.15 for a medical specialist to provide follow-up care. For supportive care, the highest WTP was $US137.52 for a cancer nurse to provide diet-based lifestyle advice post-treatment for breast cancer.
Cancer nurses are highly valued by people with cancer, particularly for supportive care provision. Opportunities exist for an increase in cancer nurse specialists with expanded scope of practice, to support the preference of people with cancer to have cancer medical specialists, or cancer nurse specialists provide expert cancer follow-up care.
Employees of a cancer patient advocacy group were involved in the design of the study, interpretation of the data, and the preparation of the manuscript. No patients were involved in this work. However, this systematic review prioritized patient voices by including studies that reported on the preferences of people with cancer.
The number of people living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs or ‘multimorbidity’) is growing. Evidence indicates that exercise-based rehabilitation can improve health-related quality of life and reduce hospital admissions for a number of single long-term conditions. However, it is increasingly recognised that such condition-focused rehabilitation programmes do not meet the needs of people living with MLTCs. The aims for this study were to (1) evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of the newly developed Personalised Exercise Rehabilitation FOR people with Multiple long-term conditions (PERFORM) intervention; (2) assess the feasibility of study methods to inform progression to a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) and (3) refine our intervention programme theory.
Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with patients receiving and healthcare practitioners delivering the PERFORM intervention, to seek their experiences of the intervention and taking part in the study. Interviews were analysed thematically, informed by Normalisation Process Theory and the programme theory.
Three UK sites (two acute hospital settings, one community-based healthcare setting).
18 of the 60 PERFORM participants and 6 healthcare professionals were interviewed.
The intervention consisted of 8 weeks of supervised group-based exercise rehabilitation and structured self-care symptom-based support.
All participants and staff interviewed found PERFORM useful for physical and mental well-being and noted positive impacts of participation, although some specific modifications to the intervention delivery and training and study methods were identified. Scheduling, staffing and space limitations were barriers that must be considered for future evaluation and implementation. Key intervention mechanisms identified were social support, patient education, building routines and habits, as well as support from healthcare professionals.
We found the PERFORM intervention to be acceptable and feasible, with the potential to improve the health and well-being of people with MLTCs. The findings of the process evaluation inform the future delivery of the PERFORM intervention and the design of our planned full RCT. A definitive trial is needed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness.
Existing exercise-based rehabilitation services, such as cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation, are traditionally commissioned around single long-term conditions (LTCs) and therefore may not meet the complex needs of adults with multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs) or multimorbidity. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the newly developed personalised exercise-rehabilitation programme for people with multiple long-term conditions (PERFORM) and the trial methods.
A parallel two-group mixed-methods feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) with embedded process and economic evaluation.
Three UK sites (two acute hospital settings, one community-based healthcare setting).
60 adults with MLTCs (defined as the presence of ≥2 LTCs) with at least one known to benefit from exercise therapy were randomised 2:1 to PERFORM intervention plus usual care (PERFORM group) or usual care alone (control group).
The intervention consisted of 8 weeks of supervised group-based exercise rehabilitation and structured self-care symptom-based support.
Primary feasibility outcomes included: trial recruitment (percentage of a target of 60 participants recruited within 4.5 months), retention (percentage of participants with complete EuroQol data at 3 months) and intervention adherence (percentage of intervention group attending ≥60% sessions). Other feasibility measures included completion of outcome measures at baseline (pre-randomisation), 3 months post-randomisation (including patient-reported outcomes, exercise capacity and collection of health and social care resource use) and intervention fidelity.
Target recruitment (40 PERFORM group, 20 control group) was met within the timeframe. Participants were 57% women with a mean (SD) age of 62 (13) years, body mass index of 30.8 (8.0) kg/m2 and a median of 4 LTCs (most common: diabetes (41.7%), hypertension (38.3%), asthma (36.7%) and a painful condition (35.0%)). We achieved EuroQol outcome retention of 76.7% (95% CI: 65.9% to 87.1%; 46/60 participants) and intervention adherence of 72.5% (95% CI: 56.3% to 84.4%; 29/40 participants). Data completion for attendees was over 90% for 11/18 outcome measures.
Our findings support the feasibility and rationale for delivering the PERFORM comprehensive self-management and exercise-based rehabilitation intervention for people living with MLTCs and progression to a full multicentre RCT to formally assess clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
FreshRSS 