BackgroundThe use of patient-facing health technologies to manage long-term conditions is increasing; however, children and young people may have particular concerns or needs before deciding to use different health technologies.AimsTo identify children and young people’s reported concerns or needs in relation to using health technologies to self-manage long-term conditions.MethodsA scoping review was conducted. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL in February 2019. Searches were limited to papers published between January 2008 and February 2019. We included any health technology used to manage long-term conditions. A thematic synthesis of the data from the included studies was undertaken. We engaged children with long-term conditions (and parents) to support review design, interpretation of findings and development of recommendations.ResultsThirty-eight journal articles were included, describing concerns or needs expressed by n=970 children and/or young people aged 5–18 years. Most included studies were undertaken in high-income countries with children aged 11 years and older. Studies examined concerns with mobile applications (n=14), internet (n=9), social media (n=3), interactive online treatment programmes (n=3), telehealth (n=1), devices (n=3) or a combination (n=5). Children and young people’s main concerns were labelling and identity; accessibility; privacy and reliability; and trustworthiness of information.DiscussionThis review highlights important concerns that children and young people may have before using technology to self-manage their long-term condition. In future, research should involve children and young people throughout the development of technology, from identifying their unmet needs through to design and evaluation of interventions.

Background: Monetary and other incentives may increase recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Methods: 2x2 factorial ‘study within a trial’ of including a pen and/or £5 (GBP) in cash with a postal recruitment pack to increase the number of participants randomised into the host trial (‘Gentle Years Yoga’) for older adults with multimorbidity. Secondary outcomes: return, and time to return, of screening form, and the cost per additional participant randomised. Binary data were analysed using logistic regression and time to return using Cox proportional hazards regression.  Results: 818 potential host trial participants were included. Between those sent a pen (n=409) and not sent a pen (n=409), there was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants randomised (15 (3.7%) versus 11 (2.7%); OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.63–3.04), in returning a screening form (66 (16.1%) versus 61 (14.9%); OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.75–1.61) nor in time to return the screening form (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.77–1.55). Between those sent £5 (n=409) and not sent £5 (n=409), there was no evidence of increased randomisation (14 (3.4%) versus 12 (2.9%); OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.54–2.57), but more screening forms were returned (77 (18.8%) versus 50 (12.2%); OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.13–2.45) and there was decreased time to return screening form (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.09–2.22). No significant interaction between the interventions was observed. The cost per additional participant randomised was £32 and £1000 for the pen and £5, respectively. Conclusion: A small, monetary incentive did not result in more participants being randomised into the host trial but did encourage increased and faster response to the recruitment invitation. Since it is relatively costly, we do not recommend this intervention for use to increase recruitment in this population. Pens were cheaper but did not provide evidence of benefit.

Background: Monetary and other incentives may increase recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Methods: This was a 2x2 factorial ‘study within a trial’ of including a pen and/or £5 with a postal recruitment pack to improve randomisation rate (primary outcome) into the host Gentle Years Yoga trial in older adults with multimorbidity. Secondary outcomes: return, and time to return, of screening form, and the cost per additional participant recruited. Binary data were analysed using logistic regression and time to return data using Cox proportional hazards regression.  Results: 818 potential host trial participants included. Between those sent a pen (n=409) and not sent a pen (n=409), there was no evidence of a difference in the likelihood of being randomised (15 (3.7%) versus 11 (2.7%); OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.63–3.04), in returning a screening form (66 (16.1%) versus 61 (14.9%); OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.75–1.61) nor in time to return the screening form (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.77–1.55). There was evidence of improved screening return rates (77 (18.8%) versus 50 (12.2%); OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.13–2.45) and time to return screening form (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.09–2.22) but not randomisation (14 (3.4%) versus 12 (2.9%); OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.54–2.57) in those sent £5 (n=409) compared with those not sent £5 (n=409). No significant interaction effects between the interventions were observed. The cost per additional participant recruited was £32 for the pen and £1000 for the £5 incentive. Conclusion: Including a small, monetary incentive encouraged increased and faster response to the recruitment invitation but did not result in more participants being randomised into the host trial. Since it is relatively costly, we do not recommend this intervention for use to increase recruitment in this population. Pens are cheaper but did not provide evidence of benefit. Further studies may be required.

Background Multimorbidity is common in older adults and associated with high levels of illness burden and healthcare expenditure. The evidence base for how to manage older adults with multimorbidity is weak. Yoga might be a useful intervention because it has the potential to improve health-related quality of life, physical functioning, and several medical conditions. The British Wheel of Yoga’s Gentle Years Yoga© (GYY) programme was developed specifically for older adults, including those with chronic medical conditions. Data from a pilot trial suggested feasibility of using GYY in this population, but its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness remain uncertain. Methods This is a multi-site, individually randomised, superiority trial with an embedded process evaluation and an economic analysis of cost-effectiveness. The trial will compare an experimental strategy of offering a 12-week GYY programme against a control strategy of no offer in community-dwelling adults aged 65 or over who have multimorbidity, defined as having two or more chronic conditions from a predefined list. The primary outcome is health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5L, the primary endpoint being the overall difference over 12 months. Both groups will continue to be able to access their usual care from primary, secondary, community, and social services. Participants, care providers, and yoga teachers will not be blinded to the allocated intervention. Outcome measures are primarily self-reported. The analysis will follow intention-to-treat principles. Discussion This pragmatic randomised controlled trial will demonstrate if the GYY programme is an effective, cost-effective, and viable addition to the management of older adults with multimorbidity. Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN13567538. Registered on 18 March 2019

No abstract