ObjectivesTo explore reasons for non-participation in a primary care-based physical activity trial and understand how these may contribute to recruitment of non-representative research samples. We also aimed to elicit non-participants’ own recommendations for enhancing trial uptake in primary care.DesignSemistructured telephone interviews with non-participants to a randomised controlled trial of a very brief intervention for promoting physical activity conducted in primary care (the Very Brief Interventions trial), with thematic analysis of interview transcripts.Setting5 general practice (GP) surgeries in the East of England, UK.ParticipantsInterviews were completed with 10 female and 6 male non-participants of white ethnicity and aged between 40 and 71 years. 13 of the 16 interviewees were either active or moderately active according to the GP Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ).ResultsInterviewees discussed a range of reasons for non-participation. These included beliefs surrounding the personal relevance of the trial based on preconceptions of intervention content. Many interviewees considered themselves either sufficiently active or too functionally limited to increase activity levels further, so rendering participation pointless in their view. Other identified barriers included a lack of free time, for trial participation and for increasing physical activity, and dissatisfaction with appointment scheduling systems in place at GP surgeries. Interviewees questioned the appropriateness of primary care as a context for delivering interventions to promote physical activity. In general, interviewees were positively disposed towards the idea of trial participation, especially if personal benefits are made salient, but suggested that interventions could be delivered in a different setting such as the internet.ConclusionsTo increase participation in physical activity promotion trials conducted in primary care, the content of invitation materials and procedures for contacting potential participants require reconsideration. Specific recommendations include streamlining intervention materials and enhancing their relevance to the health concerns of invitees.Trial registration numberISRCTN72691150; Pre-results.

BackgroundThere is a worldwide shortage of organs available for transplant, leading to preventable mortality associated with end-stage organ disease. While most citizens in many countries with an intent-to-donate “opt-in” system support organ donation, registration rates remain low. In Canada, most Canadians support organ donation but less than 25% in most provinces have registered their desire to donate their organs when they die. The family physician office is a promising yet underused setting in which to promote organ donor registration and address known barriers and enablers to registering for deceased organ and tissue donation. We developed a protocol to evaluate an intervention to promote registration for organ and tissue donation in family physician waiting rooms.Methods/designThis protocol describes a planned, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized registry trial in six family physician offices in Ontario, Canada to evaluate the effectiveness of reception staff providing patients with a pamphlet that addresses barriers and enablers to registration including a description of how to register for organ donation. An Internet-enabled tablet will also be provided in waiting rooms so that interested patients can register while waiting for their appointments. Family physicians and reception staff will be provided with training and/or materials to support any conversations about organ donation with their patients. Following a 2-week control period, the six offices will cross sequentially into the intervention arm in randomized sequence at 2-week intervals until all offices deliver the intervention. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients visiting the office who are registered organ donors 7 days following their office visit. We will evaluate this outcome using routinely collected registry data from provincial administrative databases. A post-trial qualitative evaluation process will assess the experiences of reception staff and family physicians with the intervention and the stepped-wedge trial design.DiscussionPromoting registration for organ donation in family physician offices is a potentially useful strategy for increasing registration for organ donation. Increased registration may ultimately help to increase the number of organs available for transplant. The results of this trial will provide important preliminary data on the effectiveness of using family physician offices to promote registration for organ donation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03213171. Registered on 11 July 2017.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2333-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Purpose Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are standardized instruments used to collect data about the subjective assessment of medical care from the patient perspective. Implementing PROMs within pediatric clinical settings has gained increasing importance as health services prioritize patient-centred pediatric care. This study explores the perspectives of pediatric solid organ transplant patients, caregivers, and healthcare practitioners (HCPs) on implementing PROMs into clinical practice. Methods Qualitative description methods were used to elicit stakeholder perspectives. Semi-structured interviews were conducted across five Canadian transplant centres. Purposive sampling was used to obtain maximum variation across age, gender, and transplant program for all participants, as well as discipline for HCPs. Results The study included a total of 63 participants [patients (n = 20), caregivers (n = 22) and HCPs (n = 21)]. Nearly all participants endorsed the implementation of PROMs to enhance pediatric transplant clinical care. Three primary roles for PROMs emerged: (1) to bring a transplant patient’s overall well-being into the clinical care conversation; (2) to improve patient communication and engagement; and, (3) to inform the practice of clinical pediatric transplant care. Insights for effective implementation included completing electronic PROMs remotely and prior to clinical appointments by patients who are eight to 10 years of age or older. Conclusions This study contributes to current research that supports the use of PROMs in clinical pediatric care and guides their effective implementation into practice. Future directions include the development, usability testing, and evaluation of a proposed electronic PROM platform that will inform future research initiatives.

A rickettsial isolate was obtained from a partially engorged Ixodes pacificus female, which was collected from Humboldt County, California. The isolate was provisionally named Rickettsia endosymbiont Ixodes pacificus (REIP). The REIP isolate displayed the highest nucleotide sequence identity to Rickettsia species phylotype G021 in I. pacificus (99%, 99%, and 100% for ompA, 16S rRNA, and gltA, respectively), a bacterium that was previously identified in I. pacifiucs by PCR. Analysis of sequences from complete opening frames of five genes, 16S rRNA, gltA, ompA, ompB, and sca4, provided inference to the bacteria's classification among other Rickettsia species. The REIP isolate displayed 99.8%, 99.4%, 99.2%, 99.5%, and 99.6% nucleotide sequence identity for 16S rRNA, gltA, ompA, ompB, and sca4 gene, respectively, with genes of 'R. monacensis' str. IrR/Munich, indicating the REIP isolate is closely related to 'R. monacensis'. Our suggestion was further supported by phylogenetic analysis using concatenated sequences of 16S rRNA, gltA, ompA, ompB, and sca4 genes, concatenated sequences of dksA-xerC, mppA-purC, and rpmE-tRNA fMet intergenic spacer regions. Both phylogenetic trees implied that the REIP isolate is most closely related to 'R. monacensis' str. IrR/Munich. We propose the bacterium be considered as 'Rickettsia monacensis' str. Humboldt for its closest phylogenetic relative (=DSM 103975T =ATCC TSD-94T).

BackgroundPhysical activity interventions that are targeted at individuals can be effective in encouraging people to be more physically active. However, most such interventions are too long or complex and not scalable to the general population. This trial will test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief physical activity intervention when delivered as part of preventative health checks in primary care (National Health Service (NHS) Health Check).Methods/designThe Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial is a two parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial with 1:1 individual allocation and follow-up at 3 months. A total of 1,140 participants will be recruited from 23 primary care practices in the east of England. Participants eligible for an NHS Health Check and who are considered suitable to take part by their doctor and able to provide written informed consent are eligible for the trial. Participants are randomly assigned at the beginning of the NHS Health Check to either 1) the control arm, in which they receive only the NHS Health Check, or 2) the intervention arm, in which they receive the NHS Health Check plus ‘Step It Up’ (a very brief intervention that can be delivered in 5 minutes by nurses and/or healthcare assistants at the end of the Health Check). ‘Step It Up’ includes (1) a face-to-face discussion, including feedback on current activity level, recommendations for physical activity, and information on how to use a pedometer, set step goals, and monitor progress; (2) written material supporting the discussion and tips and links to further resources to help increase physical activity; and (3) a pedometer to wear and a step chart for monitoring progress.The primary outcome is accelerometer counts per minute at 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the time spent in the different levels of physical activity, self-reported physical activity and economic measures.Trial recruitment is underway.DiscussionThe VBI trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Step It Up intervention delivered during NHS Health Checks and will inform policy decisions about introducing very brief interventions into routine primary care practice.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN72691150. Registered on 17 July 2014.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1413-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background The majority of people do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. There is a need for effective, scalable interventions to promote activity. Self-monitoring by pedometer is a potentially suitable strategy. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief (5-minute) pedometer-based intervention ('Step It Up') delivered as part of National Health Service (NHS) Health Checks in primary care. Methods and findings The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial was a two parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 3-month follow-up, conducted in 23 primary care practices in the East of England. Participants were 1,007 healthy adults aged 40 to 74 years eligible for an NHS Health Check. They were randomly allocated (1:1) using a web-based tool between October 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, to either intervention (505) or control group (502), stratified by primary care practice. Participants were aware of study group allocation. Control participants received the NHS Health Check only. Intervention participants additionally received Step It Up: a 5-minute face-to-face discussion, written materials, pedometer, and step chart.

No abstract