ObjectivesBeing obese and drinking more than 14 units of alcohol per week places men at very high risk of developing liver disease. This study assessed the feasibility of a trial to reduce alcohol consumption. It tested the recruitment strategy, engagement with the intervention, retention and study acceptability.MethodsMen aged 35–64 years who drank >21 units of alcohol per week and had a BMI > 30 were recruited by two methods: from GP patient registers and by community outreach. The intervention was delivered by a face to face session followed by a series of text messages. Trained lay people (Study Coordinators) delivered the face to face session. Participants were followed up for 5 months from baseline to measure weekly alcohol consumption and BMI.ResultsThe recruitment target of 60 was exceeded, with 69 men recruited and randomized. At baseline, almost all the participants (95%) exceeded the threshold for a 19-fold increase in the risk of dying from liver disease. The intervention was delivered with high fidelity. A very high follow-up rate was achieved (98%) and the outcomes for the full trial were measured. Process evaluation showed that participants responded as intended to key steps in the behaviour change strategy. The acceptability of the study methods was high: e.g. 80% of men would recommend the study to others.ConclusionsThis feasibility study identified a group at high risk of liver disease. It showed that a full trial could be conducted to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.Trial registrationCurrent controlled trials: ISRCTN55309164.Trial fundingNational Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA).Short summaryThis feasibility study recruited 69 men at high risk of developing liver disease. The novel intervention, to reduce alcohol consumption through the motivation of weight loss, was well received. A very high follow-up rate was achieved. Process evaluation showed that participants engaged with key components of the behaviour change strategy.

The body of literature on the relationship between elements of ICU treatment and memories after ICU discharge is small and at its early stages. Larger studies using rigorous study design are needed in order to evaluate the effects of different elements of ICU treatment on the development of memories of the ICU during recovery.

Introduction: Supporting doctors' wellbeing is crucial for medical education to help minimise negative long-term impacts on medical workforce retention and ultimately patient care. There is limited study of how doctors' transitions experiences impact wellbeing, particularly socially and culturally. Multiple Multidimensional Transitions (MMT) theory views transitions as dynamic, incorporating multiple contexts and multiple domains.Using MMT as our lens, we report a qualitative analysis of how transitions experienced by doctors during the pandemic impacted on social and cultural aspects of wellbeing. Methods: Longitudinal narrative inquiry was employed, using interviews and audio-diaries. Data were collected over 6 months in three phases: (i) interviews with doctors from across the career spectrum (n = 98); (ii) longitudinal audio-diaries for 2-4 months (n = 71); (iii) second interviews (n = 83). Data were analysed abductively, narrowing focus to factors important to social and cultural wellbeing. Results: Doctors described experiencing multiple interacting transitions triggered by the pandemic in multiple contexts (workplace, role, homelife and education). Patterns identifiable across the dataset allowed us to explore social and cultural wellbeing crosscutting beyond individual experience. Three critical factors contributed to social and cultural wellbeing both positively and negatively: being heard (e.g., by colleagues asking how they are); being valued (e.g., removal of rest spaces by organisations showing lack of value); and being supported (e.g., through regular briefing by education bodies). Conclusions: This study is the first to longitudinally explore the multiple-multidimensional transitions experienced by doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our data analysis helped us move beyond existing perceptions around wellbeing and articulate multiple factors that contribute to social and cultural wellbeing. It is vital that medical educators consider the learning from these experiences to help pinpoint what aspects of support might be beneficial to trainee doctors and their trainers. This study forms the basis for developing evidenced-based interventions that ensure doctors are heard, valued and supported.

Loneliness is associated with low quality of life, mental illness, poor physical health and premature mortality. Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients are at risk of loneliness due to the consequences of the cancer and its treatment on important social interactive functions such as appearance, speech, facial expression and eating. Patients treated for primary squamous cell HNC between January 2015 and December 2016 were surveyed in early 2019 using the University of Washington Quality of Life questionnaire v4, the Cancer-Related Loneliness Assessment Tool and four nationally recommended indicator questions. The survey comprised 140 patients, with mean (SD) age at diagnosis of 63 ( 11) years. Tumour sites were oropharyngeal (42%), oral (35%), laryngeal (14%) and elsewhere (9%). In response to the single direct question 'How often do you feel lonely?' three-quarters said 'hardly ever' and only 6% 'often'. Similar responses were obtained for the other three recommended indicator questions. It is encouraging that only a relatively small proportion appear to have significant issues with loneliness. Similarly, the response to the C-LAT would suggest about one-quarter having feelings of loneliness and a minority of patients having significant problems. Patients who were younger patients, living in more deprived circumstances, having advanced disease and having had chemo/radio therapy reported greater levels of loneliness. Loneliness was associated with worse overall quality of life, and physical and social-emotional functioning.Lonely patients need to be identified as early as possible so that support and intervention can be implemented and outcomes improved.

ObjectivesThe aim of this scoping review was to identify pre-existing interventions to support the well-being of healthcare workers during a pandemic or other crisis and to assess the quality of these interventions.DesignArksey and O’Malley’s five-stage scoping review framework was used to identify the types of evidence available in the field of well-being interventions for healthcare workers during a pandemic. PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and ERIC databases were searched to find interventions for the well-being of doctors during pandemics. Owing to a lack of results, this search was expanded to all healthcare workers and to include any crisis. Databases were searched in June 2020 and again in October 2020.Inclusion/exclusion criteriaArticles were included that studied healthcare workers, reported an intervention design and were specifically designed for use during a pandemic or other crisis. Well-being was defined broadly and could include psychological, physical, social or educational interventions.ResultsSearching produced 10 529 total academic references of which 2062 were duplicates. This left 8467 references. Of these, 16 met our inclusion criteria and were included in data extraction. During data extraction, three more papers were excluded. This left 13 papers to summarise and report. Of these 13 papers, 6 were prospective studies and 7 were purely descriptive. None of the interventions were theoretically informed in their development and the quality of the evidence was generally deemed poor.ConclusionsThere are no high-quality, theory-based interventions for the well-being of healthcare workers during a pandemic or other crisis. Given that previous pandemics have been shown to have a negative effect on healthcare workers well-being, it is imperative this shortcoming is addressed. This scoping review highlights the need for high-quality, theory-based and evidence-based interventions for the well-being of healthcare workers during a pandemic.

BackgroundInconclusive evidence supporting referrals from health professionals to gym-based exercise programmes has raised concern for the roll-out of such schemes, and highlights the importance of developing links between healthcare settings and community-based opportunities to improve physical activity (PA) levels.AimThis study aimed to identify methods, and explore barriers and facilitators, of connecting primary care patients with PA opportunities from the perspectives of both health professionals (HPs) and patients, using the example of jogscotland.Design & settingAn exploratory study utilising semi-structured interviews with primary care patients (n = 14) and HPs (n = 14) from one UK NHS board was conducted.MethodPatient and HP transcripts were analysed separately using thematic analysis. Potential methods of connection were identified. The Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, behavioural (COM-B) model and theoretical domains framework (TDF) were employed to facilitate identification of barriers and facilitators for connecting primary care to community jogscotland groups.ResultsThree methods of connecting patients to community-based groups were identified: informal passive signposting, informal active signposting, and formal referral or prescribing. Barriers and facilitators for patient connection fell into five TDF domains for HPs and two COM-B model components for patients.ConclusionFor patients, HPs raising the topic of PA can help to justify, facilitate, and motivate action to change. The workload associated with connecting patients with community-based opportunities is central to implementation by HPs. Integrative resource solutions and social support for patients can provide a greater variety of PA options and the vital information and support for connecting with local opportunities, such as jogscotland.

Deemed a global public health problem by the World Health Organization, physical inactivity is estimated to be responsible for one in six deaths in the United Kingdom (UK) and to cost the nation's economy £7.4 billion per year. A response to the problem receiving increasing attention is connecting primary care patients with community‐based physical activity opportunities. We aimed to explore what is known about the effectiveness of different methods of connecting primary care patients with community‐based physical activity opportunities in the United Kingdom by answering three research questions: 1) What methods of connection from primary care to community‐based physical activity opportunities have been evaluated?; 2) What processes of physical activity promotion incorporating such methods of connection are (or are not) effective or acceptable, for whom, to what extent and under what circumstances; 3) How and why are (or are not) those processes effective or acceptable? We conducted a realist scoping review in which we searched Cochrane, Medline, PsycNET, Google Advanced Search, National Health Service (NHS) Evidence and NHS Health Scotland from inception until August 2020. We identified that five methods of connection from primary care to community‐based physical activity opportunities had been evaluated. These were embedded in 15 processes of physical activity promotion, involving patient identification and behaviour change strategy delivery, as well as connection. In the contexts in which they were implemented, four of those processes had strong positive findings, three had moderately positive findings and eight had negative findings. The underlying theories of change were highly supported for three processes, supported to an extent for four and refuted for eight processes. Comparisons of the processes and their theories of change revealed several indications helpful for future development of effective processes. Our review also highlighted the limited evidence base in the area and the resulting need for well‐designed theory‐based evaluations.

Background The lack of evidence for the effective management of carious lesions in children’s primary teeth has caused uncertainty for the dental profession and patients. Possible approaches include conventional and biological management alongside best practice prevention, and best practice prevention alone. The FiCTION trial assessed the effectiveness of these options, and included a qualitative study exploring dental professionals’ (DPs) experiences of delivering the different treatment arms. This paper reports on how DPs managed children with carious lesions within FiCTION and how this related to their everyday experiences of doing dentistry. Methods Overall, 31 DPs from FiCTION-trained dental surgeries in four regions of the UK participated in semi-structured interviews about their experiences of the three treatment arms (conventional management of carious lesions and prevention (C + P), biological management of carious lesions and prevention (B + P) or prevention alone (PA)). A theoretical framework, drawing on social practice theory (SPT), was developed for analysis. Results Participants discussed perceived effectiveness of, and familiarity with, the three techniques. The C + P arm was familiar, but some participants questioned the effectiveness of conventional restorations. Attitudes towards the B + P arm varied in terms of familiarity, but once DPs were introduced to the techniques, this was seen as effective. While prevention was familiar, PA was described as ineffective. DPs manage children with carious lesions day-to-day, drawing on previous experience and knowledge of the child to provide what they view as the most appropriate treatment in the best interests of each child. Randomisation undermined these normal choices. Several DPs reported deviating from the trial arms in order to treat a patient in a particular way. Participants valued evidence-based dentistry, and expect to use the results of FiCTION to inform future practice. They anticipate continuing to use the full range of treatment options, and to personally select appropriate strategies for individual children. Conclusions RCTs take place in the context of day-to-day practices of doing dentistry. DPs employ experiential and interpersonal knowledge to act in the best interests of their patients. Randomisation within a clinical trial can present a source of tension for DPs, which has implications for assuring individual equipoise in future trials.