BackgroundExisting guidance for developing public health interventions does not provide information for researchers about how to work with intervention providers to co-produce and prototype the content and delivery of new interventions prior to evaluation. The ASSIST + Frank study aimed to adapt an existing effective peer-led smoking prevention intervention (ASSIST), integrating new content from the UK drug education resource Talk to Frank (www.talktofrank.com) to co-produce two new school-based peer-led drug prevention interventions. A three-stage framework was tested to adapt and develop intervention content and delivery methods in collaboration with key stakeholders to facilitate implementation.MethodsThe three stages of the framework were: 1) Evidence review and stakeholder consultation; 2) Co-production; 3) Prototyping. During stage 1, six focus groups, 12 consultations, five interviews, and nine observations of intervention delivery were conducted with key stakeholders (e.g. Public Health Wales [PHW] ASSIST delivery team, teachers, school students, health professionals). During stage 2, an intervention development group consisting of members of the research team and the PHW ASSIST delivery team was established to adapt existing, and co-produce new, intervention activities. In stage 3, intervention training and content were iteratively prototyped using process data on fidelity and acceptability to key stakeholders. Stages 2 and 3 took the form of an action-research process involving a series of face-to-face meetings, email exchanges, observations, and training sessions.ResultsUtilising the three-stage framework, we co-produced and tested intervention content and delivery methods for the two interventions over a period of 18 months involving external partners. New and adapted intervention activities, as well as refinements in content, the format of delivery, timing and sequencing of activities, and training manuals resulted from this process. The involvement of intervention delivery staff, participants and teachers shaped the content and format of the interventions, as well as supporting rapid prototyping in context at the final stage.ConclusionsThis three-stage framework extends current guidance on intervention development by providing step-by-step instructions for co-producing and prototyping an intervention’s content and delivery processes prior to piloting and formal evaluation. This framework enhances existing guidance and could be transferred to co-produce and prototype other public health interventions.Trial registration ISRCTN14415936, registered retrospectively on 05 November 2014.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-017-4695-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Barriers to screening for intimate partner violence are numerous among health care providers of various medical specialties. Increased education and training regarding intimate partner violence is necessary to address perceptions and attitudes to remove barriers that hinder intimate partner violence screening by health care providers.

Online activity in orthopaedics is dominated by activity on Twitter and Facebook and is associated with increasing time since publication, journal impact factor, and author h-index values, and less risk of bias. Institutions, publishers, funding agencies, and clinicians may consider a complementary approach to measuring scholarly influence that weights online mentions and conventional citations equally.

This study highlights an important need to develop additional strategies to minimize loss to follow-up, including targeted participant-retention strategies. Male sex, an age of <30 years, current smoking, high-risk alcohol consumption, and treatment in a developed country with a predominantly privately funded health-care system increased the likelihood of participants being lost to follow-up. Therefore, strategies should be targeted to these participants. Use of the planning and prevention strategies outlined in the current study can minimize loss to follow-up in orthopaedic trials.

No abstract