Use of interventions with a previous evidence base in new contexts might be more efficient than developing new interventions Many population health problems and interventions are highly sensitive to context, so implementing an intervention in a new context without adaptation might be less likely to lead to positive outcomes A new consensus informed guidance for adapting interventions to achieve a good fit between the intervention and context (ADAPT) proposes systematic processes for adapting interventions to new contexts, and transparent reporting to facilitate synthesis on what does or does not workThe ADAPT guidance was developed using systematic review methods, qualitative interviews, extensive consultation, and formal consensus methods. It provides a framework and step-by-step guidance for working with stakeholders, selecting suitable interventions, undertaking adaptations, making decisions on evaluation and implementation, and reporting adapted interventions

No abstract

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 08/44/04. The contractual start date was in September 2010. The draft report began editorial review in April 2014 and was accepted for publication in September 2014. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. Published by...

Background Implementing evidence-informed population health interventions in new contexts often requires adaptations. While the need to adapt interventions to better fit new contexts is recognised, uncertainties remain regarding why and when to adapt (or not), and how to assess the benefits (or not) of adaptation. The ADAPT Study aims to develop comprehensive guidance on adaptation. This scoping review informs guidance development by mapping and exploring how adaptation has been undertaken in practice, in public health and health services research. Methods We searched seven databases from January 2000 and October 2018 to identify eligible studies for this scoping review and a related systematic review of adaptation guidance. We mapped the studies of adaptation by coding data from all eligible studies describing the methods, contexts, and interventions considered for adaptation. From this map, we selected a sample of studies for in-depth examination. Two reviewers extracted data independently into seven categories: description, key concepts, types, rationale, processes, evaluation methods, evaluation justification, and accounts of failures and successes. Results We retrieved 6694 unique records. From 429 records screened at full text, we identified 298 eligible studies for mapping and selected 28 studies for in-depth examination. The majority of studies in our map focused on micro- (i.e., individual-) level interventions (84%), related to transferring an intervention to a new population group within the same country (62%) and did not report using guidance (73%). Studies covered a range of topic areas, including health behaviour (24%), mental health (19%), sexual health (16%), and parenting and family-centred interventions (15%). Our in-depth analysis showed that adaptation is seen to save costs and time relative to developing a new intervention, and to enhance contextual relevance and cultural compatibility. It commonly follows a structured process and involves stakeholders to help with decisions on what to adapt, when, and how. Conclusions Adaptation has been undertaken on a range of health topics and largely in line with existing guidance. Significant gaps relate to adaptation of macro- (e.g., national-) level interventions, consideration of programme theories, mechanisms and contexts (i.e., a functional view of interventions), nuances around stakeholder involvement, and evaluation of the adapted interventions. Registration Open Science Framework, 2019, osf.io/udzma.

Peer support is recommended by the World Health Organization for the initiation and continuation of breastfeeding, and this recommendation is included in United Kingdom (U.K.) guidance. There is a lack of information about how, when, and where breastfeeding peer support was provided in the U.K. We aimed to generate an overview of how peer support is delivered in the U.K. and to gain an understanding of challenges for implementation. We surveyed all U.K. infant feeding coordinators (n = 696) who were part of U.K.-based National Infant Feeding Networks, covering 177 National Health Service (NHS) organisations. We received 136 responses (individual response rate 19.5%), covering 102 U.K. NHS organisations (organisational response rate 58%). We also searched NHS organisation websites to obtain data on the presence of breastfeeding peer support. Breastfeeding peer support was available in 56% of areas. However, coverage within areas was variable. The provision of training and ongoing supervision, and peer-supporter roles, varied significantly between services. Around one third of respondents felt that breastfeeding peer-support services were not well integrated with NHS health services. Financial issues were commonly reported to have a negative impact on service provision. One quarter of respondents stated that breastfeeding peer support was not accessed by mothers from poorer social backgrounds. Overall, there was marked variation in the provision of peer-support services for breastfeeding in the U.K. A more robust evidence base is urgently needed to inform guidance on the structure and provision of breastfeeding peer-support services.

PurposeRecruitment and follow-up in epidemiological studies are time-consuming and expensive. Combining online data collection with a register of individuals who agree to be contacted about research opportunities provides an efficient, cost-effective platform for population-based research. HealthWise Wales (HWW) aims to facilitate research by recruiting a cohort of individuals who have consented to be informed about research projects, advertising studies to participants, supporting data collection on specific topics and providing access to linked healthcare data for secondary analyses. In this paper, we describe the design of the project, ongoing data collection, methods of data linkage to routine healthcare records, baseline characteristics of participants, the strengths and limitations of the register, and the ways in which the project can support researchers.ParticipantsAdults (aged 16 years and above) living or receiving their healthcare in Wales are eligible for inclusion. Participants consent to be contacted for follow-up data collection and for their details to be used to access their routinely collected National Health Service records for research purposes. Data are collected using a web-based application, with new questionnaires added every 6 months. Data collection on sociodemographic and lifestyle factors is repeated at intervals of 2–3 years. Recruitment is ongoing, with 21 779 participants alive and currently registered.Findings to date99% of participants have complete information on age and sex, and 64% have completed questionnaires on sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. These data can be linked with national health databases within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank, with 93% of participants matching a record in SAIL. HWW has facilitated the recruitment of 43 826 participants to 15 different studies.Future plansThe medium-term goal for the project is to enrol at least 50 000 adults. Recruitment strategies are being devised to achieve a study sample that closely models the population of Wales. Potential biosampling methods are also currently being explored.

An uncontrolled study with process evaluation was conducted in three U.K. community maternity sites to establish the feasibility and acceptability of delivering a novel breastfeeding peer-support intervention informed by motivational interviewing (MI;Mam-Kind). Peer-supporters were trained to deliver the Mam-Kind intervention that provided intensive one-to-one peer-support, including (a) antenatal contact, (b) faceto-face contact within 48 hr of birth, (c) proactive (peer-supporter led) alternate day contact for 2 weeks after birth, and (d) mother-led contact for a further 6 weeks.Peer-supporters completed structured diaries and audio-recorded face-to-face sessions with mothers. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of mothers, health professionals, and all peer-supporters. Interview data were analysed thematically to assess intervention acceptability. Audio-recorded peer-support sessions were assessed for intervention fidelity and the use of MI techniques, using the MITI 4.2 tool. Eight peer-supporters delivered the Mam-Kind intervention to 70 mothers in three National Health Service maternity services. Qualitative interviews with mothers (n = 28), peer-supporters (n = 8), and health professionals (n = 12) indicated that the intervention was acceptable, and health professionals felt it could be integrated with existing services. There was high fidelity to intervention content; 93% of intervention objectives were met during sessions. However, peer-supporters reported difficulties in adapting from an expert-by-experience role to a collaborative role. We have established the feasibility and acceptability of providing breastfeeding peer-support using a MI-informed approach. Refinement of the intervention is needed to further develop peer-supporters' skills in providing mother-centred support. The refined intervention should be tested for effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial.

Structured Abstract:Purpose: To describe current care pathways for children with autism including enablers and barriers, as experienced by health professionals, education professionals, and families in South Wales, UK. Design/Methodology/Approach: A mixed-methods approach using focus group discussions, creative writing workshops and visualisation using rich pictures. Findings: The experiences of the care pathways differed significantly across the three groups. Health professionals described the most rigidly-structured pathways, with clear entry points and outcomes. Education professionals and parents described more complex and confusing pathways, with parents assuming the responsibility of coordinating the health and education activity in a bid to link the two independent pathways. All three groups identified enablers, although these differed across the groups. The barriers were more consistent across the groups (e.g. poor communication, missing information, lack of transparency, limited post diagnosis services and access to services based on diagnosis rather than need). Practical Implications: This research could inform the design of new services which are premised on multi-agency and multi-disciplinary working to ensure children with ASD receive joined up services and support. Originality/value: Although this study did not represent all professional groups or all experiences of autism, we examined three different perspectives of the ASD pathway. In addition, we triangulated high-level process maps with rich pictures and creative writing exercises, which allowed us to identify specific recommendations to improve integration and reduce duplication and gaps in provision.