Background: UK Medical Research Council guidelines recommend end-user involvement in intervention development. There is limited evidence on the contributions of different end-users to this process. The aim of this Study Within A Trial (SWAT) was to identify and compare contributions from two groups of end-users - people with diabetes’ (PWD) and healthcare professionals’ (HCPs), during consensus meetings to inform an intervention to improve retinopathy screening uptake. Methods: A mixed method, explanatory sequential design comprising a survey and three semi-structured consensus meetings was used. PWD were randomly assigned to a PWD only or combined meeting. HCPs attended a HCP only or combined meeting, based on availability. In the survey, participants rated intervention proposals on acceptability and feasibility. Survey results informed the meeting topic guide. Transcripts were analysed deductively to compare feedback on intervention proposals, suggestions for new content, and contributions to the final intervention. Results: Overall, 13 PWD and 17 HCPs completed the survey, and 16 PWD and 15 HCPs attended meetings. For 31 of the 39 intervention proposals in the survey, there were differences (≥10%) between the proportion of HCPs and PWD who rated proposals as acceptable and/or feasible. End-user groups shared and unique concerns about proposals; both were concerned about informing but not scaring people when communicating risk, while concerns about resources were mostly unique to HCPs and concerns about privacy were mostly unique to PWD.  Fewer suggestions for new intervention content from the combined meeting were integrated into the final intervention as they were not feasible for implementation in general practice. Participants contributed four new behaviour change techniques not present in the original proposals: goal setting (outcome), restructuring the physical environment, material incentive (behaviour) and punishment. Conclusions: Preferences for intervention content may differ across end-user groups, with feedback varying depending on whether end-users are involved simultaneously or separately.

Background Falls are common among older people in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Falls cause considerable morbidity, mortality and reduced quality of life. Of numerous interventional studies of fall prevention interventions in LTCFs, some reduced falls. However, there are challenges to implementing these interventions in real-world (non-trial) clinical practice, and the implementation techniques may be crucial to successful translation. This systematic review thus aimed to synthesise the evidence on implementation strategies, implementation outcomes and clinical outcomes included in fall prevention intervention studies. Methods A systematic search of six electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science) and eight grey literature databases was conducted, involving papers published during 2001–2021, in English or Arabic, targeting original empirical studies of fall prevention interventions (experimental and quasi-experimental). Two seminal implementation frameworks guided the categorisation of implementation strategies and outcomes: the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) Taxonomy and the Implementation Outcomes Framework. Four ERIC sub-categories and three additional implementation strategies were created to clarify overlapping definitions and reflect the implementation approach. Two independent researchers completed title/abstract and full-text screening, quality appraisal assessment, data abstraction and coding of the implementation strategies and outcomes. A narrative synthesis was performed to analyse results. Results Four thousand three hundred ninety-seven potential papers were identified; 31 papers were included, describing 27 different fall prevention studies. These studies used 39 implementation strategies (3–17 per study). Educational and training strategies were used in almost all (n = 26), followed by evaluative strategies (n = 20) and developing stakeholders’ interrelationships (n = 20). Within educational and training strategies, education outreach/meetings (n = 17), distributing educational materials (n = 17) and developing educational materials (n = 13) were the most common, with 36 strategies coded to the ERIC taxonomy. Three strategies were added to allow coding of once-off training, dynamic education and ongoing medical consultation. Among the 15 studies reporting implementation outcomes, fidelity was the most common (n = 8). Conclusion This is the first study to comprehensively identify the implementation strategies used in falls prevention interventions in LTCFs. Education is the most common implementation strategy used in this setting. This review highlighted that there was poor reporting of the implementation strategies, limited assessment of implementation outcomes, and there was no discernible pattern of implementation strategies used in effective interventions, which should be improved and clearly defined. Trial registration This systematic review was registered on the PROSPERO database; registration number: CRD42021239604.

Background: While models of integrated care for people with chronic conditions have demonstrated promising results, there are still knowledge gaps about how these models are implemented in different contexts and which strategies may best support implementation. We aimed to evaluate the implementation of a multidisciplinary diabetes Community Specialist Team (CST) to support delivery of integrated type 2 diabetes care during COVID-19 in two health networks. Methods: A mixed methods approach was used. Quantitative data included administrative data on CST activity and caseload, and questionnaires with GPs, practice nurses (PN) and people with type 2 diabetes. Qualitative data were collected using semi-structured interviews and focus groups about the service from CST members, GPs, PNs and people with type 2 diabetes. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework to explain what influences implementation and to integrate different stakeholder perspectives. Results: Over a 6-month period (Dec 2020-May 2021), 516 patients were seen by podiatrists, 435 by dieticians, and 545 by CNS. Of patients who had their first CST appointment within the previous 6 months (n=29), 69% (n=20) waited less than 4 weeks to see the HCP. During initial implementation, CST members used virtual meetings to build ‘rapport’ with general practice staff, supporting ‘upskilling’ and referrals to the CST. Leadership from the local project team and change manager provided guidance on how to work as a team and ‘iron out’ issues. Where available, shared space enhanced networking between CST members and facilitated joint appointments. Lack of administrative support for the CST impacted on clinical time. Conclusions: This study illustrates how the CST benefited from shared space, enhanced networking, and leadership. When developing strategies to support implementation of integrated care, the need for administrative support, the practicalities of co-location to facilitate joint appointments, and relative advantages of different delivery models should be considered.

Background: Adaptation seeks to increase intervention fit with context, an important influence upon implementation. People with dementia in acute hospitals in Ireland do not routinely receive best care. To improve care in Ireland, we sought to adapt an existing quality improvement collaborative, to support the improvement capabilities of recipients of feedback from the Irish National Audit of Dementia. Methods: The study followed a staged process to co-design adaptations to reflect contextual differences between the English and the Irish healthcare systems, and to explore feasibility of the adapted Quality Improvement Collaborative in Ireland. We used co-design group meetings involving dementia clinicians from three hospitals, delivered the intervention virtually and interviewed healthcare workers from seven hospitals to adapt and explore the fidelity, affective response and reported appropriateness of the intervention. Results: The intervention required adaptation to reflect differences in strategic intention, ways of working and hospital social structures. There was evidence that the adapted intervention generated a positive affective response, was perceived as appropriate and led to fidelity of receipt and enactment. Conclusion: We describe implications for the adaptation of interventions to increase participants’ quality improvement capabilities and highlight the importance of socio-adaptive work. We propose further work to explore antecedents of senior positional leader engagement, to describe the delivery of intra-participant behaviour change techniques and to adapt the intervention to other clinical domains.