ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of telephone health coaching delivered by a nurse to support self management in a primary care population with mild symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).DesignMulticentre randomised controlled trial.Setting71 general practices in four areas of England.Participants577 patients with Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale scores of 1 or 2, recruited from primary care COPD registers with spirometry confirmed diagnosis. Patients were randomised to telephone health coaching (n=289) or usual care (n=288).InterventionsTelephone health coaching intervention delivered by nurses, underpinned by Social Cognitive Theory. The coaching promoted accessing smoking cessation services, increasing physical activity, medication management, and action planning (4 sessions over 11 weeks; postal information at weeks 16 and 24). The nurses received two days of training. The usual care group received a leaflet about COPD.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was health related quality of life at 12 months using the short version of the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ-C).ResultsThe intervention was delivered with good fidelity: 86% of scheduled calls were delivered; 75% of patients received all four calls. 92% of patients were followed-up at six months and 89% at 12 months. There was no difference in SGRQ-C total score at 12 months (mean difference −1.3, 95% confidence interval −3.6 to 0.9, P=0.23). Compared with patients in the usual care group, at six months follow-up, the intervention group reported greater physical activity, more had received a care plan (44% v 30%), rescue packs of antibiotics (37% v 29%), and inhaler use technique check (68% v 55%).ConclusionsA new telephone health coaching intervention to promote behaviour change in primary care patients with mild symptoms of dyspnoea did lead to changes in self management activities, but did not improve health related quality of life.Trial registrationCurrent controlled trials ISRCTN 06710391

Background the aim of this review was to analyze the implementation and impact of remote home monitoring models (virtual wards) for confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients, identifying their main components, processes of implementation, target patient populations, impact on outcomes, costs and lessons learnt. Methods we carried out a rapid systematic review on models led by primary and secondary care across seven countries (US, Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, Ireland, China, UK). The main outcomes included in the review were: impact of remote home monitoring on virtual length of stay, escalation, emergency department attendance/reattendance, admission/readmission and mortality. The search was updated on February 2021. We used the PRISMA statement and the review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD: 42020202888). Findings the review included 27 articles. The aim of the models was to maintain patients safe in the appropriate setting. Most models were led by secondary care and confirmation of COVID-19 was not required (in most cases). Monitoring was carried via online platforms, paper-based systems with telephone calls or (less frequently) through wearable sensors. Models based on phone calls were considered more inclusive. Patient/career training was identified as a determining factor of success. We could not reach substantive conclusions regarding patient safety and the identification of early deterioration due to lack of standardized reporting and missing data. Economic analysis was not reported for most of the models and did not go beyond reporting resources used and the amount spent per patient monitored. Interpretation future research should focus on staff and patient experiences of care and inequalities in patients’ access to care. Attention needs to be paid to the cost-effectiveness of the models and their sustainability, evaluation of their impact on patient outcomes by using comparators, and the use of risk-stratification tools.

Background There is a paucity of evidence for the implementation of remote home monitoring for COVID-19 infection. The aims of this study were to identify the key characteristics of remote home monitoring models for COVID-19 infection, explore the experiences of staff implementing these models, understand the use of data for monitoring progress against outcomes, and document variability in staffing and resource allocation. Methods This was a multi-site mixed methods study conducted between July and August 2020 that combined qualitative and quantitative approaches to analyse the implementation and impact of remote home monitoring models developed during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. The study combined interviews ( n = 22) with staff delivering these models across eight sites in England with the collection and analysis of data on staffing models and resource allocation. Findings The models varied in relation to the healthcare settings and mechanisms used for patient triage, monitoring and escalation. Implementation was embedded in existing staff workloads and budgets. Good communication within clinical teams, culturally-appropriate information for patients/carers and the combination of multiple approaches for patient monitoring (app and paper-based) were considered facilitators in implementation. The mean cost per monitored patient varied from £400 to £553, depending on the model. Interpretation It is necessary to provide the means for evaluating the effectiveness of these models, for example, by establishing comparator data. Future research should also focus on the sustainability of the models and patient experience (considering the extent to which some of the models exacerbate existing inequalities in access to care).

BackgroundMany overweight people find it difficult to maintain weight loss after attending a weight reduction programme. Self-weighing and telephone support are known to be useful methods for self-monitoring for weight loss. We examined the effectiveness of an SMS-text messaging based weight maintenance programme to encourage regular self-weighing in adults who had completed a 12 week commercial weight loss programme.MethodsRandomised controlled trial of 380 obese or overweight men and women. The intervention group (N = 190) received a single maintenance support phone call and SMS-text based weight maintenance messages over 12 weeks to encourage regular self-weighing after completing their weight loss programme. The primary outcome was change in weight at 9 months follow up.ResultsOur sample (N = 380) had a mean age of 47.4 years (SD 13.4), mean baseline weight and BMI of 93.1 kg (16.1) and 34.4 kg/m2 (5.0) respectively, as well as majority female (87.3 %) and White British (80.0 %). Using intention to treat analysis both groups regained weight at 9 months follow up; the intervention group regained an average of 1.36 kg while the control group regained 1.81 kg. Adjusting for covariates resulted in a mean difference of 0.45 kg (95 % CI −0.78, 1.67) favouring the intervention group at 9 month follow up.ConclusionsWe found no evidence that an SMS based weight maintenance intervention encouraging adults to weigh themselves weekly prevented weight regain at 3 or 9 months after completing a commercial weight loss programme.Trial RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN47845106.

ObjectivesTo identify studies that have investigated the health outcome and treatment priorities of patients with multimorbidity, clinicians or both, in order to assess whether the priorities of the two groups are in alignment, or whether a disparity exists between the priorities of patients with multimorbidity and clinicians.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL and Cochrane databases from inception to May 2019 using a predefined search strategy, as well as reference lists containing any relevant articles, as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Cochrane guidelines.Eligibility criteriaWe included studies reporting health outcome and treatment priorities of adult patients with multimorbidity, defined as suffering from two or more chronic conditions, or of clinicians in the context of multimorbidity or both. There was no restriction by study design, and studies using quantitative and/or qualitative methodologies were included.Data synthesisWe used a narrative synthesis approach to synthesise the quantitative findings, and a meta-ethnography approach to synthesise the qualitative findings.ResultsOur search identified 24 studies for inclusion, which comprised 12 quantitative studies, 10 qualitative studies and 2 mixed-methods studies. Twelve studies reported the priorities of both patients and clinicians, 10 studies reported the priorities of patients and 2 studies reported the priorities of clinicians alone. Our findings have shown a mostly low level of agreement between the priorities of patients with multimorbidity and clinicians. We found that prioritisation by patients was mainly driven by their illness experiences, while clinicians focused on longer-term risks. Preserving functional ability emerged as a key priority for patients from across our quantitative and qualitative analyses.ConclusionRecognising that there may be a disparity in prioritisation and understanding the reasons for why this might occur, can facilitate clinicians in accurately eliciting the priorities that are most important to their patients and delivering patient-centred care.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018076076.