BackgroundSepsis is a major cause of death from infection, with a mortality rate of 36 %. This can be halved by implementing the ‘Sepsis Six’ evidence-based care bundle within 1 h of presentation. A UK audit has shown that median implementation rates are 27–47 % and interventions to improve this have demonstrated minimal effects. In order to develop more effective implementation interventions, it is helpful to obtain detailed characterisations of current interventions and to draw on behavioural theory to identify mechanisms of change. The aim of this study was to illustrate this process by using the Behaviour Change Wheel; Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) Taxonomy; Capability, Opportunity, Motivation model of behaviour; and Theoretical Domains Framework to characterise the content and theoretical mechanisms of action of an existing intervention to implement Sepsis Six.MethodsData came from documentary, interview and observational analyses of intervention delivery in several wards of a UK hospital. A broad description of the intervention was created using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication framework. Content was specified in terms of (i) component BCTs using the BCT Taxonomy and (ii) intervention functions using the Behaviour Change Wheel. Mechanisms of action were specified using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation model and the Theoretical Domains Framework.ResultsThe intervention consisted of 19 BCTs, with eight identified using all three data sources. The BCTs were delivered via seven functions of the Behaviour Change Wheel, with four (‘education’, ‘enablement’, ‘training’ and ‘environmental restructuring’) supported by the three data sources. The most frequent mechanisms of action were reflective motivation (especially ‘beliefs about consequences’ and ‘beliefs about capabilities’) and psychological capability (especially ‘knowledge’).ConclusionsThe intervention consisted of a wide range of BCTs targeting a wide range of mechanisms of action. This study demonstrates the utility of the Behaviour Change Wheel, the BCT Taxonomy and the Theoretical Domains Framework, tools recognised for providing guidance for intervention design, for characterising an existing intervention to implement evidence-based care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0300-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

From midlife to old age, greater physical activity is associated with better mental health and vice versa. These findings suggest persistent longitudinal and bidirectional associations between physical activity and mental health.

BackgroundSepsis has a mortality rate of 40 %, which can be halved if the evidence-based “Sepsis Six” care bundle is implemented within 1 h. UK audit shows low implementation rates. Interventions to improve this have had minimal effects. Quality improvement programmes could be further developed by using theoretical frameworks (Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)) to modify existing interventions by identifying influences on clinical behaviour and selecting appropriate content. The aim of this study was to illustrate using this process to modify an intervention designed using plan-do-study-act (P-D-S-A) cycles that had achieved partial success in improving Sepsis Six implementation in one hospital.MethodsFactors influencing implementation were investigated using the TDF to analyse interviews with 34 health professionals. The nursing team who developed and facilitated the intervention used the data to select modifications using the Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) Taxonomy (v1) and the APEASE criteria: affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, safety and equity.ResultsFive themes were identified as influencing implementation and guided intervention modification. These were:(1) “knowing what to do and why” (TDF domains knowledge, social/professional role and identity); (2) “risks and benefits” (beliefs about consequences), e.g. fear of harming patients through fluid overload acting as a barrier to implementation versus belief in the bundle’s effectiveness acting as a lever to implementation; (3) “working together” (social influences, social/professional role and identity), e.g. team collaboration acting as a lever versus doctor/nurse conflict acting as a barrier; (4) “empowerment and support” (beliefs about capabilities, social/professional role and identity, behavioural regulation, social influences), e.g. involving staff in intervention development acting as a lever versus lack of confidence to challenge colleagues’ decisions not to implement acting as a barrier; (5) “staffing levels” (environmental context and resources), e.g. shortages of doctors at night preventing implementation.The modified intervention included six new BCTs and consisted of two additional components (Sepsis Six training for the Hospital at Night Co-ordinator; a partnership agreement endorsing engagement of all clinical staff and permitting collegial challenge) and modifications to two existing components (staff education sessions; documents and materials).ConclusionsThis work demonstrates the feasibility of the TDF and BCT Taxonomy (v1) for developing an existing quality improvement intervention. The tools are compatible with the pragmatic P-D-S-A cycle approach generally used in quality improvement work.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0376-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background. Lifestyle intervention programs after bariatric surgery have been suggested to maximise health outcomes. This pilot study aimed to investigate the feasibility and impact of an 8-week combined supervised exercise with nutritional-behavioral intervention following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy. Methods. Eight female patients (44 ± 8 years old, BMI = 38.5 ± 7.2 kgm−2) completed the program. Before and after intervention, anthropometric measures, six-minute walk test (6MWT), physical activity level, eating behavior, and quality of life (QoL) were assessed. Percentage weight loss (%WL) outcomes were compared with a historical matched control group. Results. The program significantly improved functional capacity (mean increment in 6MWT was 127 ± 107 meters, p = 0.043), increased strenuous intensity exercise (44 ± 49 min/week, p = 0.043), increased consumption of fruits and vegetables (p = 0.034), reduced consumption of ready meals (p = 0.034), and improved “Change in Health” in QoL domain (p = 0.039). The intervention group exhibited greater %WL in the 3–12-month postsurgery period compared to historical controls, 12.2 ± 7.5% versus 5.1 ± 5.4%, respectively (p = 0.027). Conclusions. Lifestyle intervention program following bariatric surgery is feasible and resulted in several beneficial outcomes. A large randomised control trial is now warranted.