Implementation studies are often poorly reported and indexed, reducing their potential to inform initiatives to improve healthcare services. The Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) initiative aimed to develop guidelines for transparent and accurate reporting of implementation studies. Informed by the findings of a systematic review and a consensus-building e-Delphi exercise, an international working group of implementation science experts discussed and agreed the StaRI Checklist comprising 27 items. It prompts researchers to describe both the implementation strategy (techniques used to promote implementation of an underused evidence-based intervention) and the effectiveness of the intervention that was being implemented. An accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document (published in BMJ Open, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013318) details each of the items, explains the rationale, and provides examples of good reporting practice. Adoption of StaRI will improve the reporting of implementation studies, potentially facilitating translation of research into practice and improving the health of individuals and populations.

BackgroundDespite robust evidence concerning self-management for some long-term conditions (LTCs), others lack research explicitly on self-management and, consequently, some patient groups may be overlooked.AimTo undertake a rapid, systematic overview of the evidence on self-management support for LTCs to inform health-care commissioners and providers about what works, for whom, and in what contexts.MethodsSelf-management is ‘the tasks . . . individuals must undertake to live with one or more chronic conditions . . . [including] . . . having the confidence to deal with medical management, role management and emotional management of their conditions’. We convened an expert workshop and identified characteristics of LTCs potentially of relevance to self-management and 14 diverse exemplar LTCs (stroke, asthma, type 2 diabetes mellitus, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, dementia, epilepsy, hypertension, inflammatory arthropathies, irritable bowel syndrome, low back pain, progressive neurological disorders and type 1 diabetes mellitus). For each LTC we conducted systematic overviews of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of self-management support interventions (‘quantitative meta-reviews’); and systematic overviews of systematic reviews of qualitative studies of patients’ experiences relating to self-management (‘qualitative meta-reviews’). We also conducted an original systematic review of implementation studies of self-management support in the LTCs. We synthesised all our data considering the different characteristics of LTCs. In parallel, we developed a taxonomy of the potential components of self-management support.ResultsWe included 30 qualitative systematic reviews (including 515 unique studies), 102 quantitative systematic reviews (including 969 RCTs), and 61 studies in the implementation systematic review. Effective self-management support interventions are multifaceted, should be tailored to the individual, their culture and beliefs, a specific LTC and position on the disease trajectory, and underpinned by a collaborative/communicative relationship between the patient and health-care professional (HCP) within the context of a health-care organisation that actively promotes self-management. Self-management support is a complex intervention and although many components were described and trialled in the studies no single component stood out as more important than any other. Core components include (1) provision of education about the LTC, recognising the importance of understanding patients’ pre-existing knowledge and beliefs about their LTC; (2) psychological strategies to support adjustment to life with a LTC; (3) strategies specifically to support adherence to treatments; (4) practical support tailored to the specific LTC, including support around activities of daily living for disabling conditions, action plans in conditions subject to marked exacerbations, intensive disease-specific training to enable self-management of specific clinical tasks; and (5) social support as appropriate. Implementation requires a whole-systems approach which intervenes at the level of the patient, the HCP and the organisation. The health-care organisation is responsible for providing the means (both training and time/material resources) to enable HCPs to implement, and patients to benefit from, self-management support, regularly evaluating self-management processes and clinical outcomes. More widely there is a societal need to address public understanding of LTCs. The lack of public story for many conditions impacted on patient help-seeking behaviour and public perceptions of need.ConclusionsSupporting self-management is inseparable from the high-quality care for LTCs. Commissioners and health-care providers should promote a culture of actively supporting self-management as a normal, expected, monitored and rewarded aspect of care. Further research is needed to understand how health service managers and staff can achieve this culture change in their health-care organisations.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002898.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

No abstract

No abstract

ObjectiveSmartphone games that aim to alter health behaviours are common, but there is uncertainty about how to achieve this. We systematically reviewed health apps containing gaming elements analysing their embedded behaviour change techniques.MethodsTwo trained researchers independently coded apps for behaviour change techniques using a standard taxonomy. We explored associations with user ratings and price.Data sourcesWe screened the National Health Service (NHS) Health Apps Library and all top-rated medical, health and wellness and health and fitness apps (defined by Apple and Google Play stores based on revenue and downloads). We included free and paid English language apps using ‘gamification’ (rewards, prizes, avatars, badges, leaderboards, competitions, levelling-up or health-related challenges). We excluded apps targeting health professionals.Results64 of 1680 (4%) health apps included gamification and met inclusion criteria; only 3 of these were in the NHS Library. Behaviour change categories used were: feedback and monitoring (n=60, 94% of apps), reward and threat (n=52, 81%), and goals and planning (n=52, 81%). Individual techniques were: self-monitoring of behaviour (n=55, 86%), non-specific reward (n=49, 82%), social support unspecified (n=48, 75%), non-specific incentive (n=49, 82%) and focus on past success (n=47, 73%). Median number of techniques per app was 14 (range: 5–22). Common combinations were: goal setting, self-monitoring, non-specific reward and non-specific incentive (n=35, 55%); goal setting, self-monitoring and focus on past success (n=33, 52%). There was no correlation between number of techniques and user ratings (p=0.07; rs=0.23) or price (p=0.45; rs=0.10).ConclusionsFew health apps currently employ gamification and there is a wide variation in the use of behaviour change techniques, which may limit potential to improve health outcomes. We found no correlation between user rating (a possible proxy for health benefits) and game content or price. Further research is required to evaluate effective behaviour change techniques and to assess clinical outcomes.Trial registration numberCRD42015029841.