No abstract

BackgroundMobile technologies for health (mHealth) represent a promising strategy for reducing type 2 diabetes (T2DM) risk. The PROPELS trial investigates whether structured group-based education alone or supplemented with a follow-on support program combining self-monitoring with pedometers and tailored text-messaging is effective in promoting and maintaining physical activity among people at high risk of T2DM.ObjectiveThis paper describes the iterative development of the PROPELS follow-on support program and presents evidence on its acceptability and feasibility.MethodsWe used a modified mHealth development framework with four phases: (1) conceptualization of the follow-on support program using theory and evidence, (2) formative research including focus groups (n=15, ages 39-79 years), (3) pre-testing focus groups using a think aloud protocol (n=20, ages 52-78 years), and (4) piloting (n=11). Analysis was informed by the constant comparative approach, with findings from each phase informing subsequent phases.ResultsThe first three phases informed the structure, nature, and content of the follow-on support program, including the frequency of text messages, the need for tailored content and two-way interaction, the importance of motivational messages based on encouragement and reinforcement of affective benefits (eg, enjoyment) with minimal messages about weight and T2DM risk, and the need for appropriate language. The refined program is personalized and tailored to the individual’s perceived confidence, previous activity levels, and physical activity goals. The pilot phase indicated that the program appeared to fit well with everyday routines and was easy to use by older adults.ConclusionsWe developed a feasible and innovative text messaging and pedometer program based on evidence and behavior change theory and grounded in the experiences, views, and needs of people at high diabetes risk. A large scale trial is testing the effectiveness of this 4-year program over and above structured group education alone.Trial RegistrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 83465245; http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN83465245/83465245 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6dfSmrVAe)

Patient involvement in patient safety is emerging as an area of growing policy, practice, and academic interest. In this article, we review the existing literature on patient involvement and patient safety and seek to highlight some of the key areas of challenge in this emergent field by relating it to themes identified in the wider, more mature, literature on patient and public involvement in health care in general. Insights from the wider literature illuminate key issues for involvement in patient safety and suggest promising ways of circumventing these challenges and achieving involvement in patient safety in a way that maximizes impact while avoiding unintended consequences.

Objectives To provide insight into factors that contribute to the anxiety reported in a quantitative study of the psychological effect of screening for type 2 diabetes. To explore expectations of and reactions to the screening experience of patients with positive, negative, and intermediate results.Design Prospective qualitative interview study of patients attending a screening programme for type 2 diabetes. Setting Seven general practices in the ADDITION (Cambridge) trial in the east of England. Participants 23 participants (aged 50-69) attending different stages in the screening process. Results Participants' perceptions changed as they progressed through the screening programme; the stepwise process seemed to help them adjust psychologically. The first screening test was typically considered unimportant and was attended with no thought about its implications. By the final diagnostic test, type 2 diabetes was considered a strong possibility, albeit a "mild" form. After diagnosis, people with screen detected type 2 diabetes tended to downplay its importance and talked confidently about their plans to control it. Participants with intermediate results seemed uncertain about their diagnosis, and those who screened negative were largely unaware of their remaining high risk. Conclusions This study helps in understanding the limited psychological impact of screening for type 2 diabetes quantified previously, in particular by the quantitative substudy of ADDITION (Cambridge). The findings have implications for implementing such a screening programme in terms of timing and content.

Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention, with and without a height adjustable desk, on daily sitting time, and to investigate the relative effectiveness of the two interventions, and the effectiveness of both interventions on physical behaviours and physical, biochemical, psychological, and work related health and performance outcomes. Design Cluster three arm randomised controlled trial with follow-up at three and 12 months. Setting Local government councils in Leicester, Liverpool, and Greater Manchester, UK. Participants 78 clusters including 756 desk based employees in defined offices, departments, or teams from two councils in Leicester, three in Greater Manchester, and one in Liverpool. Interventions Clusters were randomised to one of three conditions: the SMART Work and Life (SWAL) intervention, the SWAL intervention with a height adjustable desk (SWAL plus desk), or control (usual practice). Main outcomes measures The primary outcome measure was daily sitting time, assessed by accelerometry, at 12 month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were accelerometer assessed sitting, prolonged sitting, standing and stepping time, and physical activity calculated over any valid day, work hours, workdays, and non-workdays, self-reported lifestyle behaviours, musculoskeletal problems, cardiometabolic health markers, work related health and performance, fatigue, and psychological measures. Results Mean age of participants was 44.7 years, 72.4% (n=547) were women, and 74.9% (n=566) were white. Daily sitting time at 12 months was significantly lower in the intervention groups (SWAL −22.2 min/day, 95% confidence interval −38.8 to −5.7 min/day, P=0.003; SWAL plus desk −63.7 min/day, −80.1 to −47.4 min/day, P<0.001) compared with the control group. The SWAL plus desk intervention was found to be more effective than SWAL at changing sitting time (−41.7 min/day, −56.3 to −27.0 min/day, P<0.001). Favourable differences in sitting and prolonged sitting time at three and 12 month follow-ups for both intervention groups and for standing time for the SWAL plus desk group were observed during work hours and on workdays. Both intervention groups were associated with small improvements in stress, wellbeing, and vigour, and the SWAL plus desk group was associated with improvements in pain in the lower extremity, social norms for sitting and standing at work, and support. Conclusions Both SWAL and SWAL plus desk were associated with a reduction in sitting time, although the addition of a height adjustable desk was found to be threefold more effective. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11618007 .