Serious consideration should be given to the development of short (<8 weeks) group and healthcare professional-delivered interventions but more research is required to establish the most effective and cost-effective course components.

The current evidence suggests four factors that relate to outcome as predictors/mediators, but there is no evidence for effect moderators. Future studies of mediation and moderation should be designed with 'a priori' hypotheses and adequate statistical power.

Background:To systematically review the effects of interventions to improve exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer.Methods:Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an exercise intervention to a usual care comparison in sedentary people with a homogeneous primary cancer diagnosis, over the age of 18 years were eligible. The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials MEDLINE; EMBASE; AMED; CINAHL; PsycINFO; SportDiscus; PEDro from inception to August 2012.Results:Fourteen trials were included in this review, involving a total of 648 participants. Just six trials incorporated prescriptions that would meet current recommendations for aerobic exercise. However, none of the trials included in this review reported intervention adherence of 75% or more for a set prescription that would meet current aerobic exercise guidelines. Despite uncertainty around adherence in many of the included trials, the interventions caused improvements in aerobic exercise tolerance at 8–12 weeks (SMD=0.73, 95% CI=0.51–0.95) in intervention participants compared with controls. At 6 months, aerobic exercise tolerance is also improved (SMD=0.70, 95% CI=0.45–0.94), although four of the five trials had a high risk of bias; hence, caution is warranted in its interpretation.Conclusion:Expecting the majority of sedentary survivors to achieve the current exercise guidelines is likely to be unrealistic. As with all well-designed exercise programmes, prescriptions should be designed around individual capabilities and frequency, duration and intensity or sets, repetitions, intensity of resistance training should be generated on this basis.

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to (1) demonstrate the development and testing of tools and procedures designed to monitor and assess the integrity of a complex intervention for chronic pain (COping with persistent Pain, Effectiveness Research into Self-management (COPERS) course); and (2) make recommendations based on our experiences.DesignFidelity assessment of a two-arm randomised controlled trial intervention, assessing the adherence and competence of the facilitators delivering the intervention.SettingThe intervention was delivered in the community in two centres in the UK: one inner city and one a mix of rural and urban locations.Participants403 people with chronic musculoskeletal pain were enrolled in the intervention arm and 300 attended the self-management course. Thirty lay and healthcare professionals were trained and 24 delivered the courses (2 per course). We ran 31 courses for up to 16 people per course and all were audio recorded.InterventionsThe course was run over three and a half days; facilitators delivered a semistructured manualised course.OutcomesWe designed three measures to evaluate fidelity assessing adherence to the manual, competence and overall impression.ResultsWe evaluated a random sample of four components from each course (n=122). The evaluation forms were reliable and had good face validity. There were high levels of adherence in the delivery: overall adherence was two (maximum 2, IQR 1.67–2.00), facilitator competence exhibited more variability, and overall competence was 1.5 (maximum 2, IQR 1.25–2.00). Overall impression was three (maximum 4, IQR 2.00–3.00).ConclusionsMonitoring and assessing adherence and competence at the point of intervention delivery can be realised most efficiently by embedding the principles of fidelity measurement within the design stage of complex interventions and the training and assessment of those delivering the intervention. More work is necessary to ensure that more robust systems of fidelity evaluation accompany the growth of complex interventions.Trial Registration ISRCTN NoISRCTN24426731.

Inappropriate prescribing in primary care was implicated in nearly half of asthma deaths reviewed in the UK’s recent National Review of Asthma Deaths. Using anonymised EMIS-Web data for 139 ethnically diverse general practices (total population 942,511) extracted from the North and East London Commissioning Support Unit, which holds hospital Secondary Uses Services (SUS)–linked data, we examined the prevalence of over-prescribing of short-acting β2-agonist inhalers (SABA), under-prescribing of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) inhalers and solo prescribing of long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) to assess the risk of hospitalisation for people with asthma for 1 year ending August 2015. In a total asthma population of 35,864, multivariate analyses in adults showed that the risk of admission increased with greater prescription of SABA inhalers above a baseline of 1–3 (4–12 SABA: odds ratio (OR) 1.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20–2.46, ⩾13 SABA: OR 3.22; 95% CI 2.04–5.07) with increasing British Thoracic Society step (Step 3: OR 2.90; 95% CI 1.79–4.69, Step 4/5: OR 9.42; 95% CI 5.27–16.84), and among Black (OR 2.30; 95% CI 1.64–3.23) and south Asian adult populations (OR 1.83; 95% CI 1.36–2.47). Results in children were similar, but risk of hospitalisation was not related to ethnic group. There is a progressive risk of hospital admission associated with the prescription of more than three SABA inhalers a year. Adults (but not children) from Black and South Asian groups are at an increased risk of admission. Further work is needed to target care for these at-risk groups.