Dataset Information

Testing a breast cancer prevention and a multiple disease prevention weight loss programme amongst women within the UK NHS breast screening programme-a randomised feasibility study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Excess weight and unhealthy behaviours (e.g. sedentariness, high alcohol) are common amongst women including those attending breast screening. These factors increase the risk of breast cancer and other diseases. We tested the feasibility and acceptability of a weight loss/behaviour change programme framed to reduce breast cancer risk (breast cancer prevention programme, BCPP) compared to one framed to reduce risk of breast cancer, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes (T2D) (multiple disease prevention programme, MDPP).

Methods

Women aged 47-73 years with overweight or obesity (n = 1356) in the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) were randomised (1:2) to be invited to join a BCPP or a MDPP. The BCPP included personalised information on breast cancer risk and a web and phone weight loss/behaviour change intervention. The MDPP also included an NHS Health Check (lipids, blood pressure, HbA1c and personalised feedback for risk of CVD [QRISK2] and T2D [QDiabetes and HbA1c]). Primary outcomes were uptake and retention and other feasibility outcomes which include intervention fidelity and prevalence of high CVD and T2D risk. Secondary outcomes included change in weight.

Results

The BCPP and MDPP had comparable rates of uptake: 45/508 (9%) vs. 81/848 (10%) and 12-month retention; 33/45 (73%) vs. 53/81 (65%). Both programmes had a high fidelity of delivery with receipt of mean (95% CI) 90 (88-98% of scheduled calls, 91 (86-95%) of scheduled e-mails and 89 (76-102) website entries per woman over the 12-month period. The MDPP identified 15% of women with a previously unknown 10-year CVD QRISK2 of ≥ 10% and 56% with 10-year Qdiabetes risk of ≥ 10%. Both groups experienced good comparable weight loss: BCPP 26/45 (58%) and MDPP 46/81 (57%) with greater than 5% weight loss at 12 months using baseline observation carried forward imputation.

Conclusions

Both programmes appeared feasible. The MDPP identified previously unknown CVD and T2D risk factors but does not appear to increase engagement with behaviour change beyond a standard BCPP amongst women attending breast screening. A future definitive effectiveness trial of BCPP is supported by acceptable uptake and retention, and good weight loss.

Trial registration

ISRCTN91372184 , registered 28 September 2014.

SUBMITTER: Harvie M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8690875 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExcess body weight and sub-optimal lifestyle are modifiable causes of breast cancer and other diseases. There is little evidence that behaviour change is possible within screening programmes and whether this is influenced by prior knowledge of disease risk. We determined whether breast cancer risk influences uptake, retention and efficacy of a weight control programme in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme, and whether additional cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes risk information improves uptake and retention further.MethodOverweight/obese women in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme identified at high, moderately increased, average and low-risk of breast cancer were randomised to receive individualised breast cancer risk information (breast cancer prevention programme), or individualised breast cancer, cardiovascular disease (QRISK2) and type 2 diabetes (QDiabetes, HbA1c) information (multiple disease prevention programme). Personalised breast cancer risk feedback was given before randomisation in Study-1, and after randomisation in Study-2.ResultsRecruitment was 9% (126/1356) in Study-1 and 7% (52/738) in Study-2. With respect to breast cancer risk, odds ratio of uptake for high/moderately increased vs low risk women was 1.99 (95% CI 1.24-3.17, P = 0.004) in Study-1 and 3.58 (95% CI 1.59-8.07, P = 0.002) in Study-2. Odds ratio of retention for high/moderately increased -risk vs. low risk women was 2.98 (95% CI 1.05-8.47, P = 0.041) in Study-1 and 3.88 (95% CI 1.07-14.04, P = 0.039) in Study-2. Weight loss of ≥5% at 12 months was achieved by 63% high/moderate vs. 43% low-risk women in Study-1 (P = 0.083) and 39% vs. 8% in Study-2 (P = 0.008). Uptake, retention and weight loss were equivalent in both the breast cancer prevention programme and the multiple disease prevention programme in both studies.ConclusionsWomen who are informed that they are at increased breast cancer risk were significantly more likely to join and remain in the programmes and consequently lose more weight across both studies. High risk women are more likely engage in a lifetyle prevention programme and also have the greatest potential benefit fom risk reduction strategies.Trial registrationISRCTN91372184 Registered 28 September 2014.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess (1) the feasibility of delivering a culturally adapted weight management programme, Healthy Dads, Healthy Kids United Kingdom (HDHK-UK), for fathers with overweight or obesity and their primary school-aged children, and (2) the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT).DesignA two-arm, randomised feasibility trial with a mixed-methods process evaluation.SettingSocioeconomically disadvantaged, ethnically diverse localities in West Midlands, UK.ParticipantsFathers with overweight or obesity and their children aged 4-11?years.InterventionParticipants were randomised in a 1:2 ratio to control (family voucher for a leisure centre) or intervention comprising 9?weekly healthy lifestyle group sessions.OutcomesFeasibility of the intervention and RCT was assessed according to prespecified progression criteria: study recruitment, consent and follow-up, ability to deliver intervention, intervention fidelity, adherence and acceptability, weight loss, using questionnaires and measurements at baseline, 3 and 6?months, and through qualitative interviews.ResultsThe study recruited 43 men, 48% of the target sample size; the mean body mass index was 30.2?kg/m2 (SD 5.1); 61% were from a minority ethnic group; and 54% were from communities in the most disadvantaged quintile for socioeconomic deprivation. Recruitment was challenging. Retention at follow-up of 3 and 6?months was 63%. Identifying delivery sites and appropriately skilled and trained programme facilitators proved difficult. Four programmes were delivered in leisure centres and community venues. Of the 29 intervention participants, 20 (69%) attended the intervention at least once, of whom 75% attended ?5 sessions. Sessions were delivered with high fidelity. Participants rated sessions as 'good/very good' and reported lifestyle behavioural change. Weight loss at 6 months in the intervention group (n=17) was 2.9?kg (95%?CI -5.1 to -0.6).ConclusionsThe intervention was well received, but there were significant challenges in recruitment, programme delivery and follow-up. The HDHK-UK study was not considered feasible for progression to a full RCT based on prespecified stop-go criteria.Trial registration numberISRCTN16724454.

Project description:Background: Aiming to contribute to prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check programme has been implemented across England since 2009. The programme involves cardiovascular risk stratification-at 5-year intervals-of all adults between the ages of 40 and 74 years, excluding any with preexisting vascular conditions (including CVD, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension, among others), and offers treatment to those at high risk. However, the cost-effectiveness and equity of population CVD screening is contested. This study aimed to determine whether the NHS Health Check programme is cost-effective and equitable in a city with high levels of deprivation and CVD.Methods and findings: IMPACTNCD is a dynamic stochastic microsimulation policy model, calibrated to Liverpool demographics, risk factor exposure, and CVD epidemiology. Using local and national data, as well as drawing on health and social care disease costs and health-state utilities, we modelled 5 scenarios from 2017 to 2040: Scenario (A): continuing current implementation of NHS Health Check;Scenario (B): implementation 'targeted' toward areas in the most deprived quintile with increased coverage and uptake;Scenario (C): 'optimal' implementation assuming optimal coverage, uptake, treatment, and lifestyle change;Scenario (D): scenario A combined with structural population-wide interventions targeting unhealthy diet and smoking;Scenario (E): scenario B combined with the structural interventions as above. We compared all scenarios with a counterfactual of no-NHS Health Check. Compared with no-NHS Health Check, the model estimated cumulative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (discounted £/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) to be 11,000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] -270,000 to 320,000) for scenario A, 1,500 (-91,000 to 100,000) for scenario B, -2,400 (-6,500 to 5,700) for scenario C, -5,100 (-7,400 to -3,200) for scenario D, and -5,000 (-7,400 to -3,100) for scenario E. Overall, scenario A is unlikely to become cost-effective or equitable, and scenario B is likely to become cost-effective by 2040 and equitable by 2039. Scenario C is likely to become cost-effective by 2030 and cost-saving by 2040. Scenarios D and E are likely to be cost-saving by 2021 and 2023, respectively, and equitable by 2025. The main limitation of the analysis is that we explicitly modelled CVD and diabetes mellitus only.Conclusions: According to our analysis of the situation in Liverpool, current NHS Health Check implementation appears neither equitable nor cost-effective. Optimal implementation is likely to be cost-saving but not equitable, while targeted implementation is likely to be both. Adding structural policies targeting cardiovascular risk factors could substantially improve equity and generate cost savings.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate potential return on investment of the National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS DPP) in England and estimate which population subgroups are likely to benefit most in terms of cost-effectiveness, cost-savings and health benefits.DesignEconomic analysis using the School for Public Health Research Diabetes Prevention Model.SettingEngland 2015-2016.PopulationAdults aged ≥16 with high risk of type 2 diabetes (HbA1c 6%-6.4%). Population subgroups defined by age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, baseline body mass index, baseline HbA1c and working status.InterventionsThe proposed NHS DPP: an intensive lifestyle intervention focusing on dietary advice, physical activity and weight loss. Comparator: no diabetes prevention intervention.Main outcome measuresIncremental costs, savings and return on investment, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), diabetes cases, cardiovascular cases and net monetary benefit from an NHS perspective.ResultsIntervention costs will be recouped through NHS savings within 12 years, with net NHS saving of £1.28 over 20 years for each £1 invested. Per 100 000 DPP interventions given, 3552 QALYs are gained. The DPP is most cost-effective and cost-saving in obese individuals, those with baseline HbA1c 6.2%-6.4% and those aged 40-74. QALY gains are lower in minority ethnic and low socioeconomic status subgroups. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that there is 97% probability that the DPP will be cost-effective within 20 years. NHS savings are highly sensitive to intervention cost, effectiveness and duration of effect.ConclusionsThe DPP is likely to be cost-effective and cost-saving under current assumptions. Prioritising obese individuals could create the most value for money and obtain the greatest health benefits per individual targeted. Low socioeconomic status or ethnic minority groups may gain fewer QALYs per intervention, so targeting strategies should ensure the DPP does not contribute to widening health inequalities. Further evidence is needed around the differential responsiveness of population subgroups to the DPP.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Evaluation of the demonstrator phase and first wave roll-out of the National Health Service (NHS) Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP) in England. To examine: (1) intervention design, provision and fidelity assessment procedures; (2) risk assessment and recruitment pathways and (3) data collection for monitoring and evaluation. To provide recommendations informing decision makers on programme quality, improvements and future evaluation. DESIGN:We reviewed programme documents, mapping against the NHS DPP specification and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public health guideline: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention in people at high risk (PH38), conducted qualitative research using individual interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders and examined recruitment, fidelity and data collection procedures. SETTING:Seven NHS DPP demonstrator sites and, subsequently, 27 first wave areas across England. INTERVENTIONS:Intensive behavioural intervention with weight loss, diet and physical activity goals. The national programme specifies at least 13 sessions over 9?months, delivered face to face to groups of 15-20 adults with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia, mainly recruited from primary care and NHS Health Checks. PARTICIPANTS:Participants for qualitative research were purposively sampled to provide a spread of stakeholder experience. Documents for review were provided via the NHS DPP Management Group. FINDINGS:The NHS DPP specification reflected current evidence with a clear framework for service provision. Providers, with national capacity to deliver, supplied intervention plans compliant with this framework. Stakeholders highlighted limitations in fidelity assessment and recruitment and retention challenges, especially in reach and equity, that could adversely impact on implementation. Risk assessment for first wave eligibility differed from NICE guidance. CONCLUSIONS:The NHS DPP provides an evidence-based behavioural intervention for prevention of T2D in adults at high risk, with capacity to deliver nationally. Framework specification allows for balance between consistency and contextual variation in intervention delivery, with session details devolved to providers. Limitations in fidelity assurance, data collection procedures and recruitment issues could adversely impact on intervention effectiveness and restrict evaluation.

Project description:BackgroundBalance, mobility impairments and falls are problematic for people with multiple sclerosis (MS). The "Balance Right in MS (BRiMS)" intervention, a 13-week home and group-based exercise and education programme, aims to improve balance and minimise falls. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of undertaking a multi-centre randomised controlled trial and to collect the necessary data to design a definitive trial.MethodsThis randomised controlled feasibility study recruited from four United Kingdom NHS clinical neurology services. Patients ≥ 18 years with secondary progressive MS (Expanded Disability Status Scale 4 to 7) reporting more than two falls in the preceding 6 months were recruited. Participants were block-randomised to either a manualised 13-week education and exercise programme (BRiMS) plus usual care, or usual care alone. Feasibility assessment evaluated recruitment and retention rates, adherence to group assignment and data completeness. Proposed outcomes for the definitive trial (including impact of MS, mobility, quality of life and falls) and economic data were collected at baseline, 13 and 27 weeks, and participants completed daily paper falls diaries.ResultsFifty-six participants (mean age 59.7 years, 66% female, median EDSS 6.0) were recruited in 5 months; 30 randomised to the intervention group. Ten (18%) participants withdrew, 7 from the intervention group. Two additional participants were lost to follow up at the final assessment point. Completion rates were > 98% for all outcomes apart from the falls diary (return rate 62%). After adjusting for baseline score, mean intervention-usual care between-group differences for the potential primary outcomes at week 27 were MS Walking Scale-12v2: - 7.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 17.2 to 1.8) and MS Impact Scale-29v2: physical 0.6 (CI - 7.8 to 9), psychological - 0.4 (CI - 9.9 to 9). In total, 715 falls were reported, rate ratio (intervention:usual care) for falls 0.81 (0.41 to 2.26) and injurious falls 0.44 (0.41 to 2.23).ConclusionsProcedures were practical, and retention, programme engagement and outcome completion rates satisfied a priori progression criteria. Challenges were experienced in completion and return of daily falls diaries. Refinement of methods for reporting falls is therefore required, but we consider a full trial to be feasible.Trial registrationISRCTN13587999 Date of registration: 29 September 2016.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity-based programmes for children with excess weight are widely available, but few have been developed to meet the needs of culturally diverse populations. We adapted an existing children's weight management programme, focusing on Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. We report the evaluation of this programme to assess feasibility of programme delivery, acceptability of the programme to participants from diverse communities, and feasibility of methods to inform a future trial.MethodsA cluster-randomised feasibility trial was undertaken in a large UK city. Children's weight management programmes (n?=?24) were randomised to be delivered as the adapted or the standard programme (2:1 ratio). Routine data on participant attendance (n?=?243) at the sessions were used to estimate the proportion of families completing the adapted and standard programmes (to indicate programme acceptability). Families planning to attend the programmes were recruited to participate in the feasibility study (n?=?92). Outcome data were collected from children and parents at baseline, end of programme, and 6 months post-programme. A subsample (n?=?24) of those attending the adapted programme participated in interviews to gain their views of the content and delivery and assess programme acceptability. Feasibility of programme delivery was assessed through observation and consultation with facilitators, and data on costs were collected.ResultsThe proportion of Pakistani and Bangladeshi families and families of all ethnicities completing the adapted programme was similar: 78.8% (95% CI 64.8-88.2%) and 76.3% (95% CI 67.0-83.6%) respectively. OR for completion of adapted vs. standard programme was 2.40 (95% CI 1.32-4.34, p?=?0.004). The programme was feasible to deliver with some refinements, and participant interview data showed that the programme was well received. Study participant recruitment was successful, but attrition was high (35% at 6 months). Data collection was mostly feasible, but participant burden was high. Data collection on cost of programme delivery was feasible, but costs to families were more challenging to capture.ConclusionsThis culturally adapted programme was feasible to deliver and highly acceptable to participants, with increased completion rates compared with the standard programme. Consideration should be given to a future trial to evaluate its clinical and cost-effectiveness.Trial registrationISRCTN81798055, registered: 13/05/2014.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the overall cost effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme, based on findings of the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening and taking into account the uncertainty of associated estimates of benefits, harms, and costs.DesignA life table model comparing data from two cohorts.SettingUnited Kingdom's health service.Participants and interventions364,500 women aged 50 years-the population of 50 year old women in England and Wales who would be eligible for screening-were followed up for 35 years without screening, compared with a similar cohort who had regular mammographic screening between ages 50 and 70 years and were then followed for another 15 years.Main outcome measuresBetween the cohorts, we compared the number of breast cancer diagnoses, number of deaths from breast cancer, number of deaths from other causes, person years of survival adjusted for health quality, and person years of survival with breast cancer. We also calculated the costs of treating primary and end stage breast cancer, and the costs of screening. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis explored the effect of uncertainty in key input parameters on the model outputs.ResultsUnder the base case scenario (using input parameters derived from the Independent Panel Review), there were 1521 fewer deaths from breast cancer and 2722 overdiagnosed breast cancers. Discounting future costs and benefits at a rate of 3.5% resulted in an additional 6907 person years of survival in the screened cohort, at a cost of 40,946 additional years of survival after a diagnosis of breast cancer. Screening was associated with 2040 additional quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at an additional cost of £42.5m (€49.8m; $64.7m) in total or £20,800 per QALY gained. The gain in person time survival over 35 years was 9.2 days per person and 2.7 quality adjusted days per person screened. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that this incremental cost effectiveness ratio varied widely across a range of plausible scenarios. Screening was cost effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained in 2260 (45%) scenarios, but in 588 (12%) scenarios, screening was associated with a reduction in QALYs.ConclusionThe NHS breast screening programme is only moderately likely to be cost effective at a standard threshold. However, there is substantial uncertainty in the model parameter estimates, and further primary research will be needed for cost effectiveness studies to provide definitive data to inform policy.

Project description:IntroductionOne of the main harms from breast cancer screening is the anxiety caused by false positive results. Various factors may be associated with false-positive anxiety. One modifiable factor may be the method of communication used to deliver results. The aim of this study is to measure the effect on anxiety of receiving benign biopsy results in-person or by telephone.Methods and analysisThis is a multi-centre cluster randomised crossover trial in the English National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) involving repeated survey measures at four time points. Participants will be women of screening age who have a biopsy following a suspicious mammography result, who ultimately receive a benign or normal (B1) result. Centres will trial both telephone and in-person results on a month-by-month basis, being randomised to which communication method will be trialled first. Women will be blinded to the method of communication they will receive. The analysis will compare women who have received telephone results and women who have received in-person results. The primary outcome measure will be anxiety (measured by the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire) after receiving results, while controlling for baseline anxiety. Secondary outcome measures will include anxiety at 3 and 6 months post-results, understanding of results and patient preferences for how results are communicated. Qualitative telephone interviews will also be conducted to further explore women's reasons for communication preferences. Qualitative and quantitative data will be integrated after initial separate analysis using the pillar integration process.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Public Health England Breast Screening Programme Research Advisory Committee, (BSPRAC_0013, ODR1718_040) and the National Health Service Health Research Authority (HRA) West Midlands-Coventry & Warwickshire Research Ethics Committee (17/WM/0313). The findings from this study will be disseminated to key stakeholders within the NHSBSP and via academic publications.Trial registration numberISRCTN36997684 TRIAL SPONSOR: This research is part of a PhD award and is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council Doctoral Training Centre at the University of Warwick and Public Health England. The sponsor for this research is Jane Prewett (sponsorship@warwick.ac.uk).