Using behavioural science in public health settings during the COVID-19 pandemic: The experience of public health practitioners and behavioural scientists.

INTRODUCTION: The emergence of COVID-19 and the importance of behaviour change to limit its spread created an urgent need to apply behavioural science to public health. Knowledge mobilisation, the processes whereby research leads to useful findings that are implemented to affect positive outcomes, is a goal for researchers, policy makers and practitioners alike. This study aimed to explores the experience of using behavioural science in public health during COVID-19, to discover barriers and facilitators and whether the rapidly changing context of COVID-19 influenced knowledge mobilisation. METHODS: We conducted a semi-structured interview study, with ten behavioural scientists and seven public health professionals in England, Scotland, Wales, The Netherlands and Canada. We conducted an inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: We report three key themes and 10 sub-themes: 1.Challenges and facilitators of translation of behavioural science into public health (Methods and frameworks supported translation, Lack of supportive infrastructure, Conviction and sourcing of evidence and Embracing behavioural science) 2. The unique context of translation (Rapid change in context, the multi-disciplinary team and the emotional toll). 3. Recommendations to support future behavioural science translation (Embedding experts into teams, Importance of a collaborative network and showcasing the role of behavioural science). DISCUSSION: Barriers and facilitators included factors related to relationships between people, such as networks and teams; the expertise of individual people; and those related to materials, such as the use of frameworks and an overwhelming amount of evidence and literature. CONCLUSION: People and frameworks were seen as important in facilitating behavioural science in practice. Future research could explore how different frameworks are used. We recommend a stepped competency framework for behavioural science in public health and more focus on nurturing networks to facilitate knowledge mobilisation in future emergencies.

Understanding and optimising patient and public involvement in trial oversight: an ethnographic study of eight clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Trial oversight is important for trial governance and conduct. Patients and/or lay members of the public are increasingly included in trial oversight committees, influenced by international patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives to improve the quality and relevance of research. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to undertake PPI in trial oversight and tokenistic PPI remains an issue. This paper explores how PPI functions in existing trial oversight committees and provides recommendations to optimise PPI in future trials. This was part of a larger study investigating the role and function of oversight committees in trials facing challenges. METHODS: Using an ethnographic study design, we observed oversight meetings of eight UK trials and conducted semi-structured interviews with members of their trial steering committees (TSCs) and trial management groups (TMGs) including public contributors, trial sponsors and funders. Thematic analysis of data was undertaken, with findings integrated to provide a multi-perspective account of how PPI functions in trial oversight. RESULTS: Eight TSC and six TMG meetings from eight trials were observed, and 66 semi-structured interviews conducted with 52 purposively sampled oversight group members, including three public contributors. PPI was reported as beneficial in trial oversight, with public members contributing a patient voice and fulfilling a patient advocacy role. However, public contributors were not always active at oversight meetings and were sometimes felt to have a tokenistic role, with trialists reporting a lack of understanding of how to undertake PPI in trial oversight. To optimise PPI in trial oversight, the following areas were highlighted: the importance of planning effective strategies to recruit public contributors; considering the level of oversight and stage(s) of trial to include PPI; support for public contributors by the trial team between and during oversight meetings. CONCLUSIONS: We present evidence-based recommendations to inform future PPI in trial oversight. Consideration should be given at trial design stage on how to recruit and involve public contributors within trial oversight, as well as support and mentorship for both public contributors and trialists (in how to undertake PPI effectively). Findings from this study further strengthen the evidence base on facilitating meaningful PPI within clinical trials.

The 'Outcome Reporting in Brief Intervention Trials: Alcohol' (ORBITAL) framework: protocol to determine a core outcome set for efficacy and effectiveness trials of alcohol screening and brief intervention.

BACKGROUND: The evidence base to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of alcohol brief interventions (ABI) is weakened by variation in the outcomes measured and by inconsistent reporting. The 'Outcome Reporting in Brief Intervention Trials: Alcohol' (ORBITAL) project aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) and reporting guidance for its use in future trials of ABI in a range of settings. METHODS/DESIGN: An international Special Interest Group was convened through INEBRIA (International Network on Brief Interventions for Alcohol and Other Drugs) to inform the development of a COS for trials of ABI. ORBITAL will incorporate a systematic review to map outcomes used in efficacy and effectiveness trials of ABI and their measurement properties, using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. This will support a multi-round Delphi study to prioritise outcomes. Delphi panellists will be drawn from a range of settings and stakeholder groups, and the Delphi study will also be used to determine if a single COS is relevant for all settings. A consensus meeting with key stakeholder representation will determine the final COS and associated guidance for its use in trials of ABI. DISCUSSION: ORBITAL will develop a COS for alcohol screening and brief intervention trials, with outcomes stratified into domains and guidance on outcome measurement instruments. The standardisation of ABI outcomes and their measurement will support the ongoing development of ABI studies and a systematic synthesis of emerging research findings. We will track the extent to which the COS delivers on this promise through an exploration of the use of the guidance in the decade following COS publication.

Confirmatory factor analysis of Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE-OM) used as a measure of emotional distress in people with tinnitus.

BACKGROUND: People with troublesome tinnitus often experience emotional distress. Therefore a psychometrically sound instrument which can evaluate levels of distress and change over time is necessary to understand this experience. Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE-OM) is a measure of emotional distress which has been widely used in mental health research. Although originally designed as a 4-factor questionnaire, factor analyses have not supported this structure and a number of alternative factor structures have been proposed in different samples. The aims of this study were to test the factor structure of the CORE-OM using a large representative tinnitus sample and to use it to investigate levels of emotional distress amongst people with a range of tinnitus experience. METHODS: The CORE-OM was completed by 342 people experiencing tinnitus who self-rated their tinnitus on a 5-point scale from 'not a problem' to 'a very big problem'. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test all ten factor models which have been previously derived across a range of population samples. Model fit was assessed using fit criterion and theoretical considerations. Mean scores on the full questionnaire and its subscales were compared between tinnitus problem categories using one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: The best fitting model included 33 of the 34 original items and was divided into three factors: negatively worded items, positively worded items and risk. The full questionnaire and each factor were found to have good internal consistency and factor loadings were high. There was a statistically significant difference in total CORE-OM scores across the five tinnitus problem categories. However there was no significant difference between those who rated their tinnitus 'not a problem', and 'a small problem' or 'a moderate problem.' CONCLUSION: This study found a 3-factor structure for the CORE-OM to be a good fit for a tinnitus population. It also found evidence of a relationship between emotional distress as measured by CORE-OM and perception of tinnitus as a problem. Its use in tinnitus clinics is to be recommended, particularly when emotional distress is a target of therapy.