Neonatal sepsis is a major cause of mortality worldwide, with most deaths occurring in low-income countries. The World Health Organisation (WHO) ‘5 Moments for Hand Hygiene’ poster has been used to reduce hospital-acquired infections, but there is no similar tool to prevent community-acquired newborn infections in low-resource settings. This assessment, part of the BabyGel Pilot study, evaluated the acceptability of the ‘Newborn Moments for Hand Hygiene in the Home’ poster. This was an educational tool which aimed to remind mothers in rural Uganda to clean their hands to prevent neonatal infection. The BabyGel pilot was a cluster randomised trial that assessed the post-partum use of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) to prevent neonatal infections in Mbale, Uganda. Fifty-five women in 5 village clusters received the ABHR and used it from birth to 3 months postnatally, with use guided by the new poster. Following the study, 5 focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted consisting of 6–8 purposively sampled participants from intervention villages. FGDs were audio-recorded, transcribed then translated into English. Transcripts were inductively coded using ATLAS.ti® and qualitatively analysed using thematic content analysis. Most mothers reported that they understood the message in the poster (“The picture shows me you must use these drugs to keep your baby healthy”) and that they could adhere to the moments from the poster. Some participants used the information from the poster to encourage other caregivers to use the ABHR (“after explaining to them, they liked it”). Other potential moments for hand hygiene were introduced by participants, such as after tending to domestic animals and gardening. The poster was well-received, and participants reported compliance with the moments for hand hygiene (although the full body wipe of the baby has since been removed). The poster will be adapted into a sticker format on the ABHR bottle. More focus could be put into an education tool for other caregivers who wish to hold the baby. Overall, the study demonstrated the acceptability of an adapted version of the WHO Moments for Hand Hygiene poster in the introduction of an intervention in the community. ISRCTN67852437 , registered 02/03/2015. Medical Research Council/ Wellcome Trust/ DfID (Global Health Trials Scheme).

Objective Investigators within many disciplines are using measures of well-being, but it is not always clear what they are measuring, or which instruments may best meet their objectives. The aims of this review were to: systematically identify well-being instruments, explore the variety of well-being dimensions within instruments and describe how the production of instruments has developed over time. Design Systematic searches, thematic analysis and narrative synthesis were undertaken. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and CINAHL from 1993 to 2014 complemented by web searches and expert consultations through 2015. Eligibility criteria Instruments were selected for review if they were designed for adults (≥18 years old), generic (ie, non-disease or context specific) and available in an English version. Results A total of 99 measures of well-being were included, and 196 dimensions of well-being were identified within them. Dimensions clustered around 6 key thematic domains: mental well-being, social well-being, physical well-being, spiritual well-being, activities and functioning, and personal circumstances. Authors were rarely explicit about how existing theories had influenced the design of their tools; however, the 2 most referenced theories were Diener's model of subjective well-being and the WHO definition of health. The period between 1990 and 1999 produced the greatest number of newly developed well-being instruments (n=27). An illustration of the dimensions identified and the instruments that measure them is provided within a thematic framework of well-being. Conclusions This review provides researchers with an organised toolkit of instruments, dimensions and an accompanying glossary. The striking variability between instruments supports the need to pay close attention to what is being assessed under the umbrella of ‘well-being’ measurement.

Background: Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners diagnose cancer. It is unclear whether or not tools expedite diagnosis or affect patient quality of life and/or survival.Objectives: The objectives were to evaluate the evidence on the validation, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and availability and use of cancer diagnostic tools in primary care.Methods: Two systematic reviews were conducted to examine the clinical effectiveness (review 1) and the development, validation and accuracy (review 2) of diagnostic prediction models for aiding general practitioners in cancer diagnosis. Bibliographic searches were conducted on MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) in May 2017, with updated searches conducted in November 2018. A decision-analytic model explored the tools’ clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in colorectal cancer. The model compared patient outcomes and costs between strategies that included the use of the tools and those that did not, using the NHS perspective. We surveyed 4600 general practitioners in randomly selected UK practices to determine the proportions of general practices and general practitioners with access to, and using, cancer decision support tools. Association between access to these tools and practice-level cancer diagnostic indicators was explored.Results: Systematic review 1 – five studies, of different design and quality, reporting on three diagnostic tools, were included. We found no evidence that using the tools was associated with better outcomes. Systematic review 2 – 43 studies were included, reporting on prediction models, in various stages of development, for 14 cancer sites (including multiple cancers). Most studies relate to QCancer^®(ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and risk assessment tools.Decision model: In the absence of studies reporting their clinical outcomes, QCancer and risk assessment tools were evaluated against faecal immunochemical testing. A linked data approach was used, which translates diagnostic accuracy into time to diagnosis and treatment, and stage at diagnosis. Given the current lack of evidence, the model showed that the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools in colorectal cancer relies on demonstrating patient survival benefits. Sensitivity of faecal immunochemical testing and specificity of QCancer and risk assessment tools in a low-risk population were the key uncertain parameters.Survey: Practitioner- and practice-level response rates were 10.3% (476/4600) and 23.3% (227/975), respectively. Cancer decision support tools were available in 83 out of 227 practices (36.6%, 95% confidence interval 30.3% to 43.1%), and were likely to be used in 38 out of 227 practices (16.7%, 95% confidence interval 12.1% to 22.2%). The mean 2-week-wait referral rate did not differ between practices that do and practices that do not have access to QCancer or risk assessment tools (mean difference of 1.8 referrals per 100,000 referrals, 95% confidence interval –6.7 to 10.3 referrals per 100,000 referrals).Limitations: There is little good-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools. Many diagnostic prediction models are limited by a lack of external validation. There are limited data on current UK practice and clinical outcomes of diagnostic strategies, and there is no evidence on the quality-of-life outcomes of diagnostic results. The survey was limited by low response rates.Conclusion: The evidence base on the tools is limited. Research on how general practitioners interact with the tools may help to identify barriers to implementation and uptake, and the potential for clinical effectiveness.Future work: Continued model validation is recommended, especially for risk assessment tools. Assessment of the tools’ impact on time to diagnosis and treatment, stage at diagnosis, and health outcomes is also recommended, as is further work to understand how tools are used in general practitioner consultations.Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068373 and CRD42017068375.Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The REtirement in ACTion (REACT) study is a multi-centre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an internal pilot phase. It aims to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a community, group-based physical activity intervention for reducing, or reversing, the progression of functional limitations in older people who are at high risk of mobility-related disability. A sample of 768 sedentary, community-dwelling, older people aged 65 years and over with functional limitations, but who are still ambulatory (scores between 4 and 9 out of 12 in the Short Physical Performance Battery test (SPPB)) will be randomised to receive either the REACT intervention, delivered over a period of 12 months by trained facilitators, or a minimal control intervention. The REACT study incorporates comprehensive process and economic evaluation and a nested sub-study which will test the hypothesis that the REACT intervention will slow the rate of brain atrophy and of decline in cognitive function assessed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Outcome data will be collected at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months for the main study, with MRI sub-study data collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome analysis (SPPB score at 24 months) will be undertaken blinded to group allocation. Primary comparative analyses will be on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis with due emphasis placed on confidence intervals. REACT represents the first large-scale, pragmatic, community-based trial in the UK to target the non-disabled but high-risk segment of the older population with an intervention to reduce mobility-related disability. A programme that can successfully engage this population in sufficient activity to improve strength, aerobic capacity, coordination and balance would have a major impact on sustaining health and independence. REACT is also the first study of its kind to conduct a full economic and comprehensive process evaluation alongside the RCT. If effective and cost-effective, the REACT intervention has strong potential to be implemented widely in the UK and elsewhere. ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN45627165 . Retrospectively registered on 13 June 2016. Trial sponsor: University of Bath. Protocol Version 1.5.