Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38885992›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2024

Effectiveness of complex behaviour change interventions tested in randomised controlled trials for people with multiple long-term conditions (M-LTCs): systematic review with meta-analysis.

Tasmin Alanna Rookes, Danielle Nimmons, Rachael Frost, Megan Armstrong, Laura Davies, Jamie Ross, Jane Hopkins, Manoj Mistry, Stephanie Taylor, Kate Walters

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Development and implementation of a multifaceted strategy to reduce excessive fasting in an acute surgical setting using the behavior change wheel framework.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Tasmin Alanna RookesResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK t.rookes@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6330-7059
Danielle NimmonsResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Rachael FrostResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3523-0052
Megan ArmstrongWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Laura DaviesResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Jamie RossWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Jane HopkinsPublic Contributor, London, UK.
Manoj MistryPublic Contributor, Manchester, UK.
Stephanie TaylorWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Kate WaltersResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2173-2430

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe prevalence of multiple long-term conditions (M-LTCs) increases as adults age and impacts quality of life and health outcomes. To help people manage these conditions, complex behaviour change interventions are used, often based on research conducted in those with single LTCs. However, the needs of those with M-LTCs can differ due to complex health decision-making and engagement with multiple health and care teams.

objectivesThe aim of this review is to identify whether current interventions are effective for people living with M-LTCs, and which outcomes are most appropriate to detect this change.

methodsFive databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science) were systematically searched, between January 1999 and January 2022, to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating effectiveness of behaviour change interventions in people with M-LTCs. Intervention characteristics, intervention effectiveness and outcome measures were meta-analysed and narratively synthesised.

results53 eligible articles were included. Emotional well-being and psychological distress (depression and anxiety) outcomes were most amenable to change (emotional well-being: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.31 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.58); depression psychological distress: SMD -0.45 (95% CI -0.73 to -0.16); anxiety psychological distress: SMD -0.14 (95% CI -0.28 to 0.00)), particularly for interventions with a collaborative care approach. Interventions targeting those with a physical and mental health condition and those with cognitive and/or behavioural activation approach saw larger reductions in psychological distress outcomes. Interventions that lasted for longer than 6 months significantly improved the widest variety of outcomes.

conclusionComplex interventions can be successfully delivered to those with M-LTCs. These are most effective at reducing psychological distress in those with physical and mental LTCs. Further research is needed to identify the effective components of interventions for people with two or more physical LTCs and which outcome is most appropriate for detecting this change.

Indexed as

Behavior TherapyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHumansMultiple Chronic ConditionsQuality of LifeAgingMeta-AnalysisPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPrimary CarePUBLIC HEALTHSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID38885992
PMCPMC11184186

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.