Commercial provider staff experiences of the NHS low calorie diet programme pilot: a qualitative exploration of key barriers and facilitators

• Main Authors: Susan Jones (Author), Tamara J Brown (Author), Patricia Watson (Author), Catherine Homer (Author), Charlotte Freeman (Author), Chirag Bakhai (Author), Louisa Ells (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: BMC, 2024-01-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 10.1186/s12913-023-10501-y; 1472-6963
• Keywords: Diabetes; Obesity; Diet; Re:Mission; Normalisation process theory; Delivery of health care; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270
• Source: BMC Health Services Research, Vol 24, Iss 1, Pp 1-13 (2024)

Abstract Background The National Health Service Type 2 Diabetes Path to Remission programme in England (known as the NHS Low Calorie Diet programme when piloted) was established to support people living with excess weight and Type 2 Diabetes to lose weight and improve their glycaemic control. A mixed method evaluation was commissioned to provide an enhanced understanding of the long-term cost effectiveness of the pilot programme, its implementation, equity and transferability across broad and diverse populations. This study provided key insights on implementation and equity from the service providers' perspective. Methods Thirteen focus groups were conducted with commercial providers of the programme, during the initial pilot rollout. Participants were purposively sampled across all provider organisations and staff roles involved in implementing and delivering the programme. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used to design the topic schedule, with the addition of topics on equity and person-centredness. Data were thematically analysed using NPT constructs with additional inductively created codes. Codes were summarised, and analytical themes generated. Results The programme was found to fulfil the requirements for normalisation from the providers' perspective. However, barriers were identified in engaging GP practices and receiving sufficient referrals, as well as supporting service users through challenges to remain compliant. There was variation in communication and training between provider sites. Areas for learning and improvement included adapting systems and processes and closing the gap where needs of service users are not fully met. Conclusions The evaluation of the pilot programme demonstrated that it was workable when supported by effective primary care engagement, comprehensive training, and effective internal and external communication. However, limitations were identified in relation to programme specifications e.g. eligibility criteria, service specification and local commissioning decisions e.g. pattern of roll out, incentivisation of general practice. A person-centred approach to care is fundamental and should include cultural adaptation(s), and the assessment and signposting to additional support and services where required.