A Randomized Feasibility Trial of a New Lifestyle Referral Assessment Versus Usual Assessment in an Acute Cardiology Setting.

This was a feasibility trial, so it was not designed to prove that the assessment improves patient outcomes. The reported confidence intervals around uptake and initiation were wide, so the observed differences are uncertain. The individualised assessment was delivered by a researcher, not by ward staff, so routine nurse delivery was not tested. The individualised assessment combined several elements, including discussion of barriers and facilitators, personal priorities, goal setting, and referral support, so the paper cannot show which element mattered. The usual assessment arm also received lifestyle advice and a Leeds Let's Change contact card, so the comparison was not no-advice versus individualised assessment. At six months, loss to follow-up was 17% and 18%, and missing questionnaire data were 23% and 24%. Minority ethnic representation was low, and fewer participants came from more socially deprived areas. Outcomes were self-reported and could be biased.

The trial was funded by the National Institute of Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Leeds, York and Bradford.

Do not read this as proof that ward staff can deliver the assessment or that it improves lasting lifestyle change. The assessment was delivered by a researcher, and at six months no more patients had maintained change.