Description: Objectives Evaluation of the demonstrator phase and first wave roll-out of the National Health Service (NHS) Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP) in England. To examine: (1) intervention design, provision and fidelity assessment procedures; (2) risk assessment and recruitment pathways and (3) data collection for monitoring and evaluation. To provide recommendations informing decision makers on programme quality, improvements and future evaluation. Design We reviewed programme documents, mapping against the NHS DPP specification and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public health guideline: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention in people at high risk (PH38), conducted qualitative research using individual interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders and examined recruitment, fidelity and data collection procedures. Setting Seven NHS DPP demonstrator sites and, subsequently, 27 first wave areas across England. Interventions Intensive behavioural intervention with weight loss, diet and physical activity goals. The national programme specifies at least 13 sessions over 9 months, delivered face to face to groups of 15–20 adults with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia, mainly recruited from primary care and NHS Health Checks. Participants Participants for qualitative research were purposively sampled to provide a spread of stakeholder experience. Documents for review were provided via the NHS DPP Management Group. Findings The NHS DPP specification reflected current evidence with a clear framework for service provision. Providers, with national capacity to deliver, supplied intervention plans compliant with this framework. Stakeholders highlighted limitations in fidelity assessment and recruitment and retention challenges, especially in reach and equity, that could adversely impact on implementation. Risk assessment for first wave eligibility differed from NICE guidance. Conclusions The NHS DPP provides an evidence-based behavioural intervention for prevention of T2D in adults at high risk, with capacity to deliver nationally. Framework specification allows for balance between consistency and contextual variation in intervention delivery, with session details devolved to providers. Limitations in fidelity assurance, data collection procedures and recruitment issues could adversely impact on intervention effectiveness and restrict evaluation.

Description: Objective To examine the effect of the first introduction of measles vaccine (MV) in Guinea-Bissau in 1979. Setting Urban community study of the anthropometric status of all children under 6 years of age. Participants The study cohort included 1451 children in December 1978; 82% took part in the anthropometric survey. The cohort was followed for 2 years. Intervention In December 1979, the children were re-examined anthropometrically. The participating children, aged 6 months to 6 years, were offered MV if they did not have a history of measles infection. There were no routine vaccinations in 1979–1980. Primary and secondary outcome measures Age-adjusted mortality rate ratios (MRRs) for measles vaccinated and not vaccinated children; changes in nutritional status. Results The nutritional status deteriorated significantly from 1978 to 1979. Nonetheless, children who received MV at the December 1979 examination had significantly lower mortality in the following year (1980) compared with the children who had been present in the December 1978 examination but were not measles vaccinated. Among children still living in the community in December 1979, measles-vaccinated children aged 6–71 months had a mortality rate of 18/1000 person-years during the following year compared with 51/1000 person-years for absent children who were not measles vaccinated (MRR=0.30 (0.12–0.73)). The effect of MV was not explained by prevention of measles infection as the unvaccinated children did not die of measles infection. Conclusions MV may have beneficial non-specific effects on child survival not related to the prevention of measles infection.

Description: Background BCG and measles vaccine (MV) may have beneficial non-specific effects (NSEs). If an unplanned intervention with a vaccine (a natural experiment) modifies the estimated effect in a randomised controlled trial (RCT), this suggests NSEs. We used this approach to test NSEs of triple oral polio vaccine (OPV). Methods During an RCT of 2 doses of MV at 4.5 and 9 months versus 1 dose of MV at 9 months of age, we experienced 2 natural experiments with OPV. We assessed whether these OPV experiments modified the effect of 2-dose MV in the MV trial. Setting MV RCT conducted in urban Guinea-Bissau 2003–2009. Interventions Natural experiments with OPV due to missing vaccine and the implementation of OPV campaigns. Main outcome measure Changes in the mortality rate ratio (MRR) for 2-dose MV versus 1-dose MV. Results First, the MRR (2-dose/1-dose MV) overall was 0.70 (0.52 to 0.94), but the MRR was 1.04 (0.53 to 2.04) when OPV at birth (OPV0) was not given, suggesting that early priming with OPV was important for the effect of 2-dose MV. The effect of OPV0 depended on age of administration; the MRR (2-dose/1-dose MV) was 0.45 (0.29 to 0.71) for children receiving OPV0 in the first week of life, but 3.63 (0.87 to 15.2) for those receiving OPV0 after the first month of life (p=0.007, test of no interaction). Second, campaign-OPV may have reduced the difference between the randomisation groups since the MRR (2-dose/1-dose MV) was 0.60 (0.42 to 0.85) for children who had not received campaign-OPV before RCT-enrolment versus 0.72 (0.23 to 2.31) and 1.42 (0.70 to 2.90) for children who had received 1 or 2 doses of campaign-OPV-before-enrolment, respectively. Conclusions Bissau had no polio infection during this trial, so OPV0 and campaign-OPV may have NSEs since they modified the effect of 2-dose MV in an RCT. Different interventions may interact to a much larger effect than usually assumed.