Background:

As people age and accumulate long-term conditions, their physical activity and physical function declines, resulting in disability and loss of independence. Primary care is well placed to empower individuals and communities to reduce this decline; however, the best approach is uncertain.

Objectives:

To develop a programme theory to explain the mechanisms through which interventions improve physical activity and physical function in people with long-term conditions in different primary care contexts, and to co-design a prototype intervention.

Data sources:

Systematic literature searches of relevant databases with forwards and backwards citation tracking, grey literature searches and further purposive searches were conducted. Qualitative data were collected through workshops and interviews.

Design:

Realist evidence synthesis and co-design for primary care service innovation.

Setting:

Primary care in Wales and England.

Participants:

Stakeholders included people with long-term conditions, primary care professionals, people working in relevant community roles and researchers.

Methods:

The realist evidence synthesis combined evidence from varied sources of literature with the views, experiences and ideas of stakeholders. The resulting context, mechanism and outcome statements informed three co-design workshops and a knowledge mobilisation workshop for primary care service innovation.

Results:

Five context, mechanism and outcome statements were developed. (1) Improving physical activity and function is not prioritised in primary care (context). If the practice team culture is aligned to the elements of physical literacy (mechanism), then physical activity promotion will become routine and embedded in usual care (outcome). (2) Physical activity promotion is inconsistent and unco-ordinated (context). If specific resources are allocated to physical activity promotion (in combination with a supportive practice culture) (mechanism), then this will improve opportunities to change behaviour (outcome). (3) People with long-term conditions have varying levels of physical function and physical activity, varying attitudes to physical activity and differing access to local resources that enable physical activity (context). If physical activity promotion is adapted to individual needs, preferences and local resources (mechanism), then this will facilitate a sustained improvement in physical activity (outcome). (4) Many primary care practice staff lack the knowledge and confidence to promote physical activity (context). If staff develop an improved sense of capability through education and training (mechanism), then they will increase their engagement with physical activity promotion (outcome). (5) If a programme is credible with patients and professionals (context), then trust and confidence in the programme will develop (mechanism) and more patients and professionals will engage with the programme (outcome). A prototype multicomponent intervention was developed. This consisted of resources to nurture a culture of physical literacy, materials to develop the role of a credible professional who can promote physical activity using a directory of local opportunities and resources to assist with individual behaviour change.

Limitations:

Realist synthesis and co-design is about what works in which contexts, so these resources and practice implications will need to be modified for different primary care contexts.

Conclusions:

We developed a programme theory to explain how physical activity could be promoted in primary care in people with long-term conditions, which informed a prototype intervention.

Future work:

A future research programme could further develop the prototype multicomponent intervention and assess its acceptability in practice alongside existing schemes before it is tested in a feasibility study to inform a future randomised controlled trial.

Study registration:

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018103027.

Funding:

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Article history

The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HS&DR programme or one of its preceding programmes as project number 17/45/22. The contractual start date was in September 2018. The final report began editorial review in March 2020 and was accepted for publication in November 2020. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HS&DR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.