Search results
Found 19013 matches for
This blog post from Corina Cheeks for Black History Month, highlights the importance of community outreach in research and shares recent work in the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences to address racialised health disparities.
Exploring the interface between adolescent dysmenorrhoea and endometriosis: A protocol for a cohort and nested case-control study within the QResearch Database
Introduction Dysmenorrhoea affects up to 70%-91% of adolescents who menstruate, with approximately one-third experiencing severe symptoms with impacts on education, work and leisure. Dysmenorrhoea can occur without identifiable pathology, but can indicate underlying conditions, including congenital genital tract anomalies or endometriosis. There is a need for evidence about the management and incidence of dysmenorrhoea in primary care, the impact of treatments in adolescence on long-term outcomes and when to consider the possibility of endometriosis in adolescence. Methods and analysis This study aims to improve the evidence base for adolescents presenting to primary care with dysmenorrhoea. It comprises three interlinked studies. Using the QResearch Database, the study population includes all female at birth participants aged 10-19 years any time between 1 January 2000 and 30 June 2021. We will undertake (1) a descriptive study documenting the prevalence of coded dysmenorrhoea in primary care, stratified by demographic variables, reported using descriptive statistics; (2) a prospective open cohort study following an index cohort of all adolescents recorded as attending primary care with dysmenorrhoea and a comparator cohort of five times as many who have not, to determine the HR for a diagnosis of endometriosis, adenomyosis, ongoing menstrual pain or subfertility (considered singly and in combination) anytime during the study period; and (3) a nested case-control study for adolescents diagnosed with endometriosis, using conditional logistic regression, to determine the OR for symptom(s) preceding this diagnosis. Ethics and dissemination The project has been independently peer reviewed and received ethics approval from the QResearch Scientific Board (reference OX46 under REC 18/EM/0400). In addition to publication in peer-reviewed academic journals, we will use the combined findings to generate a resource and infographic to support shared decision-making about dysmenorrhoea in community health settings. Additionally, the findings will be used to inform a subsequent qualitative study, exploring adolescents' experiences of menstrual pain.
Exploring Elinor Ostrom's principles for collaborative group working within a user-led project: lessons from a collaboration between researchers and a user-led organisation
Background: Some research has been undertaken into the mechanisms that shape successful participatory approaches in the context of efforts to improve health and social care. However, greater attention needs to be directed to how partnerships between researchers and user-led organisations (ULOs) might best be formed, practiced, managed, and assessed. We explored whether political economist Elinor Ostrom’s Nobel prize winning analysis of common pool resource management—specifically eight principles to enhance collaborative group working as derived from her empirical research—could be usefully applied within a user-led project aiming to co-design new services to support more inclusive involvement of Disabled people in decision-making processes in policy and practice. Methods: Participant observation and participatory methods over a 16-month period comprising observational notes of online user-led meetings (26 h), online study team meetings (20 h), online Joint Interpretive Forum meetings (8 h), and semi-structured one-to-one interviews with project participants (44 h) at two time points (months 6 and 10). Results: Initially it proved difficult to establish working practices informed by Ostrom’s principles for collaborative group working within the user-led project. Several attempts were made to put a structure in place that met the needs of both the research study and the aims of the user-led project, but this was not straightforward. An important shift saw a move away from directly applying the principles to the working practices of the group and instead applying them to specific tasks the group were undertaking. This was a helpful realisation which enabled the principles to become—for most but not all participants—a useful facilitation device in the latter stages of the project. Eventually we applied the principles in a way that was useful and enabled collaboration between researchers and a ULO (albeit in unexpected ways). Conclusions: Our joint reflections emphasise the importance of being reflexive and responsive when seeking to apply theories of collaboration (the principles) within user-led work. At an early stage, it is important to agree shared definitions and understanding of what ‘user-led’ means in practice. It is crucial to actively adapt and translate the principles in ways that make them more accessible and applicable within groups where prior knowledge of their origins is both unlikely and unnecessary.
Development of a health state classification system for the PedsQL™ 4.0 Generic Core Scales for preference-based valuation in Australia.
OBJECTIVES: Pediatric Quality of Life InventoryTM Version 4.0 Generic Core Scales (PedsQL GCS), comprising 23 items covering four sub-scales (physical, emotional, social, and school functioning), is a widely applied generic measure of childhood health-related quality of life, but does not provide health utilities for cost-effectiveness-based decision-making. This study aimed to develop a reduced item version of PedsQL GCS amenable to health utility derivation in Australia. METHODS: Data sources were two cohorts of the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children, including proxy responses for all PedsQL GCS versions (Toddlers, Young Children, Children, Teens), and the CheckPoint sample containing child self-report to the Children version. Three analytic samples were: CheckPoint sample (n=1,874); Mallinson sample containing one measurement per child from one of the Young Children, Children or Teens versions (n=7,855); and Toddlers sample (n=7,401). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses assessed dimensionality. Psychometric analyses used Rasch and classical criteria on three randomly selected subsamples (n=500) per sample. Item selection prioritised psychometric performance in CheckPoint sample, also considering performance in other samples and conceptual content. RESULTS: Dimensionality assessments did not generate an alternative empirical structure for the measure, and psychometric analyses were conducted on the original four sub-scales. The selected items were: 'Get aches and pains' for physical functioning; 'Feel sad/blue' for emotional functioning; 'Other kids not friends' for social functioning; and 'Keeping up with school work' for school functioning. CONCLUSIONS: The final four-item set, pending further psychometric validation and valuation, can generate health utilities from the widely used PedsQL GCS to inform cost-effectiveness-based decision-making.
Corrigendum to “Do children with disabilities have the same opportunities to play as children without disabilities? Evidence from the multiple indicator cluster surveys in 38 low and middle-income countries” [ECLINM 67 (2023) 102361] (eClinicalMedicine (2024) 67, (S2589537023005382), (10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102361))
In the article titled “Do children with disabilities have the same opportunities to play as children without disabilities? Evidence from the multiple indicator cluster surveys in 38 low and middle-income countries” published in Lancet eClinicalMedicine, Vol. 67, No. 102361, the authors identified an error in the reported percentage reduction in play opportunities for children with disabilities.
Strategies to improve the implementation of preventive care in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BackgroundAction on smoking, obesity, excess alcohol, and physical inactivity in primary care is effective and cost-effective, but implementation is low. The aim was to examine the effectiveness of strategies to increase the implementation of preventive healthcare in primary care.MethodsCINAHL, CENTRAL, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Dissertations & Theses - Global, Embase, Europe PMC, MEDLINE and PsycINFO were searched from inception through 5 October 2023 with no date of publication or language limits. Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies comparing implementation strategies (team changes; changes to the electronic patient registry; facilitated relay of information; continuous quality improvement; clinician education; clinical reminders; financial incentives or multicomponent interventions) to usual care were included. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed bias with an adapted Cochrane risk of bias tool for Effective Practice and Organisation of Care reviews. Meta-analysis was conducted with random-effects models. Narrative synthesis was conducted where meta-analysis was not possible. Outcome measures included process and behavioural outcomes at the closest point to 12 months for each implementation strategy.ResultsEighty-five studies were included comprising of 4,210,946 participants from 3713 clusters in 71 cluster trials, 6748 participants in 5 randomised trials, 5,966,552 participants in 8 interrupted time series, and 176,061 participants in 1 controlled before after study. There was evidence that clinical reminders (OR 3.46; 95% CI 1.72-6.96; I2 = 89.4%), clinician education (OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.46-2.46; I2 = 80.6%), facilitated relay of information (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.10-3.46, I2 = 88.2%), and multicomponent interventions (OR 3.10; 95% CI 1.60-5.99, I2 = 96.1%) increased processes of care. Multicomponent intervention results were robust to sensitivity analysis. There was no evidence that other implementation strategies affected processes of care or that any of the implementation strategies improved behavioural outcomes. No studies reported on interventions specifically designed for remote consultations. Limitations included high statistical heterogeneity and many studies did not account for clustering.ConclusionsMulticomponent interventions may be the most effective implementation strategy. There was no evidence that implementation interventions improved behavioural outcomes.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022350912.
Low-dose spironolactone and cardiovascular outcomes in moderate stage chronic kidney disease: a randomized controlled trial.
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with a substantial risk of progression to end-stage renal disease and vascular events. The nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), finerenone, offers cardiorenal protection for people with CKD and diabetes, but there is uncertainty if the steroidal MRA, spironolactone, provides the same protection. In this prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint trial, we assessed the effectiveness of 25 mg spironolactone in addition to usual care or usual care alone for reducing cardiovascular outcomes in stage 3b CKD among an older community cohort (mean age = 74.8 years and s.d. = 8.1). We recruited 1,434 adults from English primary care, of whom 1,372 (96%) were included in the primary analysis. The primary outcome was time from randomization until the first occurrence of death, hospitalization for heart disease, stroke, heart failure, transient ischemic attack or peripheral arterial disease, or first onset of any condition listed not present at baseline. Across 3 years of follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred in 113 of 677 participants randomized to spironolactone (16.7%) and 111 of 695 participants randomized to usual care (16.0%) with no significant difference between groups (hazard ratio = 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.81-1.37). Two-thirds of participants randomized to spironolactone stopped treatment within 6 months, predominantly because they met prespecified safety stop criteria. The most common reason for stopping spironolactone was a decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate that met prespecified stop criteria (n = 239, 35.4%), followed by participants being withdrawn due to treatment side effects (n = 128, 18.9%) and hyperkalemia (n = 54, 8.0%). In conclusion, we found that spironolactone was frequently discontinued due to safety concerns, with no evidence that it reduced cardiovascular outcomes in people with stage 3b CKD. Spironolactone should not be used for people with stage 3b CKD without another explicit treatment indication. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: ISRCTN44522369 .
Favipiravir for COVID-19 in adults in the community in PRINCIPLE, an open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes
Background: Evidence for the effect of favipiravir treatment of acute COVID-19 on recovery, hospital admissions and longer-term outcomes in community settings is limited. Methods: In this multicentre. open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial participants aged ≥18 years in the community with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 and symptoms lasting ≤14 days were randomised to: usual care; usual care plus favipiravir tablets (loading dose of 3600 mg in divided doses on day one, then 800 mg twice a day for four days); or, usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery and hospitalisation/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at six months was the primary longer-term outcome. Trial registration: ISRCTN86534580. Findings: The primary analysis model included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive mostly COVID vaccinated participants, randomised to favipiravir (n = 1829), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3726). Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the favipiravir group than usual care (estimated hazard ratio 1·23 [95% credible interval 1·14 to 1·33]), a reduction of 2·98 days [1·99 to 3·94] from 16 days in median time to self-reported recovery for favipiravir versus usual care alone. COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were similar (estimated odds ratio 0·99 [0·61 to 1·61]; estimated difference 0% [−0·9% to 0·6%]). 14 serious adverse events occurred in the favipiravir group and 4 in usual care. By six months, the proportion feeling fully recovered was 74·9% for favipiravir versus 71·3% for usual care (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]). Interpretation: In this open-label trial in a largely vaccinated population with COVID-19 in the community, favipiravir did not reduce hospital admissions, but shortened time to recovery and had a marginal positive impact on long term outcomes.
Health outcomes 3 months and 6 months after molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 for people at higher risk in the community (PANORAMIC): a randomised controlled trial
Background: No randomised controlled trials have yet reported on the effectiveness of molnupiravir on longer term outcomes for COVID-19. The PANORAMIC trial found molnupiravir reduced time to recovery in acute COVID-19 over 28 days. We aimed to report the effect of molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 on wellbeing, severe and persistent symptoms, new infections, health care and social service use, medication use, and time off work at 3 months and 6 months post-randomisation. Methods: This study is a follow-up to the main analysis, which was based on the first 28 days of follow-up and has been previously reported. For this multicentre, primary care, open-label, multi-arm, prospective randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK, participants were eligible if aged at least 50 years, or at least 18 years with a comorbidity, and unwell 5 days or less with confirmed COVID-19 in the community. Participants were randomly assigned to the usual care group or molnupiravir group plus usual care (800 mg twice a day for 5 days), which was stratified by age (<50 years or ≥50 years) and vaccination status (at least one dose: yes or no). The primary outcome was hospitalisation or death (or both) at 28 days; all longer term outcomes were considered to be secondary outcomes and included self-reported ratings of wellness (on a scale of 0–10), experiencing any symptom (fever, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, muscle ache, nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, loss of smell or taste, headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, and generally feeling unwell) rated as severe (moderately bad or major problem) or persistent, any health and social care use, health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L), time off work or school, new infections, and hospitalisation. Findings: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 25 783 participants were randomly assigned to the molnupiravir plus usual care group (n=12 821) or usual care group (n=12 962). Long-term follow-up data were available for 23 008 (89·2%) of 25 784 participants with 11 778 (91·9%) of 12 821 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and 11 230 (86·6%) of 12 963 in the usual care group. 22 806 (99·1%) of 23 008 had at least one previous dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Any severe (3 months: adjusted risk difference –1·6% [–2·6% to –0·6%]; probability superiority [p(sup)]>0·99; number needed to treat [NNT] 62·5; 6 months: –1·9% [–2·9% to –0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99, NNT 52·6) or persistent symptoms (3 months: adjusted risk difference –2·1% [–2·9% to –1·5%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 47·6; 6 months: –2·5% [–3·3% to –1·6%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 40) were reduced in severity, and health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L) improved in the molnupiravir plus usual care group at 3 months and 6 months (3 months: adjusted mean difference 1·08 [0·65 to 1·53]; p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 1·09 [0·63 to 1·55]; p(sup)>0·99). Ratings of wellness (3 months: adjusted mean difference 0·15 (0·11 to 0·19); p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 0·12 (0·07 to 0·16); p(sup)>0·99), experiencing any more severe symptom (3 months; adjusted risk difference –1·6% [–2·6% to –0·6%]; p(sup)=0·99; 6 months: –1·9% [–2·9% to –0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99), and health-care use (3 months: adjusted risk difference –1·4% [–2·3% to –0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 71·4; 6 months: –0·5% [–1·5% to 0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 200) had high probabilities of superiority with molnupiravir treatment. There were significant differences in persistence of any symptom (910 [8·9%] of 10 190 vs 1027 [11%] of 9332, NNT 67) at 6 months, and reported time off work at 3 months (2017 [17·9%] of 11 274 vs 2385 [22·4%] of 10 628) and 6 months (460 [4·4%] of 10 562 vs 527 [5·4%] of 9846; NNT 100). There were no differences in hospitalisations at long-term follow-up. Interpretation: In a vaccinated population, people treated with molnupiravir for acute COVID-19 felt better, experienced fewer and less severe COVID-19 associated symptoms, accessed health care less often, and took less time off work at 6 months. However, the absolute differences in this open-label design are small with high numbers needed to treat. Funding: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health and Care Research.
Stop antibiotics when you feel better? Opportunities, challenges and research directions
Shortening standard antibiotic courses and stopping antibiotics when patients feel better are two ways to reduce exposure to antibiotics in the community, and decrease the risks of antimicrobial resistance and antibiotic side effects. While evidence shows that shorter antibiotic treatments are non-inferior to longer ones for infections that benefit from antibiotics, shorter courses still represent average treatment durations that might be suboptimal for some. In contrast, stopping antibiotics based on improvement or resolution of symptoms might help personalize antibiotic treatment to individual patients and help reduce unnecessary exposure. Yet, many challenges need addressing before we can consider this approach evidence-based and implement it in practice. In this viewpoint article, we set out the main evidence gaps and avenues for future research.
Patient Perspectives of Health System Barriers to Accessing Care for Hidradenitis Suppurativa: A Qualitative Study
Importance: Patient-perceived barriers to hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) care are poorly understood. Understanding health care barriers is a critical first step toward improving care for this population. Objective: To characterize the health care experiences of people living with HS, including perceived barriers and facilitators to health care access, and to elucidate potential associations among these barriers and facilitators, health care access, and disease activity. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this qualitative study, an inductive thematic analysis was conducted on 45 in-depth, 60- to 90-minute semistructured interviews of 45 people with HS from diverse sociodemographic backgrounds that took place between March and April 2020. Individuals were eligible if they could speak English, were 18 years or older, and were diagnosed with HS. A diagnosis of HS was confirmed through physician diagnosis or through self-reported, affirmative response to the validated screening question, "Do you experience boils in your armpits or groin that recur at least every six months?" Main Outcomes and Measures: Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. A modified grounded theory approach was used to develop the codebook, which investigators used for inductive thematic analysis. Results: Among the 45 participants included, the median (IQR) age was 37 (16) years, 33 (73%) were female, and 22 (49%) were White. There were 6 interrelated themes associated with participant-perceived barriers to accessing HS care: (1) bidirectional associations of disease activity and employment, (2) association of employment with health care coverage, (3) association of health care coverage with costs and perceived access to care, (4) association of costs with access to patient-centered care, (5) health care professional attitudes and knowledge influence patient-centered care and perceived access to care and disease activity, and (6) health system characteristics influence patient-centered care and associated costs, perceived access to care, and disease activity. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study highlights themes that generate a conceptual model for understanding barriers that may act synergistically to limit health care access and influence disease activity. The disease activity of HS may be reduced when cycle elements are optimized. This study also highlights areas for future investigations and potential systems-level changes to improve access to patient-centered HS care.
Qualitative exploration of melanoma awareness in black people in the USA
Objective Although black patients are more likely to have advanced melanomas at diagnosis, with a 5-year survival rate among black patients of 70% compared with 92% for white patients, black people are generally not the focus of melanoma public health campaigns. We sought to explore awareness and perspectives of melanoma among black people to inform the development of relevant and valued public health messages to promote early detection of melanoma. Design Inductive thematic analysis of in-depth semistructured interviews. Setting Interviews were conducted with participants via video software or telephone in the USA. Participants Participants were adults from the USA who self-identified as African American or black. Recruitment flyers were posted around the San Francisco Bay Area and shared on our team Facebook page, with further participants identified through snowball sampling. Results We interviewed 26 participants from 10 different states. Overall, 12 were men and 14 were women, with a mean age of 43 years (range 18-85). We identified five key themes regarding melanoma awareness in black people: (1) lack of understanding of term â € melanoma' and features of skin cancer; (2) do not feel at risk of melanoma skin cancer; (3) surprise that melanoma can occur on palms, soles and nails; (4) skin cancer awareness messages do not apply to or include black people; and (5) Importance of relationship with healthcare and habits of utilisation. Conclusions Analysis of these in-depth semistructured interviews illuminate the pressing need for health information on melanoma designed specifically for black people. We highlight two key points for focused public health messaging: (1) melanoma skin cancer does occur in black people and (2) high-risk sites for melanoma in black people include the palms, soles and nail beds. Therefore, public health messages for black people and their healthcare providers may involve productively checking these body surface areas.