Understanding how primary care practitioners can be supported to recognise, screen and initially diagnose oropharyngeal dysphagia: protocol for a behavioural science realist review.

Introduction Oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) affects around 15% of older people; however, it is often unrecognised and underdiagnosed until patients are hospitalised. Screening is an important process which aims to facilitate proactive assessment, diagnosis and management of health conditions. Healthcare systems do not routinely screen for OD in older people, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) are largely unaware of the need to screen. This realist review aims to identify relevant literature and develop programme theories to understand what works, for whom, under what circumstances and how, to facilitate primary care HCPs to recognise, screen and initially diagnose OD. Methods and analysis We will follow five steps for undertaking a realist review: (1) clarify the scope, (2) literature search, (3) appraise and extract data, (4) evidence synthesis and (5) evaluation. Initial programme theories (IPTs) will be constructed after the preliminary literature search, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and with input from a stakeholder group. We will search Medline, Google Scholar, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Scopus and PsycINFO databases. We will obtain additional evidence through grey literature, snowball sampling, lateral searching and consulting the stakeholder group. Literature will be screened, evaluated and synthesised in Covidence. Evidence will be assessed for quality by evaluating its relevance and rigour. Data will be extracted and synthesised according to their relation to IPTs. We will follow the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality and publication standards to report study results. Ethics and dissemination Formal ethical approval is not required for this review. We will disseminate this research through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, written pieces targeted to diverse groups of HCPs on selected online platforms and public engagement events.</p

Understanding how primary care practitioners can be supported to recognise, screen and initially diagnose oropharyngeal dysphagia: protocol for a behavioural science realist review.

Introduction Oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) affects around 15% of older people; however, it is often unrecognised and underdiagnosed until patients are hospitalised. Screening is an important process which aims to facilitate proactive assessment, diagnosis and management of health conditions. Healthcare systems do not routinely screen for OD in older people, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) are largely unaware of the need to screen. This realist review aims to identify relevant literature and develop programme theories to understand what works, for whom, under what circumstances and how, to facilitate primary care HCPs to recognise, screen and initially diagnose OD. Methods and analysis We will follow five steps for undertaking a realist review: (1) clarify the scope, (2) literature search, (3) appraise and extract data, (4) evidence synthesis and (5) evaluation. Initial programme theories (IPTs) will be constructed after the preliminary literature search, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and with input from a stakeholder group. We will search Medline, Google Scholar, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Scopus and PsycINFO databases. We will obtain additional evidence through grey literature, snowball sampling, lateral searching and consulting the stakeholder group. Literature will be screened, evaluated and synthesised in Covidence. Evidence will be assessed for quality by evaluating its relevance and rigour. Data will be extracted and synthesised according to their relation to IPTs. We will follow the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality and publication standards to report study results. Ethics and dissemination Formal ethical approval is not required for this review. We will disseminate this research through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, written pieces targeted to diverse groups of HCPs on selected online platforms and public engagement events.</p

Developing and testing complex behaviour change interventions to support proactive deprescribing: A narrative review

1 THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM A culture of prescribing to treat long-term conditions, coupled with age-associated changes in the processes of metabolizing medicine, have led to an “overprescribing epidemic” amongst older adults.1 The World Health Organization recognizes overprescribing as a serious problem yet deprescribing of medicines with more risks than benefits is not routine practice. Approximately half of older adults admitted to hospital are prescribed at least one medicine with more risks than benefits2; however, a 2018 study based in England reported that only 1% of older adults have a medicine deprescribed during a hospital admission.3</p

Developing and testing complex behaviour change interventions to support proactive deprescribing: A narrative review

1 THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM A culture of prescribing to treat long-term conditions, coupled with age-associated changes in the processes of metabolizing medicine, have led to an “overprescribing epidemic” amongst older adults.1 The World Health Organization recognizes overprescribing as a serious problem yet deprescribing of medicines with more risks than benefits is not routine practice. Approximately half of older adults admitted to hospital are prescribed at least one medicine with more risks than benefits2; however, a 2018 study based in England reported that only 1% of older adults have a medicine deprescribed during a hospital admission.3</p

Barriers and enablers to switching from a solid to a liquid formulation of Parkinson's medication: a theory-based mixed methods investigation

Background: Swallowing tablets/capsules can become difficult and dangerous for People with Parkinson’s (PwP) who develop oropharyngeal dysphagia. Switching to a liquid delays the need for progressing to last line patches/injections. However, liquids are rarely used therefore a change in prescribing practice is warranted but, as with any change in behaviour, may be met with resistance. Aim: To characterise PwPs and carers’ barriers and enablers (determinants) of switching from solid to liquid Parkinson’s medication formulations. Method: Underpinned by the Theoretical Domains Framework, focus groups with PwPs and carers were convened to identify determinants of switching, which were then used to develop a questionnaire distributed across the UK. Determinants were prioritised if ≥ 50% of respondents agreed/strongly agreed that they were important to their decision to switch to a liquid formulation. Percentage precisions were reported as 95% confidence intervals. Results: From three focus groups and 131 questionnaires responses, PwPs and carers prioritised nine determinants. Three enablers had almost unanimous agreement: liquids’ flexibility for incremental dosing (72% ± 8); decline in Parkinson’s control (72% ± 8); prescriber’s endorsement to switch (70% ± 8). The barriers: perception that tablets/capsules are easier to dose than liquids (72% ± 8); and prescriber’s opposition to switching (70% ± 8), attracted similarly high agreement. Conclusion: There is a desire to switch to liquids when Parkinson’s progresses and for their use beyond this to offer flexibility in dosing, a previously unrecognised indication for switching. The only notable resistance to switching may be addressed by innovations from the pharmaceutical industry to make liquids easier to measure

Barriers and enablers to switching from a solid to a liquid formulation of Parkinson's medication: a theory-based mixed methods investigation

Background: Swallowing tablets/capsules can become difficult and dangerous for People with Parkinson’s (PwP) who develop oropharyngeal dysphagia. Switching to a liquid delays the need for progressing to last line patches/injections. However, liquids are rarely used therefore a change in prescribing practice is warranted but, as with any change in behaviour, may be met with resistance. Aim: To characterise PwPs and carers’ barriers and enablers (determinants) of switching from solid to liquid Parkinson’s medication formulations. Method: Underpinned by the Theoretical Domains Framework, focus groups with PwPs and carers were convened to identify determinants of switching, which were then used to develop a questionnaire distributed across the UK. Determinants were prioritised if ≥ 50% of respondents agreed/strongly agreed that they were important to their decision to switch to a liquid formulation. Percentage precisions were reported as 95% confidence intervals. Results: From three focus groups and 131 questionnaires responses, PwPs and carers prioritised nine determinants. Three enablers had almost unanimous agreement: liquids’ flexibility for incremental dosing (72% ± 8); decline in Parkinson’s control (72% ± 8); prescriber’s endorsement to switch (70% ± 8). The barriers: perception that tablets/capsules are easier to dose than liquids (72% ± 8); and prescriber’s opposition to switching (70% ± 8), attracted similarly high agreement. Conclusion: There is a desire to switch to liquids when Parkinson’s progresses and for their use beyond this to offer flexibility in dosing, a previously unrecognised indication for switching. The only notable resistance to switching may be addressed by innovations from the pharmaceutical industry to make liquids easier to measure

A Theory-Informed Systematic Review of Barriers and Enablers to Implementing Multi-Drug Pharmacogenomic Testing

PGx testing requires a complex set of activities undertaken by practitioners and patients, resulting in varying implementation success. This systematic review aimed (PROSPERO: CRD42019150940) to identify barriers and enablers to practitioners and patients implementing pharmacogenomic testing. We followed PRISMA guidelines to conduct and report this review. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PubMed Central were systematically searched from inception to June 2022. The theoretical domain framework (TDF) guided the organisation and reporting of barriers or enablers relating to pharmacogenomic testing activities. From the twenty-five eligible reports, eleven activities were described relating to four implementation stages: ordering, facilitating, interpreting, and applying pharmacogenomic testing. Four themes were identified across the implementation stages: IT infrastructure, effort, rewards, and unknown territory. Barriers were most consistently mapped to TDF domains: memory, attention and decision-making processes, environmental context and resources, and belief about consequences

A Theory-Informed Systematic Review of Barriers and Enablers to Implementing Multi-Drug Pharmacogenomic Testing

PGx testing requires a complex set of activities undertaken by practitioners and patients, resulting in varying implementation success. This systematic review aimed (PROSPERO: CRD42019150940) to identify barriers and enablers to practitioners and patients implementing pharmacogenomic testing. We followed PRISMA guidelines to conduct and report this review. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PubMed Central were systematically searched from inception to June 2022. The theoretical domain framework (TDF) guided the organisation and reporting of barriers or enablers relating to pharmacogenomic testing activities. From the twenty-five eligible reports, eleven activities were described relating to four implementation stages: ordering, facilitating, interpreting, and applying pharmacogenomic testing. Four themes were identified across the implementation stages: IT infrastructure, effort, rewards, and unknown territory. Barriers were most consistently mapped to TDF domains: memory, attention and decision-making processes, environmental context and resources, and belief about consequences

Facilitating healthcare practitioners to deliver self-management support in adult cancer survivors: A realist review.

Background Supporting cancer survivors in self-management can empower them to take an active role in managing the long-term physical and psychosocial consequences of cancer treatment. Healthcare practitioners are key to supporting patients to self-manage, however, they do not routinely engage in these discussions. This review aimed to establish what works for whom and in what circumstances in relation to facilitating healthcare practitioners to provide self-management support in people living with long-term consequences of cancer treatment. Methods The review follows five steps: define the review's scope, develop initial programme theories, evidence search, selection and appraisal, and data extraction and synthesis. Database searches of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, ERIC and AMED databases, to September 2019 were supplemented with practitioner surveys. Insights into the mechanisms that operate in particular contexts to produce successful outcomes were illustrated using realist programme theories, developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Data selection was based on relevance and rigour. Data were extracted and synthesised iteratively to illuminate causal links between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Results Five programme theories were identified from 20 included articles and seven practitioner surveys: practitioners will engage patients in discussions about self-management if they have appropriate (1) knowledge and (2) consultations skills, (3) a clear understanding of their self-management support role and responsibilities, and if (4) organisational strategies and (5) health system configuration enable integration into routine care. The mechanisms facilitating practitioners to support self-management were practitioner confidence, mutual trust and shared responsibility between practitioners and cancer survivors, organisational prioritisation and ease of delivery of self-management support. Conclusion The findings articulate the necessary components for embedding self-management support into routine cancer care. Operationalisation of these components into effective self-management support interventions will require reconfiguration of pathways and adaptation for local context, using strategies such as quality improvement and co-design to guide intervention development, implementation and evaluation.</p

Facilitating healthcare practitioners to deliver self-management support in adult cancer survivors: A realist review.

Background Supporting cancer survivors in self-management can empower them to take an active role in managing the long-term physical and psychosocial consequences of cancer treatment. Healthcare practitioners are key to supporting patients to self-manage, however, they do not routinely engage in these discussions. This review aimed to establish what works for whom and in what circumstances in relation to facilitating healthcare practitioners to provide self-management support in people living with long-term consequences of cancer treatment. Methods The review follows five steps: define the review's scope, develop initial programme theories, evidence search, selection and appraisal, and data extraction and synthesis. Database searches of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, ERIC and AMED databases, to September 2019 were supplemented with practitioner surveys. Insights into the mechanisms that operate in particular contexts to produce successful outcomes were illustrated using realist programme theories, developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Data selection was based on relevance and rigour. Data were extracted and synthesised iteratively to illuminate causal links between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Results Five programme theories were identified from 20 included articles and seven practitioner surveys: practitioners will engage patients in discussions about self-management if they have appropriate (1) knowledge and (2) consultations skills, (3) a clear understanding of their self-management support role and responsibilities, and if (4) organisational strategies and (5) health system configuration enable integration into routine care. The mechanisms facilitating practitioners to support self-management were practitioner confidence, mutual trust and shared responsibility between practitioners and cancer survivors, organisational prioritisation and ease of delivery of self-management support. Conclusion The findings articulate the necessary components for embedding self-management support into routine cancer care. Operationalisation of these components into effective self-management support interventions will require reconfiguration of pathways and adaptation for local context, using strategies such as quality improvement and co-design to guide intervention development, implementation and evaluation.</p