Overcoming the barriers to the diagnosis and management of chronic fatigue syndrome/ME in primary care: a meta synthesis of qualitative studies

Background The NICE guideline for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) emphasises the need for an early diagnosis in primary care with management tailored to patient needs. However, GPs can be reluctant to make a diagnosis and are unsure how to manage people with the condition. Methods A meta synthesis of published qualitative studies was conducted, producing a multi-perspective description of barriers to the diagnosis and management of CFS/ME, and the ways that some health professionals have been able to overcome them. Analysis provided second-order interpretation of the original findings and developed third-order constructs to provide recommendations for the medical curriculum. Results Twenty one qualitative studies were identified. The literature shows that for over 20 years health professionals have reported a limited understanding of CFS/ME. Working within the framework of the biomedical model has also led some GPs to be sceptical about the existence of the condition. GPs who provide a diagnosis tend to have a broader, multifactorial, model of the condition and more positive attitudes towards CFS/ME. These GPs collaborate with patients to reach agreement on symptom management, and use their therapeutic skills to promote self care. Conclusions In order to address barriers to the diagnosis and management of CFS/ME in primary care, the limitations of the biomedical model needs to be recognised. A more flexible bio-psychosocial approach is recommended where medical school training aims to equip practitioners with the skills needed to understand, support and manage patients and provide a pathway to refer for specialist input

Cognitive-behavioural therapy for a variety of conditions : an overview of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis

Background: Cognitive-behavioural therapy aims to increase quality of life by changing cognitive and behavioural factors that maintain problematic symptoms. A previous overview of cognitive-behavioural therapy systematic reviews suggested that cognitive-behavioural therapy was effective for many conditions. However, few of the included reviews synthesised randomised controlled trials. Objectives: This project was undertaken to map the quality and gaps in the cognitive-behavioural therapy systematic review of randomised controlled trial evidence base. Panoramic meta-analyses were also conducted to identify any across-condition general effects of cognitive-behavioural therapy. Data sources: The overview was designed with cognitive-behavioural therapy patients, clinicians and researchers. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and OpenGrey databases were searched from 1992 to January 2019. Review methods: Study inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) fulfil the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination criteria; (2) intervention reported as cognitive-behavioural therapy or including one cognitive and one behavioural element; (3) include a synthesis of cognitive-behavioural therapy trials; (4) include either health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety or pain outcome; and (5) available in English. Review quality was assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-2. Reviews were quality assessed and data were extracted in duplicate by two independent researchers, and then mapped according to condition, population, context and quality. The effects from high-quality reviews were pooled within condition groups, using a random-effect panoramic meta-analysis. If the across-condition heterogeneity was I-2 < 75%, we pooled across conditions. Subgroup analyses were conducted for age, delivery format, comparator type and length of follow-up, and a sensitivity analysis was performed for quality. Results: A total of 494 reviews were mapped, representing 68% (27/40) of the categories of the International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision, Mortality and Morbidity Statistics. Most reviews (71%, 351/494) were of lower quality. Research on older adults, using cognitive-behavioural therapy preventatively, ethnic minorities and people living outside Europe, North America or Australasia was limited. Out of 494 reviews, 71 were included in the primary panoramic meta-analyses. A modest effect was found in favour of cognitive-behavioural therapy for health-related quality of life (standardised mean difference 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.41, prediction interval -0.05 to 0.50, I-2 = 32%), anxiety (standardised mean difference 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.43, prediction interval -0.28 to 0.88, I-2 = 62%) and pain (standardised mean difference 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.41, prediction interval -0.28 to 0.74, I-2 = 64%) outcomes. All condition, subgroup and sensitivity effect estimates remained consistent with the general effect. A statistically significant interaction effect was evident between the active and non-active comparator groups for the health-related quality-of-life outcome. A general effect for depression outcomes was not produced as a result of considerable heterogeneity across reviews and conditions. Limitations: Data extraction and analysis were conducted at the review level, rather than returning to the individual trial data. This meant that the risk of bias of the individual trials could not be accounted for, but only the quality of the systematic reviews that synthesised them. Conclusion: Owing to the consistency and homogeneity of the highest-quality evidence, it is proposed that cognitive-behavioural therapy can produce a modest general, across-condition benefit in health-related quality-of-life, anxiety and pain outcomes. Future work: Future research should focus on how the modest effect sizes seen with cognitive-behavioural therapy can be increased, for example identifying alternative delivery formats to increase adherence and reduce dropout, and pursuing novel methods to assess intervention fidelity and quality. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017078690.Peer reviewe

Aerobic and strength training exercise programme for cognitive impairment in people with mild to moderate dementia : the DAPA RCT

Background Approximately 670,000 people in the UK have dementia. Previous literature suggests that physical exercise could slow dementia symptom progression. Objectives To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a bespoke exercise programme, in addition to usual care, on the cognitive impairment (primary outcome), function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of people with mild to moderate dementia (MMD) and carer burden and HRQoL. Design Intervention development, systematic review, multicentred, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a parallel economic evaluation and qualitative study. Setting 15 English regions. Participants People with MMD living in the community. Intervention A 4-month moderate- to high-intensity, structured exercise programme designed specifically for people with MMD, with support to continue unsupervised physical activity thereafter. Exercises were individually prescribed and progressed, and participants were supervised in groups. The comparator was usual practice. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale – Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog). The secondary outcomes were function [as measured using the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BADLS)], generic HRQoL [as measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version (EQ-5D-3L)], dementia-related QoL [as measured using the Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease (QoL-AD) scale], behavioural symptoms [as measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI)], falls and fractures, physical fitness (as measured using the 6-minute walk test) and muscle strength. Carer outcomes were HRQoL (Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease) (as measured using the EQ-5D-3L) and carer burden (as measured using the Zarit Burden Interview). The economic evaluation was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. We measured health and social care use with the Client Services Receipt Inventory. Participants were followed up for 12 months. Results Between February 2013 and June 2015, 494 participants were randomised with an intentional unequal allocation ratio: 165 to usual care and 329 to the intervention. The mean age of participants was 77 years [standard deviation (SD) 7.9 years], 39% (193/494) were female and the mean baseline ADAS-Cog score was 21.5 (SD 9.0). Participants in the intervention arm achieved high compliance rates, with 65% (214/329) attending between 75% and 100% of sessions. Outcome data were obtained for 85% (418/494) of participants at 12 months, at which point a small, statistically significant negative treatment effect was found in the primary outcome, ADAS-Cog (patient reported), with a mean difference of –1.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) –2.62 to –0.17]. There were no treatment effects for any of the other secondary outcome measures for participants or carers: for the BADLS there was a mean difference of –0.6 (95% CI –2.05 to 0.78), for the EQ-5D-3L a mean difference of –0.002 (95% CI –0.04 to 0.04), for the QoL-AD scale a mean difference of 0.7 (95% CI –0.21 to 1.65) and for the NPI a mean difference of –2.1 (95% CI –4.83 to 0.65). Four serious adverse events were reported. The exercise intervention was dominated in health economic terms. Limitations In the absence of definitive guidance and rationale, we used a mixed exercise programme. Neither intervention providers nor participants could be masked to treatment allocation. Conclusions This is a large well-conducted RCT, with good compliance to exercise and research procedures. A structured exercise programme did not produce any clinically meaningful benefit in function or HRQoL in people with dementia or on carer burden

Treatments for enhancing sleep quality in fibromyalgia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: Sleep disturbance is a key symptom of fibromyalgia and a risk factor for chronic widespread pain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in improving sleep quality in fibromyalgia patients. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and CINAHL was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to April 2023. Studies assessing pharmacological or CBT interventions with sleep-related outcomes were included. Data were extracted, and meta-analyses were performed where applicable. Study quality and bias were evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results: Forty-seven RCTs, including 11 094 participants, were reviewed. CBT for insomnia (CBT-I) showed a significant improvement in sleep quality (SMD −0.63, 95% CI −0.98 to −0.27), while CBT for pain (CBT-P) had no significant impact. Pharmacological agents such as pregabalin and sodium oxybate moderately improved sleep, but there was uncertainty around this evidence. Amitriptyline, milnacipran and duloxetine showed no significant benefit for sleep. Study heterogeneity was moderate, and no publication bias was detected. Conclusion: CBT-I is a promising treatment for enhancing sleep quality in fibromyalgia. Pharmacological treatments like pregabalin may be beneficial but should be used cautiously due to potential risks. Future research should prioritize trials focusing on sleep as a primary outcome and explore the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological treatments and CBT-I in fibromyalgia. Understanding the mechanisms linking sleep and fibromyalgia will also help guide future therapies

Physiotherapist-delivered cognitive behavioural interventions are effective for low back pain, but can they be replicated in clinical practice? A systematic review

Purpose: To determine if physiotherapist-led cognitive-behavioural (CB) interventions are effective for low back pain (LBP) and described sufficiently for replication. Method: RCTs of patients with LBP treated by physiotherapists using a CB intervention were included. Outcomes of disability, pain and quality of life were assessed using the GRADE approach. Intervention reporting was assessed using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. Results: Of 1898 titles, 5 RCTs (n=1,390) were identified. Compared to education and/or exercise interventions, we found high quality evidence that CB had a greater effect (SMD; 95% CI) on reducing disability (-0.19; -0.32, -0.07), pain (- 0.21; -0.33, -0.09); and moderate quality evidence of little difference in quality of life (-0.06; -0.18 to 0.07). Sufficient information was provided on dose, setting and provider; but not content and procedural information. Studies tended to report the type of CB component used (e.g. challenging unhelpful thoughts) with little detail on how it was operationalised. Moreover, access to treatment manuals, patient materials and provider training was lacking. Conclusions: With additional training, physiotherapists can deliver effective CB interventions. However, without training or resources, successful translation and implementation remains unlikely. Researchers should improve reporting of procedural information, provide relevant materials and offer accessible provider training

What are the preferences of health care professionals in Germany regarding fully liquid, ready-to-use hexavalent pediatric vaccine versus hexavalent pediatric vaccine that needs reconstitution?

Diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis (DTaP) based combined vaccines have led to significant reduction in incidence of several serious pediatric infectious diseases. A new, fully liquid combined hexavalent vaccine has been introduced and has been shown to reduce administration time. This fully liquid vaccine may also be simpler to administer and could reduce handling errors. The present study was designed to understand the value that health care providers (HCPs) place on aspects of injection devices for combined hexavalent vaccine programs in Germany. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit the views of HCPs regarding hexavalent vaccines. The key attributes of injection devices were identified through a focused literature search and interviews with HCPs. Five key attributes, each with two or three levels were described which included: type of device, experience of this hexavalent vaccine on the German market, preparation time, probability of handling errors, and dosage errors. Physicians (n=150) and nurses (n=150) who administered hexavalent vaccines in Germany completed the survey. Choice data were analyzed using the conditional logit procedure. All attributes were significant and important independent influences on physicians’ and nurses’ choices. Reducing any “probability of dosage errors” was the most important attribute. Both physicians and nurses had a strong preference to reduce preparation time. All other things equal both groups also significantly preferred a fully liquid hexavalent vaccine. They also preferred vaccines that had been on the market for a few years compared to ones that had not (especially the physicians). Additional analyses explored participants’ preferences in more detail through interaction terms. The DCE choice data provide useful insights into how HCPs view each aspect of the vaccination device. Overall, the HCPs preferred fully liquid vaccines. The survey also highlighted the importance of handling and dosage errors, reducing preparation time, and also experience of the HCPs with the use of a vaccine. The survey work included physicians and nurses and explored their views separately

Prevention of Shoulder Problems trial (PROSPER) : Physiotherapist Manual [intervention manual and related materials]

This Physiotherapist Manual contains the relevant information to prepare physiotherapists for delivering the PROSPER exercise programme. The main concepts from each chapter will be covered in detail during your PROSPER training. This is your own reference manual with the relevant background information about trial processes and procedures. The trial is run by the Warwick Clinical Trials Unit based at the University of Warwick and is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) funding stream. The purpose of the trial is to investigate whether postoperative exercise can improve function and quality of life in women at high risk of developing shoulder problems after breast cancer treatment. Some physiotherapists will have considerable experience of treating women with breast cancer or treating patients with musculoskeletal shoulder problems. However, not everyone will have the same skill and experience level, therefore this manual has been written to account for differences in background training, skill and clinical expertise. The aims of this Physiotherapist Manual are: - To explain the trial design; - To describe common side effects from breast cancer treatment; - To provide the research evidence for the PROSPER exercise intervention; - To describe procedures for the assessment and treatment of PROSPER study participants; - To describe trial documentation and reporting procedures. This manual has been produced to ‘standardise’ treatment and to reduce the risk of differences between physiotherapists and centres providing care. For all trial participants referred to your service, we ask that you adhere to the manual. This does not affect the care of non-trial participants, please treat your other patients in your usual way. You may even decide to use some of the approaches within the manual for non-trial patients. Thank you again for taking part in PROSPER. We hope you enjoy reading the manual and we very much look forward to working with you