The Role of Primary Care in Service Provision for People with Severe Mental Illness in the United Kingdom

Severe mental illness is a serious and potentially life changing set of conditions. This paper describes and analyses patient characteristics and service usage over one year of a representative cohort of people with a diagnosis of severe mental illness across England, including contacts with primary and secondary care and continuity of care

HIV testing history and access to treatment among migrants living with HIV in Europe.

Migrants are overrepresented in the European HIV epidemic. We aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators to HIV testing and current treatment and healthcare needs of migrants living with HIV in Europe. A cross-sectional study was conducted in 57 HIV clinics in nine countries (Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and United Kingdom), July 2013 to July 2015. HIV-positive patients were eligible for inclusion if they were as follows: 18 years or older; foreign-born residents and diagnosed within five years of recruitment. Questionnaires were completed electronically in one of 15 languages and linked to clinical records. Primary outcomes were access to primary care and previous negative HIV test. Data were analysed using random effects logistic regression. Outcomes of interest are presented for women, heterosexual men and gay/bisexual men. A total of 2093 respondents (658 women, 446 heterosexual men and 989 gay/bisexual men) were included. The prevalence of a previous negative HIV test was 46.7%, 43.4% and 82.0% for women, heterosexual and gay/bisexual men respectively. In multivariable analysis previous testing was positively associated with: receipt of post-migration antenatal care among women, permanent residency among heterosexual men and identifying as gay rather than bisexual among gay/bisexual men. Access to primary care was found to be high (>83%) in all groups and was strongly associated with country of residence. Late diagnosis was common for women and heterosexual men (60.8% and 67.1%, respectively) despite utilization of health services prior to diagnosis. Across all groups almost three-quarters of people on antiretrovirals had an HIV viral load <50 copies/mL. Migrants access healthcare in Europe and while many migrants had previously tested for HIV, that they went on to test positive at a later date suggests that opportunities for HIV prevention are being missed. Expansion of testing beyond sexual health and antenatal settings is still required and testing opportunities should be linked with combination prevention measures such as access to PrEP and treatment as prevention

Tinnitus referral pathways within the National Health Service in England: a survey of their perceived effectiveness among audiology staff

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the UK, audiology services deliver the majority of tinnitus patient care, but not all patients experience the same level of service. In 2009, the Department of Health released a Good Practice Guide to inform commissioners about key aspects of a quality tinnitus service in order to promote equity of tinnitus patient care in UK primary care, audiology, and in specialist multi-disciplinary centres. The purpose of the present research was to evaluate utilisation and opinions on pathways for the referral of tinnitus patients to and from English Audiology Departments.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We surveyed all audiology staff engaged in providing tinnitus services across England. A 36-item questionnaire was mailed to 351 clinicians in all 163 National Health Service (NHS) Trusts identified as having a tinnitus service. 138 clinicians responded. The results presented here describe experiences and opinions of the current patient pathways to and from the audiology tinnitus service.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The most common referral pathway was from general practice to a hospital-based Ear, Nose & Throat department and from there to a hospital-based audiology department (64%). Respondents considered the NHS tinnitus referral process to be generally effective (67%), but expressed needs for improving GP referral and patients' access to services. 'Open access' to the audiology clinic was rarely an option for patients (9%), nor was the opportunity to access specialist counselling provided by clinical psychology (35%). To decrease the number of inappropriate referrals, 40% of respondents called for greater awareness by referrers about the audiology tinnitus service.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Respondents in the present survey were generally satisfied with the tinnitus referral system. However, they highlighted some potential targets for service improvement including 1] faster and more appropriate referral from GPs, to be achieved through education on tinnitus referral criteria, 2] improved access to psychological services through audiologist training, and 3] ongoing support from tinnitus support groups, national charities, or open access to the tinnitus clinic for existing patients.</p

Development and evaluation of an instrument for the critical appraisal of randomized controlled trials of natural products

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The efficacy of natural products (NPs) is being evaluated using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with increasing frequency, yet a search of the literature did not identify a widely accepted critical appraisal instrument developed specifically for use with NPs. The purpose of this project was to develop and evaluate a critical appraisal instrument that is sufficiently rigorous to be used in evaluating RCTs of conventional medicines, and also has a section specific for use with single entity NPs, including herbs and natural sourced chemicals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Three phases of the project included: 1) using experts and a Delphi process to reach consensus on a list of items essential in describing the identity of an NP; 2) compiling a list of non-NP items important for evaluating the quality of an RCT using systematic review methodology to identify published instruments and then compiling item categories that were part of a validated instrument and/or had empirical evidence to support their inclusion and 3) conducting a field test to compare the new instrument to a published instrument for usefulness in evaluating the quality of 3 RCTs of a NP and in applying results to practice.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Two Delphi rounds resulted in a list of 15 items essential in describing NPs. Seventeen item categories fitting inclusion criteria were identified from published instruments for conventional medicines. The new assessment instrument was assembled based on content of the two lists and the addition of a Reviewer's Conclusion section. The field test of the new instrument showed good criterion validity. Participants found it useful in translating evidence from RCTs to practice.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A new instrument for the critical appraisal of RCTs of NPs was developed and tested. The instrument is distinct from other available assessment instruments for RCTs of NPs in its systematic development and validation. The instrument is ready to be used by pharmacy students, health care practitioners and academics and will continue to be refined as required.</p

The ethics of animal research: a survey of pediatric health care workers

INTRODUCTION: Pediatric health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR). We aim to determine whether HCW consider common arguments (and counterarguments) in support (or not) of AR convincing. DESIGN: After development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, support for AR, and common arguments (with their counterarguments) to justify the moral permissibility (or not) of AR. Responses are reported using standard tabulations. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were compared using Chi-square, with P < .05 considered significant. RESULTS: Response rate was 53/115(46%) (pediatricians), and 73/120(61%) (nurses/RTs). Pediatricians and nurses/RTs are supportive of AR. Most considered ‘benefits arguments’ sufficient to justify AR; however, most acknowledged that counterarguments suggesting alternative research methods may be available, or that it is unclear why the same ‘benefits arguments’ do not apply to using humans in research, significantly weakened ‘benefits arguments’. Almost all were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘characteristics of non-human-animals arguments’, including that non-human-animals may not be sentient, or are simply property. Most were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘human exceptionalism’ arguments, including that humans have more advanced mental abilities, are of a special ‘kind’, can enter into social contracts, or face a ‘lifeboat situation’. Counterarguments explained much of this, including that not all humans have these more advanced abilities [the argument from species overlap], and that the notion of ‘kind’ is arbitrary [e.g., why are we not of the kind ‘sentient animal’ or ‘subject-of-a-life’]. Pediatrician and nurse/RT responses were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR when given common arguments and counterarguments from the literature. HCW should seriously consider arguments on both sides of the AR debate

Astronomical Distance Determination in the Space Age: Secondary Distance Indicators

The formal division of the distance indicators into primary and secondary leads to difficulties in description of methods which can actually be used in two ways: with, and without the support of the other methods for scaling. Thus instead of concentrating on the scaling requirement we concentrate on all methods of distance determination to extragalactic sources which are designated, at least formally, to use for individual sources. Among those, the Supernovae Ia is clearly the leader due to its enormous success in determination of the expansion rate of the Universe. However, new methods are rapidly developing, and there is also a progress in more traditional methods. We give a general overview of the methods but we mostly concentrate on the most recent developments in each field, and future expectations. © 2018, The Author(s)

Key stakeholder perceptions about consent to participate in acute illness research: a rapid, systematic review to inform epi/pandemic research preparedness

Background A rigorous research response is required to inform clinical and public health decision-making during an epi/pandemic. However, the ethical conduct of such research, which often involves critically ill patients, may be complicated by the diminished capacity to consent and an imperative to initiate trial therapies within short time frames. Alternative approaches to taking prospective informed consent may therefore be used. We aimed to rapidly review evidence on key stakeholder (patients, their proxy decision-makers, clinicians and regulators) views concerning the acceptability of various approaches for obtaining consent relevant to pandemic-related acute illness research. Methods We conducted a rapid evidence review, using the Internet, database and hand-searching for English language empirical publications from 1996 to 2014 on stakeholder opinions of consent models (prospective informed, third-party, deferred, or waived) used in acute illness research. We excluded research on consent to treatment, screening, or other such procedures, non-emergency research and secondary studies. Papers were categorised, and data summarised using narrative synthesis. Results We screened 689 citations, reviewed 104 full-text articles and included 52. Just one paper related specifically to pandemic research. In other emergency research contexts potential research participants, clinicians and research staff found third-party, deferred, and waived consent to be acceptable as a means to feasibly conduct such research. Acceptability to potential participants was motivated by altruism, trust in the medical community, and perceived value in medical research and decreased as the perceived risks associated with participation increased. Discrepancies were observed in the acceptability of the concept and application or experience of alternative consent models. Patients accepted clinicians acting as proxy-decision makers, with preference for two decision makers as invasiveness of interventions increased. Research regulators were more cautious when approving studies conducted with alternative consent models; however, their views were generally under-represented. Conclusions Third-party, deferred, and waived consent models are broadly acceptable to potential participants, clinicians and/or researchers for emergency research. Further consultation with key stakeholders, particularly with regulators, and studies focused specifically on epi/pandemic research, are required. We highlight gaps and recommendations to inform set-up and protocol development for pandemic research and institutional review board processes