60 research outputs found

    Self-management interventions in patients with long-term conditions: a structured review of approaches to reporting inclusion, assessment, and outcomes in multimorbidity

    Get PDF
    Background: Multimorbidity has many potential implications for healthcare delivery, but a particularly important impact concerns the validity of trial evidence underpinning clinical guidelines for individual conditions. Objective: To review how authors of published trials of self-management interventions reported inclusion criteria, sample descriptions, and consideration of the impact of multimorbidity on trial outcomes. Methods: We restricted our analysis to a small number of exemplar long-term conditions: type 2 diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We focussed our search on published Cochrane reviews. Data were extracted from the trials on inclusion/exclusion, sample description, and impact on outcomes. Results: Eleven reviews consisting of 164 unique trials were identified. Sixty percent of trials reported excluding patients with forms of multimorbidity. Reasons for exclusion were poorly described or defined. Reporting of multimorbidity within the trials was poor, with only 35% of trials reporting on multimorbidity in their patient samples. Secondary analyses, exploring the impact of multimorbidity, were very rare. Conclusions: The importance of multimorbidity in trials is only going to become more important over time, but trials often exclude patients with multimorbidity, and reporting of multimorbidity in trials including such patients is generally poor. This limits judgements about the external validity of the results for clinical populations. A consistent approach to the conduct and reporting of secondary analyses of the effects of multimorbidity on outcomes, using current best-practice guidance, could lead to a rapid development of the evidence base. Journal of Comorbidity 2014;4(1):37–4

    Impact of research activity on performance of general practices: a qualitative study

    Get PDF
    Background: There is evidence that engaging in research is directly associated with better performance. If this relationship is to be strengthened, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms which might underlie that relationship. Aim: To explore the perspectives of staff and wider stakeholders about mechanisms by which research activity might impact on the performance of general practices. Design & Setting: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with general practice professionals and wider stakeholders in England. Method: Individual interviews with purposively sampled staff in ‘research ready’ or ‘research active’ general practices and other stakeholders. Interviews were analysed using a Framework approach. Results: Participants described potential ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ impacts on their work. ‘Direct’ impacts included research changing practice work (e.g. additional records searches for particular conditions), bringing in additional resources (e.g. access to investigations or staff) and improving relationships with patients. ‘Indirect’ impacts included job satisfaction (e.g. perception of practice as a centre of excellence and innovation, and the variety afforded by research activity reducing burnout) and staff recruitment (increasing the attractiveness of the practice as a place to work). Respondents identified few negative impacts. Conclusions: Staff and stakeholders identified a range of potential impacts of research activity on practice performance, with impacts on their working lives most salient. Negative impacts were not generally raised. Nevertheless, respondents generally discussed potential impacts rather than providing specific examples of those impacts. This may reflect the type of research activity conducted in general practice, often led by external collaborators

    Understanding acceptability in the context of text messages to encourage medication adherence in people with type 2 diabetes

    Get PDF
    From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2021-01-29, accepted 2021-05-11, registration 2021-06-22, pub-electronic 2021-06-28, online 2021-06-28, collection 2021-12Publication status: PublishedAbstract: Background: Acceptability is recognised as a key concept in the development of health interventions, but there has been a lack of consensus about how acceptability should be conceptualised. The theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) provides a potential tool for understanding acceptability. It has been proposed that acceptability measured before use of an intervention (anticipated acceptability) may differ from measures taken during and after use (experienced acceptability), but thus far this distinction has not been tested for a specific intervention. This paper 1) directly compares ratings of anticipated and experienced acceptability of a text message-based intervention, 2) explores the applicability of the TFA in a technology-based intervention, and 3) uses these findings to inform suggestions for measuring acceptability over the lifespan of technology-based health interventions. Methods: Data were obtained from a quantitative online survey assessing anticipated acceptability of the proposed text messages (n = 59) and a 12-week proof-of-concept mixed methods study assessing experienced acceptability while receiving the text messages (n = 48). Both quantitative ratings by return text message, and qualitative data from participant interviews were collected during the proof-of-concept study. Results: The quantitative analysis showed anticipated and experienced acceptability were significantly positively correlated (rs > .4). The qualitative analysis identified four of the seven constructs of the TFA as themes (burden, intervention coherence, affective attitude and perceived effectiveness). An additional two themes were identified as having an important impact on the TFA constructs (perceptions of appropriateness and participants’ role). Three suggestions are given related to the importance of appropriateness, what may affect ratings of acceptability and what to consider when measuring acceptability. Conclusions: The high correlation between anticipated and experienced acceptability was a surprising finding and could indicate that, in some cases, acceptability of an intervention can be gauged adequately from an anticipated acceptability study, prior to an expensive pilot or feasibility study. Directly exploring perceptions of appropriateness and understanding whether the acceptability described by participants is related to the intervention or the research - and is for themselves or others - is important in interpreting the results and using them to further develop interventions and predict future use

    Supporting People With Type 2 Diabetes in the Effective Use of Their Medicine Through Mobile Health Technology Integrated With Clinical Care to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk : Protocol for an Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness Randomized Controlled Trial

    Get PDF
    Funding Information: The Support Through Mobile Messaging and Digital Health Technology for Diabetes research team acknowledges the support of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) through the Clinical Research Networks. AF, LT, and RR have received support from the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. RH received support from the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care and North Thames at Bart's Health National Health Service (NHS) Trust. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. This paper presents independent research funded by the NIHR under its Program Grants for Applied Research as part of a wider program of work (RP-PG-1214-20003). The authors thank the personnel of the University of Oxford Primary Care and Vaccines Clinical Trials Collaborative for providing support in the conduct of the trial.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

    Supporting people with type 2 diabetes in effective use of their medicine through mobile health technology integrated with clinical care (SuMMiT-D pilot) : results of a feasibility randomised trial

    Get PDF
    Funding Information: This publication presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (RP-PG-1214–20003). AF and RR are supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. DPF is supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (IS-BRC-1215–20007). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (RP-PG-1214–20003). For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. The SuMMiT-D research team acknowledges the support of the Primary Care Clinical Trials Unit and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN). The authors would like to thank the Thames Valley and South Midlands, West Midlands, South West Peninsula and the Greater Manchester Clinical Research Networks and the participating general practices for help with recruitment. The funder had no role in the design, execution, analyses, interpretation of the data, or decision to submit results for this study.Peer reviewe

    The Effect of Complex Interventions on Depression and Anxiety in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

    Get PDF
    Background Depression and anxiety are very common in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and are associated with excess morbidity and mortality. Patients prefer non-drug treatments and clinical guidelines promote non-pharmacological interventions as first line therapy for depression and anxiety in people with long term conditions. However the comparative effectiveness of psychological and lifestyle interventions among COPD patients is not known. We assessed whether complex psychological and/or lifestyle interventions are effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety and depression in patients with COPD. We then determined what types of psychological and lifestyle interventions are most effective. Methods and Findings Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of psychological and/or lifestyle interventions for adults with COPD that measured symptoms of depression and/or anxiety. CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science and Scopus were searched up to April 2012. Meta-analyses using random effects models were undertaken to estimate the average effect of interventions on depression and anxiety. Thirty independent comparisons from 29 randomised controlled trials (n = 2063) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, psychological and/or lifestyle interventions were associated with small reductions in symptoms of depression (standardised mean difference −0.28, 95% confidence interval −0.41 to −0.14) and anxiety (standardised mean difference −0.23, 95% confidence interval −0.38 to −0.09). Multi-component exercise training was the only intervention subgroup associated with significant treatment effects for depression (standardised mean difference −0.47, 95% confidence interval −0.66 to −0.28), and for anxiety (standardised mean difference −0.45, 95% confidence interval −0.71 to −0.18). Conclusions Complex psychological and/or lifestyle interventions that include an exercise component significantly improve symptoms of depression and anxiety in people with COPD. Furthermore, multi-component exercise training effectively reduces symptoms of anxiety and depression in all people with COPD regardless of severity of depression or anxiety, highlighting the importance of promoting physical activity in this population

    What are the core predictors of 'hassles among patients with multimorbidity in primary care? A cross sectional study

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: A limitation of service delivery in primary care in the United Kingdom is that services are often organised to manage discrete long-term conditions, using guidelines related to single conditions, and managed in clinics organised around single conditions. However, many older patients have more than one condition (so called multimorbidity). Qualitative research suggests that these patients experience ‘hassles’ in their care, including multiple appointments, poor co-ordination, and conflicting recommendations. However, there is limited quantitative evidence on the ‘hassles’ that patients with multimorbidity experience, or factors predicting ‘hassles’ in patients with multimorbidity. METHODS: We conducted a cross sectional study, mailing questionnaires to 1460 patients with multimorbidity identified from the disease registers of four general practices in the UK. Patients were asked to complete a range of self-report measures including measures of multimorbidity, measures of their experience of multimorbidity and service delivery. Data were analysed using regression modelling to assess the factors predicting ‘hassles’ in patients with multimorbidity. RESULTS: In total 33 % (n = 486) of patients responded to the baseline survey. The ‘hassles’ most often reported by patients related to lack of information about conditions and treatment options, poor communication among health professionals, and poor access to specialist care. There was a significant relationship between numbers of conditions, and reports of ‘hassles’. In multivariate analysis, 5 variables predicted more ‘hassles’: more long-term conditions, symptoms of anxiety and depression, younger age, being in paid employment, and not having a discussion with their GP in the last 12 months. CONCLUSION: Hassles are frequently reported by patients with multimorbidity in primary care. A priority for future research should be on the development of new models of care that better cater for these patients. This research highlights core hassles that need to be addressed, and the patient groups that are most at risk, which may aid in the design of these new models
    corecore