A movement for movement:an exploratory study of primary healthcare professionals’ perspectives on implementing the Royal College of General Practitioners’ active practice charter initiative

Background: Regular physical activity (PA) results in extensive physical, psychological, and social benefits. Despite primary care being a key point of influence for PA behaviours in the UK, research indicates poor application of PA interventions in this context. To address this, the Royal College of General Practitioners’ (RCGP) developed and implemented the Active Practice Charter (APC). The aim of the study was to evaluate the perceived impact and acceptability of the APC initiative from the perspective of primary healthcare professionals (PHPs). Methods: An online exploratory cross-sectional survey was designed to assess the perceived impact, experiences, and challenges of the APC initiative, from the perspective of PHPs. The survey was distributed by the RCGP via email to 184 registered APC practices across the UK. Results: Responses were reviewed from staff (n = 33) from 21 APC practices. Initiatives used by APC practices included: educational programmes, partnerships with PA providers, referral systems, and infrastructure investment. Perceived benefits included: increased awareness about PA, staff cohesion, and improved well-being. However, staff felt the APC had limited effect due to implementation barriers, including: a lack of engagement, time, resources, and funding. Conclusion: This is the first evaluation of any nationwide UK-based initiative engaging GP practices in promoting PA. Acknowledging the limitations in response rate, although support exists for the RCGP APC, the evaluation highlights challenges to its implementation. Nonetheless, the wide reach of the RCGP, combined with the cited staff and patient benefits, demonstrates the significant potential of the APC initiative. Given the need to address physical inactivity nationally, further development the APC offers a possible solution, with further research required to overcome the challenges to implementation.</p

Including older people in health and social care research: best practice recommendations based on the INCLUDE framework

Background Older people are often explicitly or implicitly excluded from research, in particular clinical trials. This means that study findings may not be applicable to them, or that older people may not be offered treatments due to an absence of evidence. Aims The aim of this work was to develop recommendations to guide all research relevant to older people. Methods A diverse stakeholder group identified barriers and solutions to including older people in research. In parallel, a rapid literature review of published papers was undertaken to identify existing papers on the inclusion of older people in research. The findings were synthesised and mapped onto a socio-ecological model. From the synthesis we identified themes that were developed into initial recommendations that were iteratively refined with the stakeholder group. Results A range of individual, interpersonal, organisational, community and policy factors impact on the inclusion of older people in research. A total of 14 recommendations were developed such as removing upper age limits and comorbidity exclusions, involving older people, advocates and health and social care professionals with expertise in ageing in designing the research, and considering flexible or alternative approaches to data collection to maximise opportunities for participation. We also developed four questions that may guide those developing, reviewing and funding research that is inclusive of older people. Conclusion Our recommendations provide up to date, practical advice on ways to improve the inclusion of older people in health and care research

Evaluation of a COVID ‐19 fundamental nursing care guideline versus usual care: The COVID‐NURSE cluster randomized controlled trial

Aim: To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID‐19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses' moral distress, patient health‐related quality of life and cost‐effectiveness. Design: Parallel two‐arm, cluster‐level randomized controlled trial. Methods: Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID‐19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient‐reported co‐primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention‐to‐treat analyses. Results: We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570–572 (98.1%–98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between‐group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between‐group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co‐primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the ‘other’ ethnicity subgroup. Conclusion: We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non‐white British patients' experience of care. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required. Impact: Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non‐white British patients' experience of care. Reporting Method: CONSORT and CONSERVE. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID‐19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Phylogenetic ctDNA analysis depicts early-stage lung cancer evolution.

The early detection of relapse following primary surgery for non-small-cell lung cancer and the characterization of emerging subclones, which seed metastatic sites, might offer new therapeutic approaches for limiting tumour recurrence. The ability to track the evolutionary dynamics of early-stage lung cancer non-invasively in circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) has not yet been demonstrated. Here we use a tumour-specific phylogenetic approach to profile the ctDNA of the first 100 TRACERx (Tracking Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Evolution Through Therapy (Rx)) study participants, including one patient who was also recruited to the PEACE (Posthumous Evaluation of Advanced Cancer Environment) post-mortem study. We identify independent predictors of ctDNA release and analyse the tumour-volume detection limit. Through blinded profiling of postoperative plasma, we observe evidence of adjuvant chemotherapy resistance and identify patients who are very likely to experience recurrence of their lung cancer. Finally, we show that phylogenetic ctDNA profiling tracks the subclonal nature of lung cancer relapse and metastasis, providing a new approach for ctDNA-driven therapeutic studies

Twinning in Holstein-Friesian Dairy Cows: Proportion Carried to Term and Calf Sex Ratios

The purpose of this study was to investigate the proportion of twins carried to term and the sex ratio of twin calves at birth in Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle kept on commercial farms in Devon and Cornwall, England. Ten farms were used in the study. Fifty four cows with twin pregnancies were identified using trans-rectal ultra-sonographic examination between 30 and 70 days of gestation. The farm records were subsequently used to derive the number of calves born. Farm records of 66 additional sets of twin births with the sex of the calves recorded were also identified. Of the 54 cows diagnosed with twin pregnancies, 16 cows (29.6%) aborted or absorbed both fetuses, 11 cows (20.4%) carried one calf to term and 27 cows (50%) carried both calves to term. In the calf sex analysis of the additional 66 sets of twins: 13♂♂ calves (19.7%), 18 ♀♀ calves (27.3%) and 35 ♂♀ calves (53.0%). There was no statistically significant difference from an expected ratio of 1♂♂:2♂♀:1♀♀ (p = 0.61). This study provides bench marks for the expected abortion/absorption rates following the early ultra-sonographic diagnosis of twin pregnancies in comparable populations and supports earlier observations that the expected  sex ratio for twinning approximates to1♂♂:2♂♀:1♀♀

How is knowledge shared in Public involvement? A qualitative study of involvement in a health technology assessment

Background: Public involvement in research is seen as a quality marker by funders. To understand the process and impact of involvement, more in-depth studies are needed on how members of the public contribute in meetings with researchers. Objectives: This study aimed to observe and reflect on what is said by public advisers in involvement. We wanted to understand (a) what knowledge and experience is shared during research meetings, and (b) how this knowledge is shared with researchers. Methods: Data were collected in November 2016 as part of the public involvement in a health technology assessment of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography. Three meetings were audio recorded and observed with the purpose of understanding how members of the public contributed during the meetings. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and data analysed using a thematic approach, with the coding framework developed inductively. We also included reflections from a community drop-in session. Results: Members of the public brought three different ‘sources’ of knowledge and experience to meetings with researchers: direct lived personal experience; learnt knowledge; and the experience and values of others. The data suggest that group settings allow for dynamic discussions and sharing of different types of knowledge. Conclusion: Group-based involvement meetings allow for the synergistic combination of individual knowledge and experience. This gives researchers a broader understanding of the topic, which can be the vehicle for patient impact on the research. A combination of group meeting and community drop-in can enable more varied input into research planning and conduct

Additional file 1 of A movement for movement: an exploratory study of primary healthcare professionals’ perspectives on implementing the Royal College of General Practitioners’ active practice charter initiative

Supplementary Material