Cross-sectional study of household solid fuel use and renal function in older adults in China

Background Emerging evidence links outdoor air pollution and declined renal function but the relationship between household air pollution and renal function is not well understood. Methods Using cross-sectional data from the multi-provincial INTERMAP-China Prospective Study, we collected blood samples and questionnaire information on stove use and socio-demographic factors. We calculated estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from serum creatinine to assess renal function. Participants with eGFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 were defined as having chronic kidney disease (CKD) in this analysis. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the association of household fuel with renal function and prevalent CKD in models adjusting for confounders. Results Among the 646 enrolled adults (40-79y; 56% female), one-third exclusively used clean fuel (gas and electric) cookstoves and 11% of northern China participants (n = 49 of 434) used only clean fuel heaters, whereas the rest used solid fuel. In multivariable models, use of solid fuel cookstoves was associated with 0.17 ml/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI: −0.30, 0.64) higher eGFR and 19% (0.86, 1.64) higher prevalence of CKD than exclusive clean fuel use. Greater intensity of solid fuel use was associated with 0.25 ml/min/1.73 m2 (−0.71, 0.21) lower eGFR per 5 stove-use years, though the confidence intervals included the null, while greater current intensity of indoor solid fuel use was associated with 1.02 (1.00, 1.04) higher prevalent CKD per 100 stove-use days per year. Larger associations between current solid fuel use and intensity of use with lower eGFR and prevalent CKD were observed among participants in southern China, those with hypertension or diabetes (eGFR only), and females (CKD only), through these groups had small sample sizes and some confidence intervals included the null. Conclusion We found inconsistent evidence associating household solid fuel use and renal function in this cross-sectional study of peri-urban Chinese adults

Lifestyle variables and the risk of myocardial infarction in the General Practice Research Database

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The primary objective of this study is to estimate the association between body mass index (BMI) and the risk of first acute myocardial infarction (AMI). As a secondary objective, we considered the association between other lifestyle variables, smoking and heavy alcohol use, and AMI risk.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study was conducted in the general practice research database (GPRD) which is a database based on general practitioner records and is a representative sample of the United Kingdom population. We matched cases of first AMI as identified by diagnostic codes with up to 10 controls between January 1^st, 2001 and December 31^st, 2005 using incidence density sampling. We used multiple imputation to account for missing data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 19,353 cases of first AMI which were matched on index date, GPRD practice and age to 192,821 controls. There was a modest amount of missing data in the database, and the patients with missing data had different risks than those with recorded values. We adjusted our analysis for each lifestyle variable jointly and also for age, sex, and number of hospitalizations in the past year. Although a record of underweight (BMI <18.0 kg/m²) did not alter the risk for AMI (adjusted odds ratio (OR): 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87–1.11) when compared with normal BMI (18.0–24.9 kg/m²), obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) predicted an increased risk (adjusted OR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.35–1.47). A history of smoking also predicted an increased risk of AMI (adjusted OR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.75–1.87) as did heavy alcohol use (adjusted OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.06–1.26).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study illustrates that obesity, smoking and heavy alcohol use, as recorded during routine care by a general practitioner, are important predictors of an increased risk of a first AMI. In contrast, low BMI does not increase the risk of a first AMI.</p

A theory-based process evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial of printed educational messages to increase primary care physicians' prescription of thiazide diuretics for hypertension [ISRCTN72772651]

Background Pragmatic trials of implementation interventions focus on evaluating whether an intervention changes professional behaviour under real-world conditions rather than investigating the mechanism through which change occurs. Theory-based process evaluations conducted alongside pragmatic randomised trials address this by assessing whether the intervention changes theoretical constructs proposed to mediate change. The Ontario Printed Educational Materials (PEM) cluster trial was designed to increase family physicians’ guideline-recommended prescription of thiazide diuretics. The trial found no intervention effect. Using the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), we hypothesised that changes in thiazide prescribing would be reflected in changes in intention, consistent with changes in attitude and subjective norm, with no change to their perceived behavioural control (PBC), and tested this alongside the RCT. Methods We developed and sent TPB postal questionnaires to a random sub-sample of family physicians in each trial arm 2 months before and 6 months after dissemination of the PEMs. We used analysis of covariance to test for group differences using a 2 × 3 factorial design. We content-analysed an open-ended question about perceived barriers to thiazide prescription. Using control group data, we tested whether baseline measures of TPB constructs predicted self-reported thiazide prescribing at follow-up. Results Four hundred twenty-six physicians completed pre- and post-intervention questionnaires. Baseline scores on measures of TPB constructs were high: intention mean = 5.9 out of 7 (SD = 1.4), attitude mean = 5.8 (SD = 1.1), subjective norm mean = 5.8 (SD = 1.1) and PBC mean = 6.2 (SD = 1.0). The arms did not significantly differ post-intervention on any of the theory-based constructs, suggesting a possible ceiling effect. Content analysis of perceived barriers suggested post-intentional barriers to prescribing thiazides most often focused on specific patient clinical characteristics and potential side effects. Baseline intention (β = 0.63, p < 0.01) but not PBC (β = 0.04, p = 0.78) predicted 42.6 % of the variance in self-reported behaviour at follow-up in the control group. Conclusions Congruent with the Ontario Printed Educational Messages trial results and aligned with the TPB, we saw no impact of the intervention on any TPB constructs. The theoretical basis of this evaluation suggests possible explanations for the failure of the PEM intervention to change professional behaviour, which can directly inform the design and content of future theory-based PEM interventions to change professional behaviour

The RISAP-study: a complex intervention in risk communication and shared decision-making in general practice

General practitioners (GPs) and patients find it difficult to talk about risk of future disease, especially when patients have asymptomatic conditions, and treatment options are unlikely to cause immediate perceptible improvements in well-being. Further studies in risk communication training are needed. Aim:1) to systematically develop, describe and evaluate a complex intervention comprising a training programme for GPs in risk communication and shared decision-making, 2) to evaluate the effect of the training programme on real-life consultations between GPs and patients with high cholesterol levels, and 3) to evaluate patients' reactions during and after the consultations. Methods/Design The effect of the complex intervention, based around a training programme, will be evaluated in a cluster-randomised controlled trial with an intervention group and an active control group with 40 GPs and 280 patients in each group. The GPs will receive a questionnaire at baseline and after 6 months about attitudes towards risk communication and cholesterol-reducing medication. After each consultation with a participating high cholesterol-patient, the GPs will complete a questionnaire about decision satisfaction (Provider Decision Process Assessment Instrument). The patients will receive a questionnaire at baseline and after 3 and 6 months. It includes questions about adherence to chosen treatment (Morisky Compliance Scale), self-rated health (SF-12), enablement (Patient Enablement Instrument), and risk communication and decision-making effectiveness (COMRADE Scale). Prescriptions, contacts to the health services, and cholesterol level will be drawn from the registers. In each group, 12 consultations will be observed and tape-recorded. The patients from these 24 consultations will be interviewed immediately after the consultation and re-interviewed after 6 months. Eight purposefully selected GPs from the intervention group will be interviewed in a focus group 6 months after participation in the training programme. The process and context of the RISAP-study will be investigated in detail using an action research approach, in order to analyse adaptation of the intervention model to the specific context. Discussion This study aims at providing GPs and patients with a firm basis for active deliberation about preventive treatment options, with a view to optimising adherence to chosen treatment. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration System NCT0118705

Implementation outcome instruments for use in physical healthcare settings: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Implementation research aims to facilitate the timely and routine implementation and sustainment of evidence-based interventions and services. A glaring gap in this endeavour is the capability of researchers, healthcare practitioners and managers to quantitatively evaluate implementation efforts using psychometrically sound instruments. To encourage and support the use of precise and accurate implementation outcome measures, this systematic review aimed to identify and appraise studies that assess the measurement properties of quantitative implementation outcome instruments used in physical healthcare settings. METHOD: The following data sources were searched from inception to March 2019, with no language restrictions: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL and the Cochrane library. Studies that evaluated the measurement properties of implementation outcome instruments in physical healthcare settings were eligible for inclusion. Proctor et al.'s taxonomy of implementation outcomes was used to guide the inclusion of implementation outcomes: acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption, penetration, implementation cost and sustainability. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Psychometric quality of the included instruments was assessed using the Contemporary Psychometrics checklist (ConPsy). Usability was determined by number of items per instrument. RESULTS: Fifty-eight publications reporting on the measurement properties of 55 implementation outcome instruments (65 scales) were identified. The majority of instruments assessed acceptability (n = 33), followed by appropriateness (n = 7), adoption (n = 4), feasibility (n = 4), penetration (n = 4) and sustainability (n = 3) of evidence-based practice. The methodological quality of individual scales was low, with few studies rated as 'excellent' for reliability (6/62) and validity (7/63), and both studies that assessed responsiveness rated as 'poor' (2/2). The psychometric quality of the scales was also low, with 12/65 scales scoring 7 or more out of 22, indicating greater psychometric strength. Six scales (6/65) rated as 'excellent' for usability. CONCLUSION: Investigators assessing implementation outcomes quantitatively should select instruments based on their methodological and psychometric quality to promote consistent and comparable implementation evaluations. Rather than developing ad hoc instruments, we encourage further psychometric testing of instruments with promising methodological and psychometric evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017065348