UNderstanding uptake of Immunisations in TravellIng aNd Gypsy communities (UNITING): a qualitative interview study

Background: Gypsies, Travellers and Roma (referred to as Travellers) are less likely to access health services, including immunisation. To improve immunisation rates, we need to understand what helps and hinders individuals in these communities in taking up immunisations. Aims: (1) Investigate the barriers to and facilitators of acceptability and uptake of immunisations among six Traveller communities across four UK cities; and (2) identify possible interventions to increase uptake of immunisations in these Traveller communities that could be tested in a subsequent feasibility study. Methods: Three-phase qualitative study underpinned by the social ecological model. Phase 1: interviews with 174 Travellers from six communities: Romanian Roma (Bristol); English Gypsy/Irish Traveller (Bristol); English Gypsy (York); Romanian/Slovakian Roma (Glasgow); Scottish Showpeople (Glasgow); and Irish Traveller (London). Focus on childhood and adult vaccines. Phase 2: interviews with 39 service providers. Data were analysed using the framework approach. Interventions were identified using a modified intervention mapping approach. Phase 3: 51 Travellers and 25 service providers attended workshops and produced a prioritised list of potentially acceptable and feasible interventions. Results: There were many common accounts of barriers and facilitators across communities, particularly across the English-speaking communities. Scottish Showpeople were the most similar to the general population. Roma communities experienced additional barriers of language and being in a new country. Men, women and service providers described similar barriers and facilitators. There was widespread acceptance of childhood and adult immunisation, with current parents perceived as more positive than their elders. A minority of English-speaking Travellers worried about multiple/combined childhood vaccines, adult flu and whooping cough. Cultural concerns about vaccines offered during pregnancy and about human papillomavirus were most evident in the Bristol English Gypsy/Irish Traveller community. Language, literacy, discrimination, poor school attendance, poverty and housing were identified by Travellers and service providers as barriers for some. Trustful relationships with health professionals were important and continuity of care was valued. A few English-speaking Travellers described problems of booking and attending for immunisation. Service providers tailored their approach to Travellers, particularly the Roma. Funding cuts, NHS reforms and poor monitoring challenged their work. Five ‘top-priority’ interventions were agreed across communities and service providers to improve the immunisation among Travellers who are housed or settled on an authorised site: (1) cultural competence training for health professionals and frontline staff; (2) identification of Travellers in health records to tailor support and monitor uptake; (3) provision of a named frontline person in general practitioner practices to provide respectful and supportive service; (4) flexible and diverse systems for booking appointments, recall and reminders; and (5) protected funding for health visitors specialising in Traveller health, including immunisation. Limitations: No Travellers living on the roadside or on unofficial encampments were interviewed. We should exert caution in generalising to these groups. Future work: To include development, implementation and evaluation of a national policy plan (and practice guidance plan) to promote the uptake of immunisation among Traveller communities

Health Equity Indicators for the English NHS: a longitudinal whole-population study at the small-area level

Background: Inequalities in health-care access and outcomes raise concerns about quality of care and justice, and the NHS has a statutory duty to consider reducing them. Objectives: The objectives were to (1) develop indicators of socioeconomic inequality in health-care access and outcomes at different stages of the patient pathway; (2) develop methods for monitoring local NHS equity performance in tackling socioeconomic health-care inequalities; (3) track the evolution of socioeconomic health-care inequalities in the 2000s; and (4) develop ‘equity dashboards’ for communicating equity findings to decision-makers in a clear and concise format. Design: Longitudinal whole-population study at the small-area level. Setting: England from 2001/2 to 2011/12. Participants: A total of 32,482 small-area neighbourhoods (lower-layer super output areas) of approximately 1500 people. Main outcome measures: Slope index of inequality gaps between the most and least deprived neighbourhoods in England, adjusted for need or risk, for (1) patients per family doctor, (2) primary care quality, (3) inpatient hospital waiting time, (4) emergency hospitalisation for chronic ambulatory care-sensitive conditions, (5) repeat emergency hospitalisation in the same year, (6) dying in hospital, (7) mortality amenable to health care and (8) overall mortality. Data sources: Practice-level workforce data from the general practice census (indicator 1), practice-level Quality and Outcomes Framework data (indicator 2), inpatient hospital data from Hospital Episode Statistics (indicators 3–6) and mortality data from the Office for National Statistics (indicators 6–8). Results: Between 2004/5 and 2011/12, more deprived neighbourhoods gained larger absolute improvements on all indicators except waiting time, repeat hospitalisation and dying in hospital. In 2011/12, there was little measurable inequality in primary care supply and quality, but inequality was associated with 171,119 preventable hospitalisations and 41,123 deaths amenable to health care. In 2011/12, > 20% of Clinical Commissioning Groups performed statistically significantly better or worse than the England equity benchmark. Limitations: General practitioner supply is a limited measure of primary care access, need in deprived neighbourhoods may be underestimated because of a lack of data on multimorbidity, and the quality and outcomes indicators capture only one aspect of primary care quality. Health-care outcomes are adjusted for age and sex but not for other risk factors that contribute to unequal health-care outcomes and may be outside the control of the NHS, so they overestimate the extent of inequality for which the NHS can reasonably be held responsible. Conclusions: NHS actions can have a measurable impact on socioeconomic inequality in both health-care access and outcomes. Reducing inequality in health-care outcomes is more challenging than reducing inequality of access to health care. Local health-care equity monitoring against a national benchmark can be performed using any administrative geography comprising ≥ 100,000 people

Workplace wellness using online learning tools in a healthcare setting

The aim was to develop and evaluate an online learning tool for use with UK healthcare employees, healthcare educators and healthcare students, to increase knowledge of workplace wellness as an important public health issue. A ‘Workplace Wellness’ e-learning tool was developed and peer-reviewed by 14 topic experts. This focused on six key areas relating to workplace wellness: work-related stress, musculoskeletal disorders, diet and nutrition, physical activity, smoking and alcohol consumption. Each key area provided current evidence-based information on causes and consequences, access to UK government reports and national statistics, and guidance on actions that could be taken to improve health within a workplace setting. 188 users (93.1% female, age 18–60) completed online knowledge questionnaires before (n = 188) and after (n = 88) exposure to the online learning tool. Baseline knowledge of workplace wellness was poor (n = 188; mean accuracy 47.6%, s.d. 11.94). Knowledge significantly improved from baseline to post-intervention (mean accuracy = 77.5%, s.d. 13.71) (t(75) = −14.801, p < 0.0005) with knowledge increases evident for all included topics areas. Usability evaluation showed that participants perceived the tool to be useful (96.4%), engaging (73.8%) and would recommend it to others (86.9%). Healthcare professionals, healthcare educators and pre-registered healthcare students held positive attitudes towards online learning, indicating scope for development of further online packages relating to other important health parameters

Accessibility and implementation in the UK NHS services of an effective depression relapse prevention programme:learning from mindfulness-based cognitive therapy through a mixed-methods study

Background: Depression affects as many as one in five people in their lifetime and often runs a recurrent lifetime course. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) is an effective psychosocial approach that aims to help people at risk of depressive relapse to learn skills to stay well. However, there is an ‘implementation cliff’: access to those who could benefit from MBCT is variable and little is known about why that is the case, and how to promote sustainable implementation. As such, this study fills a gap in the literature about the implementation of MBCT. Objectives: To describe the existing provision of MBCT in the UK NHS, develop an understanding of the perceived costs and benefits of MBCT implementation, and explore the barriers and critical success factors for enhanced accessibility. We aimed to synthesise the evidence from multiple data sources to create an explanatory framework of the how and why of implementation, and to co-develop an implementation resource with key stakeholders. Design: A two-phase qualitative, exploratory and explanatory study, which was conceptually underpinned by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework. Setting: UK NHS services. Methods: Phase 1 involved interviews with participants from 40 areas across the UK about the current provision of MBCT. Phase 2 involved 10 case studies purposively sampled with differing degrees of MBCT provision, and from each UK country. Case study methods included interviews with key stakeholders, including commissioners, managers, MBCT practitioners and teachers, and service users. Observations were conducted and key documents were also collected. Data were analysed using a modified approach to framework analysis. Emerging findings were verified through stakeholder discussions and workshops. Results: Phase 1: access to and the format of MBCT provision across the NHS remains variable. NHS services have typically adapted MBCT to their context and its integration into care pathways was also highly variable even within the same trust or health board. Participants’ accounts revealed stories of implementation journeys that were driven by committed individuals that were sometimes met by management commitment. Phase 2: a number of explanations emerged that explained successful implementation. Critically, facilitation was the central role of the MBCT implementers, who were self-designated individuals who ‘championed’ implementation, created networks and over time mobilised top-down organisational support. Our explanatory framework mapped out a prototypical implementation journey, often over many years. This involved implementers working through grassroots initiatives and over time mobilising top-down organisational support, and a continual fitting of evidence, with the MBCT intervention, contextual factors and the training/supervision of MBCT teachers. Key pivot points in the journey provided windows of challenge or opportunity. Limitations: The findings are largely based on informants’ accounts and, therefore, are at risk of the bias of self-reporting. Conclusions: Although access to MBCT across the UK is improving, it remains very patchy. This study provides an explanatory framework that helps us understand what facilitates and supports sustainable MBCT implementation. Future work: The framework and stakeholder workshops are being used to develop online implementation guidance

The Community IntraVenous Antibiotic Study (CIVAS): a mixed methods evaluation of patient preferences for and cost effectiveness of different service models for delivering outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy

Background: Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is widely used in most developed countries, providing considerable opportunities for improved cost savings. However, it is implemented only partially in the UK, using a variety of service models. Objectives: The aims of this research were to (1) establish the extent of OPAT service models in England and identify their development; (2) evaluate patients’ preferences for different OPAT service delivery models; (3) assess the cost-effectiveness of different OPAT service delivery models; and (4) convene a consensus panel to consider our evidence and make recommendations. Methods: This mixed-methods study included seven centres providing OPAT using four main service models: (1) hospital outpatient (HO) attendance; (2) specialist nurse (SN) visiting at home; (3) general nurse (GN) visiting at home; and (4) self-administration (SA) or carer administration. Health-care providers were surveyed and interviewed to explore the implementation of OPAT services in England. OPAT patients were interviewed to determine key service attributes to develop a discrete choice experiment (DCE). This was used to perform a quantitative analysis of their preferences and attitudes. Anonymised OPAT case data were used to model cost-effectiveness with both Markov and simulation modelling methods. An expert panel reviewed the evidence and made recommendations for future service provision and further research. Results: The systematic review revealed limited robust literature but suggested that HO is least effective and SN is most effective. Qualitative study participants felt that different models of care were suited to different types of patient and they also identified key service attributes. The DCE indicated that type of service was the most important factor, with SN being strongly preferred to HO and SA. Preferences were influenced by attitudes to health care. The results from both Markov and simulation models suggest that a SN model is the optimal service for short treatment courses (up to 7 days). Net monetary benefit (NMB) values for HO, GN and SN services were £2493, £2547 and £2655, respectively. For longer treatment, SA appears to be optimal, although SNs provide slightly higher benefits at increased cost. NMB values for HO, GN, SN and SA services were £8240, £9550, £10,388 and £10,644, respectively. The simulation model provided useful information for planning OPAT services. The expert panel requested more guidance for service providers and commissioners. Overall, they agreed that mixed service models were preferable. Limitations: Recruitment to the qualitative study was suboptimal in the very elderly and ethnic minorities, so the preferences of patients from these groups might not be represented. The study recruited from Yorkshire, so the findings may not be applicable nationally. Conclusions: The quantitative preference analysis and economic modelling favoured a SN model, although there are differences between sociodemographic groups. SA provides cost savings for long-term treatment but is not appropriate for all. Future work: Further research is necessary to replicate our results in other regions and populations and to evaluate mixed service models. The simulation modelling and DCE methods used here may be applicable in other health-care settings. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Service and Delivery Research programme

Screening for glucose intolerance and development of a lifestyle education programme for prevention of Type 2 diabetes in a population with intellectual disabilities

Background: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is believed to be higher among people with intellectual disability (ID) than in the general population. However, research on prevalence and prevention in this population is limited. Objectives: The objectives of this programme of work were to establish a programme of research that would significantly enhance the knowledge and understanding of impaired glucose regulation (IGR) and T2DM in people with ID; to test strategies for the early identification of IGR and T2DM in people with ID; and to develop a lifestyle education programme and educator training protocol to promote behaviour change in a population with ID and IGR (or at a high risk of T2DM/CVD). Setting: Leicestershire, UK. Participants: Adults with ID were recruited from community settings, including residential homes and family homes. Adults with mild to moderate ID who had an elevated body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 25 kg/m2 and/or IGR were invited to take part in the education programme. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the screening programme was the prevalence of screen-detected T2DM and IGR. The uptake, feasibility and acceptability of the intervention were assessed. Data sources: Participants were recruited from general practices, specialist ID services and clinics, and through direct contact. Results: A total of 930 people with ID were recruited to the screening programme: 58% were male, 80% were white and 68% were overweight or obese. The mean age of participants was 43.3 years (standard deviation 14.2 years). Bloods were obtained for 675 participants (73%). The prevalence of previously undiagnosed T2DM was 1.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5% to 2%] and of IGR was 5% (95% CI 4% to 7%). Abnormal IGR was more common in those of non-white ethnicity; those with a first-degree family history of diabetes; those with increasing weight, waist circumference, BMI, diastolic blood pressure or triglycerides; and those with lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. We developed a lifestyle educational programme for people with ID, informed by findings from qualitative stakeholder interviews (health-care professionals, n = 14; people with ID, n = 7) and evidence reviews. Subsequently, 11 people with ID (and carers) participated in pilot education sessions (two groups) and five people attended education for the feasibility stage (one group). We found that it was feasible to collect primary outcome measures on physical activity and sedentary behaviour using wrist-worn accelerometers. We found that the programme was relatively costly, meaning that large changes in activity or diet (or a reduction in programme costs) would be necessary for the programme to be cost-effective. We also developed a quality development process for assessing intervention fidelity. Limitations: We were able to screen only around 30% of the population and involved only a small number in the piloting and feasibility work. Conclusions: The results from this programme of work have significantly enhanced the existing knowledge and understanding of T2DM and IGR in people with ID. We have developed a lifestyle education programme and educator training protocol to promote behaviour change in this population. Future work: Further work is needed to evaluate the STOP Diabetes intervention to identify cost-effective strategies for its implementation

Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin monotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes: systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: Most people with type 2 diabetes are overweight, so initial treatment is aimed at reducing weight and increasing physical activity. Even modest weight loss can improve control of blood glucose. If drug treatment is necessary, the drug of first choice is metformin. However, some people cannot tolerate metformin, which causes diarrhoea in about 10%, and it cannot be used in people with renal impairment. This review appraises three of the newest class of drugs for monotherapy when metformin cannot be used, the sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Objective: To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Luton, UK), canagliflozin (Invokana, Janssen, High Wycombe, UK) and empagliflozin (Jardiance, Merck & Co., Darmstadt, Germany), in monotherapy in people who cannot take metformin. Sources: MEDLINE (1946 to February 2015) and EMBASE (1974 to February 2015) for randomised controlled trials lasting 24 weeks or more. For adverse events, a wider range of studies was used. Three manufacturers provided submissions. Methods: Systematic review and economic evaluation. A network meta-analysis was carried out involving the three SGLT2 inhibitors and key comparators. Critical appraisal of submissions from three manufacturers. Results: We included three trials of dapagliflozin and two each for canagliflozin and empagliflozin. The trials were of good quality. The canagliflozin and dapagliflozin trials compared them with placebo, but the two empagliflozin trials included active comparators. All three drugs were shown to be effective in improving glycaemic control, promoting weight loss and lowering blood pressure (BP). Limitations: There were no head-to-head trials of the different flozins, and no long-term data on cardiovascular outcomes in this group of patients. Most trials were against placebo. The trials were done in patient groups that were not always comparable, for example in baseline glycated haemoglobin or body mass index. Data on elderly patients were lacking. Conclusions: Dapagliflozin, canagliflozin and empagliflozin are effective in improving glycaemic control, with added benefits of some reductions in BP and weight. Adverse effects are urinary and genital tract infections in a small proportion of users. In monotherapy, the three drugs do not appear cost-effective compared with gliclazide or pioglitazone, but may be competitive against sitagliptin (Januvia, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bracknell, UK). Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme