A meta-ethnography of participatory health research and co-production in Nepal

As global health research seeks to decolonialise, democratise, and become more culturally engaging, researchers are increasingly employing participatory and co-productive methods. Working from post-structural perspectives, this meta-ethnographic review explores how such health research in Nepal engages with the epistemological, methodological, and ethical questions it encounters. Five databases including Nepalese NepJOL were searched for studies from inception to March 2021. The review included seven studies covering women's group co-production, interviews guided by photo-elicitation, observational methods to explore maternal and child health, mental health, and environmental determinants of health. This meta-ethnography identified that, against the background of a pluralist heritage of health practices, global collaborations involving Nepali researchers and practitioners used participatory research methodology to work with the local populations to improve health and co-production seek primarily to promote Western biomedical and psychosocial interventions. Both advantages and disadvantages were acknowledged. Empirical verification and global acceptance of Western biomedical and psychosocial knowledge were seen as beneficial. Moreover, Western biomedicine was perceived by some as more effective than some local practices in improving health; nevertheless, Nepal faces many challenges that neither can address. For participatory and co-productive approaches to become epistemologically enculturated within Nepali health research, researchers need to co-develop more local models and methods which are culturally sensitive and appropriate. Meaningful and effective participatory research can promote active involvement of people who deliver as well as people who use the community-based health care support. These are crucial to optimise sustainable change that global health research partnerships set out to achieve. This meta-ethnography recommends that researchers engage at a deeper level with the epistemological differences between themselves and the communities with whom they seek partnership. Cross-cultural research teams should discuss and address the power differentials which might affect them

Systematic review on the effects of the physical and social aspects of the community pharmacy environment on pharmacy patients' and staffs' engagement with pharmacy health services

Systematic review on the effects of the physical and social aspects of the community pharmacy environment on pharmacy patients' and staffs' engagement with pharmacy health services. Review question - What study designs are used to investigate the physical and social aspects of the community pharmacy environment? - What are pharmacy patients' and staffs' experiences of the physical and social aspects of the community pharmacy environment when accessing or delivering pharmacy health services? - What barriers and enablers, relating to the community pharmacy environment, do pharmacy patients and staff experience; and possible health, social or professional implications of this

Community pharmacist led medication reviews in the UK: a scoping review of the medicines use review and the new medicine service literatures

Background: Medicines Use Reviews (MURs) and the New Medicine Service (NMS) are services delivered by UK community pharmacists to improve adherence, improve patient understanding of their medicines and reduce medicines wastage. Aim: In this scoping review we aim to identify, map and critically examine the nature of existing empirical evidence in peer reviewed journals relating to MUR and NMS consultations. Method: Systematic searches identified the available MUR and NMS empirical literature. We sought data on barriers and facilitators to conducting MUR or NMS consultations, the perceptions of pharmacists and patients, the conduct of consultations, and outcomes of consultations. Searches from 2005 (when MURs were introduced) to May 2018 were conducted in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and Scopus databases. Data were extracted into Excel for examination of study characteristics, participant characteristics, type of intervention/services delivered and key study quantitative and/or qualitative findings. Results: Forty-one papers from 37 studies met the inclusion criteria: 28 papers were of MURs, 10 of NMS and 3 for both services. Studies focused on the introduction and implementation of these services, with little attention to outcomes for patients; effectiveness was not evaluated beyond in a single NMS RCT. Observational data indicated that pharmacists and patients view MURs and the NMS positively, despite challenges implementing these services and apparent lack of communication between pharmacists and GPs. Consultations were reported to be short, typically 10-12 minutes, characterised by limited engagement with patients and their health problems. The extent and nature of advice on health behaviours during consultations or other content was rarely examined. Conclusion: The research literature on MURs and the NMS has developed slowly. There is much scope for further research attention to developing more patient-centred care

Service Users’ Views and Experiences of Alcohol Relapse Prevention Treatment and Adherence: New Role for Pharmacists?

Aims: To understand service users' views and experiences of alcohol relapse prevention medication, views of a telephone behavioural modification intervention delivered by pharmacists and the use of Contingency Management (CM) to support acamprosate adherence following assisted alcohol withdrawal. // Methods: Four focus groups were conducted within four alcohol treatment and recovery groups across England (UK), with service users with lived experience of alcohol dependence (26 participants). Semi-structured topic guide was used to explore participants' views and experiences of alcohol relapse prevention medication, a telephone behavioural modification medication intervention delivered by pharmacists, and the use of CM to support acamprosate adherence. These were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed inductively and deductively. // Results: Four themes were identified: concerns about support and availability of alcohol relapse prevention medication; lack of knowledge and understanding about acamprosate treatment; positive perceptions of acamprosate adherence telephone support from pharmacists; and negative perceptions of CM to support acamprosate adherence. There were misunderstandings about acamprosate's mode of action and strong negative beliefs about CM. However, most were positive about pharmacists' new role to support acamprosate adherence. // Conclusion: This study highlighted challenges service users face to commence alcohol relapse prevention medication. It appears service users could benefit from a pharmacist-led telephone intervention to improve understanding about acamprosate medication, particularly, if delivered in an engaging and motivating way

Service Users’ Views and Experiences of Alcohol Relapse Prevention Treatment and Adherence: New Role for Pharmacists?

Aims: To understand service users’ views and experiences of alcohol relapse prevention medication, views of a telephone behaviouralmodification intervention delivered by pharmacists and the use of Contingency Management (CM) to support acamprosate adherence following assisted alcohol withdrawal.Methods: Four focus groups were conducted within four alcohol treatment and recovery groups across England (UK), with service users with lived experience of alcohol dependence (26 participants). Semi-structured topic guide was used to explore participants’ views and experiences of alcohol relapse prevention medication, a telephone behavioural modification medication intervention delivered by pharmacists, and the use of CM to support acamprosate adherence. These were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed inductively and deductively.Results: Four themes were identified: concerns about support and availability of alcohol relapse prevention medication; lack of knowledge and understanding about acamprosate treatment; positive perceptions of acamprosate adherence telephone support from pharmacists; and negative perceptions of CM to support acamprosate adherence. There were misunderstandings about acamprosate’s mode of action and strong negative beliefs about CM. However, most were positive about pharmacists’ new role to support acamprosate adherence.Conclusion: This study highlighted challenges service users face to commence alcohol relapse prevention medication. It appears service users could benefit from a pharmacist-led telephone intervention to improve understanding about acamprosate medication, particularly, if delivered in an engaging and motivating way

Effectiveness of alcohol brief intervention delivered by community pharmacists: study protocol of a two-arm randomised controlled trial

Background: There is strong evidence to support the effectiveness of Brief Intervention (BI) in reducing alcohol consumption in primary healthcare. Methods and design: This study is a two-arm randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of BI delivered by community pharmacists in their pharmacies. Eligible and consenting participants (aged 18 years or older) will be randomised in equal numbers to either a BI delivered by 17 community pharmacists or a non-intervention control condition. The intervention will be a brief motivational discussion to support a reduction in alcohol consumption and will take approximately 10 minutes to deliver. Participants randomised to the control arm will be given an alcohol information leaflet with no opportunity for discussion. Study pharmacists will be volunteers who respond to an invitation to participate, sent to all community pharmacists in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Participating pharmacists will receive 7 hours training on trial procedures and the delivery of BI. Pharmacy support staff will also receive training (4 hours) on how to approach and inform pharmacy customers about the study, with formal trial recruitment undertaken by the pharmacist in a consultation room. At three month follow up, alcohol consumption and related problems will be assessed with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) administered by telephone. Discussion: The UK Department of Health’s stated aim is to involve community pharmacists in the delivery of BI to reduce alcohol harms. This will be the first RCT study to assess the effectiveness of BI delivered by community pharmacists. Given this policy context, it is pragmatic in design. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95216873

Effect of digital psychoeducation and peer support on the mental health of family carers supporting individuals with psychosis in England (COPe-support): a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Psychoeducation delivered face-to-face is effective in alleviating mental health morbidities in family carers of individuals with psychosis. However, research in such interventions delivered online is scarce. We evaluated the effectiveness of a digital multicomponent intervention-COPe-support-in improving carers' mental wellbeing and caregiving-related outcomes. METHODS: In this two-arm, individually randomised, superiority trial, people aged 18 years or older who provided at least weekly support in any format for a relative or close friend affected by psychosis across England were randomly assigned (1:1) to either COPe-support or a passive online information resource using an independent online system. Participants were recruited through 30 mental health UK National Health Service trusts. The study team were masked to allocation and assessment of outcomes as all data collection took place online. Participants had access to either condition for 40 weeks and were advised to spend at least half an hour per week over the initial 20 weeks to go through materials at their own pace and to allow time to integrate knowledge and skills learned into practice. It was not feasible to mask participants or the online facilitator to intervention allocation. COPe-support provided psychoeducation on psychosis-related caregiving strategies and forums with professionals and other carers, and the control intervention comprised a passive online information resource. The primary outcome at 20 weeks was mental wellbeing measured by the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS; minimally clinically important difference [MCID] 3). This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 89563420. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2018, and Feb 14, 2020, 407 participants were randomly assigned, with 204 allocated to COPe-support and 203 allocated to control. The participants (mean age 53·1 years, SD 13·2) were mostly female (330 [81%] of 407 participants) and White (359 [88%] of 407 participants). 346 (85%) of 407 participants provided primary endpoint data, 174 (85%) of 204 participants in the COPe-support group and 172 (85%) of 203 participants in the control group. The mean WEMWBS score at 20 weeks was 44·5 (SD 8·31) for the COPe-support group and 43·3 (9·19) for the control group. We found no evidence of a difference in wellbeing between the two groups (adjusted mean difference 0·37, 95% CI -1·14 to 1·88; p=0·63). In the COPe-support group, 106 (52%) of 204 participants met the complier definition of a minimum of two logins in separate weeks. The complier average causal effect analysis increased the difference in WEMWBS scores (adjusted difference 0·83, 95% CI -1·45 to 3·11; p=0·47), but this was lower than the MCID. There were no adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Our findings did not support the use of COPe-support over a passive online information resource. However, further research to optimise digital interventions adjunctive to face-to-face support for carers remains important. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research

Adjunctive Medication Management and Contingency Management to enhance adherence to acamprosate for alcohol dependence: the ADAM trial RCT

BackgroundAcamprosate is an effective and cost-effective medication for alcohol relapse prevention but poor adherence can limit its full benefit. Effective interventions to support adherence to acamprosate are therefore needed.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness of Medication Management, with and without Contingency Management, compared to Standard Support alone in enhancing adherence to acamprosate and the impact of adherence to acamprosate on abstinence and reduced alcohol consumption.DesignMulticentre, three-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled clinical trial.SettingSpecialist alcohol treatment services in five regions of England (South East London, Central and North West London, Wessex, Yorkshire and Humber and West Midlands).ParticipantsAdults (aged 18 years or more), an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of alcohol dependence, abstinent from alcohol at baseline assessment, in receipt of a prescription for acamprosate.Interventions(1) Standard Support, (2) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management provided by pharmacists via a clinical contact centre (12 sessions over 6 months), (3) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management plus Contingency Management that consisted of vouchers (up to £120) to reinforce participation in Medication Management. Consenting participants were randomised in a 2 : 1 : 1 ratio to one of the three groups using a stratified random permuted block method using a remote system. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome: self-reported percentage of medication taken in the previous 28 days at 6 months post randomisation. Economic outcome: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, a five-level version, used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years, with costs estimated using the Adult Service Use Schedule.ResultsOf the 1459 potential participants approached, 1019 (70%) were assessed and 739 (73 consented to participate in the study, 372 (50%) were allocated to Standard Support, 182 (25%) to Standard Support with Medication Management and 185 (25%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. Data were available for 518 (70%) of participants at 6-month follow-up, 255 (68.5%) allocated to Standard Support, 122 (67.0%) to Standard Support and Medication Management and 141 (76.2%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. The mean difference of per cent adherence to acamprosate was higher for those who received Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management (10.6%, 95% confidence interval 19.6% to 1.6%) compared to Standard Support alone, at the primary end point (6-month follow-up). There was no significant difference in per cent days adherent when comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support alone 3.1% (95% confidence interval 12.8% to −6.5%) or comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management 7.9% (95% confidence interval 18.7% to −2.8%). The primary economic analysis at 6 months found that Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management was cost-effective compared to Standard Support alone, achieving small gains in quality-adjusted life-years at a lower cost per participant. Cost-effectiveness was not observed for adjunctive Medication Management compared to Standard Support alone. There were no serious adverse events related to the trial interventions reported.LimitationsThe trial’s primary outcome measure changed substantially due to data collection difficulties and therefore relied on a measure of self-reported adherence. A lower than anticipated follow-up rate at 12 months may have lowered the statistical power to detect differences in the secondary analyses, although the primary analysis was not impacted.ConclusionsMedication Management enhanced with Contingency Management is beneficial to patients for supporting them to take acamprosate

Adjunctive Medication Management and Contingency Management to enhance adherence to acamprosate for alcohol dependence: the ADAM trial RCT

BACKGROUND: Acamprosate is an effective and cost-effective medication for alcohol relapse prevention but poor adherence can limit its full benefit. Effective interventions to support adherence to acamprosate are therefore needed. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of Medication Management, with and without Contingency Management, compared to Standard Support alone in enhancing adherence to acamprosate and the impact of adherence to acamprosate on abstinence and reduced alcohol consumption. DESIGN: Multicentre, three-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Specialist alcohol treatment services in five regions of England (South East London, Central and North West London, Wessex, Yorkshire and Humber and West Midlands). PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged 18 years or more), an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of alcohol dependence, abstinent from alcohol at baseline assessment, in receipt of a prescription for acamprosate. INTERVENTIONS: (1) Standard Support, (2) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management provided by pharmacists via a clinical contact centre (12 sessions over 6 months), (3) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management plus Contingency Management that consisted of vouchers (up to £120) to reinforce participation in Medication Management. Consenting participants were randomised in a 2 : 1 : 1 ratio to one of the three groups using a stratified random permuted block method using a remote system. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: self-reported percentage of medication taken in the previous 28 days at 6 months post randomisation. Economic outcome: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, a five-level version, used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years, with costs estimated using the Adult Service Use Schedule. RESULTS: Of the 1459 potential participants approached, 1019 (70%) were assessed and 739 (73 consented to participate in the study, 372 (50%) were allocated to Standard Support, 182 (25%) to Standard Support with Medication Management and 185 (25%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. Data were available for 518 (70%) of participants at 6-month follow-up, 255 (68.5%) allocated to Standard Support, 122 (67.0%) to Standard Support and Medication Management and 141 (76.2%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. The mean difference of per cent adherence to acamprosate was higher for those who received Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management (10.6%, 95% confidence interval 19.6% to 1.6%) compared to Standard Support alone, at the primary end point (6-month follow-up). There was no significant difference in per cent days adherent when comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support alone 3.1% (95% confidence interval 12.8% to -6.5%) or comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management 7.9% (95% confidence interval 18.7% to -2.8%). The primary economic analysis at 6 months found that Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management was cost-effective compared to Standard Support alone, achieving small gains in quality-adjusted life-years at a lower cost per participant. Cost-effectiveness was not observed for adjunctive Medication Management compared to Standard Support alone. There were no serious adverse events related to the trial interventions reported. LIMITATIONS: The trial's primary outcome measure changed substantially due to data collection difficulties and therefore relied on a measure of self-reported adherence. A lower than anticipated follow-up rate at 12 months may have lowered the statistical power to detect differences in the secondary analyses, although the primary analysis was not impacted. CONCLUSIONS: Medication Management enhanced with Contingency Management is beneficial to patients for supporting them to take acamprosate. FUTURE WORK: Given our findings in relation to Contingency Management enhancing Medication Management adherence, future trials should be developed to explore its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness with other alcohol interventions where there is evidence of poor adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN17083622 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17083622. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Alcohol screening and brief intervention by community pharmacists: benefits and communication methods

Within the context of services to prevent or treat alcohol-related problems, the terms 'alcohol screening' and 'brief intervention', include all practices used to identify a real or potential alcohol problem, and motivate individuals to take positive action to promote health. Alcohol misuse and dependence affect 8.2 million adults in England, leading to an estimated cost to society of £20bn per annum. Alcohol misuse is now the third leading cause of ill health after tobacco use and high blood pressure. During the past 20 years, randomised controlled trials of brief interventions have been conducted in diverse practice settings. These have included hospital accident and emergency services, medical inpatients units and primary healthcare settings, such as General Practitioner (GP) surgeries. Currently there are no established services or training opportunities in the UK, for community pharmacists to engage in managing alcohol-related problems. It is well known that community pharmacies allow the general public to seek healthcare advice. The potential benefits of preventing alcohol problems through pharmacists' involvement in brief intervention have yet to be measured and further research is required. This paper therefore aims to explore the following questions: What is the evidence for brief intervention and commutation methodology in public health? How can community pharmacists be involved in conducting brief alcohol intervention? What would be a good practice guide for pharmacists to communicate safe drinking advice to harmful and or hazardous drinkers, accessing community pharmacy services? How could the potential benefits of brief intervention led by community pharmacists be measured