Feeling the clunk: Managing and attributing uncertainty in screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in infancy

This is the final version. Available on open access from Elsevier via the DOI in this recordThe management of uncertainty in clinical practice has been an enduring topic of sociological scholarship. However, little of this addresses how uncertainty and non-knowledge are attributed to the self and other actors. We take the example of checking for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), part of infant screening in UK primary care, to examine the ‘double contingency’ of attributions of uncertainty and ignorance. Our data come from interviews with parents and General Practitioners (GPs), and observations of the six-week check conducted as part of a study to develop a checklist to aid GPs' diagnostic and referral decisions. Parents' pervasive uncertainties about managing with a new-born infant place them in a trusting relation to biomedicine, in which knowledge about infant hips is delegated to the clinical team: most described themselves as not-knowing about DDH. GPs focus on the uncertainties of applying sensory and experiential knowledge of infant bodies, in a consultation with more diffuse aims than screening for DDH. A prototype checklist, developed by orthopaedic specialists, was an explicit attempt to reduce uncertainty around thresholds for referral. However, using the checklist surfaced multiple logics of uncertainty. It also surfaced attributions of uncertainty and non-knowledge to other actors: orthopaedic specialists' assumptions about GPs' uncertain technical knowledge; GPs' assumptions about orthopaedic specialists' ignorance of the primary care setting; and clinicians' assumptions about the role of parental ignorance. This ‘double contingency’ of attributions of other actors' non-knowledge is a salient additional dimension to the uncertainty that infuses biomedical practice.Wellcome TrustNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR

Parents' expectations and experiences of the 6-week baby check: a qualitative study in primary care

This s the final published version, available from Royal College of General Practitioners via the DOI in this recordBackground: The Newborn and Infant Physical Examination (NIPE) programme requires all babies to have a comprehensive health check at 6-8 weeks of age. These are typically completed by GPs. Although person-centred care has achieved prominence in maternity care policy in recent years, there is limited empirical evidence on what parents and/or carers expect from the check, and how far experiences meet their needs. Aim: To explore the expectations and experiences of parents attending their GP for a baby check. Design & setting: A qualitative study was undertaken in primary care in London. Method: Content analysis was undertaken of transcripts of semi-structured interviews. Interviews were conducted with a total of 16 participants (14 mothers and two fathers) who had recently attended for a 6-week check for their baby. Results: Despite the availability of plentiful sources of general advice on infants' health and development, a thorough check by a trusted GP was an important milestone for most parents. They had few specific expectations of the check in terms of what examinations were undertaken, but even experienced parents anticipated reassurance about their baby's normal development. Many also hoped for reassurance about their own parenting. Parents appreciated GPs who explained what they were doing during the examination; space to raise any concerns; and combined mother and baby checks. Referrals to secondary care were generally experienced as reassuring rather than a source of anxiety. Conclusion: The baby check meets needs beyond those of the NIPE screening programme. Protecting the time for a thorough consultation is important for parents at what can be a vulnerable time.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR

Improving uptake and completion of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD with lay health workers: feasibility of a clinical trial

This paper presents independent research funded by the NIHR under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0214-30052)

Sick leave and work disability in patients with early arthritis

We studied the occurrence of sick leave and work disability, the presence of workplace adaptations and the usage of professional guidance related to working problems in patients with early arthritis. Inclusion criteria were arthritis symptoms of less than 2 years duration and a paid job at the time of diagnosis. Assessments were done in connection with an early arthritis clinic (EAC) at entry into the cohort and 12 months thereafter by means of a questionnaire comprising questions on sick leave (absenteeism from work reported to the employer), work disability (receiving a full or partial work disability pension), unemployment, work adaptations and professional guidance related to working problems. Fifty-seven of the 69 participants (83%) had an arthritis symptom duration of <6 months. The number of patients with sick leave due to arthritis in the past 12 months decreased from 28 (41%) at study entry to 18 (26%) after 12 months of follow-up. The number of patients receiving a work disability pension increased from 5 (7%) at study entry to 13 (19%) after 12 months of follow-up (10 partial and 3 full). Sick leave in the 12 months before study entry appeared to be the most important predictor of the institution or increase in a work disability pension (odds ratio, 16.1; 95%CI, 1.8–142.8). Between study entry and follow-up, the number of patients with workplace adaptations increased from 20 (29%) to 28 (42%), whereas the number of patients receiving vocational guidance decreased from 48 (70%) to 36 (52%). In patients with early arthritis and a paid job, arthritis-related sick leave was common and occurred in part before patients entered the EAC and a diagnosis was made. About 20% of the patients became permanently work disabled, with partial work disability being more common than full work disability. Considerable proportions of patients received workplace adaptations and professional guidance with working problems

Genital ulcer severity score and genital health quality of life in Behçet's disease

Background: Behçet's Disease (BD) is a chronic auto-inflammatory, multisystem relapsing/remitting disorder of unknown aetiology. Oro-genital ulceration is a key feature of the disease and has a major impact on the patients' quality of life. Other clinical manifestations include ocular inflammation, rheumatologic and skin involvement, while CNS and vascular complications can lead to considerable morbidity. The availability of a valid monitoring tool for BD activity is crucial in evaluating the impact of the disease on daily life activity. The aims of this study were to validate a novel tool for monitoring genital ulceration severity in BD and to assess the impact of genital ulcers on the Genital Health Quality of Life (GHQoL). Methods: Genital Ulcer Severity Score (GUSS) was developed using six genital ulcer characteristics: number, size, duration, ulcer-free period, pain and site. A total of 207 BD patients were examined, (137 females: mean age∈±∈SD: 39.83∈±∈13.42 and 70 males: mean age∈±∈SD: 39.98∈±∈11.95) from the multidisciplinary Behçet's Centre of Excellence at Barts Health NHS Trust. GUSS was used in conjunction with Behçet's Disease Current Activity Form (BDCAF). Results: The over-all score of GUSS showed a strong correlation with all genital ulcer characteristics, and the strongest correlation was with the pain domain (r∈=∈0.936; P∈2: 0.600; P∈<∈0.0001). Conclusions: This study established the practicality of GUSS as a severity monitoring tool for BD genital ulcers and validated its use in 207 patients. Genital ulcers of BD have a considerable impact on the patients GHQoL

An intervention program with the aim to improve and maintain work productivity for workers with rheumatoid arthritis: design of a randomized controlled trial and cost-effectiveness study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Workers with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) often experience restrictions in functioning at work and participation in employment. Strategies to maintain work productivity exist, but these interventions do not involve the actual workplace. Therefore the aim of this study is to investigate the (cost)effectiveness of an intervention program at the workplace on work productivity for workers with RA.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>This study is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in specialized rheumatology treatment centers in or near Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Randomisation to either the control or the intervention group is performed at patient level. Both groups will receive care as usual by the rheumatologist, and patients in the intervention group will also take part in the intervention program. The intervention program consists of two components; integrated care, including a participatory workplace intervention. Integrated care involves a clinical occupational physician, who will act as care manager, to coordinate the care. The care manager has an intermediate role between clinical and occupational care. The participatory workplace intervention will be guided by an occupational therapist, and involves problem solving by the patient and the patients’ supervisor. The aim of the workplace intervention is to achieve consensus between patient and supervisor concerning feasible solutions for the obstacles for functioning at work. Data collection will take place at baseline and after 6 and 12 months by means of a questionnaire. The primary outcome measure is work productivity, measured by hours lost from work due to presenteeism. Secondary outcome measures include sick leave, quality of life, pain and fatigue. Cost-effectiveness of the intervention program will be evaluated from the societal perspective.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Usual care of primary and outpatient health services is not aimed at improving work productivity. Therefore it is desirable to develop interventions aimed at improving functioning at work. If the intervention program will be (cost)effective, substantial improvements in work productivity might be obtained among workers with RA at lower costs. Results are expected in 2015.</p> <p>Trial registration number</p> <p>NTR2886</p

Cross-cultural validation of the Educational Needs Assessment Tool in RA in 7 European countries

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Educational Needs Assessment Tool (the ENAT) is a 39-item patient questionnaire originally developed in the UK to assess educational needs of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objective of this study was to assess the cross-cultural validity of the ENAT in 7 European countries.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The ENAT was translated into Dutch, Finnish, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish versions by using Beaton's cross-cultural adaptation process, and was completed by a convenience sample of patients with RA in each country. The generated country-specific data were assessed for construct validity and were then pooled and assessed for cross-cultural invariance using Rasch analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Individual country-specific analysis showed adequate fit to the Rasch model after adjustment for local dependency within domains. When data from the different countries were pooled, the 39 items deviated significantly from Rasch model's expectations (X²= 977.055, DF = 351, p = 0.000, PSI = 0.976). Again, most items within domains were found to be locally dependent, significantly affecting the fit. Consequently each domain was treated as a unit (i.e. testlet) and the ENAT was re-analysed as a seven-testlet scale resulting into a good fit to the Rasch model (X²= 71.909; DF = 63; p = 0.207, PSI = 0.951). A test of strict unidimensionality confirmed that all domains contributed to measuring a single construct. Cross-cultural non-invariance was discounted by splitting domains for DIF maintaining an excellent fit to the Rasch model. This allowed calibration of the ENAT into an interval scale.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The ENAT is a simple tool, which is a valid measure of educational needs of people with RA. Adjustment for cross-cultural non-invariance is available if data from the 7 European countries are to be pooled or compared.</p

The effect on work presenteeism of job retention vocational rehabilitation compared to a written self-help work advice pack for employed people with inflammatory arthritis: protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (the WORKWELL trial)

Abstract: Background: Work problems are common in people with inflammatory arthritis. Up to 50% stop work within 10 years due to their condition and up to 67% report presenteeism (i.e. reduced work productivity), even amongst those with low disease activity. Job retention vocational rehabilitation (JRVR) may help prevent or postpone job loss and reduce presenteeism through work assessment, work-related rehabilitation and enabling job accommodations. This aims to create a better match between the person’s abilities and their job demands. The objectives of the Workwell trial are to test the overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of JRVR (WORKWELL) provided by additionally trained National Health Service (NHS) occupational therapists compared to a control group who receive self-help information both in addition to usual care. Methods: Based on the learning from a feasibility trial (the WORK-IA trial: ISRCTN76777720), the WORKWELL trial is a multi-centre, pragmatic, individually-randomised parallel group superiority trial, including economic evaluation, contextual factors analysis and process evaluation. Two hundred forty employed adults with rheumatoid arthritis, undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis or psoriatic arthritis (in secondary care), aged 18 years or older with work instability will be randomised to one of two groups: a self-help written work advice pack plus usual care (control intervention); or WORKWELL JRVR plus a self-help written work advice pack and usual care. WORKWELL will be delivered by occupational therapists provided with additional JRVR training from the research team. The primary outcome is presenteeism as measured using the Work Limitations Questionnaire-25. A comprehensive range of secondary outcomes of work, health, contextual factors and health resource use are included. Outcomes are measured at 6- and 12- months (with 12-months as the primary end-point). A multi-perspective within-trial cost-effectiveness analyses will also be conducted. Discussion: This trial will contribute to the evidence base for provision of JRVR to people with inflammatory arthritis. If JRVR is found to be effective in enabling people to keep working, the findings will support decision-making about provision of JRVR by rheumatology teams, therapy services and healthcare commissioners, and providing evidence of the effectiveness of JRVR and the economic impact of its implementation. Trial registration: Clinical Trials.Gov: NCT03942783. Registered 08/05/2019 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03942783); ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN61762297. Registered:13/05/2019 (http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN61762297). Retrospectively registered