Does Choose & Book fail to deliver the expected choice to patients? A survey of patients' experience of outpatient appointment booking

Provisional abstract: Background: Choose and Book is a central part of the UK Government patient choice agenda that seeks to provide patients with a choice over the time, date and place of their first outpatient appointment. This is done through the use of a computerised booking system. After a 2004 pilot study, Choose and Book was formally launched in January 2006. This is the first study of patient experience of Choose and Book since then. Methods: A questionnaire survey of reported experience of choice over the time, data and place of appointment, carried out in a National Health Service hospital in London. 104 patients at their first outpatient appointment completed the questionnaire, consisting of a consecutive series of patients referred through Choose and Book and a sample referred through the conventional booking system. Results: Among the Choose and Book patients, 66% (31/47; 95% CI 52 to 78%) reported not being given a choice of appointment date, 66% (31/47; 95% CI 52 to 78%) reported not being given a choice of appointment time, 86% (37/43; 95% CI 74 to 94%) reported being given a choice of fewer than four hospitals in total and 32% (15/47; 95% CI 20 to 46%) reported not being given any choice of hospital. Conclusions: In this study, patients did not experience the degree of choice that Choose and Book was designed to deliver

A randomised trial of an internet weight control resource: The UK Weight Control Trial [ISRCTN58621669]

BACKGROUND: Obesity treatment is notoriously unsuccessful and one of the barriers to successful weight loss reported by patients is a lack of social support. The Internet offers a novel and fast approach to the delivery of health information, enabling 24-hour access to help and advice. However, much of the health information available on the Internet is unregulated or not written by qualified health professionals to provide unbiased information. The proposed study aims to compare a web-based weight loss package with traditional dietary treatment of obesity in participants. The project aims to deliver high quality information to the patient and to evaluate the effectiveness of this information, both in terms of weight loss outcomes and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: This study is a randomised controlled trial of a weight loss package against usual care provided within General Practice (GP) surgeries in Leeds, UK. Participants will be recruited via posters placed in participating practices. A target recruitment figure of 220 will enable 180 people to be recruited (allowing for 22% dropout). Participants agreeing to take part in the study will be randomly allocated using minimisation to either the intervention group, receiving access to the Internet site, or the usual care group. The primary outcome of the study will be the ability of the package to promote change in BMI over 6 and 12 months compared with traditional treatment. Secondary outcomes will be the ability of the Internet package to promote change in reported lifestyle behaviours. Data will be collected on participant preferences, adherence to treatment, health care use and time off work. Difference in cost between groups in provision of the intervention and the cost of the primary outcome will also be estimated. CONCLUSION: A positive result from this study would enhance the repertoire of treatment approaches available for the management of obesity. A negative result would be used to inform the research agenda and contribute to redefining future strategies for tackling obesity

How to evaluate sexual health in cancer patients:Development of the EORTC sexual health questionnaire for cancer patients

Background: The aim of the study is to describe the development of a comprehensive European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaire to assess sexual health of female and male cancer patients and for cancer survivors. Methods: According to the EORTC guidelines, the development of an EORTC sexual health questionnaire is typically organised in four phases. The first phases comprise a literature search following interviews with patient and health care professionals (HCPs) (phase 1) and the operationalization into items (phase 2). The translation process is formally conducted according to the EORTC QLG Translation guidelines with a rigorous forward-backward procedure supported by native speakers. Results: Studies on sexuality in oncology patients which were identified by a literature search predominantly focused on issues of activity, experiences of sexual dysfunction, and satisfaction with sexual functioning. The literature review identified themes beyond these aspects. In total 53 potentially relevant issues were presented to 107 patients and 83 HCPs, different evaluations were found. Conclusions: A questionnaire that includes physical, psychological, and social aspects of sexuality of cancer survivors will be needed. Pre-testing and validation of the questionnaire will be done in future (phases 3 and 4). Divergent ratings of patients and professionals should be further investigated. Keywords: Cancer; sexual health; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) sexual health questionnair

The acceptability to stakeholders of mandatory nutritional labelling in France and the UK - findings from the PorGrow project

Background: Implementing a European Union (EU)-wide mandatory nutrition labelling scheme has been advocated as part a multi-pronged strategy to tackle obesity. The type of scheme needs to be acceptable to all key stakeholders. This study explored stakeholders¿ viewpoints of labelling in two contrasting food cultures (France and the UK) to see whether attitudes were influenced by sectoral interests and/or national context. Methods: Using Multi Criteria Mapping, a decision analysis tool that assesses stakeholder viewpoints, quantitative and qualitative data were gathered during tape-recorded interviews. In France and the UK, 21 comparable stakeholders appraised nutritional labelling with criteria of their own choosing (i.e. feasibility, societal benefits, social acceptability, efficacy in addressing obesity, additional health benefits) and three criteria relating to cost (to industry; public sector; individuals). When scoring, interviewees provided both optimistic (best case) and pessimistic (worst case) judgements. Results: Overall, mandatory nutritional labelling was appraised least favourably in France. Labelling performed worse under optimistic (best case) scenarios in France, for five out of eight sets of criteria. French stakeholders viewed labelling as expensive, having fewer benefits to society and as being marginally less effective than UK stakeholders did. However, French interviewees thought implementing labelling was feasible and would provide additional health benefits. British and French stakeholders made similar quantitative judgements on how socially acceptable mandatory labelling would be. Conclusions: There is agreement between some stakeholder groups in the two different countries, especially food chain operators. However, cultural differences emerged that could influence the impact of an EU-wide mandatory labelling scheme in both countries