Is it feasible to conduct a randomised controlled trial of pretransplant exercise (prehabilitation) for patients with multiple myeloma awaiting autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation? Protocol for the PREeMPT study

Introduction While myeloma is an incurable malignancy, developments in disease management have led to increased life expectancy in recent years. Treatment typically involves stem-cell transplantation. Increased survival rates equate to more patients living with the burden of both the disease and its treatment for increasing number of years, rendering myeloma a long-term condition. Evidence exists to demonstrate the benefits of exercise for patients recovering from stem-cell transplantation, and prehabilitation—exercise before treatment—has been shown to be effective in other disease areas. To date there has been no research into prehabilitation in patients with myeloma awaiting transplantation treatment. Our objective is to determine whether it is feasible to conduct a randomised controlled trial into pretransplant exercise for patients with multiple myeloma who are awaiting autologous stem-cell transplantation. Methods and analysis This mixed methods study identifies patients with diagnosis of multiple myeloma who have been assigned to the autologous transplantation list and invites them to participate in six weekly sessions of individualised, supervised exercise while awaiting transplantation. Quantitative data to determine feasibility targets include rates of recruitment, adherence and adverse events, and outcome measures including 6 min walking distance test and quality of life. Qualitative interviews are undertaken with a purposive sample of patients to capture their experiences of the study and the intervention. Ethics and dissemination Ethics committee approval has been obtained. Dissemination will be through open-access publications and presentations and will seek to reach multiprofessional bases as well as patients and carer groups, addressing the widespread interest in this area of research. Trial registration number NCT03135925; Pre-results

The challenges of changing national malaria drug policy to artemisinin-based combinations in Kenya

Backgound: Sulphadoxine/sulphalene-pyrimethamine (SP) was adopted in Kenya as first line therapeutic for uncomplicated malaria in 1998. By the second half of 2003, there was convincing evidence that SP was failing and had to be replaced. Despite several descriptive investigations of policy change and implementation when countries moved from chloroquine to SP, the different constraints of moving to artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) in Africa are less well documented. Methods: A narrative description of the process of anti-malarial drug policy change, financing and implementation in Kenya is assembled from discussions with stakeholders, reports, newspaper articles, minutes of meetings and email correspondence between actors in the policy change process. The narrative has been structured to capture the timing of events, the difficulties and hurdles faced and the resolutions reached to the final implementation of a new treatment policy. Results: Following a recognition that SP was failing there was a rapid technical appraisal of available data and replacement options resulting in a decision to adopt artemether-lumefantrine (AL) as the recommended first-line therapy in Kenya, announced in April 2004. Funding requirements were approved by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) and over 60 million US$ were agreed in principle in July 2004 to procure AL and implement the policy change. AL arrived in Kenya in May 2006, distribution to health facilities began in July 2006 coincidental with cascade in-service training in the revised national guidelines. Both training and drug distribution were almost complete by the end of 2006. The article examines why it took over 32 months from announcing a drug policy change to completing early implementation. Reasons included: lack of clarity on sustainable financing of an expensive therapeutic for a common disease, a delay in release of funding, a lack of comparative efficacy data between AL and amodiaquine-based alternatives, a poor dialogue with pharmaceutical companies with a national interest in antimalarial drug supply versus the single sourcing of AL and complex drug ordering, tendering and procurement procedures. Conclusion: Decisions to abandon failing monotherapy in favour of ACT for the treatment of malaria can be achieved relatively quickly. Future policy changes in Africa should be carefully prepared for a myriad of financial, political and legislative issues that might limit the rapid translation of drug policy change into action

A four-year, systems-wide intervention promoting interprofessional collaboration

Background: A four-year action research study was conducted across the Australian Capital Territory health system to strengthen interprofessional collaboration (IPC) through multiple intervention activities. Methods: We developed 272 substantial IPC intervention activities involving 2,407 face-to-face encounters with health system personnel. Staff attitudes toward IPC were surveyed yearly using Heinemann et al’s Attitudes toward Health Care Teams and Parsell and Bligh’s Readiness for Interprofessional Learning scales (RIPLS). At study’s end staff assessed whether project goals were achieved. Results: Of the improvement projects, 76 exhibited progress, and 57 made considerable gains in IPC. Educational workshops and feedback sessions were well received and stimulated interprofessional activities. Over time staff scores on Heinemann’s Quality of Interprofessional Care subscale did not change significantly and scores on the Doctor Centrality subscale increased, contrary to predictions. Scores on the RIPLS subscales of Teamwork & Collaboration and Professional Identity did not alter. On average for the assessment items 33% of staff agreed that goals had been achieved, 10% disagreed, and 57% checked ‘neutral’. There was most agreement that the study had resulted in increased sharing of knowledge between professions and improved quality of patient care, and least agreement that between-professional rivalries had lessened and communication and trust between professions improved. Conclusions: Our longitudinal interventional study of IPC involving multiple activities supporting increased IPC achieved many project-specific goals, but improvements in attitudes over time were not demonstrated and neutral assessments predominated, highlighting the difficulties faced by studies targeting change at the systems level and over extended periods

Evaluation of a city-wide physical activity pathway for people affected by cancer: the Active Everyday service

Purpose: The primary goal of this article is to present an evaluation of a UK-based city-wide physical activity pathway for patients with a cancer diagnosis, the Active Everyday service. Active Everyday was a co-produced physical activity service for people affected by cancer. The service was underpinned by a behaviour change care pathway model developed by Macmillan Cancer Support charity. Methods: This was a retrospective evaluation assessing physical activity levels and changes to outcome measures (fatigue, perceived health, and self-efficacy) over 6 months. Each participant self-reported their levels of physical activity for the previous 7 days at three-time points: baseline (T1), at 12-week exit from the scheme (T2), and at 6-month follow-up (T3). Results: The Active Everyday service received 395 referrals, of which 252 attended a baseline assessment. Participants’ fatigue and self-efficacy improved between T1 and T2 and T1 and T3. Perceived health improved across all time points. Participant exercise levels showed significant differences between T1 and T2. Conclusion: The service, provided over 3 years, resulted in positive health and wellbeing outcomes in people affected by cancer who engaged in the service. Future services must routinely include exercise referrals/prescriptions as a standard part of care to help engage inactive individuals. Services should focus on targeted promotion to people from ethnic minority groups, and a wide socioeconomic population

Using systems science to understand thedeterminants of inequities in healthy eating

Introduction Systems thinking has emerged in recent years as a promising approach to understanding and acting on the prevention and amelioration of non-communicable disease. However, the evidence on inequities in non-communicable diseases and their risks factors, particularly diet, has not been examined from a systems perspective. We report on an approach to developing a system oriented policy actor perspective on the multiple causes of inequities in healthy eating. Methods Collaborative conceptual modelling workshops were held in 2015 with an expert group of representatives from government, non-government health organisations and academia in Australia. The expert group built a systems model using a system dynamics theoretical perspective. The model developed from individual mind maps to pair blended maps, before being finalised as a causal loop diagram. Results The work of the expert stakeholders generated a comprehensive causal loop diagram of the determinants of inequity in healthy eating (the HE2 Diagram). This complex dynamic system has seven sub-systems: (1) food supply and environment; (2) transport; (3) housing and the built environment; (4) employment; (5) social protection; (6) health literacy; and (7) food preferences. Discussion The HE2 causal loop diagram illustrates the complexity of determinants of inequities in healthy eating. This approach, both the process of construction and the final visualisation, can provide the basis for planning the prevention and amelioration of inequities in healthy eating that engages with multiple levels of causes and existing policies and programs.This research was supported by The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre through the NHMRC partnership centre grant scheme (grant ID: GNT9100001) with the Australian Government Department of Health, New South Wales Ministry of Health, Australian Capital Territory Health, HCF, and the HCF Research Foundation

Management of the ataxias : towards best clinical practice

This document aims to provide recommendations for healthcare professionals on the diagnosis and management of people with progressive ataxia. The progressive ataxias are rare neurological conditions, and are often poorly understood by healthcare professionals. Diagnosis has generally been a long process because of the rarity and complexity of the different ataxias1. In addition, many healthcare professionals are unsure how best to manage the conditions and there is sometimes a feeling that little can be done for these patients1,2 Although there are no disease-modifying treatments for the majority of the progressive ataxias, there are many aspects of the conditions that are treatable and it is thus important that this is recognised by the relevant healthcare professionals. The diagnosis and management of the few treatable causes is also of paramount importance. All this highlights the importance of producing these guidelines: in order to increase awareness and understanding of these conditions, and lead to their improved diagnosis and management. With new developments in genetic technologies and the discovery of more genes, diagnosis is improving and has great scope to continue to do so. In addition, research is advancing and many human trials to test medications are taking place, making us more optimistic that disease-modifying treatments will be found for the progressive ataxias

Strengthening organizational performance through accreditation research - a framework for twelve interrelated studies: the ACCREDIT project study protocol

Background: Service accreditation is a structured process of recognising and promoting performance and adherence to standards. Typically, accreditation agencies either receive standards from an authorized body or develop new and upgrade existing standards through research and expert views. They then apply standards, criteria and performance indicators, testing their effects, and monitoring compliance with them. The accreditation process has been widely adopted. The international investments in accreditation are considerable. However, reliable evidence of its efficiency or effectiveness in achieving organizational improvements is sparse and the value of accreditation in cost-benefit terms has yet to be demonstrated. Although some evidence suggests that accreditation promotes the improvement and standardization of care, there have been calls to strengthen its research base. In response, the ACCREDIT (Accreditation Collaborative for the Conduct of Research, Evaluation and Designated Investigations through Teamwork) project has been established to evaluate the effectiveness of Australian accreditation in achieving its goals. ACCREDIT is a partnership of key researchers, policymakers and agencies.FindingsWe present the framework for our studies in accreditation. Four specific aims of the ACCREDIT project, which will direct our findings, are to: (i) evaluate current accreditation processes; (ii) analyse the costs and benefits of accreditation; (iii) improve future accreditation via evidence; and (iv) develop and apply new standards of consumer involvement in accreditation. These will be addressed through 12 interrelated studies designed to examine specific issues identified as a high priority. Novel techniques, a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, and randomized designs relevant for health-care research have been developed. These methods allow us to circumvent the fragmented and incommensurate findings that can be generated in small-scale, project-based studies. The overall approach for our research is a multi-level, multi-study design.DiscussionThe ACCREDIT project will examine the utility, reliability, relevance and cost effectiveness of differing forms of accreditation, focused on general practice, aged care and acute care settings in Australia. Empirically, there are potential research gains to be made by understanding accreditation and extending existing knowledge; theoretically, this design will facilitate a systems view of accreditation of benefit to the partnership, international research communities, and future accreditation designers

An intervention to promote patient participation and self-management in long term conditions: development and feasibility testing

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is worldwide interest in managing the global burden of long-term conditions. Current health policy places emphasis on self-management and supporting patient participation as ways of improving patient outcomes and reducing costs. However, achieving genuine participation is difficult. This paper describes the development of an intervention designed to promote participation in the consultation and facilitate self-management in long-term conditions. In line with current guidance on the development of complex interventions, our aim was to develop and refine the initial intervention using qualitative methods, prior to more formal evaluation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We based the intervention on published evidence on effective ways of improving participation. The intervention was developed, piloted and evaluated using a range of qualitative methods. Firstly, focus groups with stakeholders (5 patients and 3 clinicians) were held to introduce the prototype and elucidate how it could be improved. Then individual 'think aloud' and qualitative interviews (n = 10) were used to explore how patients responded to and understood the form and provide further refinement.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The literature highlighted that effective methods of increasing participation include the use of <it>patient reported outcome measures </it>and <it>values clarification exercises</it>. The intervention (called PRISMS) integrated these processes, using a structured form which required patients to identify problems, rate their magnitude and identify their priority. PRISMS was well received by patients and professionals. In the individual qualitative interviews the main themes that emerged from the data related to (a) the content of the PRISMS (b) the process of completing PRISMS and how it could be operationalised in practice and (c) the outcomes of completing PRISMS for the patient. A number of different functions of PRISMS were identified by patients including its use as an aide-memoire, to provide a focus to consultations, to give permission to discuss certain issues, and to provide greater tailoring for the patient.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>There was evidence that patients found the PRISMS form acceptable and potentially useful. The challenge encountered by patients in completing PRISMS may encourage exploration of these issues within the consultation, complementing the more 'task focussed' aspects of consultations resulting from introduction of clinical guidelines and financial incentives. Further research is required to provide a rigorous assessment of the ability of tools like PRISMS to achieve genuine change in the process and outcome of consultations.</p