TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions (TRIUMPH) compared with usual care: Study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) can relate to urinary storage or voiding. In men, the prevalence and severity of LUTS increases with age, with a significant impact on quality of life. The majority of men presenting with LUTS are managed by their general practitioner (GP) in the first instance, with conservative therapies recommended as the initial treatment. However, the provision of conservative therapies in primary care is variable and can be time and resource limited. GPs require practical resources to enhance patient engagement with such interventions. TRIUMPH aims to determine whether a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for LUTS versus usual care.Methods/design: TRIUMPH is a two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) being conducted in 30 National Health Service (NHS) general practices in England. The TRIUMPH intervention comprises a standardised LUTS advice booklet developed for the trial with patient and healthcare professional (HCP) consultation. The booklet is delivered to patients by nurses/healthcare assistants following assessment of their urinary symptoms. Patients are directed to relevant sections of the booklet, providing the manualised element of the intervention. To encourage adherence, HCPs provide follow-up contacts over 12 weeks. Practices are randomised 1:1 to either deliver the TRIUMPH intervention or a usual care pathway. The patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months post consent is the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness, patient-reported outcomes on LUTS, quality of life, and patient and HCP acceptability and experience of the intervention. Primary analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis.Discussion: It is unclear whether conservative therapies for male LUTS are effectively delivered in primary care using current approaches. This can lead to men being inappropriately referred to secondary care or experiencing persistent symptoms. Primary care, therefore, holds the key to effective treatment for these men. The TRIUMPH intervention, through its standardised and manualised approach, has been developed to support GP practices in delivering effective conservative care. This pragmatic, cluster RCT should provide robust evidence in a primary-care setting to inform future guidelines

A systematic review of dietary, nutritional, and physical activity interventions for the prevention of prostate cancer progression and mortality

PURPOSE: Given the long-term, although potentially fatal, nature of prostate cancer, there is increasing observational evidence for the reduction in disease progression and mortality through changes in lifestyle factors. METHODS: We systematically reviewed dietary, nutritional, and physical activity randomized interventions aimed at modifying prostate cancer progression and disease-specific mortality, including a detailed assessment of risk of bias and methodological quality. RESULTS: Forty-four randomized controlled trials of lifestyle interventions, with prostate cancer progression or mortality outcomes, were identified. Substantial heterogeneity of the data prevented a meta-analysis. The included trials involved 3,418 prostate cancer patients, median 64 men per trial, from 13 countries. A trial of a nutritional supplement of pomegranate seed, green tea, broccoli, and turmeric; a trial comparing flaxseed, low-fat diet, flaxseed, and low-fat diet versus usual diet; and a trial supplementing soy, lycopene, selenium, and coenzyme Q10, all demonstrated beneficial effects. These trials were also assessed as having low risk of bias and high methodological quality (as were seven other trials with no evidence of benefit). The remaining trials were either underpowered, at high or unclear risk of bias, inadequately reported, of short duration or measured surrogate outcomes of unproven relationship to mortality or disease progression, which precluded any benefits reported being reliable. CONCLUSION: Large, well-designed randomized trials with clinical endpoints are recommended for lifestyle modification interventions. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10552-015-0659-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

"I just don't think it's that natural": Adolescent mothers' constructions of breastfeeding as deviant

Breastfeeding is recognised globally as the optimal method of infant feeding. For Murphy (1999) Sociology of Health & Illness, 21, 187–208 its nutritional superiority positions breastfeeding as a moral imperative where mothers who formula‐feed are open to charges of maternal deviance and must account for their behaviour. We suggest that this moral superiority of breastfeeding is tenuous for mothers from marginalised contexts and competes with discourses which locate breastfeeding, rather than formula feeding, as maternal deviance. We draw on focus group and interview data from 27 adolescent mothers from socio‐economically deprived neighbourhoods in three areas of the UK, and five early years professionals working at a Children’s Centre in the Northeast of England. We argue that breastfeeding is constructed as deviance at three ‘levels’ as (i) a deviation from broad social norms about women’s bodies, (ii) a deviation from local mothering behaviours and (iii) a transgression within micro‐level interpersonal and familial relationships. Given this positioning of breastfeeding as deviant, breastfeeding mothers feel obliged to account for their deviance. In making this argument, we extend and rework Murphy’s (1999) Sociology of Health & Illness, 21, 187–208 framework to encompass diverse experiences of infant feeding. We conclude with reflections on future research directions and potential implications for practice