Co-producing a Community University Knowledge Strategy

This community case study describes the process of developing a strategy for community-university engagement, as an example of co-production, and presents the strategy and early outcomes of the work. Based in London, the strategy and the process of co-production are of international relevance in supporting more productive relationships between universities and their cities, as a foundation for repurposing universities for sustainable human progress. The case study is presented in the context of literature related to community engagement with universities and co-production, an area of growing concern as universities seek to strengthen relationships and contribution to sustainable human progress in their home cities. London is one of the world’s great university cities, with more than 40 higher education institutions contributing ground-breaking research and educating students from across the globe. London is also home to vibrant local communities, with a strong tradition of grassroots action, community organization and citizen participation. Community groups and universities have a strong history of working together, often without formal recognition or resources. The Community university Knowledge Strategy for London, known as Collaborate!, was a collaboration between universities and grassroots community groups in London, co-convened by Just Space and University College London (UCL). A series of workshops, guided by two steering committees of community and university members, explored principles for working together, cultural and institutional barriers, decolonization, industrial strategies, community spaces and case studies of good practice. The final conference outlined the basis for a London-wide strategy to enable better engagement between universities and grassroots community groups. The strategy addresses core principles, curriculum, evaluation and evidence, resources, relationship building, governance and structures to support collaboration. Co-production ensured high levels of trust between participants and commitment to the outcomes. Implementation of the strategy actions requires ongoing resources to support intermediary structures to overcome misalignment between universities as large, hierarchical institutions and community groups as dynamic, informal, social organizations

Localization of the gene for X-linked recessive type of retinitis pigmentosa (XLRP) to Xp21 by linkage analysis

The X-linked recessive type of retinitis pigmentosa (XLRP) causes progressive night blindness, visual field constriction, and eventual blindness in affected males by the third or fourth decade of life. The biochemical basis of the disease is unknown, and prenatal diagnosis and definitive carrier diagnosis remain elusive. Heterogeneity in XLRP has been suggested by linkage studies of families affected with XLRP and by phenotypic differences observed in female carriers. Localization of XLRP near Xp11.3 has been suggested by close linkage to an RFLP at the locus DXS7 (Xp11.3) detected by probe L1.28. In other studies a locus for XLRP with metallic sheen has been linked to the ornithine transcarbamylase (OTC) locus mapping to the Xp21 region. In this study, by linkage analysis using seven RFLP markers between Xp21 and Xcen, we examined four families with multiple affected individuals. Close linkage was found between XLRP and polymorphic sites OTC (θ = .06 with lod 5.69), DXS84 (θ = .05 with lod 4.08), and DXS206 (θ = .06 with lod 2.56), defined by probes OTC, 754, and XJ, respectively. The close linkage of OTC, 754, and XJ to XLRP localizes the XLRP locus to the Xp21 region. Data from recombinations in three of four families place the locus above L1.28 and below the Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) gene, consistent with an Xp21 localization. In one family, however, one affected male revealed a crossover between XLRP and all DNA markers, except for the more distal DXS28 (C7), while his brother is recombined for this marker (C7) and not other, more proximal markers. This suggests that in this family the XLRP mutation maps near DXS28 and above the DMD locus.published_or_final_versio

A systematic review and meta-analysis: probiotics in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is a common chronic gastrointestinal disorder and the evidence for efficacy of most drug therapies in the treatment of IBS is weak. A popular alternative is probiotics, which have been used in several conditions. including IBS. Probiotics are live microbial food supplements.</p> <p>The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials study was to evaluate the efficacy of probiotics in alleviating symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. We searched Ovid versions of MEDLINE (1950–2007), EMBASE (1980–2007), CINAHL (1982–2007), AMED (1985–2007), the Cochrane library and hand searched retrieved papers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 14 randomized placebo controlled trials. Combined data suggested a modest improvement in overall symptoms after several weeks of treatment: for dichotomous data from seven trials the overall Odds Ratio (OR) was 1.6 (95% CI, 1.2 to 2.2); for continuous data from six trials the standardised mean difference (SMD) was 0.23 (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.38).</p> <p>For individual symptoms the results differed between the pooled dichotomous and pooled continuous data. Trials varied in relation to the length of treatment (4–26 weeks), dose, organisms and strengths of probiotics used.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Probiotics may have a role in alleviating some of the symptoms of IBS, a condition for which currently evidence of efficacy of drug therapies is weak. However, as IBS is a condition that is chronic and usually intermittent longer term trials are recommended. Such research should focus on the type, optimal dose of probiotics and the subgroups of patients who are likely to benefit the most.</p

Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults and children

BACKGROUND: Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments. SEARCH METHODS: We searched trial registries, electronic databases (to 22 July 2013) and regulatory archives, and corresponded with manufacturers to identify all trials. We also requested clinical study reports. We focused on the primary data sources of manufacturers but we checked that there were no published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from non-manufacturer sources by running electronic searches in the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Embase.com, PubMed (not MEDLINE), the Database of Reviews of Effects, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Economic Evaluations Database. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials on adults and children with confirmed or suspected exposure to naturally occurring influenza. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted clinical study reports and assessed risk of bias using purpose-built instruments. We analysed the effects of zanamivir and oseltamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes, complications, hospitalisations and adverse events in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturers. MAIN RESULTS: We obtained 107 clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), GlaxoSmithKline and Roche. We accessed comments by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), EMA and Japanese regulator. We included 53 trials in Stage 1 (a judgement of appropriate study design) and 46 in Stage 2 (formal analysis), including 20 oseltamivir (9623 participants) and 26 zanamivir trials (14,628 participants). Inadequate reporting put most of the zanamivir studies and half of the oseltamivir studies at a high risk of selection bias. There were inadequate measures in place to protect 11 studies of oseltamivir from performance bias due to non-identical presentation of placebo. Attrition bias was high across the oseltamivir studies and there was also evidence of selective reporting for both the zanamivir and oseltamivir studies. The placebo interventions in both sets of trials may have contained active substances. Time to first symptom alleviation. For the treatment of adults, oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms by 16.8 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours, P 1000) and nausea whilst on treatment (RD 4.15%, 95% CI 0.86 to 9.51); NNTH = 25 (95% CI 11 to 116). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oseltamivir and zanamivir have small, non-specific effects on reducing the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults, but not in asthmatic children. Using either drug as prophylaxis reduces the risk of developing symptomatic influenza. Treatment trials with oseltamivir or zanamivir do not settle the question of whether the complications of influenza (such as pneumonia) are reduced, because of a lack of diagnostic definitions. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of adverse effects, such as nausea, vomiting, psychiatric effects and renal events in adults and vomiting in children. The lower bioavailability may explain the lower toxicity of zanamivir compared to oseltamivir. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of both NIs for either the prophylaxis or treatment of influenza. The influenza virus-specific mechanism of action proposed by the producers does not fit the clinical evidence

Pharmaceutical companies' policies on access to trial data, results, and methods: audit study.

Objectives To identify the policies of major pharmaceutical companies on transparency of trials, to extract structured data detailing each companies' commitments, and to assess concordance with ethical and professional guidance.Design Structured audit.Setting Pharmaceutical companies, worldwide.Participants 42 pharmaceutical companies.Main outcome measures Companies' commitments on sharing summary results, clinical study reports (CSRs), individual patient data (IPD), and trial registration, for prospective and retrospective trials.Results Policies were highly variable. Of 23 companies eligible from the top 25 companies by revenue, 21 (91%) committed to register all trials and 22 (96%) committed to share summary results; however, policies commonly lacked timelines for disclosure, and trials on unlicensed medicines and off-label uses were only included in six (26%). 17 companies (74%) committed to share the summary results of past trials. The median start date for this commitment was 2005. 22 companies (96%) had a policy on sharing CSRs, mostly on request: two committed to share only synopses and only two policies included unlicensed treatments. 22 companies (96%) had a policy to share IPD; 14 included phase IV trials (one included trials on unlicensed medicines and off-label uses). Policies in the exploratory group of smaller companies made fewer transparency commitments. Two companies fell short of industry body commitments on registration, three on summary results. Examples of contradictory and ambiguous language were documented and summarised by theme. 23/42 companies (55%) responded to feedback; 7/1806 scored policy elements were revised in light of feedback from companies (0.4%). Several companies committed to changing policy; some made changes immediately.Conclusions The commitments made by companies to transparency of trials were highly variable. Other than journal submission for all trials within 12 months, all elements of best practice were met by at least one company, showing that these commitments are realistic targets

Supporting social prescribing in primary care by linking people to local assets: A realist review

© 2020 The Author(s). Background: Social prescribing is a way of addressing the 'non-medical' needs (e.g. loneliness, debt, housing problems) that can affect people's health and well-being. Connector schemes (e.g. delivered by care navigators or link workers) have become a key component to social prescribing's delivery. Those in this role support patients by either (a) signposting them to relevant local assets (e.g. groups, organisations, charities, activities, events) or (b) taking time to assist them in identifying and prioritising their 'non-medical' needs and connecting them to relevant local assets. To understand how such connector schemes work, for whom, why and in what circumstances, we conducted a realist review. Method: A search of electronic databases was supplemented with Google alerts and reference checking to locate grey literature. In addition, we sent a Freedom of Information request to all Clinical Commissioning Groups in England to identify any further evaluations of social prescribing connector schemes. Included studies were from the UK and focused on connector schemes for adult patients (18+ years) related to primary care. Results: Our searches resulted in 118 included documents, from which data were extracted to produce context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs). These CMOCs underpinned our emerging programme theory that centred on the essential role of 'buy-in' and connections. This was refined further by turning to existing theories on (a) social capital and (b) patient activation. Conclusion: Our realist review highlights how connector roles, especially link workers, represent a vehicle for accruing social capital (e.g. trust, sense of belonging, practical support). We propose that this then gives patients the confidence, motivation, connections, knowledge and skills to manage their own well-being, thereby reducing their reliance on GPs. We also emphasise within the programme theory situations that could result in unintended consequences (e.g. increased demand on GPs)

#TreatmentResistantDepression: a qualitative content analysis of Tweets about difficult-to-treat depression

Introduction Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is depression unresponsive to antidepressants and affects 55% of British primary care users with depression. Current evidence is from secondary care, but long referral times mean general practitioners (GPs) manage TRD. Studies show that people with depression use Twitter to form community and document symptoms. However, Twitter remains a largely unexplored space of documented patient experience. Twitter data could provide valuable insights into learning about primary care experiences of TRD. In this study, we explored Twitter comments and conversations about TRD and produced patient-driven recommendations. Methods Tweets from UK-based users were collected manually and using a browser extension in June 2021. Conventional content analysis was used to provide an overview of the Tweets, followed by interpretation to understand why Twitter may be important to people with TRD. Results A total of 415 Tweets were organised into five clusters: self-diagnosis, symptoms, support, small wins and condition experts. These Tweets were interpreted as showing Twitter as a community for people with TRD. People had a collective sense of illness identity and were united in their experiences of TRD. However, users in the community also highlighted the absence of effective GP care, leading users to position themselves as condition experts. Users shared advice from a place of lived experience with the community but also shared potentially harmful information, including recommendations about nonevidence-based medications. Conclusions Findings illuminate the benefits of the TRD Twitter community and also highlight that the perception of a lack of knowledge and support from GPs may lead community members to advise nonevidenced-based medications. Patient and Public Contribution This study was led by a person with lived experience of TRD and bipolar. Two public contributors with mental health conditions gave feedback on our study protocol and results

Benefits and harms of Risperidone and Paliperidone for treatment of patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder: a meta-analysis involving individual participant data and clinical study reports

From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2021-04-16, registration 2021-07-13, accepted 2021-07-13, pub-electronic 2021-08-25, online 2021-08-25, collection 2021-12Publication status: PublishedFunder: NIHR School for Primary Care Research; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013374; Grant(s): NAAbstract: Background: Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are severe mental illnesses which are highly prevalent worldwide. Risperidone and Paliperidone are treatments for either illnesses, but their efficacy compared to other antipsychotics and growing reports of hormonal imbalances continue to raise concerns. As existing evidence on both antipsychotics are solely based on aggregate data, we aimed to assess the benefits and harms of Risperidone and Paliperidone in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, using individual participant data (IPD), clinical study reports (CSRs) and publicly available sources (journal publications and trial registries). Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Central, EMBASE and PsycINFO until December 2020 for randomised placebo-controlled trials of Risperidone, Paliperidone or Paliperidone palmitate in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. We obtained IPD and CSRs from the Yale University Open Data Access project. The primary outcome Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score was analysed using one-stage IPD meta-analysis. Random-effect meta-analysis of harm outcomes involved methods for coping with rare events. Effect-sizes were compared across all available data sources using the ratio of means or relative risk. We registered our review on PROSPERO, CRD42019140556. Results: Of the 35 studies, IPD meta-analysis involving 22 (63%) studies showed a significant clinical reduction in the PANSS in patients receiving Risperidone (mean difference − 5.83, 95% CI − 10.79 to − 0.87, I2 = 8.5%, n = 4 studies, 1131 participants), Paliperidone (− 6.01, 95% CI − 8.7 to − 3.32, I2 = 4.3%, n = 13, 3821) and Paliperidone palmitate (− 7.89, 95% CI − 12.1 to − 3.69, I2 = 2.9%, n = 5, 2209). CSRs reported nearly two times more adverse events (4434 vs. 2296 publication, relative difference (RD) = 1.93, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.00) and almost 8 times more serious adverse events (650 vs. 82; RD = 7.93, 95% CI 6.32 to 9.95) than the journal publications. Meta-analyses of individual harms from CSRs revealed a significant increased risk among several outcomes including extrapyramidal disorder, tardive dyskinesia and increased weight. But the ratio of relative risk between the different data sources was not significant. Three treatment-related gynecomastia events occurred, and these were considered mild to moderate in severity. Conclusion: IPD meta-analysis conclude that Risperidone and Paliperidone antipsychotics had a small beneficial effect on reducing PANSS score over 9 weeks, which is more conservative than estimates from reviews based on journal publications. CSRs also contained significantly more data on harms that were unavailable in journal publications or trial registries. Sharing of IPD and CSRs are necessary when performing meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics

Opportunities, challenges and implications of primary care micro-teams for patients and healthcare professionals: an international systematic review

Background: There has been a recent trend, both in the UK and internationally, towards creating larger primary care practices with the assumption that interdisciplinary teams can increase patient accessibility and provide more cost-effective, efficient services. Micro-teams have been proposed to mitigate some of the potential challenges with practice expansion, including continuity of care. / Aim: Review the available literature to examine how micro-teams are described and the opportunities which primary care micro-teams can provide for practice staff and patients and limitations to their introduction and implementation. / Design and setting: International Systematic review of studies published in English. / Method: A Framework analysis was used to synthesise the literature. Databases and grey literature were searched. Studies were included if they provided evidence regarding the implementation of micro-teams in primary care. We worked with a PPI co-author and conducted stakeholder discussions to those with and without experience in micro-team implementation. / Results: The majority of the 24 included studies discussed empirical data from healthcare professionals, describing the implementation of micro-teams. Results include the characteristics of the literature; how micro-teams have been described; the range of ways micro-teams have been implemented; reported outcomes and experiences of patients and staff. / Conclusion: The organisation of primary care has the potential to impact the nature and quality of patient care, safety and outcomes. This review contributes to current debates surrounding care delivery and how this can impact the experiences and outcomes of patients and staff. The analysis identifies several key opportunities and challenges for future research, policy and practice

Correction: Optimising a person-centred approach to stopping medicines in older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy using the DExTruS framework: a realist review (BMC Medicine, (2022), 20, 1, (297), 10.1186/s12916-022-02475-1)

The original article [1] contained an error in the spelling of co-author, Michelle Maden’s name which has since been corrected