Reducing health inequalities through general practice: protocol for a realist review (EQUALISE).

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare organisations recognise the moral imperative to address inequalities in health outcomes but often lack an understanding of which types of interventions are likely to reduce them. This realist review will examine the existing evidence on the types of interventions or aspects of routine care in general practice that are likely to decrease or increase health inequalities (ie, inequality-generating interventions) across cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our realist review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages. We will start by developing an initial programme theory based on existing theories and discussions with stakeholders. To navigate the large volume of literature, we will access the primary studies through the identification of published systematic reviews of interventions delivered in general practice across the four key conditions. We will examine the primary studies included within each systematic review to identify those reporting on inequalities across PROGRESS-Plus categories. We will collect data on a range of clinical outcomes including prevention, diagnosis, follow-up and treatment. The data will be synthesised using a realist logic of analysis. The findings will be a description and explanation of the general practice interventions which are likely to increase or decrease inequalities across the major conditions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required because this study does not include any primary research. The findings will be integrated into a series of guiding principles and a toolkit for healthcare organisations to reduce health inequalities. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and user-friendly summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020217871

Can goal-setting for patients with multimorbidity improve outcomes in primary care? Cluster randomised feasibility trial

Introduction: Goal-setting is recommended for patients with multimorbidity, but there is little evidence to support its use in general practice. Objective: To assess the feasibility of goal-setting for patients with multimorbidity, before undertaking a definitive trial. Design and setting: Cluster-randomised controlled feasibility trial of goal-setting compared to control in six general practices. Participants: Adults with 2 or more long term health conditions and at risk of unplanned hospital admission. Interventions: General Practitioners (GPs) underwent training and patients were asked to consider goals before an initial goal-setting consultation and a follow-up consultation six months later. The control group received usual care planning. Outcome measures: Health-related quality of life (EQ5D5L), capability (ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people (ICECAP-O)), patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC) and health care use. All consultations were video or audio-recorded, and focus groups were held with participating GPs and patients. Results: Fifty-two participants were recruited with a response rate of 12%. Full follow-up data were available for 41. In the goal-setting group, mean age was 80.4 years 54% were female and the median number of prescribed medications was 13, compared to 77.2 years, 39% female and 11.5 medications in the control group. The mean initial consultation time was 23.0 minutes in the goal-setting group and 19.2 in the control group. Overall 28% of patient participants had no cognitive impairment. Participants set between one and three goals on a wide range of subjects, such as chronic disease management, walking, maintaining social and leisure interests, and weight management. Patient participants found goal-setting acceptable and would have liked more frequent follow-up. GPs unanimously liked goal-setting, felt it delivered more patient-centred care and highlighted the importance of training. Conclusions: This goal-setting intervention was feasible to deliver in general practice. A larger, definitive study is needed to test its effectiveness

Reducing health inequalities through general practice.

Although general practice can contribute to reducing health inequalities, existing evidence provides little guidance on how this reduction can be achieved. We reviewed interventions influencing health and care inequalities in general practice and developed an action framework for health professionals and decision makers. We conducted a realist review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for systematic reviews of interventions into health inequality in general practice. We then screened the studies in the included systematic reviews for those that reported their outcomes by socioeconomic status or other PROGRESS-Plus (Cochrane Equity Methods Group) categories. 159 studies were included in the evidence synthesis. Robust evidence on the effect of general practice on health inequalities is scarce. Focusing on common qualities of interventions, we found that to reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be informed by five key principles: involving coordinated services across the system (ie, connected), accounting for differences within patient groups (ie, intersectional), making allowances for different patient needs and preferences (ie, flexible), integrating patient worldviews and cultural references (ie, inclusive), and engaging communities with service design and delivery (ie, community-centred). Future work should explore how these principles can inform the organisational development of general practice

A novel finger illusion reveals reduced weighting of bimanual hand cortical representations in people with complex regional pain syndrome

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is associated with deficits in sensorimotor control. Herein we have used a novel finger illusion to investigate whether CRPS is associated with reduced weighting of bimanual hand representations. The illusion normally induces a compelling feeling that the hands are close together when in fact they are 12 cm apart. People with CRPS and age, gender, and dominant hand-matched controls tested the illusion in the midline then on either side of the midline. The illusion had 2 variants; the passive pincer-grip position, without contact (no grasp condition) and with contact (grasp condition) of the artificial finger. The primary outcome was the perceived vertical distance between the index fingers. Twenty people with CRPS and 20 controls participated (mean age 44.4 ± 11.7 years). During the no grasp condition, participants with CRPS perceived the vertical distance significantly closer to the actual 12 cm (mean 8.0 cm, 95% confidence interval 6.5-9.5 cm), than controls did (mean 6.4 cm, 95% confidence interval 5.5-7.2 cm]). That is, the illusion was weaker in people with CRPS than in controls during no grasp. There was no such difference during grasp; that is, both groups showed the predicted illusion response. There was no effect of hand placement relative to midline or relative to the opposite hand. We conclude that people with unilateral CRPS have lower weighting of bimanual hand representation than controls have, independent of hand location. However, adding additional cutaneous input returns those with CRPS to the expected performance. We suggest the results have clear clinical and research implications

Reducing health inequalities through general practice : a realist review and action framework

Background Socio-economic inequalities in health have been in the public agenda for decades. General practice has an influential role to play in mitigating the impact of inequalities especially regarding chronic conditions. At the moment, general practice is dealing with serious challenges in relation to workforce shortages, increasing workload and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify effective ways so that general practice can play its role in reducing health inequalities. Objectives We explored what types of interventions and aspects of routine care in general practice decrease or increase inequalities in health and care-related outcomes. We focused on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We explored for whom these interventions and aspects of care work best, why, and in what circumstances. Our main objective was to synthesise this evidence into specific guidance for healthcare professionals and decision-makers about how best to achieve equitable general practice. Design Realist review. Main outcome measures Clinical or care-related outcomes by socio-economic group, or other PROGRESS-Plus criteria. Review methods Realist review based on Pawson’s five steps: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) selecting articles, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence. Results Three hundred and twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and 159 of them were selected for the evidence synthesis. Evidence about the impact of general practice interventions on health inequalities is limited. To reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be: connected so that interventions are linked and coordinated across the sector; intersectional to account for the fact that people’s experience is affected by many of their characteristics; flexible to meet patients’ different needs and preferences; inclusive so that it does not exclude people because of who they are; community-centred so that people who receive care engage with its design and delivery. These qualities should inform action across four domains: structures like funding and workforce distribution, organisational culture, everyday regulated procedures involved in care delivery, interpersonal and community relationships. Limitations The reviewed evidence offers limited detail about the ways and the extent to which specific interventions increase or decrease inequalities in general practice. Therefore, we focused on the underpinning principles that were common across interventions to produce higher-level, transferrable conclusions about ways to achieve equitable care. Conclusions Inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across four different domains that include structures, ideas, regulated everyday procedures, and relationships among individuals and communities. To achieve equity, general practice needs to be connected, intersectional, flexible, inclusive and community-centred. Future work Future work should focus on how these five essential qualities can be better used to shape the organisational development of future general practice. Study registration This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020217871. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130694) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information

The chromatin repressors EZH2 and Suv4-20h coregulate cell fate specification during hippocampal development

The cell fate transition from radial glial-like (RGL) cells to neurons and astrocytes is crucial for development and pathological conditions. Two chromatin repressors-the enhancer of zeste homolog 2 and suppressor of variegation 4-20 homolog-are expressed in RGL cells in the hippocampus, implicating these epigenetic regulators in hippocampal cell fate commitment. Using a double knockout mouse model, we demonstrated that loss of both chromatin repressors in the RGL population leads to deficits in hippocampal development. Single-nuclei RNA-Seq revealed differential gene expression and provided mechanistic insight into how the two chromatin repressors are critical for the maintenance of cycling cells in the dentate gyrus as well as the balance of cell trajectories between neuronal and astroglial lineages