28 research outputs found
Does radiography advanced practice improve patient outcomes and health service quality? A systematic review
yesObjectives
To investigate the impact of radiographer advanced practice on patient outcomes and
health service quality.
Methods
Using the World Health Organisation definition of quality, this review followed the
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare.
A range of databases were searched using a defined search strategy. Included studies
were assessed for quality using a tool specifically developed for reviewing studies of
diverse designs and data were systematically extracted using electronic data extraction
proforma.
Results
407 articles were identified and reviewed against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Nine
studies were included in the final review, the majority (n=7) focussing on advanced
radiography practice within the UK. Advanced practice activities considered were
radiographer reporting, leading patient review clinics and barium enema examinations.
The papers were generally considered to be of low to moderate quality with most
evaluating advanced practice within a single centre. With respect to specific quality
dimensions, included studies considered cost reduction, patient morbidity, time to
treatment and patient satisfaction. No papers reported data relating to time to
diagnosis, time to recovery or patient mortality.
Conclusions
Radiographer advanced practice is an established activity both in the UK and
internationally. However, evidence of the impact of advanced practice in terms of
patient outcomes and service quality is limited.
Advances in knowledge
This systematic review is the first to examine the evidence base surrounding advanced
radiography practice and its impact on patient outcomes and health service quality.
Powered b
PROMISE: first-trimester progesterone therapy in women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriages - a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international multicentre trial and economic evaluation
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Progesterone is essential to maintain a healthy pregnancy. Guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and a Cochrane review called for a definitive trial to test whether or not progesterone therapy in the first trimester could reduce the risk of miscarriage in women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriage (RM). The PROMISE trial was conducted to answer this question. A concurrent cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international multicentre study, with economic evaluation, conducted in hospital settings across the UK (36 sites) and in the Netherlands (nine sites). PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Women with unexplained RM (three or more first-trimester losses), aged between 18 and 39 years at randomisation, conceiving naturally and giving informed consent, received either micronised progesterone (Utrogestan(®), Besins Healthcare) at a dose of 400 mg (two vaginal capsules of 200 mg) or placebo vaginal capsules twice daily, administered vaginally from soon after a positive urinary pregnancy test (and no later than 6 weeks of gestation) until 12 completed weeks of gestation (or earlier if the pregnancy ended before 12 weeks). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Live birth beyond 24 completed weeks of gestation (primary outcome), clinical pregnancy at 6-8 weeks, ongoing pregnancy at 12 weeks, miscarriage, gestation at delivery, neonatal survival at 28 days of life, congenital abnormalities and resource use. METHODS: Participants were randomised after confirmation of pregnancy. Randomisation was performed online via a secure internet facility. Data were collected on four occasions of outcome assessment after randomisation, up to 28 days after birth. RESULTS: A total of 1568 participants were screened for eligibility. Of the 836 women randomised between 2010 and 2013, 404 received progesterone and 432 received placebo. The baseline data (age, body mass index, maternal ethnicity, smoking status and parity) of the participants were comparable in the two arms of the trial. The follow-up rate to primary outcome was 826 out of 836 (98.8%). The live birth rate in the progesterone group was 65.8% (262/398) and in the placebo group it was 63.3% (271/428), giving a relative risk of 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.15; p = 0.45). There was no evidence of a significant difference between the groups for any of the secondary outcomes. Economic analysis suggested a favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for decision-making but wide confidence intervals indicated a high level of uncertainty in the health benefits. Additional sensitivity analysis suggested the probability that progesterone would fall within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year as between 0.7145 and 0.7341. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that first-trimester progesterone therapy improves outcomes in women with a history of unexplained RM. LIMITATIONS: This study did not explore the effect of treatment with other progesterone preparations or treatment during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. FUTURE WORK: Future research could explore the efficacy of progesterone supplementation administered during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle in women attempting natural conception despite a history of RM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN92644181; EudraCT 2009-011208-42; Research Ethics Committee 09/H1208/44. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information
Home-based health promotion for older people with mild frailty: the HomeHealth intervention development and feasibility RCT.
BACKGROUND: Mild frailty or pre-frailty is common and yet is potentially reversible. Preventing progression to worsening frailty may benefit individuals and lower health/social care costs. However, we know little about effective approaches to preventing frailty progression. OBJECTIVES: (1) To develop an evidence- and theory-based home-based health promotion intervention for older people with mild frailty. (2) To assess feasibility, costs and acceptability of (i) the intervention and (ii) a full-scale clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial (RCT). DESIGN: Evidence reviews, qualitative studies, intervention development and a feasibility RCT with process evaluation. INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT: Two systematic reviews (including systematic searches of 14 databases and registries, 1990-2016 and 1980-2014), a state-of-the-art review (from inception to 2015) and policy review identified effective components for our intervention. We collected data on health priorities and potential intervention components from semistructured interviews and focus groups with older people (aged 65-94 years) (n = 44), carers (n = 12) and health/social care professionals (n = 27). These data, and our evidence reviews, fed into development of the 'HomeHealth' intervention in collaboration with older people and multidisciplinary stakeholders. 'HomeHealth' comprised 3-6 sessions with a support worker trained in behaviour change techniques, communication skills, exercise, nutrition and mood. Participants addressed self-directed independence and well-being goals, supported through education, skills training, enabling individuals to overcome barriers, providing feedback, maximising motivation and promoting habit formation. FEASIBILITY RCT: Single-blind RCT, individually randomised to 'HomeHealth' or treatment as usual (TAU). SETTING: Community settings in London and Hertfordshire, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 51 community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 years with mild frailty. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility - recruitment, retention, acceptability and intervention costs. Clinical and health economic outcome data at 6 months included functioning, frailty status, well-being, psychological distress, quality of life, capability and NHS and societal service utilisation/costs. RESULTS: We successfully recruited to target, with good 6-month retention (94%). Trial procedures were acceptable with minimal missing data. Individual randomisation was feasible. The intervention was acceptable, with good fidelity and modest delivery costs (£307 per patient). A total of 96% of participants identified at least one goal, which were mostly exercise related (73%). We found significantly better functioning (Barthel Index +1.68; p = 0.004), better grip strength (+6.48 kg; p = 0.02), reduced psychological distress (12-item General Health Questionnaire -3.92; p = 0.01) and increased capability-adjusted life-years [+0.017; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.001 to 0.031] at 6 months in the intervention arm than the TAU arm, with no differences in other outcomes. NHS and carer support costs were variable but, overall, were lower in the intervention arm than the TAU arm. The main limitation was difficulty maintaining outcome assessor blinding. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is lacking to inform frailty prevention service design, with no large-scale trials of multidomain interventions. From stakeholder/public perspectives, new frailty prevention services should be personalised and encompass multiple domains, particularly socialising and mobility, and can be delivered by trained non-specialists. Our multicomponent health promotion intervention was acceptable and delivered at modest cost. Our small study shows promise for improving clinical outcomes, including functioning and independence. A full-scale individually RCT is feasible. FUTURE WORK: A large, definitive RCT of the HomeHealth service is warranted. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010370 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11986672. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information
Intervention Now to Eliminate Repeat Unintended Pregnancy in Teenagers (INTERUPT): a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and qualitative and realist synthesis of implementation factors and user engagement
Background
The UK has one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Western Europe. One-fifth of these are repeat pregnancies. Unintended conceptions can cause substantial emotional, psychological and educational harm to teenagers, often with enduring implications for life chances. Babies of teenage mothers have increased mortality and are at a significantly increased risk of poverty, educational underachievement and unemployment later in life, with associated costs to society. It is important to identify effective, cost-effective and acceptable interventions.
Objectives
To identify who is at the greatest risk of repeat unintended pregnancies; which interventions are effective and cost-effective; and what the barriers to and facilitators of the uptake of these interventions are.
Data sources
We conducted a multistreamed, mixed-methods systematic review informed by service user and provider consultation to examine worldwide peer-reviewed evidence and UK-generated grey literature to find and evaluate interventions to reduce repeat unintended teenage pregnancies. We searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment Database), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database), British Nursing Index, Educational Resources Information Center, Sociological Abstracts, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, BiblioMap (the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre register of health promotion and public health research), Social Sciences Citation Index (supported by Web of Knowledge), Research Papers in Economics, EconLit (American Economic Association’s electronic bibliography), OpenGrey, Scopus, Scirus, Social Care Online, National Research Register, National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network Portfolio and Index to THESES. Searches were conducted in May 2013 and updated in June 2014. In addition, we conducted a systematic search of Google (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) in January 2014. Database searches were guided by an advisory group of stakeholders.
Review methods
To address the topic’s complexities, we used a structured, innovative and iterative approach combining methods tailored to each evidence stream. Quantitative data (effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, risk factors and effect modifiers) were synthesised with reference to Cochrane guidelines for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. Qualitative evidence addressing facilitators of and barriers to the uptake of interventions, experience and acceptability of interventions was synthesised thematically. We applied the principles of realist synthesis to uncover theories and mechanisms underpinning interventions (what works, for whom and in what context). Finally, we conducted an overarching narrative of synthesis of evidence and gathered service user feedback.
Results
We identified 8664 documents initially, and 816 in repeat searches. We filtered these to 12 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), four quasi-RCTs, 10 qualitative studies and 53 other quantitative studies published between 1996 and 2012. None of the RCTs was based in the UK. The RCTs evaluated an emergency contraception programme and psychosocial interventions. We found no evidence for effectiveness with regard to condom use, contraceptive use or rates of unprotected sex or use of birth control. Our primary outcome was repeat conception rate: the event rate was 132 of 308 (43%) in the intervention group versus 140 of 289 (48%) for the control goup, with a non-significant risk ratio (RR) of 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.08]. Four studies reported subsequent birth rates: 29 of 237 (12%) events for the intervention arm versus 46 out of 224 (21%) for the control arm, with a RR of 0.60 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.93). Many repeat conceptions occurred in the context of poverty, low expectations and aspirations, and negligible opportunities. Service user feedback suggested that there were specific motivations for many repeat conceptions, for example to replace loss or to please a partner. Realist synthesis highlighted that context, motivation, planning for the future and letting young women take control with connectedness and tailoring provide a conceptual framework for future research.
Limitations
Included studies rarely characterised adolescent pregnancy as intended or unintended, that is interventions to reduce repeat conceptions rarely addressed whether or not pregnancies were intended. Furthermore, interventions were often not clearly defined, had multiple aims and did not indicate which elements were intended to address which aims. Nearly all of the studies were conducted in the USA and focused largely on African American or Hispanic and Latina American populations.
Conclusions
We found no evidence to indicate that existing interventions to reduce repeat teenage pregnancy were effective; however, subsequent births were reduced by home-based interventions. Qualitative and realist evidence helped to explain gaps in intervention design that should be addressed. More theory-based, rigorously evaluated programmes need to be developed to reduce repeat teenage pregnancy in the UK.
Study registration
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003168. Cochrane registration number: i=fertility/0068.
Funding
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme
Opportunities for improvement in the management of patients who die from haemorrhage after trauma
Using intermittent self-catheters:experiences of people with neurological damage to their spinal cord
Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the experiences of using intermittent self-catheters (ISCs) among people with neurological damage to their spinal cord. This study sought to highlight the impact of using specific ISCs on users’ daily lives and to identify key features of product design which affected ease of use. Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with 16 ISC users to elicit their views and experiences of ISC use. Interviewees were purposively sampled, primarily from the spinal cord injury population, via a variety of sources. Transcripts were analysed using the Framework method. Results: Key product characteristics which influenced ease of use both inside and outside the home were identified (e.g. gauge, rigidity and packaging); preferences were highly personal. ISC users were conscious of health consumer issues such as the financial costs, the environmental costs and the trustworthiness of the manufacturer. Wider self-catheterisation issues such as anxiety, self-image and control over bladder management were also important to interviewees. Conclusions: This study provides new information on key issues associated with experiences of ISC use by people living in a community setting who have neurological damage to their spinal cord
RENEWING POLICY TO SUPPORT EVIDENCE-BASED HEALTH CARE
Health systems internationally have developed policies to support evidence-based health care (EBHC) for over a decade. As this article shows, the time is ripe to review current policy frameworks in an evidence-based manner. We summarize key themes deriving from qualitative research on the UK EBHC implementation and draw out implications for policy renewal. Our diagnosis is different from current UK NHS (National Health Service) policy since we stress local capacity building rather than top-down frameworks, standardized tools and guidelines. As other jurisdictions demonstrate alternative EBHC policy frameworks, more international comparison and mutual learning is needed. © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Radiographer reporting in the UK: A longitudinal analysis
YesRadiographer reporting of plain film radiographs is an established role in the UK. Despite this previous research has demonstrated widespread inconsistencies in implementation, scope and utilisation.
A cross-sectional postal survey was undertaken to provide a longitudinal insight into changes in radiographer reporting practice. The sample comprised all individual hospital sites in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man with both a radiology and trauma service
A response rate of 63.7% (n = 325/510) was achieved. Reporting radiographers were in place at 179 sites (55.1%) but less likely to be employed at sites with a minor injury unit rather than a full emergency department (χ2 = 71.983; p < 0.001; d.f. = 1). Radiographer utilisation has increased since 2007, although local barriers to implementation and activity were identified. Geographical variation was evident in relation to reporter employment and anatomical scope. A significant association was noted between broader anatomical scope and a wider range of referral sources (χ2 = 34.441; p < 0.001; d.f. = 1). Delayed reporting of radiographs remains the standard service delivery model across the UK.
This study confirms the significant contribution that radiographers are making to reporting capacity in the UK, although there continue to be geographical variations, particularly around anatomical scope and referral groups