Blood tests in primary care:a qualitative study of communication and decision making between doctors and patients

OBJECTIVE: Blood tests are commonly used in primary care as a tool to aid diagnosis, and to offer reassurance and validation for patients. If doctors and patients do not have a shared understanding of the reasons for testing and the meaning of results, these aims may not be fulfilled. Shared decision‐making is widely advocated; yet, most research focusses on treatment decisions rather than diagnostic decisions. The aim of this study was to explore communication and decision‐making around diagnostic blood tests in primary care. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were undertaken with patients and clinicians in UK primary care. Patients were interviewed at the time of blood testing, with a follow‐up interview after they received test results. Interviews with clinicians who requested the tests provided paired data to compare clinicians' and patients' expectations, experiences and understandings of tests. Interviews were analysed thematically using inductive and deductive coding. RESULTS: A total of 80 interviews with 28 patients and 19 doctors were completed. We identified a mismatch in expectations and understanding of tests, which led to downstream consequences including frustration, anxiety and uncertainty for patients. There was no evidence of shared decision‐making in consultations preceding the decision to test. Doctors adopted a paternalistic approach, believing that they were protecting patients from anxiety. CONCLUSION: Patients were not able to develop informed preferences and did not perceive that choice is possible in decisions about testing, because they did not have sufficient information and a shared understanding of tests. A lack of shared understanding at the point of decision‐making led to downstream consequences when test results did not fulfil patients' expectations. Although shared decision‐making is recommended as best practice, it does not reflect the reality of doctors' and patients' accounts of testing; a broader model of shared understanding seems to be more relevant to the complexity of primary care diagnosis. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A patient and public involvement group comprising five participants with lived experience of blood testing in primary care met regularly during the study. They contributed to the development of the research objectives, planning recruitment methods, reviewing patient information leaflets and topic guides and also contributed to discussion of emerging themes at an early stage in the analysis process

How well do health professionals interpret diagnostic information?:A systematic review

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether clinicians differ in how they evaluate and interpret diagnostic test information. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to September 2013; bibliographies of retrieved studies, experts and citation search of key included studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Primary studies that provided information on the accuracy of any diagnostic test (eg, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios) to health professionals and that reported outcomes relating to their understanding of information on or implications of test accuracy. RESULTS: We included 24 studies. 6 assessed ability to define accuracy metrics: health professionals were less likely to identify the correct definition of likelihood ratios than of sensitivity and specificity. –25 studies assessed Bayesian reasoning. Most assessed the influence of a positive test result on the probability of disease: they generally found health professionals’ estimation of post-test probability to be poor, with a tendency to overestimation. 3 studies found that approaches based on likelihood ratios resulted in more accurate estimates of post-test probability than approaches based on estimates of sensitivity and specificity alone, while 3 found less accurate estimates. 5 studies found that presenting natural frequencies rather than probabilities improved post-test probability estimation and speed of calculations. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly used measures of test accuracy are poorly understood by health professionals. Reporting test accuracy using natural frequencies and visual aids may facilitate improved understanding and better estimation of the post-test probability of disease

A proposed framework for developing quality assessment tools

Background Assessment of the quality of included studies is an essential component of any systematic review. A formal quality assessment is facilitated by using a structured tool. There are currently no guidelines available for researchers wanting to develop a new quality assessment tool. Methods This paper provides a framework for developing quality assessment tools based on our experiences of developing a variety of quality assessment tools for studies of differing designs over the last 14 years. We have also drawn on experience from the work of the EQUATOR Network in producing guidance for developing reporting guidelines. Results We do not recommend a single ‘best’ approach. Instead, we provide a general framework with suggestions as to how the different stages can be approached. Our proposed framework is based around three key stages: initial steps, tool development and dissemination. Conclusions We recommend that anyone who would like to develop a new quality assessment tool follow the stages outlined in this paper. We hope that our proposed framework will increase the number of tools developed using robust methods.</p

Quality of relationships as predictors of outcomes in people with dementia: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION: Serious adverse outcomes for people with dementia include institutionalisation, hospitalisation, death, development of behavioural and psychiatric symptoms, and reduced quality of life. The quality of the relationship between the person with dementia and their informal/family carer is thought to affect the risk of these outcomes. However, little is known about which aspects of relationship quality are important, or how they affect outcomes for people with dementia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This will be a systematic review of the literature. Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycInfo, the Cochrane Database, ALOIS and OpenGrey will be searched from inception. 2 independent reviewers will screen results for eligibility with standardised criteria. Data will be extracted for relevant studies, and information on the associations between relationship quality and dementia outcomes will be synthesised. Meta-analysis will be performed if possible to calculate pooled effect sizes. Narrative synthesis will be performed if study heterogeneity rules out meta-analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical review is not necessary as this review summarises data from previous studies. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication. Results will also be disseminated to a patient and public involvement group and an expert panel for their views on the findings and implications for future work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015020518

Cannabinoids for Medical Use A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance Cannabis and cannabinoid drugs are widely used to treat disease or alleviate symptoms, but their efficacy for specific indications is not clear. Objective To conduct a systematic review of the benefits and adverse events (AEs) of cannabinoids. Data Sources Twenty-eight databases from inception to April 2015. Study Selection Randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the following indications: nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, appetite stimulation in HIV/AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity due to multiple sclerosis or paraplegia, depression, anxiety disorder, sleep disorder, psychosis, glaucoma, or Tourette syndrome. Data Extraction and Synthesis Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All review stages were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. Where possible, data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures Patient-relevant/disease-specific outcomes, activities of daily living, quality of life, global impression of change, and AEs. Results A total of 79 trials (6462 participants) were included; 4 were judged at low risk of bias. Most trials showed improvement in symptoms associated with cannabinoids but these associations did not reach statistical significance in all trials. Compared with placebo, cannabinoids were associated with a greater average number of patients showing a complete nausea and vomiting response (47% vs 20%; odds ratio [OR], 3.82 [95% CI, 1.55-9.42]; 3 trials), reduction in pain (37% vs 31%; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.99-2.00]; 8 trials), a greater average reduction in numerical rating scale pain assessment (on a 0-10-point scale; weighted mean difference [WMD], −0.46 [95% CI, −0.80 to −0.11]; 6 trials), and average reduction in the Ashworth spasticity scale (WMD, −0.36 [95% CI, −0.69 to −0.05]; 7 trials). There was an increased risk of short-term AEs with cannabinoids, including serious AEs. Common AEs included dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, fatigue, somnolence, euphoria, vomiting, disorientation, drowsiness, confusion, loss of balance, and hallucination. Conclusions and Relevance There was moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, weight gain in HIV infection, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome. Cannabinoids were associated with an increased risk of short-term AEs.This funded by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) under grant agreement 14.001443/204.0001/-1257Revisión por pare

Development and external validation of a clinical prediction model to aid coeliac disease diagnosis in primary care:an observational study

BACKGROUND: Coeliac disease (CD) affects approximately 1% of the population, although only a fraction of patients are diagnosed. Our objective was to develop diagnostic prediction models to help decide who should be offered testing for CD in primary care. METHODS: Logistic regression models were developed in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD (between Sep 9, 1987 and Apr 4, 2021, n=107,075) and externally validated in CPRD Aurum (between Jan 1, 1995 and Jan 15, 2021, n=227,915), two UK primary care databases, using (and controlling for) 1:4 nested case-control designs. Candidate predictors included symptoms and chronic conditions identified in current guidelines and using a systematic review of the literature. We used elastic-net regression to further refine the models. FINDINGS: The prediction model included 24, 24, and 21 predictors for children, women, and men, respectively. For children, the strongest predictors were type 1 diabetes, Turner syndrome, IgA deficiency, or first-degree relatives with CD. For women and men, these were anaemia and first-degree relatives. In the development dataset, the models showed good discrimination with a c-statistic of 0·84 (95% CI 0·83–0·84) in children, 0·77 (0·77–0·78) in women, and 0·81 (0·81–0·82) in men. External validation discrimination was lower, potentially because ‘first-degree relative’ was not recorded in the dataset used for validation. Model calibration was poor, tending to overestimate CD risk in all three groups in both datasets. INTERPRETATION: These prediction models could help identify individuals with an increased risk of CD in relatively low prevalence populations such as primary care. Offering a serological test to these patients could increase case finding for CD. However, this involves offering tests to more people than is currently done. Further work is needed in prospective cohorts to refine and confirm the models and assess clinical and cost effectiveness. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant number NIHR129020