‘I wouldn't push that further because I don't want to lose her’: a multiperspective qualitative study of behaviour change for long-term conditions in primary care

Background: Health outcomes for long-term conditions (LTCs) can be improved by lifestyle, dietary and condition management-related behaviour change. Primary care is an important setting for behaviour change work. Practitioners have identified barriers to this work, but there is little evidence examining practices of behaviour change in primary care consultations and how patients and practitioners perceive these practices. Objective: To examine how behaviour change is engaged with in primary care consultations for LTCs and investigate how behaviour change is perceived by patients and practitioners. Design: Multiperspective, longitudinal qualitative research involving six primary health-care practices in England. Consultations between patients with LTCs and health-care practitioners were audio-recorded. Semi-structured interviews were completed with patients and practitioners, using stimulated recall. Patients were re-interviewed 3 months later. Framework analysis was applied to all data. Participants: Thirty-two people with at least one LTC (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, asthma and coronary heart disease) and 10 practitioners. Results: Behaviour change talk in consultations was rare and, when it occurred, was characterized by deflection and diffidence on the part of practitioners. Patient motivation tended to be unaddressed. While practitioners positioned behaviour change work as outside their remit, patients felt uncertain about, yet responsible for, this work. Practitioners raised concerns that this work could damage other aspects of care, particularly the patient–practitioner relationship. Conclusion: Behaviour change work is often deflected or deferred by practitioners in consultations, who nevertheless vocalize support for its importance in interviews. This discrepancy between practitioners’ accounts and behaviours needs to be addressed within primary health-care organizations

Concordance in diabetic foot ulceration : a cross-sectional study of agreement between wound swabbing and tissue sampling in infected ulcers

BACKGROUND: There is inadequate evidence to advise clinicians on the relative merits of swabbing versus tissue sampling of infected diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). OBJECTIVES: To determine (1) concordance between culture results from wound swabs and tissue samples from the same ulcer; (2) whether or not differences in bacterial profiles from swabs and tissue samples are clinically relevant; (3) concordance between results from conventional culture versus polymerase chain reaction (PCR); and (4) prognosis for patients with an infected DFU at 12 months' follow-up. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, multicentre study involving patients with diabetes and a foot ulcer that was deemed to be infected by their clinician. Microbiology specimens for culture were taken contemporaneously by swab and by tissue sampling from the same wound. In a substudy, specimens were also processed by PCR. A virtual 'blinded' clinical review compared the appropriateness of patients' initial antibiotic regimens based on the results of swab and tissue specimens. Patients' case notes were reviewed at 12 months to assess prognosis. RESULTS: The main study recruited 400 patients, with 247 patients in the clinical review. There were 12 patients in the PCR study and 299 patients in the prognosis study. Patients' median age was 63 years (range 26-99 years), their diabetes duration was 15 years (range 2 weeks-57 years), and their index ulcer duration was 1.8 months (range 3 days-12 years). Half of the ulcers were neuropathic and the remainder were ischaemic/neuroischaemic. Tissue results reported more than one pathogen in significantly more specimens than swabs {86.1% vs. 70.1% of patients, 15.9% difference [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.8% to 20.1%], McNemar's p-value < 0.0001}. The two sampling techniques reported a difference in the identity of pathogens for 58% of patients. The number of pathogens differed in 50.4% of patients. In the clinical review study, clinicians agreed on the need for a change in therapy for 73.3% of patients (considering swab and tissue results separately), but significantly more tissue than swab samples required a change in therapy. Compared with traditional culture, the PCR technique reported additional pathogens for both swab and tissue samples in six (50%) patients and reported the same pathogens in four (33.3%) patients and different pathogens in two (16.7%) patients. The estimated healing rate was 44.5% (95% CI 38.9% to 50.1%). At 12 months post sampling, 45 (15.1%) patients had died, 52 (17.4%) patients had a lower-extremity ipsilateral amputation and 18 (6.0%) patients had revascularisation surgery. LIMITATIONS: We did not investigate the potential impact of microbiological information on care. We cannot determine if the improved information yield from tissue sampling is attributable to sample collection, sample handling, processing or reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Tissue sampling reported both more pathogens and more organisms overall than swabbing. Both techniques missed some organisms, with tissue sampling missing fewer than swabbing. Results from tissue sampling more frequently led to a (virtual) recommended change in therapy. Long-term prognosis for patients with an infected foot ulcer was poor. FUTURE WORK: Research is needed to determine the effect of sampling/processing techniques on clinical outcomes and antibiotic stewardship. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Corrigendum: A systematic review and economic evaluation of bisphosphonates for the prevention of fragility fractures

Abstract Background Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture. Objectives To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonates [alendronic acid (Fosamax® and Fosamax® Once Weekly, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd), risedronic acid (Actonel® and Actonel Once a Week®, Warner Chilcott UK Ltd), ibandronic acid (Bonviva®, Roche Products Ltd) and zoledronic acid (Aclasta®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd)] for the prevention of fragility fracture and to assess their cost-effectiveness at varying levels of fracture risk. Data sources For the clinical effectiveness review, six electronic databases and two trial registries were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews, Clinicaltrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Searches were limited by date from 2008 until September 2014. Review methods A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each bisphosphonate treatment strategy and a strategy of no treatment for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and NMA. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. A NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net benefit (INB) was estimated using non-parametric regression. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. Results Forty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review, with 27 RCTs providing data for the fracture NMA and 35 RCTs providing data for the femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) NMA. All treatments had beneficial effects on fractures versus placebo, with hazard ratios varying from 0.41 to 0.92 depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and percentage change in BMD were statistically significant for all treatments. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on fractures between bisphosphonates. A statistically significant difference in the incidence of influenza-like symptoms was identified from the RCTs for zoledronic acid compared with placebo. Reviews of observational studies suggest that upper gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently reported in the first month of oral bisphosphonate treatment, but pooled analyses of placebo-controlled trials found no statistically significant difference. A strategy of no treatment was estimated to have the maximum INB for patients with a 10-year QFracture risk under 1.5%, whereas oral bisphosphonates provided maximum INB at higher levels of risk. However, the PSA suggested that there is considerable uncertainty regarding whether or not no treatment is the optimal strategy until the QFracture score is around 5.5%. In the model using FRAX, the mean INBs were positive for all oral bisphosphonate treatments across all risk categories. Intravenous bisphosphonates were estimated to have lower INBs than oral bisphosphonates across all levels of fracture risk when estimated using either QFracture or FRAX. Limitations We assumed that all treatment strategies are viable alternatives across the whole population. Conclusions Bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures. However, the benefit-to-risk ratio in the lowest-risk patients may be debatable given the low absolute QALY gains and the potential for adverse events. We plan to extend the analysis to include non-bisphosphonate therapies. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 'Families for Health', a family-based childhood obesity treatment intervention delivered in a community setting for ages 6 to 11 years

Background: Effective programmes to help children manage their weight are required. ‘Families for Health’ focuses on a parenting approach, designed to help parents develop their parenting skills to support lifestyle change within the family. Families for Health version 1 showed sustained reductions in mean body mass index (BMI) z-score after 2 years in a pilot project. Objective: The aim was to evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Design: The trial was a multicentre, investigator-blind RCT, with a parallel economic and process evaluation, with follow-up at 3 and 12 months. Randomisation was by family unit, using a 1 : 1 allocation by telephone registration, stratified by three sites, with a target of 120 families. Setting: Three sites in the West Midlands, England, UK. Participants: Children aged 6–11 years who were overweight (≥ 91st centile BMI) or obese (≥ 98th centile BMI), and their parents/carers. Recruitment was via referral or self-referral. Interventions: Families for Health version 2 is a 10-week, family-based community programme with parallel groups for parents and children, addressing parenting, lifestyle, social and emotional development. Usual care was the treatment for childhood obesity provided within each locality. Main outcome measures: Joint primary outcome measures were change in children’s BMI z-score and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained at 12 months’ follow-up (QALYs were calculated using the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions Youth version). Secondary outcome measures included changes in children’s waist circumference, percentage body fat, physical activity, fruit/vegetable consumption and quality of life. Parents’ BMI and mental well-being, family eating/activity, parent–child relationships and parenting style were also assessed. The process evaluation documented recruitment, reach, dose delivered, dose received and fidelity, using mixed methods. Results: The study recruited 115 families (128 children; 63 boys and 65 girls), with 56 families randomised to the Families for Health arm and 59 to the ‘usual-care’ control arm. There was 80% retention of families at 3 months (Families for Health, 46 families; usual care, 46 families) and 72% retention at 12 months (Families for Health, 44 families; usual care, 39 families). The change in BMI z-score at 12 months was not significantly different in the Families for Health arm and the usual-care arm [0.114, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.001 to 0.229; p = 0.053]. However, within-group analysis showed that the BMI z-score was significantly reduced in the usual-care arm (–0.118, 95% CI –0.203 to –0.034; p = 0.007), but not in the Families for Health arm (–0.005, 95% CI –0.085 to 0.078; p = 0.907). There was only one significant difference between groups for secondary outcomes. The economic evaluation, taking a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective, showed that mean costs 12 months post randomisation were significantly higher for Families for Health than for usual care (£998 vs. £548; p < 0.001). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness of Families for Health was estimated at £552,175 per QALY gained. The probability that the Families for Health programme is cost-effective did not exceed 40% across a range of thresholds. The process evaluation demonstrated that the programme was implemented, as planned, to the intended population and any adjustments did not deviate widely from the handbook. Many families waited more than 3 months to receive the intervention. Facilitators’, parents’ and children’s experiences of Families for Health were largely positive and there were no adverse events. Further analysis could explore why some children show a clinically significant benefit while others have a worse outcome. Conclusions: Families for Health was neither effective nor cost-effective for the management of obesity in children aged 6–11 years, in comparison with usual care. Further exploration of the wide range of responses in BMI z-score in children following the Families for Health and usual-care interventions is warranted, focusing on children who had a clinically significant benefit and those who showed a worse outcome with treatment. Further research could focus on the role of parents in the prevention of obesity, rather than treatment. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45032201. 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. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Optimal strategies for monitoring lipid levels in patients at risk or with cardiovascular disease: a systematic review with statistical and cost-effectiveness modelling

Background: Various lipid measurements in monitoring/screening programmes can be used, alone or in cardiovascular risk scores, to guide treatment for prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Because some changes in lipids are due to variability rather than true change, the value of lipid-monitoring strategies needs evaluation. Objective: To determine clinical value and cost-effectiveness of different monitoring intervals and different lipid measures for primary and secondary prevention of CVD. Data sources: We searched databases and clinical trials registers from 2007 [including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Clinical Trials Register, the Current Controlled Trials (CCT) register, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)] to update and extend previous systematic reviews. Patient-level data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and St Luke’s Hospital, Japan, were used in statistical modelling. Utilities and health-care costs were drawn from the literature. Methods: In two meta-analyses, we used prospective studies to examine associations of lipids with CVD and mortality, and randomised controlled trials to estimate lipid-lowering effects of atorvastatin doses. Patient-level data were used to estimate progression and variability of lipid measurements over time, and hence to model lipid-monitoring strategies. Results are expressed as rates of true-/false-positive and true-/false-negative tests for high lipid or high CVD risk. We estimated incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year. Results: A total of 115 publications reported strength of association between different lipid measures and CVD events in 138 data sets. The summary adjusted hazard ratio (HR) per standard deviation of total cholesterol (TC) to high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol ratio was 1.25 [95% confidence interval 1.15 to 1.35] for CVD in a primary prevention population but heterogeneity was high (I 2 = 98%); similar results were observed for non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B and other ratio measures. Associations were smaller for other single lipid measures. Across 10 trials, low-dose atorvastatin (10 and 20 mg) effects ranged from a TC reduction of 0.92 mmol/l to 2.07 mmol/l, and low-density lipoprotein reduction of between 0.88 mmol/l and 1.86 mmol/l. Effects of 40 mg and 80 mg were reported by one trial each. For primary prevention, over a 3-year period, we estimate annual monitoring would unnecessarily treat 9 per 1000 more men (28 vs. 19 per 1000) and 5 per 1000 more women (17 vs. 12 per 1000) than monitoring every 3 years. However, annual monitoring would also undertreat 9 per 1000 fewer men (7 vs. 16 per 1000) and 4 per 1000 fewer women (7 vs. 11 per 1000) than monitoring at 3-year intervals. For secondary prevention, over a 3-year period, annual monitoring would increase unnecessary treatment changes by 66 per 1000 men and 31 per 1000 women, and decrease undertreatment by 29 per 1000 men and 28 per 1000 men, compared with monitoring every 3 years. In cost-effectiveness, strategies with increased screening/monitoring dominate. Exploratory analyses found that any unknown harms of statins would need utility decrements as large as 0.08 (men) to 0.11 (women) per statin user to reverse this finding in primary prevention. Limitation: Heterogeneity in meta-analyses. Conclusions: While acknowledging known and potential unknown harms of statins, we find that more-frequent monitoring strategies are cost-effective compared with others. Regular lipid monitoring in those with and without CVD is likely to be beneficial to patients and to the health service. Future research should include trials of the benefits and harms of atorvastatin 40 and 80 mg, large-scale surveillance of statin safety, and investigation of the effect of monitoring on medication adherence