Improving the uptake of preconception care and periconceptional folate supplementation: what do women think?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite strong evidence of the benefits of preconception interventions to improve pregnancy outcomes, the delivery and uptake of preconception care in general and periconceptional folate supplementation in particular remains low. The aim of this study was to determine women's views of the barriers and enablers to the uptake of preconception care and periconceptional folate supplementation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Focus groups were undertaken in 2007 with 17 women of reproductive age (18-45 years). To identify key issues and themes within the data, focus groups were analysed using an inductive process of thematic analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most women were unaware of the need to attend for preconception care and were surprised at the breadth of issues involved. Women also felt general practitioners (GPs) should be more proactive in promoting preconception care availability but acknowledged that they themselves had to be thinking about pregnancy or becoming pregnant to be receptive to it. Barriers to periconceptional folate supplementation included confusion about reasons for use, dose, duration, timing and efficacy of folate use. Enablers included the desire to do anything they could to ensure optimum pregnancy outcomes, and promotional material and letters of invitation from their GP to advise them of the availability and the need for preconception care.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A number of important barriers and enablers exist for women regarding the delivery and uptake of preconception care and periconceptional folate supplementation. It is essential that these patient perspectives are addressed in both the implementation of evidence based clinical practice guidelines and in the systematic design of an intervention to improve preconception care delivery.</p

An efficacy trial of brief lifestyle intervention delivered by generalist community nurses (CN SNAP trial)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Lifestyle risk factors, in particular smoking, nutrition, alcohol consumption and physical inactivity (SNAP) are the main behavioural risk factors for chronic disease. Primary health care (PHC) has been shown to be an effective setting to address lifestyle risk factors at the individual level. However much of the focus of research to date has been in general practice. Relatively little attention has been paid to the role of nurses working in the PHC setting. Community health nurses are well placed to provide lifestyle intervention as they often see clients in their own homes over an extended period of time, providing the opportunity to offer intervention and enhance motivation through repeated contacts. The overall aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of a brief lifestyle intervention delivered by community nurses in routine practice on changes in clients' SNAP risk factors.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The trial uses a quasi-experimental design involving four generalist community nursing services in NSW Australia. Services have been randomly allocated to an 'early intervention' group or 'late intervention' (comparison) group. 'Early intervention' sites are provided with training and support for nurses in identifying and offering brief lifestyle intervention for clients during routine consultations. 'Late intervention site' provide usual care and will be offered the study intervention following the final data collection point. A total of 720 generalist community nursing clients will be recruited at the time of referral from participating sites. Data collection consists of 1) telephone surveys with clients at baseline, three months and six months to examine change in SNAP risk factors and readiness to change 2) nurse survey at baseline, six and 12 months to examine changes in nurse confidence, attitudes and practices in the assessment and management of SNAP risk factors 3) semi-structured interviews/focus with nurses, managers and clients in 'early intervention' sites to explore the feasibility, acceptability and sustainability of the intervention.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The study will provide evidence about the effectiveness and feasibility of brief lifestyle interventions delivered by generalist community nurses as part of routine practice. This will inform future community nursing practice and PHC policy.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ACTRN12609001081202</p

The impact of a brief lifestyle intervention delivered by generalist community nurses (CN SNAP trial)

BackgroundThe risk factors for chronic disease, smoking, poor nutrition, hazardous alcohol consumption, physical inactivity and weight (SNAPW) are common in primary health care (PHC) affording opportunity for preventive interventions. Community nurses are an important component of PHC in Australia. However there has been little research evaluating the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions in routine community nursing practice. This study aimed to address this gap in our knowledge.MethodsThe study was a quasi-experimental trial involving four generalist community nursing (CN) services in New South Wales, Australia. Two services were randomly allocated to an &lsquo;early intervention&rsquo; and two to a &lsquo;late intervention&rsquo; group. Nurses in the early intervention group received training and support in identifying risk factors and offering brief lifestyle intervention for clients. Those in the late intervention group provided usual care for the first 6 months and then received training. Clients aged 30&ndash;80 years who were referred to the services between September 2009 and September 2010 were recruited prior to being seen by the nurse and baseline self-reported data collected. Data on their SNAPW risk factors, readiness to change these behaviours and advice and referral received about their risk factors in the previous 3 months were collected at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Analysis compared changes using univariate and multilevel regression techniques.Results804 participants were recruited from 2361 (34.1%) eligible clients. The proportion of clients who recalled receiving dietary or physical activity advice increased between baseline and 3 months in the early intervention group (from 12.9 to 23.3% and 12.3 to 19.1% respectively) as did the proportion who recalled being referred for dietary or physical activity interventions (from 9.5 to 15.6% and 5.8 to 21.0% respectively). There was no change in the late intervention group. There a shift towards greater readiness to change in those who were physically inactive in the early but not the comparison group. Clients in both groups reported being more physically active and eating more fruit and vegetables but there were no significant differences between groups at 6 months.ConclusionThe study demonstrated that although the intervention was associated with increases in advice and referral for diet or physical activity and readiness for change in physical activity, this did not translate into significant changes in lifestyle behaviours or weight. This suggests a need to facilitate referral to more intensive long-term interventions for clients with risk factors identified by primary health care nurses

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Prostate Cancer Screening in Australia

Background and Objectives: The Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial demonstrated that Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) based screening reduces prostate cancer deaths compared with an age matched control group. Utilising the prostate cancer detection rates from this study we have investigated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a similar PSA-based screening strategy for an Australian population of men aged 50-69 years. Methods: A decision model that incorporated Markov processes was developed from a health system perspective.The base case scenario compared a population-based screening programme with current opportunistic screening practices. Costs, utility values, treatment patterns and background mortality rates were derived from Australian data. All costs were adjusted to reflect July 2015 Australian dollars. An alternative scenario compared systematic with opportunistic screening but with optimisation of active surveillance (AS) uptake in both groups. A discount rate of 5% for costs and benefits was utilised. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effect of variable uncertainty on model outcomes. Results: Our model very closely replicated the number of deaths from both prostate cancer and background mortality in the Göteborg study. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for PSA screening was $AU147,528. However, for years of life gained (LYGs) PSA based screening ($AU45,890/LYG) appeared more favourable. Our alternative scenario with optimised AS improved cost-utility to $AU45,881/QALY, with screening becoming cost-effective at a 92$AU50,000/QALY. It appears more cost-effective if LYGs are used as the relevant outcome, and is more cost effective than the established Australian breast cancer screening programme on this basis. Optimised utilisation of AS increases the cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening dramatically