Preventing Domestic Abuse for Children and Young People (PEACH): A Mixed Knowledge Scoping Review

Background: A range of interventions that aim to prevent domestic abuse has been developed for children and young people in the general population. While these have been widely implemented, few have been rigorously evaluated. This study aimed to discover what was known about these interventions for children and what worked for whom in which settings. Review methods: This mixed knowledge review was informed by realist principles and comprised four overlapping phases: an online mapping survey to identify current provision; a systematic review of the existing literature; a review of the UK ‘grey’ literature; and consultation with young people and experts. Information from these four sources of evidence informed analysis of costs and benefits. Results: The evidence for interventions achieving changes in knowledge and attitudes was stronger than that for behavioural change. Shifting social norms in the peer group emerged as a key mechanism of change. Media campaigns act to influence the wider social climate within which more targeted interventions are received, and they are also a source for programme materials. While most interventions are delivered in secondary schools, they are increasingly targeted at younger children. The review emphasised the importance of a school’s ‘readiness’ to introduce preventative interventions which need to be supported across all aspects of school life. Involving young people in the design and delivery of programmes increases authenticity and this emerged as a key ingredient in achieving impact. Longer interventions delivered by appropriately trained staff appeared likely to be more effective. Teachers emerged as well placed to embed interventions in schools but they require training and support from those with specialist knowledge in domestic abuse. There was evidence that small groups of students who were at higher risk might have accounted for some results regarding effectiveness and that programme effectiveness may vary for certain subgroups. Increasingly, boys are being identified as a target for change. The study identified a need for interventions for disabled children and children and young people from black, Asian, minority ethnic and refugee groups and a particular lack of materials designed for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young people. Limitations: Very little evidence was identified on costs and cost-effectiveness. Few studies showed an effect at the level of significance set for the review. Where it did exist, the effect size was small, except in respect of improved knowledge. The inability to calculate a response rate for the mapping survey, which used a snowballing approach, limits the ability to generalise from it. Conclusions: While it is appropriate to continue to deliver interventions to whole populations of children and young people, effectiveness appeared to be influenced by high-risk children and young people, who should be directed to additional support. Programmes also need to make provision to manage any resulting disclosures. Interventions appear to be context specific, and so those already being widely delivered in the UK and which are likely to be acceptable should be robustly tested. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme

Patient and practitioners' views on the most important outcomes arising from primary care consultations:a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Primary care clinicians often address multiple patient problems, with a range of possible outcomes. There is currently no patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) which covers this range of outcomes. Consequently, many researchers use PROMs that do not capture the full impact of primary care services. In order to identify what outcomes a PROM for primary care would need to include, we conducted interviews with patients and practitioners. This paper reports these patient and practitioners’ views on the outcomes arising from primary care consultations. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were held with 30 patients and eight clinicians across five sites in Bristol. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. We used a broad definition of health outcome as ‘the impacts of healthcare on health, or a patient’s ability to impact health’ to identify outcomes through this process. RESULTS: 10 outcome groups were identified. These occupied 3 domains: Health Empowerment: These are the internal and external resources which enable patients to improve their health. This involves 1) patients’ understanding of their illnesses, 2) ability to self-care and stay healthy, 3) agreeing and adhering to a patient-clinician shared plan, 4) confidence in seeking healthcare and 5) access to support. Health Status: This involves 6) reduction of symptoms and 7) reducing the impact of symptoms on patients’ lives. Health Perceptions: This involves 8) patients’ satisfaction with their health, 9) health concerns, and 10) confidence in their future health. The structure, organisation and nature of primary care means it can affect all 3 domains. CONCLUSIONS: No existing PROM captures all these outcomes. For example, many health empowerment PROMs do not consider patient preference on empowerment. Many health status tools are not responsive to changes resulting from primary care. Health perceptions PROMs have generally been designed for measuring personality traits rather than outcomes. This study provides a platform for designing a new PROM containing outcomes that matter to patients and can be influenced by primary care. Such a PROM would greatly enhance the value of primary care research. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-015-0323-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Keep it Simple? Predicting Primary Health Care Costs with Measures of Morbidity and Multimorbidity

In this paper we investigate the relationship between patients’ primary care costs (consultations, tests, drugs) and their age, gender, deprivation and alternative measures of their morbidity and multimorbidity. Such information is required in order to set capitation fees or budgets for general practices to cover their expenditure on providing primary care services. It is also useful to examine whether practices’ expenditure decisions vary equitably with patient characteristics. Electronic practice record keeping systems mean that there is very rich information on patient diagnoses. But the diagnostic information (with over 9000 possible diagnoses) is too detailed to be practicable for setting capitation fees or practice budgets. Some method of summarizing such information into more manageable measures of morbidity is required. We therefore compared the ability of eight measures of patient morbidity and multimorbidity to predict future primary care costs using data on 86,100 individuals in 174 English practices. The measures were derived from four morbidity descriptive systems (17 chronic diseases in the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), 17 chronic diseases in the Charlson scheme, 114 Expanded Diagnosis Clusters (EDCs), and 68 Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACGs)). We found that, in general, for a given disease description system, counts of diseases and sets of disease dummy variables had similar explanatory power and that measures with more categories did better than those with fewer. The EDC measures performed best, followed by the QOF and ACG measures. The Charlson measures had the worst performance but still improved markedly on models containing only age, gender, deprivation and practice effects. Allowing for individual patient morbidity greatly reduced the association of age and cost. There was a pro-deprived bias in expenditure: after allowing for morbidity, patients in areas in the highest deprivation decile had costs which were 22% higher than those in the lowest deprivation decile. The predictive ability of the best performing morbidity and multimorbidity measures was very good for this type of individual level cross section data, with R2 ranging from 0.31 to 0.46. The statistical method of estimating the relationship between patient characteristics and costs was less important than the type of morbidity measure. Rankings of the morbidity and multimorbidity measures were broadly similar for generalised linear models with log link and Poisson errors and for OLS estimation. It would be currently feasible to combine the results from our study with the data on the number of patients with each QOF disease, which is available on all practices in England, to calculate budgets for general practices to cover their primary care costs.multimorbidity; primary care; utilisation; costs; deprivation; budgets

Preferences for cancer investigation:a vignette-based study of primary-care attendees

SummaryBackgroundThe UK lags behind many European countries in terms of cancer survival. Initiatives to address this disparity have focused on barriers to presentation, symptom recognition, and referral for specialist investigation. Selection of patients for further investigation has come under particular scrutiny, although preferences for referral thresholds in the UK population have not been studied. We investigated preferences for diagnostic testing for colorectal, lung, and pancreatic cancers in primary-care attendees.MethodsIn a vignette-based study, researchers recruited individuals aged at least 40 years attending 26 general practices in three areas of England between Dec 6, 2011, and Aug 1, 2012. Participants completed up to three of 12 vignettes (four for each of lung, pancreatic, and colorectal cancers), which were randomly assigned. The vignettes outlined a set of symptoms, the risk that these symptoms might indicate cancer (1%, 2%, 5%, or 10%), the relevant testing process, probable treatment, possible alternative diagnoses, and prognosis if cancer were identified. Participants were asked whether they would opt for diagnostic testing on the basis of the information in the vignette.Findings3469 participants completed 6930 vignettes. 3052 individuals (88%) opted for investigation in their first vignette. We recorded no strong evidence that participants were more likely to opt for investigation with a 1% increase in risk of cancer (odds ratio [OR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·99–1·06; p=0·189), although the association between risk and opting for investigation was strong when colorectal cancer was analysed alone (1·08, 1·03–1·13; p=0·0001). In multivariable analysis, age had an effect in all three cancer models: participants aged 60–69 years were significantly more likely to opt for investigation than were those aged 40–59 years, and those aged 70 years or older were less likely. Other variables associated with increased likelihood of opting for investigation were shorter travel times to testing centre (colorectal and lung cancers), a family history of cancer (colorectal and lung cancers), and higher household income (colorectal and pancreatic cancers).InterpretationParticipants in our sample expressed a clear preference for diagnostic testing at all risk levels, and individuals want to be tested at risk levels well below those stipulated by UK guidelines. This willingness should be considered during design of cancer pathways, particularly in primary care. The public engagement with our study should encourage general practitioners to involve patients in referral decision making.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme

Measuring the financial burden of acute cough in pre-school children: a cost of illness study

Abstract Background Context: Acute cough is a very common symptom presentation among children in primary care and is usually due to respiratory infection, yet its cost is unknown. An estimate of the cost to healthcare providers and parents would aid budgetary decision-making, and provide an insight into the need for interventions to reduce the burden. Purpose: To estimate the cost per child per episode, and the annual population cost in the UK, of acute cough in pre-school children presenting to primary care. Methods Design: Incidence and prevalence-based cost-of-illness study from the perspectives of the UK NHS and of parents and caregivers. Setting: 11 general practices in Bristol, UK. Subjects: 121 children without known asthma aged 3 to 59 months presenting for the first time with an acute (≤ 28 days) cough. Results Mean cost per episode to the NHS: £27.43 (95% CI: £24.38 – £30.49). Mean cost per episode to parents and carers: £14.77 (£4.90 – £24.65). Annual cost to the NHS in the UK: at least £31.5 m (95% CI: £28.0 m – £35.0 m). Conclusion The cost burden on the healthcare provider of acute cough in pre-school children is substantial; the majority of this cost arises from consultations with general practitioners. Parents experience some personal cost through travel and expenditure on over-the-counter preparations, and may suffer significantly if loss of earnings is experienced. There is scope for evaluating interventions designed to reduce this burden. </jats:sec

Identification, description and appraisal of generic PROMs for primary care:A systematic review

Abstract Background Patients attend primary care with many types of problems and to achieve a range of possible outcomes. There is currently a lack of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) designed to capture these diverse outcomes. The objective of this systematic review was to identify, describe and appraise generic PROMs suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care. Methods We carried out a systematic Medline search, supplemented by other online and hand-searches. All potentially relevant PROMs were itemised in a long-list. Each PROM in the long-list which met inclusion criteria was included in a short-list. Short-listed PROMs were then described in terms of their measurement properties and construct, based on a previously published description of primary care outcome as three constructs: health status, health empowerment and health perceptions. PROMs were appraised in terms of extent of psychometric testing (extensive, moderate, low) and level of responsiveness (high, medium, low, unknown). Results More than 5000 abstracts were identified and screened to identify PROMs potentially suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care. 321 PROMs were long-listed, and twenty PROMs were catalogued in detail. There were five PROMs which measured change directly, without need for a baseline. Although these had less strong psychometric properties, they may be more responsive to change than PROMs which capture status at a point in time. No instruments provided coverage of all three constructs. Of the health status questionnaires, the most extensively tested was the SF-36. Of the health empowerment instruments, the PEI, PAM and heiQ provided the best combination of responsiveness and psychometric testing. The health perceptions instruments were all less responsive to change, and may measure a form of health perception which is difficult to shift in primary care. Conclusions This systematic review is the first of its kind to identify papers describing the development and validation of generic PROMs suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care. It identified that: 1) to date, there is no instrument which comprehensively covers the outcomes commonly sought in primary care, and 2) there are different benefits both to PROMs which measure status at a point in time, and PROMs which measure change directly

Keep it simple? Predicting primary health care costs with clinical morbidity measures

AbstractModels of the determinants of individuals’ primary care costs can be used to set capitation payments to providers and to test for horizontal equity. We compare the ability of eight measures of patient morbidity and multimorbidity to predict future primary care costs and examine capitation payments based on them. The measures were derived from four morbidity descriptive systems: 17 chronic diseases in the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF); 17 chronic diseases in the Charlson scheme; 114 Expanded Diagnosis Clusters (EDCs); and 68 Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACGs). These were applied to patient records of 86,100 individuals in 174 English practices. For a given disease description system, counts of diseases and sets of disease dummy variables had similar explanatory power. The EDC measures performed best followed by the QOF and ACG measures. The Charlson measures had the worst performance but still improved markedly on models containing only age, gender, deprivation and practice effects. Comparisons of predictive power for different morbidity measures were similar for linear and exponential models, but the relative predictive power of the models varied with the morbidity measure. Capitation payments for an individual patient vary considerably with the different morbidity measures included in the cost model. Even for the best fitting model large differences between expected cost and capitation for some types of patient suggest incentives for patient selection. Models with any of the morbidity measures show higher cost for more deprived patients but the positive effect of deprivation on cost was smaller in better fitting models

The impact of co-located NHS walk-in centres on emergency departments

Objectives: To determine the impact of establishing walk-in centres alongside emergency departments on attendance rates, visit duration, process, costs and outcome of care. Methods: Eight hospitals with co-located emergency departments and walk-in centres were compared with eight matched emergency departments without walk-in centres. Site visits were conducted. Routine data about attendance numbers and use of resources were analysed. A random sample of records of patients attending before and after walk-in centres opened were also assessed. Patients who had not been admitted to hospital were sent a postal questionnaire. Results: In most sites, the walk-in centres did not have a distinct identity and there were few differences in the way services were provided compared with control sites. Overall, there was no evidence of an increase in attendance at sites with walk-in centres, but considerable variability across sites. The proportion of patients managed within the four-hour NHS target improved at sites both with and without walk-in centres. There was no evidence of any difference in re-consultation rates, costs of care or patient outcomes at sites with or without walk-in centres. Conclusions: Most hospitals in this study implemented the walk-in centre concept to a very limited extent. Consequently there was no evidence of any impact on attendance rates, process, costs or outcome of care

Comparing care at walk-in centres and at accident and emergency departments: an exploration of patient choice, preference and satisfaction

Objectives: To explore the impact of establishing walk-in centres alongside emergency departments on patient choice, preference and satisfaction. Methods: A controlled, mixed-method study comparing eight emergency departments with co-located walk-in centres with the same number of ‘traditional’ emergency departments. This paper focuses on the results of a cross-sectional questionnaire survey of users. Results: Survey data demonstrated that patients were frequently unable to distinguish between being treated at a walk-in centre or an A&E department, and even where this was the case, opportunities to exercise choice about their preferred care provider were often limited. Few made an active choice to attend a co-located walk-in centre. Patients attending walk-in centres were just as likely to be satisfied overall with the care they received as their counterparts who were treated in the co-located A&E facility, although a small proportion of walk-in centre users did report greater satisfaction with some specific aspects of their care and consultation. Conclusions: Whilst one of the key policy goals underpinning the co-location of walk-in centres next to an A&E department was to provide patients with more options for accessing healthcare and greater choice, leading in turn to increased satisfaction, this evaluation was able to provide little evidence to support this. The high percentage of patients expressing a preference for care in an established emergency department compared to a new walk-in centre facility raises questions for future policy development. Further consideration should therefore be given to the role that A&E focused walk-in centres play in the Department of Health’s current policy agenda, as far as patient choice is concerned

Using willingness-to-pay to establish patient preferences for cancer testing in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making is a stated aim of several healthcare systems. In the area of cancer, patients' views have informed policy on screening and treatment but there is little information about their views on diagnostic testing in relation to symptom severity. METHODS: We used the technique of willingness-to-pay to determine public preferences around diagnostic testing for colorectal, lung, and pancreatic cancer in primary care in the UK. Participants were approached in general practice waiting rooms and asked to complete a two-stage electronic survey that described symptoms of cancer, the likelihood that the symptoms indicate cancer, and information about the appropriate diagnostic test. Part 1 asked for a binary response (yes/no) as to whether they would choose to have a test if it were offered. Part 2 elicited willingness-to-pay values of the tests using a payment scale followed by a bidding exercise, with the aim that these values would provide a strength of preference not detectable using the binary approach. RESULTS: A large majority of participants chose to be tested for all cancers, with only colonoscopy (colorectal cancer) demonstrating a risk gradient. In the willingness-to-pay exercise participants placed a lower value on an X-ray (lung cancer) than the tests for colorectal or pancreatic cancer and X-ray was the only test where risk was clearly related to the willingness-to-pay value. CONCLUSION: Willingness-to-pay values did not enhance the binary responses in the way intended; participants appeared to be motivated differently when responding to the two parts of the questionnaire. More work is needed to understand how participants perceive risk in this context and how they respond to questions about willingness-to-pay. Qualitative methods could provide useful insights