Nature Prescriptions and Indigenous Peoples: A Qualitative Inquiry in the Northwest Territories, Canada

Nature prescription programs have become more common within healthcare settings. Despite the health benefits of being in nature, nature prescriptions within the context of Indigenous Peoples have received little attention. We therefore sought to answer the following question: What are circumpolar-based physicians’ and Indigenous Elders’ views on nature prescribing in the Northwest Territories, Canada? We carried out thirteen semi-structured interviews with physicians between May 2022 and March 2023, and one sharing circle with Indigenous Elders in February 2023. Separate reflexive thematic analysis was carried out to generate key themes through inductive coding of the data. The main themes identified from the physician interviews included the importance of cultural context; barriers with nature prescriptions in the region; and the potential for nature prescriptions in the North. Reflections shared by the Elders included the need for things to be done in the right way; the sentiment that the Land is not just an experience but a way of life; and the importance of traditional food as a connection with Nature. With expanding nature prescription programs, key considerations are needed when serving Indigenous communities. Further investigation is warranted to ensure that nature prescriptions are appropriate within a given context, are inclusive of supporting Land-based approaches to health and wellbeing, and are considered within the context of Indigenous self-determination

Non-antibiotic treatment of acute urinary tract infection in primary care: a qualitative study.

Background: The views of women with acute, uncomplicated urinary tract infection (auUTI) on the acceptability of non-antibiotic treatment options are poorly understood. Aim: To establish women’s thoughts on and experience of non-antibiotic treatment for auUTIs. Design and setting Qualitative: interview study with primary care patients in Oxfordshire, UK, embedded within the Cranberry for Urinary Tract Infection (CUTI) feasibility trial. Method: One-to-one, semi-structured interviews were conducted between August 2019 and January 2020 with some CUTI trial participants and some patients who were not part of the CUTI trial who had experienced at least one urinary tract infection (UTI) in the preceding 12 months in Oxfordshire, UK. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: In total, 26 interviews were conducted and analysed. Women expected to receive an immediate antibiotic for their UTI but were aware of the potential harms of this approach. They were keen to find a non-antibiotic, ‘natural’ alternative that could effectively manage their symptoms. In certain situations (early illness, milder illness, and with no important upcoming engagements), women indicated they would be prepared to postpone antibiotic treatment by up to 3 days, especially if offered an interim non-antibiotic option with perceived therapeutic potential. Conclusion: Many women with auUTIs are open to trying non-antibiotic treatments first in certain situations. There is scope for more dialogue between primary care clinicians and patients with auUTI around delaying antibiotic treatment and using non-antibiotic options initially, which could reduce antibiotic consumption for this common infection

Managing recurrent vulvovaginal thrush from patient and healthcare professional perspectives: a systematic review and thematic synthesis

Objective: This systematic review aims to identify what is known about patient and healthcare professional experiences of managing recurrent vulvovaginal thrush by synthesising published findings. Methods: Five databases were searched for studies on patient and healthcare professional experiences managing recurrent thrush. Two reviewers independently screened and quality assessed qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies. Findings from eligible studies were thematically synthesised. Results: 720 papers were identified, and 29 were included. Four descriptive themes were developed to depict the repeated management of recurrent thrush. These themes were: (re)experiencing impacts, (re)identifying recurrent thrush, (re)considering consultations, and (re)trying treatments. An analytic high-order frame of ‘interwoven and reoccurring uncertainties’ was used to understand these themes. Conclusions: Patients and healthcare providers face uncertainties when managing recurrent thrush. The inconsistencies raised across papers suggests an unaddressed gap in knowledge about patient experiences and their informational and support needs; this includes insights about this condition’s diagnosis, management, treatment, impacts, and meaning. Practice implications: This review has implications for patient education, health promotion, and communication between patients and providers. Our interpretations suggest the need for more research and resources to help support patients and clinicians in managing this condition to promote more understanding, communication, and collaborative care

Clinician-targeted interventions to reduce antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections in primary care:An overview of systematic reviews

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To systematically review the literature and appraise the existing evidence from systematic reviews regarding the effects of interventions, aimed at changing clinician behaviour, to reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care

Clinician-targeted interventions to influence antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections in primary care: An overview of systematic reviews

Background: Antibiotic resistance is a worldwide health threat. Interventions that reduce antibiotic prescribing by clinicians are expected to reduce antibiotic resistance. Disparate interventions to change antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) have been trialled and meta-analysed, but not yet synthesised in an overview. This overview synthesises evidence from systematic reviews, rather than individual trials. Objectives: To systematically review the existing evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of interventions aimed at influencing clinician antibiotic prescribing behaviour for ARIs in primary care. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index to June 2016. We also searched the reference lists of all included reviews. We ran a pre-publication search in May 2017 and placed additional studies in 'awaiting classification'. We included both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of any clinician-focussed intervention on antibiotic prescribing behaviour in primary care. Two overview authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using the ROBIS tool, with disagreements reached by consensus or by discussion with a third overview author. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence in included reviews. The results are presented as a narrative overview. Main results: We included eight reviews in this overview: five Cochrane Reviews (33 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (11 included trials). Three reviews (all Cochrane Reviews) scored low risk across all the ROBIS domains in Phase 2 and low risk of bias overall. The remaining five reviews scored high risk on Domain 4 of Phase 2 because the 'Risk of bias' assessment had not been specifically considered and discussed in the review Results and Conclusions. The trials included in the reviews varied in both size and risk of bias. Interventions were compared to usual care. Moderate-quality evidence indicated that C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92, 3284 participants, 6 trials), shared decision making (odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.75, 3274 participants, 3 trials; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.84, 4623 participants, 2 trials; risk difference -18.44, 95% CI -27.24 to -9.65, 481,807 participants, 4 trials), and procalcitonin-guided management (adjusted OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14, 1008 participants, 2 trials) probably reduce antibiotic prescribing in general practice. We found moderate-quality evidence that procalcitonin-guided management probably reduces antibiotic prescribing in emergency departments (adjusted OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.43, 2605 participants, 7 trials). The overall effect of these interventions was small (few achieving greater than 50% reduction in antibiotic prescribing, most about a quarter or less), but likely to be clinically important. Compared to usual care, shared decision making probably makes little or no difference to reconsultation for the same illness (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, 1860 participants, 4 trials, moderate-quality evidence), and may make little or no difference to patient satisfaction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30, 1110 participants, 2 trials, low-quality evidence). Similarly, CRP testing probably has little or no effect on patient satisfaction (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.08, 689 participants, 2 trials, moderate-quality evidence) or reconsultation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.27, 5132 participants, 4 trials, moderate-quality evidence). Procalcitonin-guided management probably results in little or no difference in treatment failure in general practice compared to normal care (adjusted OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.24, 1008 participants, 2 trials, moderate-quality evidence), however it probably reduces treatment failure in the emergency department compared to usual care (adjusted OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95, 2605 participants, 7 trials, moderate-quality evidence). The quality of evidence for interventions focused on clinician educational materials and decision support in reducing antibiotic prescribing in general practice was either low or very low (no pooled result reported) and trial results were highly heterogeneous, therefore we were unable draw conclusions about the effects of these interventions. The use of rapid viral diagnostics in emergency departments may have little or no effect on antibiotic prescribing (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.22, 891 participants, 3 trials, low-quality evidence) and may result in little to no difference in reconsultation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25, 200 participants, 1 trial, low-quality evidence). None of the trials in the included reviews reported on management costs for the treatment of an ARI or any associated complications. Authors' conclusions: We found evidence that CRP testing, shared decision making, and procalcitonin-guided management reduce antibiotic prescribing for patients with ARIs in primary care. These interventions may therefore reduce overall antibiotic consumption and consequently antibiotic resistance. There do not appear to be negative effects of these interventions on the outcomes of patient satisfaction and reconsultation, although there was limited measurement of these outcomes in the trials. This should be rectified in future trials. We could gather no information about the costs of management, and this along with the paucity of measurements meant that it was difficult to weigh the benefits and costs of implementing these interventions in practice. Most of this research was undertaken in high-income countries, and it may not generalise to other settings. The quality of evidence for the interventions of educational materials and tools for patients and clinicians was either low or very low, which prevented us from drawing any conclusions. High-quality trials are needed to further investigate these interventions. </p

Understanding by older patients of dialysis and conservative management for chronic kidney failure

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License CC BY NC-ND 4.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.BACKGROUND: Older adults with chronic kidney disease stage 5 may be offered a choice between dialysis and conservative management. Few studies have explored patients' reasons for choosing conservative management and none have compared the views of those who have chosen different treatments across renal units. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study with semistructured interviews. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS: Patients 75 years or older recruited from 9 renal units. Units were chosen to reflect variation in the scale of delivery of conservative management. METHODOLOGY: Semistructured interviews audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: 42 interviews were completed, 4 to 6 per renal unit. Patients were sampled from those receiving dialysis, those preparing for dialysis, and those choosing conservative management. 14 patients in each group were interviewed. Patients who had chosen different treatments held varying beliefs about what dialysis could offer. The information that patients reported receiving from clinical staff differed between units. Patients from units with a more established conservative management pathway were more aware of conservative management, less often believed that dialysis would guarantee longevity, and more often had discussed the future with staff. Some patients receiving conservative management reported that they would have dialysis if they became unwell in the future, indicating the conditional nature of their decision. LIMITATIONS: Recruitment of older adults with frailty and comorbid conditions was difficult and therefore transferability of findings to this population is limited. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with chronic kidney disease stage 5 who have chosen different treatment options have contrasting beliefs about the likely outcomes of dialysis for those who are influenced by information provided by renal units. Supporting renal staff in discussing conservative management as a valid alternative to dialysis for a subset of patients will aid informed decision making. There is a need for better evidence about conservative management to support shared decision making for older people with chronic kidney failure.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Re-examining advice to complete antibiotic courses: a qualitative study with clinicians and patients

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic treatment duration may be longer than sometimes needed. Stopping antibiotics early, rather than completing pre-set antibiotic courses, may help reduce unnecessary exposure to antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). AIM: To identify clinicians' and patients' views on stopping antibiotics when better (SAWB) for urinary tract infections (UTIs), and to explore comparisons with other acute infections. DESIGN & SETTING: An exploratory qualitative study with general practice clinicians and patients in England. METHOD: Primary care clinicians and patients who had recent UTI experience were recruited in England. Remote one-to-one interviews with clinicians and patients, and one focus group with patients, were conducted. Data were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Eleven clinicians (seven GPs) and 19 patients (14 with experience of recurrent and/or chronic UTIs) were included. All participants considered SAWB unfamiliar and contradictory to well-known advice to complete antibiotic courses, but were interested in the evidence for risks and benefits of SAWB. Clinicians were amenable if evidence and guidelines supported it, whereas patients were more averse because of concerns about the risk of UTI recurrence and/or complications and AMR. Participants viewed SAWB as potentially more appropriate for longer antibiotic courses and other infections (with longer courses and lower risk of recurrence and/or complications). Participants stressed the need for unambiguous advice and SAWB as part of shared decision making and personalised advice. CONCLUSION: Patients were less accepting of SAWB, whereas clinicians were more amenable to it. Patients and clinicians require good evidence that this novel approach to self-determining antibiotic duration is safe and beneficial. If evidence based, SAWB should be offered with an explanation of why the advice differs from the ‘complete the course’ instruction, and a clear indication of when exactly to stop antibiotics should be given

Stakeholders’ views and experiences on implementing new diagnostics in primary care to support management of community-acquired acute respiratory tract infections:a qualitative study

Background: The majority of antibiotics are prescribed in primary care for respiratory tract infections. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) for the management of community-acquired acute respiratory tract infections (CA-ARTI) have been developed to help optimize antibiotic prescribing. While some countries in Europe have adopted these tests in primary care settings, most have not. Stakeholders, such as policy-makers, regulators, the diagnostic industry, and scientific associations, have roles in the implementation of new diagnostics in primary care. The aim of this study is to explore these stakeholders’ views and experiences, and identify areas of unmet need relating to POCT implementation.Methods: Stakeholders were recruited using purposive sampling and snowballing. Between March 2021 and May 2022, semi-structured interviews were conducted online with stakeholders in Belgium, the UK and from European Union (EU) -level organizations. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed inductively and deductively using thematic analysis.Results: Twenty-six stakeholders participated: eleven from EU-level organizations, seven from Belgium, and eight from the UK. Five themes were identified. Stakeholders felt a balance of top-down and bottom-up approaches were an optimal strategy to the implementation of POCTs. Stakeholders stressed the need to engage with clinicians to act as champions for tests to help raise awareness and generate new evidence on how tests are used. While acknowledging the potential of POCTs for improving patient outcomes and impacting antibiotic prescribing behavior, some raised concerns on how tests would be used in practice and wished to see national data on effectiveness. COVID-19 catalyzed the use of tests, but stakeholders were pessimistic that processes for approving diagnostics during the pandemic would be replicated in the future.Conclusion: Stakeholders provided recommendations for research and practice. Robust reimbursement policies could alleviate financial burden from clinicians and patients, encouraging practices to adopt POCTs. Industry is likely to benefit from engaging as early on as possible with other stakeholders. Due to uncertainty among stakeholders on the impact of POCTs on antibiotic prescribing, further evidence is needed to understand how practices adopt POCTs and the implications for stewardship. Monitoring how POCTs are used can inform future guidelines on successful diagnostic implementation.</p

Stakeholders’ views and experiences on implementing new diagnostics in primary care to support management of community-acquired acute respiratory tract infections:a qualitative study

Background: The majority of antibiotics are prescribed in primary care for respiratory tract infections. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) for the management of community-acquired acute respiratory tract infections (CA-ARTI) have been developed to help optimize antibiotic prescribing. While some countries in Europe have adopted these tests in primary care settings, most have not. Stakeholders, such as policy-makers, regulators, the diagnostic industry, and scientific associations, have roles in the implementation of new diagnostics in primary care. The aim of this study is to explore these stakeholders’ views and experiences, and identify areas of unmet need relating to POCT implementation.Methods: Stakeholders were recruited using purposive sampling and snowballing. Between March 2021 and May 2022, semi-structured interviews were conducted online with stakeholders in Belgium, the UK and from European Union (EU) -level organizations. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed inductively and deductively using thematic analysis.Results: Twenty-six stakeholders participated: eleven from EU-level organizations, seven from Belgium, and eight from the UK. Five themes were identified. Stakeholders felt a balance of top-down and bottom-up approaches were an optimal strategy to the implementation of POCTs. Stakeholders stressed the need to engage with clinicians to act as champions for tests to help raise awareness and generate new evidence on how tests are used. While acknowledging the potential of POCTs for improving patient outcomes and impacting antibiotic prescribing behavior, some raised concerns on how tests would be used in practice and wished to see national data on effectiveness. COVID-19 catalyzed the use of tests, but stakeholders were pessimistic that processes for approving diagnostics during the pandemic would be replicated in the future.Conclusion: Stakeholders provided recommendations for research and practice. Robust reimbursement policies could alleviate financial burden from clinicians and patients, encouraging practices to adopt POCTs. Industry is likely to benefit from engaging as early on as possible with other stakeholders. Due to uncertainty among stakeholders on the impact of POCTs on antibiotic prescribing, further evidence is needed to understand how practices adopt POCTs and the implications for stewardship. Monitoring how POCTs are used can inform future guidelines on successful diagnostic implementation.</p

Stakeholders’ views and experiences on implementing new diagnostics in primary care to support management of community-acquired acute respiratory tract infections:a qualitative study

Background: The majority of antibiotics are prescribed in primary care for respiratory tract infections. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) for the management of community-acquired acute respiratory tract infections (CA-ARTI) have been developed to help optimize antibiotic prescribing. While some countries in Europe have adopted these tests in primary care settings, most have not. Stakeholders, such as policy-makers, regulators, the diagnostic industry, and scientific associations, have roles in the implementation of new diagnostics in primary care. The aim of this study is to explore these stakeholders’ views and experiences, and identify areas of unmet need relating to POCT implementation.Methods: Stakeholders were recruited using purposive sampling and snowballing. Between March 2021 and May 2022, semi-structured interviews were conducted online with stakeholders in Belgium, the UK and from European Union (EU) -level organizations. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed inductively and deductively using thematic analysis.Results: Twenty-six stakeholders participated: eleven from EU-level organizations, seven from Belgium, and eight from the UK. Five themes were identified. Stakeholders felt a balance of top-down and bottom-up approaches were an optimal strategy to the implementation of POCTs. Stakeholders stressed the need to engage with clinicians to act as champions for tests to help raise awareness and generate new evidence on how tests are used. While acknowledging the potential of POCTs for improving patient outcomes and impacting antibiotic prescribing behavior, some raised concerns on how tests would be used in practice and wished to see national data on effectiveness. COVID-19 catalyzed the use of tests, but stakeholders were pessimistic that processes for approving diagnostics during the pandemic would be replicated in the future.Conclusion: Stakeholders provided recommendations for research and practice. Robust reimbursement policies could alleviate financial burden from clinicians and patients, encouraging practices to adopt POCTs. Industry is likely to benefit from engaging as early on as possible with other stakeholders. Due to uncertainty among stakeholders on the impact of POCTs on antibiotic prescribing, further evidence is needed to understand how practices adopt POCTs and the implications for stewardship. Monitoring how POCTs are used can inform future guidelines on successful diagnostic implementation.</p