Coping with Persistent Pain, Effectiveness Research into Self-management (COPERS): statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated

What is the evidence behind cancer care reviews, a primary care cancer support tool? A scoping review

PURPOSE: A “cancer care review” (CCR) is a conversation between a patient recently diagnosed with cancer and primary care practitioner soon after a diagnosis of cancer in the UK. This scoping review aimed to identify: methodology and validated outcome measures used to evaluate CCRs, the impact of CCRs on quality of life or symptoms, and the views of patients, their carers and healthcare professionals on CCRs. METHODS: A scoping review was performed and five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar) were searched systematically from January 2000 to March 2022. RESULTS: Of 4133 articles, ten met the inclusion criteria. These included surveys, qualitative research on stakeholders’ views and a small study evaluating group consultation CCRs. There were no studies on methodology to evaluate CCRs or the impact of CCRs on patient quality of life or symptoms. Some primary care professionals felt CCRs were a tick-box exercise, and that they had inadequate time to deliver care, compounded by inadequate primary-secondary care coordination and lack of expertise which was echoed by patients. Interviews with patients found few recalled CCRs and those that recalled CCRs did, did not find them particularly helpful. Partners of patients would welcome CCRs to raise personal health concerns and remain updated on patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Further studies should identify the role that stakeholders believe they should have in CCRs, improve care coordination between primary care and secondary care and how to support caregivers. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of CCRs in general practice

Pharmacist-led adherence support in general practice: a qualitative interview study of adults with asthma.

OBJECTIVES: The National Health Service (NHS) in England recently introduced general practice pharmacists (GPPs) to provide medication-focused support to both patients and the general practice team. This healthcare model may benefit people with asthma, who currently receive suboptimal care and demonstrate low medication adherence. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of adults with asthma on the potential for pharmacist-led adherence support delivered in general practice, with a focus on how these perspectives are formed. DESIGN AND SETTING: The study was conducted in the United Kingdom (UK) utilising a qualitative interview methodology. Participants were invited to partake in a telephone-based semistructured interview, followed by an online questionnaire for demographic details and asthma history. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (n=17) were adults with asthma in the UK with a prescription for an inhaled corticosteroid. Participants did not have previous experience with GPPs and were asked to provide their views on a proposed GPP-led service. RESULTS: Participant perspectives of GPPs were determined by trust in pharmacists, perceived gaps in asthma care and the perceived strain on the NHS. Trust was based on pharmacists' perceived clinical competency, established over time, and gauged through a 'benchmarking' process. GPP's fit in current asthma care was assessed based on potential role overlap with other healthcare professionals, continuity of care and medication-related support needs. Participants navigated the NHS based on a perceived hierarchy of healthcare professionals (general practitioners on top, nurses, then pharmacists), and this influenced their perspectives of GPPs. CONCLUSION: While the GPP scheme shows promise based on the perspectives of people with asthma, the identified barriers to optimal patient engagement and service implementation will need to be addressed for the service to be effective.The research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North Thames at Barts Health NHS Trust

Collaborative working within UK NHS secondary care and across sectors for COPD and the impact of peer review: qualitative findings from the UK National COPD Resources and Outcomes Project

The main NCROP study was funded by the Health Foundation’s Engaging with Quality Initiative (EwQI). The researchers are grateful to GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd, Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca UK Ltd for a combined Educational Grant that has funded this research evaluation

Implementing psychological interventions delivered by respiratory professionals for people with COPD. A stakeholder interview study.

Implementing psychological interventions in healthcare services requires an understanding of the organisational context. We conducted an interview study with UK National Health Service stakeholders to understand the barriers and facilitators for implementing psychological interventions for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD). We used TANDEM as an exemplar intervention; a psychological intervention recently evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. Twenty participants providing care and/or services to people with COPD were purposively sampled from NHS primary/secondary care, and commissioning organisations. Participants were recruited via professional networks and referrals. Verbatim transcripts of semi-structured interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Four themes were identified: (1) Living with COPD and emotional distress affects engagement with physical and psychological services; (2) Resource limitations affects service provision in COPD; (3) Provision of integrated care is important for patient well-being; and (4) Healthcare communication can be an enabler or a barrier to patient engagement. People need support with physical and psychological symptoms inherent with COPD and healthcare should be provided holistically. Respiratory healthcare professionals are considered able to provide psychologically informed approaches, but resources must be available for training, staff supervision and service integration. Communication between professionals is vital for clear understanding of an intervention's aims and content, to facilitate referrals and uptake. There was widespread commitment to integrating psychological and physical care, and support of respiratory healthcare professionals' role in delivering psychological interventions but significant barriers to implementation due to concerns around resources and cost efficiency. The current study informs future intervention development and implementation