Strategies for improving patient recruitment to focus groups in primary care: a case study reflective paper using an analytical framework

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recruiting to primary care studies is complex. With the current drive to increase numbers of patients involved in primary care studies, we need to know more about successful recruitment approaches. There is limited evidence on recruitment to focus group studies, particularly when no natural grouping exists and where participants do not regularly meet. The aim of this paper is to reflect on recruitment to a focus group study comparing the methods used with existing evidence using a resource for research recruitment, PROSPeR (Planning Recruitment Options: Strategies for Primary Care).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The focus group formed part of modelling a complex intervention in primary care in the Resources for Effective Sleep Treatment (REST) study. Despite a considered approach at the design stage, there were a number of difficulties with recruitment. The recruitment strategy and subsequent revisions are detailed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The researchers' modifications to recruitment, justifications and evidence from the literature in support of them are presented. Contrary evidence is used to analyse why some aspects were unsuccessful and evidence is used to suggest improvements. Recruitment to focus group studies should be considered in two distinct phases; getting potential participants to contact the researcher, and converting those contacts into attendance. The difficulty of recruitment in primary care is underemphasised in the literature especially where people do not regularly come together, typified by this case study of patients with sleep problems.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We recommend training GPs and nurses to recruit patients during consultations. Multiple recruitment methods should be employed from the outset and the need to build topic related non-financial incentives into the group meeting should be considered. Recruitment should be monitored regularly with barriers addressed iteratively as a study progresses.</p

Electroosmotic flow reversal outside glass nanopores.

We report observations of a striking reversal in the direction of electroosmotic flow (EOF) outside a conical glass nanopore as a function of salt concentration. At high ionic strengths (>100 mM), we observe EOF in the expected direction as predicted by classical electrokinetic theory, while at low salt concentrations (<1 mM) the direction of the flow is reversed. The critical crossover salt concentration depends on the pore diameter. Finite-element simulations indicate a competition between the EOF generated from the inner and outer walls of the pore, which drives flows in opposite directions. We have developed a simple analytical model which reveals that, as the salt concentration is reduced, the flow rates inside the pore are geometrically constrained, whereas there is no such limit for flows outside the pore. This model captures all of the essential physics of the system and explains the observed data, highlighting the key role the external environment plays in determining the overall electroosmotic behavior

Return to work of breast cancer survivors: a systematic review of intervention studies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Breast cancer management has improved dramatically in the past three decades and as a result, a population of working age women is breast cancer survivor. Interventions for breast cancer survivors have shown improvements in quality of life and in physical and psychological states. In contrast, efforts aimed at stimulating re-employment and return-to-work interventions for breast cancer survivors have not kept pace. The objective of this review was to study the effects and characteristics of intervention studies on breast cancer survivors in which the outcome was return to work.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006), Medline, Ovid, EMBASE and PsychInfo were systematically searched for studies conducted between 1970 to February 2007. Intervention studies for female breast cancer survivors that were focused on return to work were included.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our search strategy identified 5219 studies. Four studies out of 100 potentially relevant abstracts were selected and included 46–317 employed women who had had mastectomy, adjuvant therapy and rehabilitation, with the outcome return to work. The intervention programs focused on improvement of physical, psychological and social recovery. Although a substantial percentage (between 75% to 85%) of patients included in these studies returned to work after rehabilitation, it is not clear whether this proportion would have been lower for patients without counseling or exercise, or any other interventions, as three out of four studies did not include a comparison group.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The most important finding of this review is the lack of methodologically sound intervention studies on breast cancer survivors with the outcome return to work. Using evidence from qualitative and observational studies on cancer and the good results of intervention studies on return to work programs and vocational rehabilitation, return to work interventions for breast cancer survivors should be further developed and evaluated.</p

Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline for the gene–drug interaction of DPYD and fluoropyrimidines

Despite advances in the field of pharmacogenetics (PGx), clinical acceptance has remained limited. The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate PGx implementation by developing evidence-based pharmacogenetics guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy. This guideline describes the starting dose optimization of three anti-cancer drugs (fluoropyrimidines: 5-fluorouracil, capecitabine and tegafur) to decrease the risk of severe, potentially fatal, toxicity (such as diarrhoea, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis or myelosuppression). Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD, encoded by the DPYD gene) enzyme deficiency increases risk of fluoropyrimidine-induced toxicity. The DPYD-gene activity score, determined by four DPYD variants, predicts DPD activity and can be used to optimize an individual’s starting dose. The gene activity score ranges from 0 (no DPD activity) to 2 (normal DPD activity). In case it is not possible to calculate the gene activity score based on DPYD genotype, we recommend to determine the DPD activity and adjust the initial dose based on available data. For patients initiating 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine: subjects with a gene activity score of 0 are recommended to avoid systemic and cutaneous 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine; subjects with a gene activity score of 1 or 1.5 are recommended to initiate therap

Central European Vaccination Advisory Group (CEVAG) guidance statement on recommendations for influenza vaccination in children

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Influenza vaccination in infants and children with existing health complications is current practice in many countries, but healthy children are also susceptible to influenza, sometimes with complications. The under-recognised burden of disease in young children is greater than in elderly populations and the number of paediatric influenza cases reported does not reflect the actual frequency of influenza.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Vaccination of healthy children is not widespread in Europe despite clear demonstration of the benefits of vaccination in reducing the large health and economic burden of influenza. Universal vaccination of infants and children also provides indirect protection in other high-risk groups in the community. This paper contains the Central European Vaccination Advisory Group (CEVAG) guidance statement on recommendations for the vaccination of infants and children against influenza. The aim of CEVAG is to encourage the efficient and safe use of vaccines to prevent and control infectious diseases.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>CEVAG recommends the introduction of universal influenza vaccination for all children from the age of 6 months. Special attention is needed for children up to 60 months of age as they are at greatest risk. Individual countries should decide on how best to implement this recommendation based on their circumstances.</p

A 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel to prevent adverse drug reactions: an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised crossover implementation study

Background The benefit of pharmacogenetic testing before starting drug therapy has been well documented for several single gene–drug combinations. However, the clinical utility of a pre-emptive genotyping strategy using a pharmacogenetic panel has not been rigorously assessed. Methods We conducted an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised, crossover implementation study of a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel in 18 hospitals, nine community health centres, and 28 community pharmacies in seven European countries (Austria, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, and the UK). Patients aged 18 years or older receiving a first prescription for a drug clinically recommended in the guidelines of the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (ie, the index drug) as part of routine care were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included previous genetic testing for a gene relevant to the index drug, a planned duration of treatment of less than 7 consecutive days, and severe renal or liver insufficiency. All patients gave written informed consent before taking part in the study. Participants were genotyped for 50 germline variants in 12 genes, and those with an actionable variant (ie, a drug–gene interaction test result for which the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group [DPWG] recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) were treated according to DPWG recommendations. Patients in the control group received standard treatment. To prepare clinicians for pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing, local teams were educated during a site-initiation visit and online educational material was made available. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions within the 12-week follow-up period. Analyses were irrespective of patient adherence to the DPWG guidelines. The primary analysis was done using a gatekeeping analysis, in which outcomes in people with an actionable drug–gene interaction in the study group versus the control group were compared, and only if the difference was statistically significant was an analysis done that included all of the patients in the study. Outcomes were compared between the study and control groups, both for patients with an actionable drug–gene interaction test result (ie, a result for which the DPWG recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) and for all patients who received at least one dose of index drug. The safety analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03093818 and is closed to new participants. Findings Between March 7, 2017, and June 30, 2020, 41696 patients were assessed for eligibility and 6944 (51·4 % female, 48·6% male; 97·7% self-reported European, Mediterranean, or Middle Eastern ethnicity) were enrolled and assigned to receive genotype-guided drug treatment (n=3342) or standard care (n=3602). 99 patients (52 [1·6%] of the study group and 47 [1·3%] of the control group) withdrew consent after group assignment. 652 participants (367 [11·0%] in the study group and 285 [7·9%] in the control group) were lost to follow-up. In patients with an actionable test result for the index drug (n=1558), a clinically relevant adverse drug reaction occurred in 152 (21·0%) of 725 patients in the study group and 231 (27·7%) of 833 patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·54–0·91]; p=0·0075), whereas for all patients, the incidence was 628 (21·5%) of 2923 patients in the study group and 934 (28·6%) of 3270 patients in the control group (OR 0·70 [95% CI 0·61–0·79]; p Horizon 2020 (H2020)Genetics of disease, diagnosis and treatmen

Als ik praat, dan praat ik money: de hiphopste woorden

Theoretical and Experimental Linguistic