A qualitative study of cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS Health Check using different risk calculators: protocol for the RIsk COmmunication in NHS Health Check (RICO) study. BMC family practice, 20(1), 11.

Background NHS Health Check is a national cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment programme for 40–74 year olds in England, in which practitioners should assess and communicate CVD risk, supported by appropriate risk-management advice and goal-setting. This requires effective communication, to equip patients with knowledge and intention to act. Currently, the QRISK®2 10-year CVD risk score is most common way in which CVD risk is estimated. Newer tools, such as JBS3, allow manipulation of risk factors and can demonstrate the impact of positive actions. However, the use, and relative value, of these tools within CVD risk communication is unknown. We will explore practitioner and patient CVD risk perceptions when using QRISK®2 or JBS3, the associated advice or treatment offered by the practitioner, and patients’ responses. Methods RIsk COmmunication in NHS Health Check (RICO) is a qualitative study with quantitative process evaluation. Twelve general practices in the West Midlands of England will be randomised to one of two groups: usual practice, in which practitioners use QRISK®2 to assess and communicate CVD risk; intervention, in which practitioners use JBS3. Twenty Health Checks per practice will be video-recorded (n = 240, 120 per group), with patients stratified by age, gender and ethnicity. Post-Health Check, video-stimulated recall (VSR) interviews will be conducted with 48 patients (n = 24 per group) and all practitioners (n = 12–18), using video excerpts to enhance participant recall/reflection. Patient medical record reviews will detect health-protective actions in the first 12-weeks following a Health Check (e.g., lifestyle referrals, statin prescription). Risk communication, patient response and intentions for health-protective behaviours in each group will be explored through thematic analysis of video-recorded Health Checks (using Protection Motivation Theory as a framework) and VSR interviews. Process evaluation will include between-group comparisons of quantitatively coded Health Check content and post-Health Check patient outcomes. Finally, 10 patients with the most positive intentions or behaviours will be selected for case study analysis (using all data sources). Discussion This study will produce novel insights about the utility of QRISK®2 and JBS3 to promote patient and practitioner understanding and perception of CVD risk and associated implications for patient intentions with respect to health-protective behaviours (and underlying mechanisms). Recommendations for practice will be developed

Higher perceived risks of antimicrobial use are related to lower usage among pig farmers in four European countries

The prudent use of antimicrobials (AMs) should be widened in pig farming to reduce the risk of AM resistance (AMR) in human and veterinary medicine. It is therefore important to understand pig farmers' motivators and the barriers to AM usage (AMU) on their farms. The authors investigated pig farmers' self-estimated levels of AMU, their perceived benefits and risks and the need for AMs in a cross-sectional survey in Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden. The authors also compared these perceptions between the four countries and related them to pig farmers' actual AMU. The results showed that farmers who used more AMs also estimated their own usage as higher. Farmers perceived many benefits but relatively few risks of AMU in pig farming. Some significant cross-country differences in farmers' perceptions were found, but they were relatively small. After controlling for country differences and farm differences, only perceived risks had a significant association with AMU. The authors therefore conclude that in order to promote prudent AMU, it seems most promising to focus on the structural differences in pig farming and veterinary medicine (e.g. legislation, role of the veterinarian) among countries. In addition, interventions which aim at reducing AMU should increase farmers' awareness of the risks of extensive AMU