Using nasal sprays to prevent respiratory tract infections: A qualitative study of online consumer reviews and primary care patient interviews

OBJECTIVES: Nasal sprays could be a promising approach to preventing respiratory tract infections (RTIs). This study explored lay people’s perceptions and experiences of using nasal sprays to prevent RTIs to identify barriers and facilitators to their adoption and continued use. DESIGN: Qualitative research. Study 1 thematically analysed online consumer reviews of an RTI prevention nasal spray. Study 2 interviewed patients about their reactions to and experiences of a digital intervention that promotes and supports nasal spray use for RTI prevention (reactively: at ‘first signs’ of infection and preventatively: following possible/probable exposure to infection). Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING: Primary care, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 407 online customer reviews. 13 purposively recruited primary care patients who had experienced recurrent infections and/or had risk factors for severe infections. RESULTS: Both studies identified various factors that might influence nasal spray use including: high motivation to avoid RTIs, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic; fatalistic views about RTIs; beliefs about alternative prevention methods; the importance of personal recommendation; perceived complexity and familiarity of nasal sprays; personal experiences of spray success or failure; tolerable and off-putting side effects; concerns about medicines; and the nose as unpleasant and unhygienic. CONCLUSIONS: People who suffer disruptive, frequent or severe RTIs or who are vulnerable to RTIs are interested in using a nasal spray for prevention. They also have doubts and concerns and may encounter problems. Some of these may be reduced or eliminated by providing nasal spray users with information and advice that addresses these concerns or helps people overcome difficulties

Digital interventions for hypertension and asthma to support patient self-management in primary care: the DIPSS research programme including two RCTs

Background: Digital interventions offer a potentially cost-effective means to support patient self-management in primary care, but evidence for the feasibility, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of digital interventions remains mixed. This programme focused on the potential for self-management digital interventions to improve outcomes in two common, contrasting conditions (i.e. hypertension and asthma) for which care is currently suboptimal, leading to excess deaths, illness, disability and costs for the NHS. Objectives: The overall purpose was to address the question of how digital interventions can best provide cost-effective support for patient self-management in primary care. Our aims were to develop and trial digital interventions to support patient self-management of hypertension and asthma. Through the process of planning, developing and evaluating these interventions, we also aimed to generate a better understanding of what features and methods for implementing digital interventions could make digital interventions acceptable, feasible, effective and cost-effective to integrate into primary care. Design: For the hypertension strand, we carried out systematic reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence, intervention planning, development and optimisation, and an unmasked randomised controlled trial comparing digital intervention with usual care, with a health economic analysis and nested process evaluation. For the asthma strand, we carried out a systematic review of quantitative evidence, intervention planning, development and optimisation, and a feasibility randomised controlled trial comparing digital intervention with usual care, with nested process evaluation. Setting: General practices (hypertension, n = 76; asthma, n = 7) across Wessex and Thames Valley regions in Southern England. Participants: For the hypertension strand, people with uncontrolled hypertension taking one, two or three antihypertensive medications. For the asthma strand, adults with asthma and impaired asthma-related quality of life. Interventions: Our hypertension intervention (i.e. HOME BP) was a digital intervention that included motivational training for patients to self-monitor blood pressure, as well as health-care professionals to support self-management; a digital interface to send monthly readings to the health-care professional and to prompt planned medication changes when patients’ readings exceeded recommended targets for 2 consecutive months; and support for optional patient healthy behaviour change (e.g. healthy diet/weight loss, increased physical activity and reduced alcohol and salt consumption). The control group were provided with a Blood Pressure UK (London, UK) leaflet for hypertension and received routine hypertension care. Our asthma intervention (i.e. My Breathing Matters) was a digital intervention to improve the functional quality of life of primary care patients with asthma by supporting illness self-management. Motivational content intended to facilitate use of pharmacological self-management strategies (e.g. medication adherence and appropriate health-care service use) and non-pharmacological self-management strategies (e.g. breathing retraining, stress reduction and healthy behaviour change). The control group were given an Asthma UK (London, UK) information booklet on asthma self-management and received routine asthma care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome for the hypertension randomised controlled trial was difference between intervention and usual-care groups in mean systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at 12 months, adjusted for baseline blood pressure, blood pressure target (i.e. standard, diabetic or aged > 80 years), age and general practice. The primary outcome for the asthma feasibility study was the feasibility of the trial design, including recruitment, adherence, intervention engagement and retention at follow-up. Health-care utilisation data were collected via notes review. Review methods: The quantitative reviews included a meta-analysis. The qualitative review comprised a meta-ethnography. Results: A total of 622 hypertensive patients were recruited to the randomised controlled trial, and 552 (89%) were followed up at 12 months. Systolic blood pressure was significantly lower in the intervention group at 12 months, with a difference of –3.4 mmHg (95% confidence interval –6.1 to –0.8 mmHg), and this gave an incremental cost per unit of systolic blood pressure reduction of £11 (95% confidence interval £5 to £29). Owing to a cost difference of £402 and a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) difference of 0.044, long-term modelling puts the incremental cost per QALY at just over £9000. The probability of being cost-effective was 66% at willingness to pay £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, and this was higher at higher thresholds. A total of 88 patients were recruited to the asthma feasibility trial (target n = 80; n = 44 in each arm). At 3-month follow-up, two patients withdrew and six patients did not complete outcome measures. At 12 months, two patients withdrew and four patients did not complete outcome measures. A total of 36 out of 44 patients in the intervention group engaged with My Breathing Matters [with a median of four (range 0–25) logins]

Using nasal sprays to prevent respiratory tract infections: A qualitative study of online consumer reviews and primary care patient interviews

Objectives Nasal sprays could be a promising approach to preventing respiratory tract infections (RTIs). This study explored lay people’s perceptions and experiences of using nasal sprays to prevent RTIs to identify barriers and facilitators to their adoption and continued use.Design Qualitative research. Study 1 thematically analysed online consumer reviews of an RTI prevention nasal spray. Study 2 interviewed patients about their reactions to and experiences of a digital intervention that promotes and supports nasal spray use for RTI prevention (reactively: at ‘first signs’ of infection and preventatively: following possible/probable exposure to infection). Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.Setting Primary care, UK.Participants 407 online customer reviews. 13 purposively recruited primary care patients who had experienced recurrent infections and/or had risk factors for severe infections.Results Both studies identified various factors that might influence nasal spray use including: high motivation to avoid RTIs, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic; fatalistic views about RTIs; beliefs about alternative prevention methods; the importance of personal recommendation; perceived complexity and familiarity of nasal sprays; personal experiences of spray success or failure; tolerable and off-putting side effects; concerns about medicines; and the nose as unpleasant and unhygienic.Conclusions People who suffer disruptive, frequent or severe RTIs or who are vulnerable to RTIs are interested in using a nasal spray for prevention. They also have doubts and concerns and may encounter problems. Some of these may be reduced or eliminated by providing nasal spray users with information and advice that addresses these concerns or helps people overcome difficulties

Using nasal sprays to prevent respiratory tract infections:: a qualitative study of online consumer reviews and primary care patient interviews

Objectives: Nasal sprays could be a promising approach to preventing Respiratory Tract Infections (RTIs). This study explored lay people’s perceptions and experiences of using nasal sprays to prevent RTIs to identify barriers and facilitators to their adoption and continued use. Design: Qualitative research. Study 1 thematically analysed online consumer reviews of a RTI prevention nasal spray. Study 2 interviewed patients about their reactions to and experiences of a digital intervention that promotes and supports nasal spray use for RTI prevention (reactively: at ‘first signs’ of infection and preventatively: following possible/probable exposure to infection). Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.Setting: Primary Care, UK.Participants: 407 online customer reviews. 13 purposively recruited primary care patients who had experienced recurrent infections and/or had risk factors for severe infections.Results: Both studies identified various factors that might influence nasal spray use including: high motivation to avoid RTIs, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic; fatalistic views about RTIs; beliefs about alternative prevention methods; the importance of personal recommendation; perceived complexity and familiarity of nasal sprays; personal experiences of spray success or failure; tolerable and off-putting side effects; concerns about medicines; and the nose as unpleasant and unhygienic.Conclusions: People who suffer disruptive, frequent or severe RTIs or who are vulnerable to RTIs are interested in using a nasal spray for prevention. They also have doubts and concerns and may encounter problems. Some of these may be reduced or eliminated by providing nasal sprays users with information and advice that addresses these concerns or helps people overcome difficulties

Rapid respiratory microbiological point-of-care-testing and antibiotic prescribing in primary care: Protocol for the RAPID-TEST randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are prescribed for over 50% of respiratory tract infections in primary care, despite good evidence of there being no benefit to the patient, and evidence of over prescribing driving microbial resistance. The high treatment rates are attributed to uncertainty regarding microbiological cause and clinical prognosis. Point-of-care-tests have been proposed as potential antibiotic stewardship tools, with some providing microbiological results in 15 minutes. However, there is little research on their impact on antibiotic use and clinical outcomes in primary care.METHODS: This is a multi-centre, individually randomised controlled trial with mixed-methods investigation of microbial, behavioural and antibiotic mechanisms on outcomes in patients aged 12 months and over presenting to primary care in the UK with a suspected respiratory tract infection, where the clinician and/or patient thinks antibiotic treatment may be, or is, necessary. Once consented, all participants are asked to provide a combined nose and throat swab sample and randomised to have a rapid microbiological point-of-care-test or no point-of-care-test. For intervention patients, clinicians review the result of the test, before contacting the patient to finalise treatment. Treatment decisions are made as per usual care in control group patients. The primary outcome is whether an antibiotic is prescribed at this point. All swab samples are sent to the central laboratory for further testing. Patients are asked to complete a diary to record the severity and duration of symptoms until resolution or day 28, and questionnaires at 2 months about their beliefs and intention to consult for similar future illnesses. Primary care medical records are also reviewed at 6-months to collect further infection consultations, antibiotic prescribing and hospital admissions. The trial aims to recruit 514 patients to achieve 90% power with 5% significance to detect a 15% absolute reduction in antibiotic prescribing. Qualitative interviews are being conducted with approximately 20 clinicians and 30 participants to understand any changes in beliefs and behaviour resulting from the point-of-care-test and generate attributes for clinician and patient discrete choice experiments.DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence of efficacy, acceptability and mechanisms of action of a rapid microbiological point-of-care test on antibiotic prescribing and patient symptoms in primary care.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16039192, prospectively registered on 08/11/2022.</p

Rapid respiratory microbiological point-of-care-testing and antibiotic prescribing in primary care:Protocol for the RAPID-TEST randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are prescribed for over 50% of respiratory tract infections in primary care, despite good evidence of there being no benefit to the patient, and evidence of over prescribing driving microbial resistance. The high treatment rates are attributed to uncertainty regarding microbiological cause and clinical prognosis. Point-of-care-tests have been proposed as potential antibiotic stewardship tools, with some providing microbiological results in 15 minutes. However, there is little research on their impact on antibiotic use and clinical outcomes in primary care.METHODS: This is a multi-centre, individually randomised controlled trial with mixed-methods investigation of microbial, behavioural and antibiotic mechanisms on outcomes in patients aged 12 months and over presenting to primary care in the UK with a suspected respiratory tract infection, where the clinician and/or patient thinks antibiotic treatment may be, or is, necessary. Once consented, all participants are asked to provide a combined nose and throat swab sample and randomised to have a rapid microbiological point-of-care-test or no point-of-care-test. For intervention patients, clinicians review the result of the test, before contacting the patient to finalise treatment. Treatment decisions are made as per usual care in control group patients. The primary outcome is whether an antibiotic is prescribed at this point. All swab samples are sent to the central laboratory for further testing. Patients are asked to complete a diary to record the severity and duration of symptoms until resolution or day 28, and questionnaires at 2 months about their beliefs and intention to consult for similar future illnesses. Primary care medical records are also reviewed at 6-months to collect further infection consultations, antibiotic prescribing and hospital admissions. The trial aims to recruit 514 patients to achieve 90% power with 5% significance to detect a 15% absolute reduction in antibiotic prescribing. Qualitative interviews are being conducted with approximately 20 clinicians and 30 participants to understand any changes in beliefs and behaviour resulting from the point-of-care-test and generate attributes for clinician and patient discrete choice experiments.DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence of efficacy, acceptability and mechanisms of action of a rapid microbiological point-of-care test on antibiotic prescribing and patient symptoms in primary care.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16039192, prospectively registered on 08/11/2022.</p

Determining the clinical and cost-effectiveness of nasal sprays and a physical activity and stress management intervention to reduce respiratory tract infections in primary care: A protocol for the 'Immune Defence' randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most adults in the UK experience at least one viral respiratory tract infection (RTI) per year. Individuals with comorbidities and those with recurrent RTIs are at higher risk of infections. This can lead to more severe illness, worse quality of life and more days off work. There is promising evidence that using common nasal sprays or improving immune function through increasing physical activity and managing stress, may reduce the incidence and severity of RTIs. METHODS AND DESIGN: Immune Defence is an open, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. Up to 15000 adults from UK general practices, with a comorbidity or risk factor for infection and/or recurrent infections (3 or more infections per year) will be randomly allocated to i) a gel-based nasal spray designed to inhibit viral respiratory infections; ii) a saline nasal spray, iii) a digital intervention promoting physical activity and stress management, or iv) usual care with brief advice for managing infections, for 12 months. Participants will complete monthly questionnaires online. The primary outcome is the total number of days of illness due to RTIs over 6 months. Key secondary outcomes include: days with symptoms moderately bad or worse; days where work/normal activities were impaired; incidence of RTI; incidence of COVID-19; health service contacts; antibiotic usage; beliefs about antibiotics; intention to consult; number of days of illness in total due to respiratory tract infections over 12 months. Economic evaluation from an NHS perspective will compare the interventions, expressed as incremental cost effectiveness ratios. A nested mixed methods process evaluation will examine uptake and engagement with the interventions and trial procedures. TRIAL STATUS: Recruitment commenced in December 2020 and the last participant is expected to complete the trial in April 2024. DISCUSSION: Common nasal sprays and digital interventions to promote physical activity and stress management are low cost, accessible interventions applicable to primary care. If effective, they have the potential to reduce the individual and societal impact of RTIs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered with ISRCTN registry (17936080) on 30/10/2020. SPONSOR: This RCT is sponsored by University of Southampton. The sponsors had no role in the study design, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript