Evaluation of a 'virtual' approach to commissioning health research

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a 'virtual' (computer-mediated) approach to health research commissioning. This had been introduced experimentally in a DOH programme – the 'Health of Londoners Programme' – in order to assess whether is could enhance the accessibility, transparency and effectiveness of commissioning health research. The study described here was commissioned to evaluate this novel approach, addressing these key questions. METHODS: A naturalistic-experimental approach was combined with principles of action research. The different commissioning groups within the programme were randomly allocated to either the traditional face-to-face mode or the novel 'virtual' mode. Mainly qualitative data were gathered including observation of all (virtual and face-to-face) commissioning meetings; semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of participants (n = 32/66); structured questionnaires and interviews with lead researchers of early commissioned projects. All members of the commissioning groups were invited to participate in collaborative enquiry groups which participated actively in the analysis process. RESULTS: The virtual process functioned as intended, reaching timely and relatively transparent decisions that participants had confidence in. Despite the potential for greater access using a virtual approach, few differences were found in practice. Key advantages included physical access, a more flexible and extended time period for discussion, reflection and information gathering and a more transparent decision-making process. Key challenges were the reduction of social cues available in a computer-mediated medium that require novel ways of ensuring appropriate dialogue, feedback and interaction. However, in both modes, the process was influenced by a range of factors and was not technology driven. CONCLUSION: There is potential for using computer-mediated communication within the research commissioning process. This may enhance access, effectiveness and transparency of decision-making but further development is needed for this to be fully realised, including attention to process as well as the computer-mediated medium

RH5.1-CyRPA-Ripr antigen combination vaccine shows little improvement over RH5.1 in a preclinical setting

Background: RH5 is the leading vaccine candidate for the Plasmodium falciparum blood stage and has shown impact on parasite growth in the blood in a human clinical trial. RH5 binds to Ripr and CyRPA at the apical end of the invasive merozoite form, and this complex, designated RCR, is essential for entry into human erythrocytes. RH5 has advanced to human clinical trials, and the impact on parasite growth in the blood was encouraging but modest. This study assessed the potential of a protein-in-adjuvant blood stage malaria vaccine based on a combination of RH5, Ripr and CyRPA to provide improved neutralizing activity against P. falciparum in vitro. Methods: Mice were immunized with the individual RCR antigens to down select the best performing adjuvant formulation and rats were immunized with the individual RCR antigens to select the correct antigen dose. A second cohort of rats were immunized with single, double and triple antigen combinations to assess immunogenicity and parasite neutralizing activity in growth inhibition assays. Results: The DPX® platform was identified as the best performing formulation in potentiating P. falciparum inhibitory antibody responses to these antigens. The three antigens derived from RH5, Ripr and CyRPA proteins formulated with DPX induced highly inhibitory parasite neutralising antibodies. Notably, RH5 either as a single antigen or in combination with Ripr and/or CyRPA, induced inhibitory antibodies that outperformed CyRPA, Ripr. Conclusion: An RCR combination vaccine may not induce substantially improved protective immunity as compared with RH5 as a single immunogen in a clinical setting and leaves the development pathway open for other antigens to be combined with RH5 as a next generation malaria vaccine

BHPR research: qualitative1. Complex reasoning determines patients' perception of outcome following foot surgery in rheumatoid arhtritis

Background: Foot surgery is common in patients with RA but research into surgical outcomes is limited and conceptually flawed as current outcome measures lack face validity: to date no one has asked patients what is important to them. This study aimed to determine which factors are important to patients when evaluating the success of foot surgery in RA Methods: Semi structured interviews of RA patients who had undergone foot surgery were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis of interviews was conducted to explore issues that were important to patients. Results: 11 RA patients (9 ♂, mean age 59, dis dur = 22yrs, mean of 3 yrs post op) with mixed experiences of foot surgery were interviewed. Patients interpreted outcome in respect to a multitude of factors, frequently positive change in one aspect contrasted with negative opinions about another. Overall, four major themes emerged. Function: Functional ability & participation in valued activities were very important to patients. Walking ability was a key concern but patients interpreted levels of activity in light of other aspects of their disease, reflecting on change in functional ability more than overall level. Positive feelings of improved mobility were often moderated by negative self perception ("I mean, I still walk like a waddling duck”). Appearance: Appearance was important to almost all patients but perhaps the most complex theme of all. Physical appearance, foot shape, and footwear were closely interlinked, yet patients saw these as distinct separate concepts. Patients need to legitimize these feelings was clear and they frequently entered into a defensive repertoire ("it's not cosmetic surgery; it's something that's more important than that, you know?”). Clinician opinion: Surgeons' post operative evaluation of the procedure was very influential. The impact of this appraisal continued to affect patients' lasting impression irrespective of how the outcome compared to their initial goals ("when he'd done it ... he said that hasn't worked as good as he'd wanted to ... but the pain has gone”). Pain: Whilst pain was important to almost all patients, it appeared to be less important than the other themes. Pain was predominately raised when it influenced other themes, such as function; many still felt the need to legitimize their foot pain in order for health professionals to take it seriously ("in the end I went to my GP because it had happened a few times and I went to an orthopaedic surgeon who was quite dismissive of it, it was like what are you complaining about”). Conclusions: Patients interpret the outcome of foot surgery using a multitude of interrelated factors, particularly functional ability, appearance and surgeons' appraisal of the procedure. While pain was often noted, this appeared less important than other factors in the overall outcome of the surgery. Future research into foot surgery should incorporate the complexity of how patients determine their outcome Disclosure statement: All authors have declared no conflicts of interes