Tales from the drawing board : IP wisdom and woes from Scotland’s creative industries

This collection of cases is a free resource intended to help creative businesses to navigate the bumpy landscape of IP legal issues, protection tools, and management dilemmas. Each case deals with daily IP challenges as experienced by creative practitioners in Computer Games, Dance & Theatre, Fashion & Product Design, Film & Television, and Music & Publishing.Publisher PD

Audit and feedback with or without training in-practice targeting antibiotic prescribing (TiPTAP):a study protocol of a cluster randomised trial in dental primary care

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all the dentists and dental team members who are participating in the TiPTAP Trial, as well as the wider QliPT who will ensure the delivery of the intervention. Sponsorship NHS Education for Scotland is the sponsor for the study. NHS Education Scotland will have no role in the design, conduct and analysis of the trial. Funding The study is funded by NHS Education for Scotland.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Qualitative study exploring the key determinants of information gathering to inform the management of over-the-counter (OTC) consultations in community pharmacies

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The development of theory-informed participant-centred interventions to maximise participant retention in randomised controlled trials

Acknowledgements We would like to thank all of the participants who volunteered their time to contribute to this study. We would also like to thank all of the teams linked to the host trials we worked with to help identify potential participants. Funding This research is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government’s Health and Social Care Department [HIPS/16/46]. KG held a Medical Research Council UK Methodology Fellowship during the delivery of this project [MR/L01193X/1]. The publication was supported through a Health Research Board Trials Methodology Research Network award. MDW acknowledges support from the NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre. MW acknowledges support from the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). The Health Services Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences (University of Aberdeen), is core-funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The funders had no involvement in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, reporting or the decision to publish.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Barriers and facilitators of evidence-based management of patients with bacterial infections among general dental practitioners:a theory-informed interview study

Background: General dental practitioners (GDPs) regularly prescribe antibiotics to manage dental infections although most infections can be treated successfully by local measures. Published guidance to support GDPs to make appropriate prescribing decisions exists but there continues to be wide variation in dental antibiotic prescribing. An interview study was conducted as part of the Reducing Antibiotic Prescribing in Dentistry (RAPiD) trial to understand the barriers and facilitators of using local measures instead of prescribing antibiotics to manage bacterial infections. Methods: Thirty semi-structured one-to-one telephone interviews were conducted using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Responses were coded into domains of the TDF and sub-themes. Priority domains (high frequency: ≥50 % interviewees discussed) relevant to behaviour change were identified as targets for future intervention efforts and mapped onto 'intervention functions' of the Behaviour Change Wheel system. Results: Five domains (behavioural regulation, social influences, reinforcement, environmental context and resources, and beliefs about consequences) with seven sub-themes were identified as targets for future intervention. All participants had knowledge about the evidence-based management of bacterial infections, but they reported difficulties in following this due to patient factors and time management. Lack of time was found to significantly influence their decision processes with regard to performing local measures. Beliefs about their capabilities to overcome patient influence, beliefs that performing local measures would impact on subsequent appointment times as well as there being no incentives for performing local measures were also featured. Though no knowledge or basic skills issues were identified, the participants suggested some continuous professional development programmes (e.g. time management, an overview of published guidance) to address some of the barriers. The domain results suggest a number of intervention functions through which future interventions could change GDPs' antibiotic prescribing for bacterial infections: imparting skills through training, providing an example for GDPs to imitate (i.e. modelling) or creating the expectation of a reward (i.e. incentivisation). Conclusions: This is the first theoretically informed study to identify barriers and facilitators of evidence-based management of patients with bacterial infections among GDPs. A pragmatic approach is needed to address the modifiable barriers in future interventions intended to change dentists' inappropriate prescribing behaviour.</p

Dysregulation of ubiquitin homeostasis and β-catenin signaling promote spinal muscular atrophy

Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Nils Lindstrom and members of the Gillingwater laboratory for advice and assistance with this study and helpful comments on the manuscript; Neil Cashman for the NSC-34 cell line; and Ji-Long Liu for the DrosophilasmnA and smnB lines. This work was supported by grants from the SMA Trust (to T.H. Gillingwater, P.J. Young, and R. Morse), BDF Newlife (to T.H. Gillingwater and S.H. Parson), the Anatomical Society (to T.H. Gillingwater and S.H. Parson), the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign (to T.H. Gillingwater), the Jennifer Trust for Spinal Muscular Atrophy (to H.R. Fuller), the Muscular Dystrophy Association (to G.E. Morris), the Vandervell Foundation (to P.J. Young), the Medical Research Council (GO82208 to I.M. Robinson), Roslin Institute Strategic Grant funding from the BBSRC (to T.M. Wishart), the BBSRC (to C.G. Becker), the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and EU FP7/2007-2013 (grant no. 2012-305121, NeurOmics, to B. Wirth), the Center for Molecular Medicine Cologne (to B. Wirth and M. Hammerschmidt), and SMA Europe (to M.M. Reissland). We would also like to acknowledge financial support to the Gillingwater lab generated through donations to the SMASHSMA campaign.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

An audit and feedback intervention for reducing antibiotic prescribing in general dental practice:the RAPiD Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial

Acknowledgments: We thank the TRiaDS Research Methodology Group, including Irene Black, Debbie Bonetti, Heather Cassie, Martin Eccles, Sandra Eldridge, Jill J. Francis, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Lorna Macpherson, Lorna McKee, Susan Michie, Nigel Pitts, Derek Richards, Douglas Stirling, Colin Tilley, Carole Torgerson, Shaun Treweek, Luke Vale, and Alan Walker for their guidance and contribution to the design and development of the study. We also thank Maria Prior for overseeing the running of the study, drafting of the published protocol, and her contribution to the design and analysis of the process evaluation. Thanks are also extended to Jill Farnham, Jenny Eades, Sarah Blackburn, and Lorna Barnsley for providing invaluable administrative support for this study. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and may not reflect those of the funder. Funding: This study was conducted as part of the TRiaDS programme of implementation research which is funded by NHS Education for Scotland (NES). The Health Services Research Unit which is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates supported the study. The funder had no influence over the design, conduct, analysis and write up of the study. Data Availability: Researchers can request to access the data from the Information Services Division of NHS National Services Scotland http://www.isdscotland.org/. Some restrictions may apply for the protection of privacy and appropriate usage of the data.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Evaluating an audit and feedback intervention for reducing antibiotic prescribing behaviour in general dental practice (the RAPiD trial): a partial factorial cluster randomised trial protocol

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prescribing in dentistry accounts for 9% of total antibiotic prescriptions in Scottish primary care. The Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme (SDCEP) published guidance in April 2008 (2nd edition, August 2011) for Drug Prescribing in Dentistry, which aims to assist dentists to make evidence-based antibiotic prescribing decisions. However, wide variation in prescribing persists and the overall use of antibiotics is increasing. METHODS: RAPiD is a 12-month partial factorial cluster randomised trial conducted in NHS General Dental Practices across Scotland. Its aim is to compare the effectiveness of individualised audit and feedback (A&F) strategies for the translation into practice of SDCEP recommendations on antibiotic prescribing. The trial uses routinely collected electronic healthcare data in five aspects of its design in order to: identify the study population; apply eligibility criteria; carry out stratified randomisation; generate the trial intervention; analyse trial outcomes. Eligibility was determined on contract status and a minimum level of recent NHS treatment provision. All eligible dental practices in Scotland were simultaneously randomised at baseline either to current audit practice or to an intervention group. Randomisation was stratified by single-handed/multi-handed practices. General dental practitioners (GDPs) working at intervention practices will receive individualised graphical representations of their antibiotic prescribing rate from the previous 14 months at baseline and an update at six months. GDPs could not be blinded to their practice allocation. Intervention practices were further randomised using a factorial design to receive feedback with or without: a health board comparator; a supplementary text-based intervention; additional feedback at nine months. The primary outcome is the total antibiotic prescribing rate per 100 courses of treatment over the year following delivery of the baseline intervention. A concurrent qualitative process evaluation will apply theory-based approaches using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to explore the acceptability of the interventions and the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and enablers to evidence-based antibiotic prescribing behaviour by GDPs. DISCUSSION: RAPiD will provide a robust evaluation of A&F in dentistry in Scotland. It also demonstrates that linked administrative datasets have the potential to be used efficiently and effectively across all stages of an randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49204710

Dipeptidyl peptidase-1 inhibition in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial

Background Neutrophil serine proteases are involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and increased serine protease activity has been reported in severe and fatal infection. We investigated whether brensocatib, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1; an enzyme responsible for the activation of neutrophil serine proteases), would improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial, across 14 hospitals in the UK, patients aged 16 years and older who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe disease were randomly assigned 1:1, within 96 h of hospital admission, to once-daily brensocatib 25 mg or placebo orally for 28 days. Patients were randomly assigned via a central web-based randomisation system (TruST). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (65 years or ≥65 years), and within each stratum, blocks were of random sizes of two, four, or six patients. Participants in both groups continued to receive other therapies required to manage their condition. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to the study assignment. The primary outcome was the 7-point WHO ordinal scale for clinical status at day 29 after random assignment. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who were randomly assigned and met the enrolment criteria. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN30564012. Findings Between June 5, 2020, and Jan 25, 2021, 406 patients were randomly assigned to brensocatib or placebo; 192 (47·3%) to the brensocatib group and 214 (52·7%) to the placebo group. Two participants were excluded after being randomly assigned in the brensocatib group (214 patients included in the placebo group and 190 included in the brensocatib group in the intention-to-treat population). Primary outcome data was unavailable for six patients (three in the brensocatib group and three in the placebo group). Patients in the brensocatib group had worse clinical status at day 29 after being randomly assigned than those in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·57–0·92]). Prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary outcome supported the primary results. 185 participants reported at least one adverse event; 99 (46%) in the placebo group and 86 (45%) in the brensocatib group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and infections. One death in the placebo group was judged as possibly related to study drug. Interpretation Brensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19