Acceptability of Parental Financial Incentives and Quasi-Mandatory Interventions for Preschool Vaccinations: Triangulation of Findings from Three Linked Studies.

BACKGROUND: Childhood vaccinations are a core component of public health programmes globally. Recent measles outbreaks in the UK and USA have prompted debates about new ways to increase uptake of childhood vaccinations. Parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory interventions (e.g. restricting entry to educational settings to fully vaccinated children) have been successfully used to increase uptake of childhood vaccinations in developing countries, but there is limited evidence of effectiveness in developed countries. Even if confirmed to be effective, widespread implementation of these interventions is dependent on acceptability to parents, professionals and other stakeholders. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review (n = 11 studies included), a qualitative study with parents (n = 91) and relevant professionals (n = 24), and an on-line survey with embedded discrete choice experiment with parents (n = 521) exploring acceptability of parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory interventions for preschool vaccinations. Here we use Triangulation Protocol to synthesise findings from the three studies. RESULTS: There was a consistent recognition that incentives and quasi-mandatory interventions could be effective, particularly in more disadvantaged groups. Universal incentives were consistently preferred to targeted ones, but relative preferences for quasi-mandatory interventions and universal incentives varied between studies. The qualitative work revealed a consistent belief that financial incentives were not considered an appropriate motivation for vaccinating children. The costs of financial incentive interventions appeared particularly salient and there were consistent concerns in the qualitative work that incentives did not represent the best use of resources for promoting preschool vaccinations. Various suggestions for improving delivery of the current UK vaccination programme as an alternative to incentives and quasi-mandates were made. CONCLUSIONS: Parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory interventions for increasing uptake of preschool vaccinations do not currently attract widespread enthusiastic support in the UK; but some potential benefits of these approaches are recognised.National Institute for Health Research (Grant ID: HTA 11/97/01)This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from PLOS via http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.015684

Continuous low-dose antibiotic prophylaxis for adults with repeated urinary tract infections (AnTIC): a randomised, open-label trial

Funder: UK National Institute for Health Research. Open Access funded by Department of Health UK Acknowledgments We thank all the participants for their commitment to the study, Sheila Wallace for updating the systematic review, members of the Trial Steering Committee and members of the Data Monitoring Committee for their valuable guidance. We thank the National Health Service organisations, principal investigators and local research staff who hosted and ran the study at site. We thank the Health Technology Assessment Programme of the UK NIHR for funding the study (no. 11/72/01). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the UK Government Department of Health. A full report of the study30 has been published by the NIHR Library.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Continuous low-dose antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent urinary tract infection in adults who perform clean intermittent self-catheterisation: the AnTIC RCT

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Factors that influence clinicians’ decisions to offer intravenous alteplase in acute ischemic stroke patients with uncertain treatment indication:Results of a discrete choice experiment

Background: Treatment with intravenous alteplase for eligible patients with acute ischemic stroke is underused, with variation in treatment rates across the UK. This study sought to elucidate factors influencing variation in clinicians’ decision-making about this thrombolytic treatment. Methods: A discrete choice experiment using hypothetical patient vignettes framed around areas of clinical uncertainty was conducted with UK-based clinicians. Mixed logit regression analyses were conducted on the data. Results: A total of 138 clinicians completed the discrete choice experiment. Seven patient factors were individually predictive of increased likelihood of immediately offering IV alteplase (compared to reference levels in brackets): stroke onset time 2 h 30 min [50 min]; pre-stroke dependency mRS 3 [mRS 4]; systolic blood pressure 185 mm/Hg [140 mm/Hg]; stroke severity scores of NIHSS 5 without aphasia, NIHSS 14 and NIHSS 23 [NIHSS 2 without aphasia]; age 85 [68]; Afro-Caribbean [white]. Factors predictive of withholding treatment with IV alteplase were: age 95 [68]; stroke onset time of 4 h 15 min [50 min]; severe dementia [no memory problems]; SBP 200 mm/Hg [140 mm/Hg]. Three clinician-related factors were predictive of an increased likelihood of offering IV alteplase (perceived robustness of the evidence for IV alteplase; thrombolyzing more patients in the past 12 months; and high discomfort with uncertainty) and one with a decreased likelihood (high clinician comfort with treating patients outside the licensing criteria). Conclusions: Both patient- and clinician-related factors have a major influence on the use of alteplase to treat patients with acute ischemic stroke. Clinicians’ views of the evidence, comfort with uncertainty and treating patients outside the license criteria are important factors to address in programs that seek to reduce variation in care quality regarding treatment with IV alteplase. Further research is needed to further understand the differences in clinical decision-making about treating patients with acute ischemic stroke with IV alteplase

Economic evaluation of surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence : a cost-utility and value of information analysis

Acknowledgements: We would like to acknowledge all those involved in the wider study exploring the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence. Funding: This research was commissioned by the NIHR HTA Programme as project number 15/09/06. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care, UK. The funders were not actively involved in the research process at any stage. The study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, the writing of the manuscript and the decision to submit it for publication were all performed independent of the funders.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Surgical interventions for women with stress urinary incontinence : systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR HTA programme (project No 15/09/06). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care, UK. The funders were not actively involved in the research process at any stage. The study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the manuscript; and decision to submit it for publication were performed independent of the funders.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence : the ESTER systematic review and economic evaluation

Funded by The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Dual bronchodilators in Bronchiectasis study (DIBS): protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, placebo-controlled, three-arm, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial studying bronchodilators in preventing exacerbations of bronchiectasis

INTRODUCTION: Bronchiectasis is a long-term lung condition, with dilated bronchi, chronic inflammation, chronic infection and acute exacerbations. Recurrent exacerbations are associated with poorer clinical outcomes such as increased severity of lung disease, further exacerbations, hospitalisations, reduced quality of life and increased risk of death. Despite an increasing prevalence of bronchiectasis, there is a critical lack of high-quality studies into the disease and no treatments specifically approved for its treatment. This trial aims to establish whether inhaled dual bronchodilators (long acting beta agonist (LABA) and long acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)) taken as either a stand-alone therapy or in combination with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) reduce the number of exacerbations of bronchiectasis requiring treatment with antibiotics during a 12 month treatment period. METHODS: This is a multicentre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, incorporating an internal pilot and embedded economic evaluation. 600 adult patients (≥18 years) with CT confirmed bronchiectasis will be recruited and randomised to either inhaled dual therapy (LABA+LAMA), triple therapy (LABA+LAMA+ICS) or matched placebo, in a 2:2:1 ratio (respectively). The primary outcome is the number of protocol defined exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics during the 12 month treatment period. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Favourable ethical opinion was received from the North East-Newcastle and North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/NE/0020). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, at national and international conferences, in the NIHR Health Technology Assessments journal and to participants and the public (using lay language). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15988757