How Credit Rating Changes Impact on UK Stock Returns.

This research investigates the effects of credit rating changes on equity returns in the UK stock market. This dissertation was conducted using a sample of 152 actual rating changes released by Standard and Poor’s from the period 2000-2017, but not including new ratings and Watch List changes for the same time. After checking and clearing observations that were related with concurrent news, the results of this study show significant abnormal returns for Downgrades, whereas insignificant abnormal returns are found for Upgrades, especially near the announcement day, outputting that way similar results with Choy et al (2006). The findings also suggest that the type of rating change, and the type of industry of the firm, potentially impact on stock prices’ returns. Additionally, little evidence was found for determinants of abnormal returns

Insights into the experiences of patients with cancer in London : framework analysis of free-text data from the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey 2012/2013 from the two London Integrated Cancer Systems

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/OBJECTIVE: To shed light on experiences of patients with cancer in London National Health Service (NHS) trusts that may not be fully captured in national survey data, to inform improvement action plans by these trusts. DESIGN: Framework analysis of free-text data from 2012/2013 National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (NCPES) from the 2 London Integrated Cancer Systems. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a cancer diagnosis treated by the NHS across 27 trusts in London. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Free-text data received from patients categorised into what patients found good about their cancer care and what could be improved. METHODS: Using Framework analysis, a thematic framework was created for 15,403 comments from over 6500 patients. Themes were identified across the London data set, by tumour group and by trust. RESULTS: Two-thirds of free-text comments from patients in London were positive and one-third of those related to the good quality of care those patients received. However, the majority of comments for improvement related to quality of care, with a focus on poor care, poor communication and waiting times in outpatient departments. Additionally, 577 patients (9% of those who returned free-text data in London) commented on issues pertaining to the questionnaire itself. Some patients who experienced care from multiple trusts were unclear on how to complete the questionnaire for the single trust whose care they were asked to comment on, others said the questions did not fit their experiences. CONCLUSIONS: NCPES free-text analysis can shed light on the experiences of patients that closed questions might not reveal. It further indicates that there are issues with the survey itself, in terms of ambiguities in the questionnaire and difficulties in identifying patients within specific trusts. Both of these issues have the potential to contribute to knowledge and understanding of the uses and limitations of free-text data in improving cancer services.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Enhancing the experience of carers in the chemotherapy outpatient setting: an exploratory randomised controlled trial to test impact, acceptability and feasibility of a complex intervention co-designed by carers and staff

PurposeSupporting someone through chemotherapy can be emotionally and physically demanding. However, research has yet to establish the type of support carers require or the best way to provide this. This study tested the feasibility and acceptability of a complex intervention for carers that was co-designed by staff and carers of patients starting chemotherapy.MethodsForty-seven carers were recruited, randomised between the intervention (n?=?24) and control (n?=?23) groups. A questionnaire was completed pre- and post-intervention measuring knowledge of chemotherapy and its side effects, experience of care, satisfaction with outpatient services, coping and emotional wellbeing. The intervention process was evaluated by carers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in focus groups.ResultsRecruitment to the study was unproblematic and attrition from it was low, suggesting the intervention and study processes were acceptable to patients and carers. Carers in receipt of the ‘Take Care’ intervention reported statistically significantly better understanding of symptoms and side effects and their information needs being more frequently met than carers in the control. Confidence in coping improved between baseline and follow-up for the intervention group and declined for the control although differences were insufficient to achieve statistical significance. There was no significant difference between the two groups’ emotional wellbeing. HCP and carer focus groups confirmed the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention.ConclusionsThe ‘Take Care’ intervention proved acceptable to carers and HCPs and demonstrates considerable promise and utility in practice. Study findings support the conduct of a fully powered RCT to determine the intervention’s effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

CanWalk: a feasibility study with embedded randomised controlled trial pilot of a walking intervention for people with recurrent or metastatic cancer.

Objectives: Walking is an adaptable, inexpensive and accessible form of physical activity. However its impact on quality of life and symptom severity in people with advanced cancer is unknown. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a community-based walking intervention to enhance quality of life (QoL) in people with recurrent/metastatic cancer. Design: We used a mixed-methods design comprising a two-centre RCT and nested qualitative interviews. Participants: Patients with advanced breast, prostate, gynaecological or haematological cancers randomised 1:1 between intervention and usual care. Intervention: The intervention comprised Macmillan’s ‘Move More’ information, a short motivational interview with a recommendation to walk for at least 30 minutes on alternate days and attend a volunteer-led group walk weekly. Outcomes: we assessed feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and RCT by evaluating study processes (rates of recruitment, consent, retention, adherence and adverse events), and using end of study questionnaires and qualitative interviews. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) assessing quality of life (QoL), activity, fatigue, mood and self-efficacy were completed at baseline and 6, 12 and 24 weeks. Results: We recruited 42 (38%) of eligible participants. Recruitment was lower than anticipated (goal n=60), the most commonly reported reason being unable to commit to walking groups (n=19). Randomisation procedures worked well with groups evenly matched for age, sex and activity. By week 24, there was a 45% attrition rate. Most PROMs whilst acceptable were not sensitive to change and did not capture key benefits. Conclusions: The intervention was acceptable, well tolerated and the study design was judged acceptable and feasible. Results are encouraging and demonstrate that exercise was popular and conveyed benefit to participants. Consequently, an effectiveness RCT is warranted, with some modifications to the intervention to include greater tailoring and more appropriate PROMs selected.</p

A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind, Vehicle-controlled, Multi-centre Clinical Trial of Efficacy, Safety and Local Tolerability

This study was a prospective, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, multi-centre clinical trial to compare the efficacy of topical sertaconazole 2% cream with vehicle in reducing chronic pruritus in subjects with atopic dermatitis, and to assess its safety and local tolerability. A total of 70 subjects applied either of the 2 treatments twice daily for a period of 4 weeks on affected, itchy skin areas. Treatment efficacy was evaluated primarily considering the item itch intensity on a 5-point verbal rating scale. Insomnia, state of atopic dermatitis (Scoring Atopic Dermatitis; SCORAD), quality of life and therapy benefit were also assessed. No significant difference between active treatment and vehicle was found at any of the time-points for any of the investigated parameters. Under the experimental conditions of the study, sertaconazole 2% cream did not exert anti-pruritic effects that were better than vehicle in subjects with atopic dermatitis who had chronic pruritus. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01792713

What outcomes are associated with developing and implementing co-produced interventions in acute healthcare settings? A rapid evidence synthesis

Background Co-production is defined as the voluntary or involuntary involvement of users in the design, management, delivery and/or evaluation of services. Interest in co-production as an intervention for improving healthcare quality is increasing. In the acute healthcare context, co-production is promoted as harnessing the knowledge of patients, carers and staff to make changes about which they care most. However, little is known regarding the impact of co-production on patient, staff or organisational outcomes in these settings. Aims To identify and appraise reported outcomes of co-production as an intervention to improve quality of services in acute healthcare settings. Design Rapid evidence synthesis. Data sources Medline, Cinahl, Web of Science, Embase, HMIC, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, SCIE, Proquest Dissertation and Theses, EThOS, OpenGrey; CoDesign; The Design Journal; Design Issues. Study selection Studies reporting patient, staff or organisational outcomes associated with using co-production in an acute healthcare setting. Findings 712 titles and abstracts were screened; 24 papers underwent full-text review, and 11 papers were included in the evidence synthesis. One study was a feasibility randomised controlled trial, three were process evaluations and seven used descriptive qualitative approaches. Reported outcomes related to (a) the value of patient and staff involvement in co-production processes; (b) the generation of ideas for changes to processes, practices and clinical environments; and (c) tangible service changes and impacts on patient experiences. Only one study included cost analysis; none reported an economic evaluation. No studies assessed the sustainability of any changes made. Conclusions Despite increasing interest in and advocacy for co-production, there is a lack of rigorous evaluation in acute healthcare settings. Future studies should evaluate clinical and service outcomes as well as the cost-effectiveness of co-production relative to other forms of quality improvement. Potentially broader impacts on the values and behaviours of participants should also be considered

Towards Evolving Cooperative Mapping for Large-Scale UAV Teams

A team of UAVs has great potential to handle real-world challenges. Knowing the environment is essential to perform in an effective manner. However, in many situations, a map of the environment will not be available. Additionally, for autonomous systems, it is necessary to have approaches that require little energy, computing, power, weight and size. To address this, we propose a light-weight, evolving, and memory efficient cooperative approach for estimating the map of an environment with a team of UAVs. Additionally, we present proof-of-concept experiments with real-life flights, showing that we can estimate maps using an off-the-shelf web-camera

Testing accelerated experience-based co-design : a qualitative study of using a national archive of patient experience narrative interviews to promote rapid patient-centred service improvement

BACKGROUND: Measuring, understanding and improving patients’ experiences is of central importance to health care systems, but there is debate about the best methods for gathering and understanding patient experiences and how to then use them to improve care. Experience-based co-design (EBCD) has been evaluated as a successful approach to quality improvement in health care, drawing on video narrative interviews with local patients and involving them as equal partners in co-designing quality improvements. However, the time and cost involved have been reported as a barrier to adoption. The Health Experiences Research Group at the University of Oxford collects and analyses video and audio-recorded interviews with people about their experiences of illness. It now has a national archive of around 3000 interviews, covering around 75 different conditions or topics. Selected extracts from these interviews are disseminated for a lay audience on www.healthtalkonline.org. In this study, we set out to investigate whether or not this archive of interviews could replace the need for discovery interviews with local patients. OBJECTIVES: To use a national video and audio archive of patient experience narratives to develop, test and evaluate a rapid patient-centred service improvement approach (‘accelerated experience-based co-design’ or AEBCD). By using national rather than local patient interviews, we aimed to halve the overall cycle from 12 to 6 months, allowing for EBCD to be conducted in two clinical pathways rather than one. We observed how this affected the process and outcomes of the intervention. DESIGN: The intervention was an adapted form of EBCD, a participatory action research approach in which patients and staff work together to identify and implement quality improvements. The intervention retained all six components of EBCD, but used national trigger films, shortened the time frame and employed local service improvement facilitators. An ethnographic process evaluation was conducted, including observations, interviews, questionnaires, cost and documentary analysis including previous EBCD evaluation reports. SETTING: Intensive care and lung cancer services in two English NHS hospital trusts (Royal Berkshire and Royal Brompton and Harefield). PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-six clinical staff (primarily nursing and medical) and 63 patients and family members. INTERVENTION: For this accelerated intervention, the trigger film was derived from pre-existing national patient experience interviews. Local facilitators conducted staff discovery interviews. Thereafter, the process followed the usual EBCD pattern: the film was shown to local patients in a workshop meeting, and staff had a separate meeting to discuss the results of their feedback. Staff and patients then came together in a further workshop to view the film, agree priorities for improvement and set up co-design working groups to take these priorities forward. RESULTS: The accelerated approach proved readily acceptable to staff and patients; using films of national rather than local narratives did not adversely affect local NHS staff engagement, and may in some cases have made the process less threatening or challenging. Local patients felt that the national films generally reflected important themes, although a minority felt that they were more negative than their own personal experience. However, they served their purpose as a ‘trigger’ to discussion, and the resulting 48 co-design activities across the four pathways were similar in nature to those in EBCD but achieved at reduced cost. AEBCD was nearly half the cost of EBCD. However, where a trigger film already exists, pathways can be implemented for as little as 40% of the cost of traditional EBCD. It was not necessary to do additional work locally to supplement the national interviews. The intervention carried a ‘cost’ in terms of heavy workload and intensive activity for the local facilitators, but also brought benefits in terms of staff development/capacity-building. Furthermore, as in previous EBCDs, the approach was subsequently adopted in other clinical pathways in the trusts. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerated experience-based co-design delivered an accelerated version of EBCD, generating a comparable set of improvement activities. The national film acted as an effective trigger to the co-design process. Based on the results of the evaluation, AEBCD offers a rigorous and effective patient-centred quality improvement approach. We aim to develop further trigger films from the archived material as resources permit, and to investigate different ways of conducting the analysis (e.g. involving patients in doing the analysis)