Textile technology in the prehistory of Southeast Asia

v.1. Text -- v.2. Figure

Improving effective contraception uptake through provision of bridging contraception within community pharmacies:findings from The Bridge-it Study process evaluation

OBJECTIVE: To present process evaluation results from the Bridge-it Study, a pragmatic cluster randomised cross-over trial to improve effective contraception uptake through provision of the progestogen only pill (POP) plus sexual and reproductive health (SRH) clinic rapid-access to women presenting to community pharmacies for emergency contraception (EC). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A multimethod process evaluation was conducted to assess intervention implementation, mechanisms of change and contextual factors. Data were gathered from screening logs (n=599), observations of pharmacist training, analysis of data from 4-month follow-up questionnaires (n=406), monitoring of contemporaneous events and qualitative interviews with 22 pharmacists, 5 SRH clinical staff and 36 study participants in three participating UK sites in Lothian, Tayside and London. RESULTS: The intervention was largely delivered as intended and was acceptable. Pharmacists’, SRH clinical staff and participants’ accounts highlighted that providing a supply of POP with EC from the pharmacy as routine practice may have positive impacts on contraceptive practices in the short term, and potentially longer term. Key mechanisms of change included ease of access, increased awareness of contraception and services, and greater motivation and perceptions of self-efficacy. Few participants took up the offer to attend an SRH service (rapid-access component), and existing barriers within the SRH context were apparent (eg, lack of staff). Participant accounts highlight persistent barriers to accessing and using routine effective contraception remain. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation appeared to be acceptable and feasible, highlighting the potential for provision of POP within EC consultations as routine practice in community pharmacies. However, lack of engagement with the rapid access component of the intervention and existing barriers within the SRH context suggest that signposting to SRH services may be sufficient. Wider implementation should consider ways to address key implementation challenges to increase effectiveness and sustainability, and to overcome persistent barriers to accessing and using effective contraception. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN70616901

Pragmatic cluster randomised cohort cross-over trial to determine the effectiveness of bridging from emergency to regular contraception:the Bridge-It study protocol

Introduction Oral emergency contraception (EC) can prevent unintended pregnancy but it is important to start a regular method of contraception. Women in the UK usually access EC from a pharmacy but then need a subsequent appointment with a general practitioner or a sexual and reproductive health (SRH) service to access regular contraception. Unintended pregnancies can occur during this time. Methods and analysis Bridge-It is a pragmatic cluster randomised cohort cross-over trial designed to determine whether pharmacist provision of a bridging supply of a progestogen-only pill (POP) plus rapid access to a local SRH clinic, results in increased uptake of effective contraception and prevents more unintended pregnancies than provision of EC alone. Bridge-It involves 31 pharmacies in three UK regions (London, Lothian and Tayside) aiming to recruit 626–737 women. Pharmacies will give EC (levonorgestrel) according to normal practice and recruit women to both intervention and the control phases of the study. In the intervention phase, pharmacists will provide the POP (desogestrel) and offer rapid access to an SRH clinic. In the control phase, pharmacists will advise women to attend a contraceptive provider for contraception (standard care). Women will be asked 4 months later about contraceptive use. Data linkage to abortion registries will provide abortion rates over 12 months. The sample size is calculated on the primary outcome of effective contraception use at 4 months (yes/no) with 90% power and a 5% level of significance. Abortion rates will be an exploratory secondary analysis. Process evaluation includes interviews with pharmacists, SRH clinicians and women. Cost-effectiveness analysis will use a healthcare system perspective and be expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was received from South East Scotland REC June 2017. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. Trial registration number ISRCTN70616901

Provision of the progestogen-only pill by community pharmacies as bridging contraception for women receiving emergency contraception:the Bridge-it RCT

Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Use of effective contraception following provision of the progestogen-only pill for women presenting to community pharmacies for emergency contraception (Bridge-It):a pragmatic cluster-randomised crossover trial

BACKGROUND:Unless women start effective contraception after oral emergency contraception, they remain at risk of unintended pregnancy. Most women in the UK obtain emergency contraception from community pharmacies. We hypothesised that pharmacist provision of the progestogen-only pill as a bridging interim method of contraception with emergency contraception plus an invitation to a sexual and reproductive health clinic, in which all methods of contraception are available, would result in increased subsequent use of effective contraception. METHODS:We did a pragmatic cluster-randomised crossover trial in 29 UK pharmacies among women receiving levonorgestrel emergency contraception. Women aged 16 years or older, not already using hormonal contraception, not on medication that could interfere with the progestogen-only pill, and willing to give contact details for follow-up were invited to participate. In the intervention group, women received a 3-month supply of the progestogen-only pill (75 μg desogestrel) plus a rapid access card to a participating sexual and reproductive health clinic. In the control group, pharmacists advised women to attend their usual contraceptive provider. The order in which each pharmacy provided the intervention or control was randomly assigned using a computer software algorithm. The primary outcome was the use of effective contraception (hormonal or intrauterine) at 4 months. This study is registered, ISRCTN70616901 (complete). FINDINGS:Between Dec 19, 2017, and June 26, 2019, 636 women were recruited to the intervention group (316 [49·6%], mean age 22·7 years [SD 5·7]) or the control group (320 [50·3%], 22·6 years [5·1]). Three women (one in the intervention group and two in the control group) were excluded after randomisation. 4-month follow-up data were available for 406 (64%) participants, 25 were lost to follow-up, and two participants no longer wanted to participate in the study. The proportion of women using effective contraception was 20·1% greater (95% CI 5·2-35·0) in the intervention group (mean 58·4%, 48·6-68·2), than in the control group (mean 40·5%, 29·7-51·3 [adjusted for recruitment period, treatment group, and centre]; p=0·011).The difference remained significant after adjusting for age, current sexual relationship, and history of effective contraception use, and was robust to the effect of missing data (assuming missingness at random). No serious adverse events occurred. INTERPRETATION:Provision of a supply of the progestogen-only pill with emergency contraception from a community pharmacist, along with an invitation to a sexual and reproductive health clinic, results in a clinically meaningful increase in subsequent use of effective contraception. Widely implemented, this practice could prevent unintended pregnancies after use of emergency contraception. FUNDING:National Institute for Health Research (Health Technology Assessment Programme project 15/113/01)

Mobilise-D insights to estimate real-world walking speed in multiple conditions with a wearable device

This study aimed to validate a wearable device's walking speed estimation pipeline, considering complexity, speed, and walking bout duration. The goal was to provide recommendations on the use of wearable devices for real-world mobility analysis. Participants with Parkinson's Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Proximal Femoral Fracture, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Congestive Heart Failure, and healthy older adults (n = 97) were monitored in the laboratory and the real-world (2.5 h), using a lower back wearable device. Two walking speed estimation pipelines were validated across 4408/1298 (2.5 h/laboratory) detected walking bouts, compared to 4620/1365 bouts detected by a multi-sensor reference system. In the laboratory, the mean absolute error (MAE) and mean relative error (MRE) for walking speed estimation ranged from 0.06 to 0.12 m/s and - 2.1 to 14.4%, with ICCs (Intraclass correlation coefficients) between good (0.79) and excellent (0.91). Real-world MAE ranged from 0.09 to 0.13, MARE from 1.3 to 22.7%, with ICCs indicating moderate (0.57) to good (0.88) agreement. Lower errors were observed for cohorts without major gait impairments, less complex tasks, and longer walking bouts. The analytical pipelines demonstrated moderate to good accuracy in estimating walking speed. Accuracy depended on confounding factors, emphasizing the need for robust technical validation before clinical application.Trial registration: ISRCTN - 12246987

A multi-sensor wearable system for the assessment of diseased gait in real-world conditions

Introduction: Accurately assessing people’s gait, especially in real-world conditions and in case of impaired mobility, is still a challenge due to intrinsic and extrinsic factors resulting in gait complexity. To improve the estimation of gait-related digital mobility outcomes (DMOs) in real-world scenarios, this study presents a wearable multi-sensor system (INDIP), integrating complementary sensing approaches (two plantar pressure insoles, three inertial units and two distance sensors).Methods: The INDIP technical validity was assessed against stereophotogrammetry during a laboratory experimental protocol comprising structured tests (including continuous curvilinear and rectilinear walking and steps) and a simulation of daily-life activities (including intermittent gait and short walking bouts). To evaluate its performance on various gait patterns, data were collected on 128 participants from seven cohorts: healthy young and older adults, patients with Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, and proximal femur fracture. Moreover, INDIP usability was evaluated by recording 2.5-h of real-world unsupervised activity.Results and discussion: Excellent absolute agreement (ICC >0.95) and very limited mean absolute errors were observed for all cohorts and digital mobility outcomes (cadence ≤0.61 steps/min, stride length ≤0.02 m, walking speed ≤0.02 m/s) in the structured tests. Larger, but limited, errors were observed during the daily-life simulation (cadence 2.72–4.87 steps/min, stride length 0.04–0.06 m, walking speed 0.03–0.05 m/s). Neither major technical nor usability issues were declared during the 2.5-h acquisitions. Therefore, the INDIP system can be considered a valid and feasible solution to collect reference data for analyzing gait in real-world conditions

Fulvestrant plus anastrozole or placebo versus exemestane alone after progression on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal patients with hormone-receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (SoFEA): a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised trial

SummaryBackgroundThe optimum endocrine treatment for postmenopausal women with advanced hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer that has progressed on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAIs) is unclear. The aim of the SoFEA trial was to assess a maximum double endocrine targeting approach with the steroidal anti-oestrogen fulvestrant in combination with continued oestrogen deprivation.MethodsIn a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial done in the UK and South Korea, postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer (oestrogen receptor [ER] positive, progesterone receptor [PR] positive, or both) were eligible if they had relapsed or progressed with locally advanced or metastatic disease on an NSAI (given as adjuvant for at least 12 months or as first-line treatment for at least 6 months). Additionally, patients had to have adequate organ function and a WHO performance status of 0–2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscular injection on day 1, followed by 250 mg doses on days 15 and 29, and then every 28 days) plus daily oral anastrozole (1 mg); fulvestrant plus anastrozole-matched placebo; or daily oral exemestane (25 mg). Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted blocks, and stratification was by centre and previous use of an NSAI as adjuvant treatment or for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Participants and investigators were aware of assignment to fulvestrant or exemestane, but not of assignment to anastrozole or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00253422 (UK) and NCT00944918 (South Korea).FindingsBetween March 26, 2004, and Aug 6, 2010, 723 patients underwent randomisation: 243 were assigned to receive fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 231 to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 249 to exemestane. Median PFS was 4·4 months (95% CI 3·4–5·4) in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 4·8 months (3·6–5·5) in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 3·4 months (3·0–4·6) in those assigned to exemestane. No difference was recorded between the patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole and fulvestrant plus placebo (hazard ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·83–1·21; log-rank p=0·98), or between those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo and exemestane (0·95, 0·79–1·14; log-rank p=0·56). 87 serious adverse events were reported: 36 in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 22 in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 29 in those assigned to exemestane. Grade 3–4 adverse events were rare; the most frequent were arthralgia (three in the group assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole; seven in that assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo; eight in that assigned to exemestane), lethargy (three; 11; 11), and nausea or vomiting (five; two; eight).InterpretationAfter loss of response to NSAIs in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer, maximum double endocrine treatment with 250 mg fulvestrant combined with oestrogen deprivation is no better than either fulvestrant alone or exemestane.FundingCancer Research UK and AstraZeneca