FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Talking in primary care (TIP): protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled trial in UK primary care to assess clinical and cost-effectiveness of communication skills e-learning for practitioners on patients musculoskeletal pain and enablement

Por: Bishop · F. L. · Cross · N. · Dewar-Haggart · R. · Teasdale · E. · Herbert · A. · Robinson · M. E. · Ridd · M. J. · Mallen · C. · Clarson · L. · Bostock · J. · Becque · T. · Stuart · B. · Garfield · K. · Morrison · L. · Pollet · S. · Vennik · J. · Atherton · H. · Howick · J. · Leydon · G. M
Introduction

Effective communication can help optimise healthcare interactions and patient outcomes. However, few interventions have been tested clinically, subjected to cost-effectiveness analysis or are sufficiently brief and well-described for implementation in primary care. This paper presents the protocol for determining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a rigorously developed brief eLearning tool, EMPathicO, among patients with and without musculoskeletal pain.

Methods and analysis

A cluster randomised controlled trial in general practitioner (GP) surgeries in England and Wales serving patients from diverse geographic, socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. GP surgeries are randomised (1:1) to receive EMPathicO e-learning immediately, or at trial end. Eligible practitioners (eg, GPs, physiotherapists and nurse practitioners) are involved in managing primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain. Patient recruitment is managed by practice staff and researchers. Target recruitment is 840 adults with and 840 without musculoskeletal pain consulting face-to-face, by telephone or video. Patients complete web-based questionnaires at preconsultation baseline, 1 week and 1, 3 and 6 months later. There are two patient-reported primary outcomes: pain intensity and patient enablement. Cost-effectiveness is considered from the National Health Service and societal perspectives. Secondary and process measures include practitioner patterns of use of EMPathicO, practitioner-reported self-efficacy and intentions, patient-reported symptom severity, quality of life, satisfaction, perceptions of practitioner empathy and optimism, treatment expectancies, anxiety, depression and continuity of care. Purposive subsamples of patients, practitioners and practice staff take part in up to two qualitative, semistructured interviews.

Ethics approval and dissemination

Approved by the South Central Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee on 1 July 2022 and the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales on 6 July 2022 (REC reference 22/SC/0145; IRAS project ID 312208). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed academic publications, conference presentations and patient and practitioner outlets. If successful, EMPathicO could quickly be made available at a low cost to primary care practices across the country.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN18010240.

Acceptability of aspirin for cancer preventive therapy: a survey and qualitative study exploring the views of the UK general population

Por: Lloyd · K. E. · Hall · L. H. · Ziegler · L. · Foy · R. · Green · S. M. C. · MacKenzie · M. · Taylor · D. G. · Smith · S. G. · Aspirin for Cancer Prevention AsCaP Steering Committee · Cuzick · Balkwill · Bishop · Burn · Chan · Crooks · Hawkey · Langley · McKenzie · Nedjai · Patrign
Objectives

Aspirin could be offered for colorectal cancer prevention for the UK general population. To ensure the views of the general population are considered in future guidance, we explored public perceptions of aspirin for preventive therapy.

Design

We conducted an online survey to investigate aspirin use, and awareness of aspirin for cancer prevention among the UK general population. We conducted semistructured interviews with a subsample of survey respondents to explore participants’ acceptability towards aspirin for cancer preventive therapy. We analysed the interview data using reflexive thematic analysis and mapped the themes onto the Theoretical Domains Framework, and the Necessity and Concerns Framework.

Setting

Online survey and remote interviews.

Participants

We recruited 400 UK respondents aged 50–70 years through a market research company to the survey. We purposefully sampled, recruited and interviewed 20 survey respondents.

Results

In the survey, 19.0% (76/400) of respondents were aware that aspirin can be used to prevent cancer. Among those who had previously taken aspirin, 1.9% (4/216) had taken it for cancer prevention. The interviews generated three themes: (1) perceived necessity of aspirin; (2) concerns about side effects; and (3) preferred information sources. Participants with a personal or family history of cancer were more likely to perceive aspirin as necessary for cancer prevention. Concerns about taking aspirin at higher doses and its side effects, such as gastrointestinal bleeding, were common. Many described wanting guidance and advice on aspirin to be communicated from sources perceived as trustworthy, such as healthcare professionals.

Conclusions

Among the general population, those with a personal or family history of cancer may be more receptive towards taking aspirin for preventive therapy. Future policies and campaigns recommending aspirin may be of particular interest to these groups. Multiple considerations about the benefits and risks of aspirin highlight the need to support informed decisions on the medication.

Feasibility of linking universal child and family healthcare and financial counselling: findings from the Australian Healthier Wealthier Families (HWF) mixed-methods study

Por: Price · A. M. H. · White · N. · Burley · J. · Zhu · A. · Contreras-Suarez · D. · Wang · S. · Stone · M. · Trotter · K. · Mrad · M. · Caldwell · J. · Bishop · R. · Chota · S. · Bui · L. · Sanger · D. · Roles · R. · Watts · A. · Samir · N. · Grace · R. · Raman · S. · Kemp · L. · Lingam · R. · Eape
Objectives

‘Healthier Wealthier Families’ (HWF) seeks to reduce financial hardship in the early years by embedding a referral pathway between Australia’s universal child and family health (CFH) services and financial counselling. This pilot study investigated the feasibility and short-term impacts of HWF, adapted from a successful Scottish initiative.

Methods

Setting: CFH services in five sites across two states, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants: Caregivers of children aged 0–5 years experiencing financial hardship (study-designed screen). Design: Mixed methods. With limited progress using a randomised trial (RCT) design in sites 1–3 (March 2020–November 2021), qualitative interviews with service providers identified implementation barriers including stigma, lack of knowledge of financial counselling, low financial literacy, research burden and pandemic disruption. This informed a simplified RCT protocol (site 4) and direct referral model (no randomisation, pre–post evaluation, site 5) (June 2021–May 2022). Intervention: financial counselling; comparator: usual care (sites 1–4). Feasibility measures: proportions of caregivers screened, enrolled, followed up and who accessed financial counselling. Impact measures: finances (quantitative) and other (qualitative) to 6 months post-enrolment.

Results

355/434 caregivers completed the screen (60%–100% across sites). In RCT sites (1–4), 79/365 (19%–41%) reported hardship but less than one-quarter enrolled. In site 5, n=66/69 (96%) caregivers reported hardship and 44/66 (67%) engaged with financial counselling; common issues were utility debts (73%), and obtaining entitlements (43%) or material aid/emergency relief (27%). Per family, financial counselling increased income from government entitlements by an average $A6504 annually plus $A784 from concessions, grants, brokerage and debt waivers. Caregivers described benefits (qualitative) including reduced stress, practical help, increased knowledge and empowerment.

Conclusions

Financial hardship screening via CFH was acceptable to caregivers, direct referral was feasible, but individual randomisation was infeasible. Larger-scale implementation will require careful, staged adaptations where CFH populations and the intervention are well matched and low burden evaluation.

Trial registration number

ACTRN12620000154909.

❌