Conectar
To describe the prevalence and characteristics of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine (TCIM) practice and product use by the population of the UK providing up-to-date data on the landscape of TCIM use in the UK.
A cross-sectional online survey, administered using the Qualtrics platform, among adults (aged 18 years and over) residing in the UK (England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland). Data were collected between May and October 2024. The 40-item instrument covered four domains: demographics, health status, use of health products and practices, and use of health services. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise survey responses, and ² tests were applied to assess associations between participant characteristics and TCIM use. Backwards stepwise logistic regression was conducted to identify predictors of TCIM use across four outcome categories (p≤0.05).
The sample (n=1559) was broadly representative of the UK population. Prevalence of any TCIM use over a 12-month period was 65.9% with 19.1% consulting a TCIM practitioner and 63.3% using any TCIM product or practice. Bodywork therapists (massage therapists 9.4%, chiropractors 7.9%, yoga teachers 5.0%) and homeopaths (4.1%) were the most commonly consulted TCIM practitioners and Anthroposophic doctors were the least commonly consulted (2.1%). Among TCIM products, vitamin and mineral supplements were the most commonly used (37.3%) and relaxation or meditation practices were reported by 19.4% of respondents. TCIM users were more likely to be female, identify as Asian or Black, have a chronic disease diagnosis, report good health, possess private health insurance, have a higher education level, be employed (or seeking employment) and sometimes experience financial management difficulties.
There is substantial use of TCIM across the UK adult population and there is a need for more research on integrating TCIM into mainstream healthcare and the National Health Service. Clear strategies are necessary to enhance communication between TCIM and conventional healthcare providers, ensure patient safety and promote person-centred, coordinated models of care.
The SupportBack 2 randomised controlled trial (RCT) compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an internet intervention supporting self-management versus usual primary care in reducing low back pain (LBP)-related disability. In this study, we aimed to identify and understand key processes and potential mechanisms underlying the impact of the intervention.
This was a nested qualitative process evaluation of the SupportBack 2 RCT (ISRCTN: 14736486 pre-results).
Primary care in the UK (England).
46 trial participants experiencing LBP without indicators of serious spinal pathologies (eg, fractures, infection) took part in telephone interviews at either 3 (n=15), 6 (n=14) or 12 months (n=17) post randomisation. Five physiotherapists who provided telephone support for the internet intervention also took part in telephone interviews.
An internet intervention ‘SupportBack’ supporting self-management of LBP primarily through physical activity and exercise delivered in addition to usual care, with and without physiotherapist telephone support.
Data were analysed thematically, applying a realist logic to develop context-mechanism-outcome configurations.
Four explanatory themes were developed, with five context-mechanism-outcome configurations. Where benefit was reported, SupportBack appeared to work by facilitating a central associative process where participants linked increases in physical activity or exercise with improvements in LBP, then continued to use physical activity or exercise as key regulatory strategies. Participants who reported little or no benefit from the intervention appeared to experience several barriers to this associative process, including negative expectations, prohibitive beliefs about the cause of LBP or functional limitations preventing engagement. Physiotherapists appeared to provide accountability and validation for some; however, the remote telephone support that lacked physical assessment was viewed as limiting its potential value.
Digital interventions targeting physical activity and exercise to support LBP self-management may rely on mechanisms that are easily inhibited in complex, heterogeneous populations. Future research should focus on identifying and removing barriers that may limit the effectiveness of digital self-management support for LBP.
Non-communicable diseases (NCDs), such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancer, are major global public health concerns. Diet quality—particularly the consumption of ultra-processed foods—has been associated with increased risk of NCDs. Traditional cohort studies are often expensive and logistically complex. The NutriNet-Brasil cohort leverages a web-based approach, offering a cost-effective and practical solution for comprehensive data collection and long-term follow-up.
Recruitments began in January 2020 through mass media, social media campaigns and collaborations with health organisations. Eligible participants are adults (aged ≥18 years) living in Brazil with internet access. Participants complete self-administered online questionnaires covering dietary intake, health status and other health determinants. Dietary assessment is based on the Nova classification system, which categorises foods by their level of processing.
Over 88 000 participants have completed the initial questionnaire. The cohort is predominantly women (79.9%) and highly educated (67.9% had completed higher education). The web-based design enabled the development and application of innovative dietary assessment tools, including the Nova24h and the Nova24hScreener, specifically designed to evaluate food processing levels. These tools have shown good performance in capturing dietary patterns and are central to the cohort’s aim. The online platform facilitates efficient recruitment, data collection and participant retention.
NutriNet-Brasil is pioneering the development of web-based cohort methodologies and instruments tailored to food processing research. Future work includes leveraging collaborations with national and international research centres to conduct multidisciplinary analyses and inform public health policies.
To describe the cumulative incidence and characteristics of hospital-acquired pressure injury in acute palliative patients.
Secondary data analysis of hospital-acquired pressure injuries during 2019–2022.
The setting was a palliative care unit at a tertiary hospital in Queensland, Australia, including adult (≥ 18 years) acute-phase palliative inpatients. Retrospective data from four databases were used to identify and analyse hospital-acquired pressure injury cases from 2019 to 2022. Clinical characteristics of patients with and without hospital-acquired pressure injury were compared.
The incidence of hospital-acquired pressure injury in acute palliative care patients was 3.9% over the 4 years. These patients were predominantly male, with an average age of 74 years, with 66 of 78 cases developing in the deteriorating palliative care phase. Using the Waterlow Score, 51.3% of patients were assessed as at very high risk of pressure injury. Ninety-five hospital-acquired pressure injuries were reported in 78 patients; 16.8% were medical device-related, 40% were Stage 1 injuries, and the most common injury sites were the sacrum, heels and genitals. Patients with hospital-acquired pressure injury had significantly higher (worse) scores on both the palliative care Resource Utilisation Group-Activities of Daily Living and Problem Severity Scores. Regression analysis identified a high Problem Severity Score on admission as a significant predictor for hospital-acquired pressure injury development.
The incidence of hospital-acquired pressure injury in acute palliative patients is lower than in previous studies. However, many injuries occurred in those in the deteriorating phase, with higher scores for severity of symptoms. These findings suggest that acute palliative patients do require nursing care for pressure injury prevention, as well as for symptom management and activities-of-daily-living. Overall, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of pressure injury incidence and characteristics for acute palliative care patients. Future research should focus on population-specific pressure injury risk assessment to explore risk factors in greater detail.
Current pressure injury risk assessment tools, like the Waterlow Score, may not provide the comprehensive evaluation needed for the acute palliative care cohort. To better address the unique needs of this cohort, it may be necessary to refine existing tools or develop new instruments that integrate palliative-specific assessments, such as the Resource Utilisation Group-Activities-of-Daily-Living (RUG-ADL) and Problem (symptom) Severity Score (PSS). These adaptations could help improve pressure injury prevention care planning and enhance outcomes for patients in this setting.
This study separated acute palliative care patients from those at end-of-life and found a 3.9% cumulative incidence of pressure injuries. There were no significant differences in age, gender, or cancer diagnosis between patients with and without injuries. Patients without injuries were more likely to be in the deteriorating phase, while those with injuries had higher (worse) RUG-ADL scores. Regression analysis showed that each one-point increase in the PSS (symptom severity) made patients 1.2 times more likely to develop a pressure injury. The findings suggest that combining a validated risk assessment tool with the RUG-ADL and PSS tools could provide a more accurate risk assessment for hospitalised acute palliative care patients.
STROBE reporting guideline.
No patient or public contribution.
FreshRSS 