Search

Introduction: Receiving a diagnosis of dementia is a seminal moment in many people's lives. It can be associated with anger and grief for both the person with dementia and their network. Despite this, there is no provision for emotional support to help people affected by dementia manage the impact of receiving that diagnosis. As such, a postdiagnostic intervention to help people process and adjust to a diagnosis of dementia is needed. This protocol describes the initial work to be undertaken as part of a Programme Development Grant. The aims are to synthesise evidence for existing interventions, understand the implementation context and establish an advisory board., Methods and Analyses: Phase 1 will consist of two systematic reviews to synthesise research evidence for existing interventions in related areas. Phase 2 will consist of two qualitative research studies. Study 1 is a UK-wide qualitative survey to understand the current lived experience of receiving a diagnosis and postdiagnostic support. Study 2 is a local qualitative study in which three groups of stakeholders will be asked about the perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing a postdiagnostic intervention in Natuional Health Services (NHS). In Phase 3, an advisory group of people living with dementia, carers and other professionals will be established to provide advice and feedback and contribute to the codevelopment of the initial intervention., Ethics and Dissemination: Health Research Authority, 15 July 2024. All data will be held in accordance with North East London NHS regulations, who act as sponsor of this development work. We will engage with policy professionals in Study 2 (Phase 2) and through this network disseminate our findings to facilitate policy change. The use of coproduction to ensure people with dementias voices are heard throughout this work will result in impact in health and well-being., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Support following a dementia diagnosis in the UK is variable. Attending a Recovery College course with and for people with dementia, their supporters and healthcare professionals (staff), may enable people to explore and enact ways to live well with dementia. Recovery Colleges are established within mental health services worldwide, offering peer-supported short courses coproduced in partnership between staff and people with lived experience of mental illness. The concept of recovery is challenging in dementia narratives, with little evidence of how the Recovery College model could work as a method of postdiagnostic dementia support., Methods and Analysis: Using a realist evaluation approach, this research will examine and define what works, for whom, in what circumstances and why, in Recovery College dementia courses. The ethnographic study will recruit five case studies from National Health Service Mental Health Trusts across England. Sampling will seek diversity in new or long-standing courses, delivery methods and demographics of population served. Participant observations will examine course coproduction. Interviews will be undertaken with people with dementia, family and friend supporters and staff involved in coproducing and commissioning the courses, as well as people attending. Documentary materials will be reviewed. Analysis will use a realist logic of analysis to develop a programme theory containing causal explanations for outcomes, in the form of context-mechanism-outcome-configurations, at play in each case., Ethics and Dissemination: The study received approval from Coventry & Warwickshire Research Ethics Committee (22/WM/0215). Ethical concerns include not privileging any voice, consent for embedded observational fieldwork with people who may experience fluctuating mental capacity and balancing researcher 'embedded participant' roles in publicly accessible learning events. Drawing on the realist programme theory, two stakeholder groups, one people living with dementia and one staff will work with researchers to coproduce resources to support coproducing Recovery College dementia courses aligned with postdiagnostic services., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Older people in care homes frequently experience polypharmacy, increasing the likelihood of medicine-related burden. Pharmacists working within multidisciplinary primary care teams are ideally placed to lead on medication reviews. A randomised controlled trial placed pharmacists, with independent prescribing rights (PIPs), into older people care homes. In the intervention service, PIPs worked with general practitioners (GPs) and care home staff for 6 months, to optimise medicine management at individual resident and care home level. PIP activity included stopping medicines that were no longer needed or where potential harms outweighed benefits. This analysis of qualitative data examines health and social care stakeholders' perceptions of how the service impacted on care home medicine procedures and resident well-being., Design: Pragmatic research design with secondary analysis of interviews., Setting: Primary care pharmacist intervention in older people care homes in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland., Participants: Recruited from intervention arm of the trial: PIPs (n=14), GPs (n=8), care home managers (n=9) and care home staff (n=6)., Results: There were resonances between different participant groups about potential benefits to care home residents of a medicine service provided by PIPs. There were small differences in perceptions about changes related to communication between professionals. Results are reported through three themes (1) 'It's a natural fit'-pharmacists undertaking medication review in care homes fitted within multidisciplinary care; (2) 'The resident is cared for'-there were subjective improvements in residents' well-being; (3) 'Moving from "firefighting" to effective systems'-there was evidence of changes to care home medicine procedures., Conclusion: This study suggests that pharmacist independent prescribers in primary care working within the multidisciplinary team can manage care home residents' medicines leading to subjective improvements in residents' well-being and medicine management procedures. Care home staff appreciated contact with a dedicated person in the GP practice., Trial Registration: ISRCTN 17847169., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DW received speaker fees from Desitin Pharma and speaker fees and unrestricted education grants from Rosemont Pharmaceuticals. All other authors have no competing/conflict of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To determine the impact of COVID-19 pandemic social restriction measures on people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and to explore how people adapted to these measures over time., Design: Mixed-methods investigation comprising a national online longitudinal survey and embedded qualitative study., Setting: UK online survey and interviews with community-dwelling individuals in the East of England., Participants: People in the UK with RMDs were invited to participate in an online survey. A subsection of respondents were invited to participate in the embedded qualitative study., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The online survey, completed fortnightly over 10 weeks from April 2020 to August 2020, investigated changes in symptoms, social isolation and loneliness, resilience and optimism. Qualitative interviews were undertaken assessing participant's perspectives on changes in symptoms, exercising, managing instrumental tasks such a shopping, medication and treatment regimens and how they experienced changes in their social networks., Results: 703 people with RMDs completed the online survey. These people frequently reported a deterioration in symptoms as a result of COVID-19 pandemic social restrictions (52% reported increase vs 6% reported a decrease). This was significantly worse for those aged 18-60 years compared with older participants (p=0.017). The qualitative findings from 26 individuals with RMDs suggest that the greatest change in daily life was experienced by those in employment. Although some retired people reported reduced opportunity for exercise outside their homes, they did not face the many competing demands experienced by employed people and people with children at home., Conclusions: People with RMDs reported a deterioration in symptoms when COVID-19 pandemic social restriction measures were enforced. This was worse for working-aged people. Consideration of this at-risk group, specifically for the promotion of physical activity, changing home-working practices and awareness of healthcare provision is important, as social restrictions continue in the UK., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Pancreatic cancer has poor survival rates due to non-specific symptoms leading to later diagnosis. Understanding how patients interpret their symptoms could inform approaches to earlier diagnosis. This study sought to explore symptom appraisal and help-seeking among patients referred to secondary care for symptoms suggestive of pancreatic cancer., Design: Qualitative analysis of semistructured in-depth interviews. Data were analysed iteratively and thematically, informed by the Model of Pathways to Treatment., Participants and Setting: Pancreatic cancer occurs rarely in younger adults, therefore patients aged ≥40 years were recruited from nine hospitals after being referred to hospital with symptoms suggestive of pancreatic cancer; all were participants in a cohort study. Interviews were conducted soon after referral, and where possible, before diagnosis., Results: Twenty-six interviews were conducted (cancer n=13 (pancreas n=9, other intra-abdominal n=4), non-cancer conditions n=13; age range 48-84 years; 14 women). Time from first symptoms to first presentation to healthcare ranged from 1 day to 270 days, median 21 days. We identified three main themes. Initial symptom appraisal usually began with intermittent, non-specific symptoms such as tiredness or appetite changes, attributed to diet and lifestyle, existing gastrointestinal conditions or side effects of medication. Responses to initial symptom appraisal included changes in meal type or frequency, or self-medication. Symptom changes such as alterations in appetite and enjoyment of food or weight loss usually prompted further appraisal. Triggers to seek help included a change or worsening of symptoms, particularly pain, which was often a 'tipping point'. Help-seeking was often encouraged by others. We found no differences in symptom appraisal and help-seeking between people diagnosed with cancer and those with other conditions., Conclusions: Greater public and healthcare professional awareness of the combinations of subtle and intermittent symptoms, and their evolving nature, is needed to prompt timelier help-seeking and investigation among people with symptoms of pancreatic cancer., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: Optimising uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is important to achieve projected health outcomes. Population-based screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) was introduced in England in 2013 (NHS Bowel scope screening). Little is known about reactions to the invitation to participate in FS screening, as offered within the context of the Bowel scope programme. We aimed to investigate responses to the screening invitation to inform understanding of decision-making, particularly in relation to non-participation in screening., Design: Qualitative analysis of semistructured in-depth interviews and written accounts., Participants and Setting: People from 31 general practices in the North East and East of England invited to attend FS screening as part of NHS Bowel scope screening programme were sent invitations to take part in the study. We purposively sampled interviewees to ensure a range of accounts in terms of beliefs, screening attendance, sex and geographical location., Results: 20 screeners and 25 non-screeners were interviewed. Written responses describing reasons for, and circumstances surrounding, non-participation from a further 28 non-screeners were included in the analysis. Thematic analysis identified a range of reactions to the screening invitation, decision-making processes and barriers to participation. These include a perceived or actual lack of need; inability to attend; anxiety and fear about bowel preparation, procedures or hospital; inability or reluctance to self-administer an enema; beliefs about low susceptibility to bowel cancer or treatment and understanding of harm and benefits. The strength, rather than presence, of concerns about the test and perceived need for reassurance were important in the decision to participate for screeners and non-screeners. Decision-making occurs within the context of previous experiences and day-to-day life., Conclusions: Understanding the reasons for non-participation in FS screening can help inform strategies to improve uptake and may be transferable to other screening programmes., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Objectives: Timely diagnosis of colorectal cancer is important to improve survival. This study explored symptom appraisal and help-seeking among patients referred to specialist services with symptoms of colorectal cancer., Design: Qualitative in-depth interview study., Setting and Participants: Participants were recruited on referral to gastroenterology clinics (North East and East of England); interviews were conducted soon after referral. We purposively sampled participants to ensure a range of accounts in terms of age, sex, diagnosis and geographical location., Methods: Data collection and analysis were underpinned by the Model of Pathways to Treatment. Framework analysis was used to explore the data within and across cases, focusing on patient beliefs and experiences, disease factors and healthcare influences., Results: 40 participants were interviewed (aged 43-87 years, 17 women, 18 diagnosed with colorectal cancer). Patients diagnosed with and without colorectal cancer had similar symptom pathways. We found a range of interacting and often competing biopsychosocial, contextual and cultural influences on the way in which people recognised, interpreted and acted on their symptoms. People attempted to 'maintain normality' through finding benign explanations for their symptoms. Bodily changes were appraised within the context of usual bowel patterns, comorbidities and life events, and decisions to seek help were made in relation to expectations about the course of symptoms. The 'private nature' of colorectal cancer symptoms could affect both their identification and discussions with others including healthcare professionals. Within the context of the National Health Service, people needed to legitimise appropriate use of healthcare services and avoid being thought of as wasting doctors' time., Conclusions: Findings provide guidance for awareness campaigns on reducing stigma around appraising and discussing bowel movements, and the importance of intermittent and non-specific symptoms. Altering perceptions about the appropriate use of health services could have a beneficial effect on time to presentation., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Objective: To explore symptom appraisal and help-seeking decisions among patients recently diagnosed with melanomas, and to compare experiences of people with 'thinner' (<1 mm) and 'thicker' (>2 mm) melanomas, as thickness at diagnosis is an important prognostic feature., Methods: In-depth interviews with patients within 10 weeks of melanoma diagnosis explored the factors impacting on their pathways to diagnosis. Framework analysis, underpinned by the Model of Pathways to Treatment, was used to explore the data with particular focus on patients' beliefs and experiences, disease factors, and healthcare professional (HCP) influences., Results: 63 patients were interviewed (29-93 years, 31 women, 30 thicker melanomas). All described their skin changes using rich lay vocabulary. Many included unassuming features such as 'just a little spot' as well as common features of changes in size, colour and shape. There appeared to be subtly different patterns of symptoms: descriptions of vertical growth, bleeding, oozing and itch were features of thicker melanomas irrespective of pathological type. Appraisal was influenced by explanations such as normal life changes, prior beliefs and whether skin changes matched known melanoma descriptions. Most decisions to seek help were triggered by common factors such as advice from family and friends. 11 patients reported previous reassurance about their skin changes by a HCP, with little guidance on monitoring change or when it would be appropriate to re-consult., Conclusions: Patients diagnosed with both thinner and thicker melanomas often did not initially recognise or interpret their skin changes as warning signs or prompts to seek timely medical attention. The findings provide guidance for melanoma awareness campaigns on more appropriate images, helpful descriptive language and the need to stress the often apparently innocuous nature of potentially serious skin changes. The importance of appropriate advice, monitoring and safety-netting procedures by HCPs for people presenting with skin changes is also highlighted., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)