Search

Introduction and hypothesis This qualitative interview study explores aspects women with urinary incontinence(UI) reflect upon when considering whether or not to have surgery. Conducted prior to the recent mesh pause in the UK, the article provides insights for current and future approaches to shared decision-making. Methods Qualitative in-depth interviews of 28 patients referred to secondary care for stress and mixed UI who were considering UI surgery. Participants were recruited from four urogynaecology clinics in the Midlands and South England, UK. Interviews were conducted in clinics, in patient homes, and by telephone. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Results Participants’ accounts comprised three key concerns: their experience of symptoms, the extent to which these impacted a variety of social roles and demands, and overcoming embarrassment. Accounts drew on individual circumstances, values, and concerns rather than objective or measurable criteria. In combination, these dimensions constituted a personal assessment of the severity of their UI and hence framed the extent to which women prioritized addressing their condition. Conclusions Acknowledging women’s personal accounts of UI shifts the concept of ‘severity’ beyond a medical definition to include what is important to patients themselves. Decision-making around elective surgery must endeavour to link medical information with women’s own experiences and personal criteria, which often change in priority over time. We propose that this research provides insight into how the controversy around the use of mesh in the UK emerged. This study also suggests ways in which facilitating shared decision-making should be conducted in future.

BackgroundManaging multimorbidity is complex for both patients and healthcare systems. Patients with multimorbidity often use a variety of primary and secondary care services. Country-specific research exploring the healthcare utilisation and cost consequences of multimorbidity may inform future interventions and payment schemes in the UK.AimTo assess the relationship between multimorbidity, healthcare costs, and healthcare utilisation; and to determine how this relationship varies by disease combinations and healthcare components.Design and settingA systematic review.MethodThis systematic review followed the bidirectional citation searching to completion method. MEDLINE and grey literature were searched for UK studies since 2004. An iterative review of references and citations was completed. Authors from all articles selected were contacted and asked to check for completeness of UK evidence. The National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tool was used to assess risk of bias. Data were extracted, findings synthesised, and study heterogeneity assessed; meta-analysis was conducted when possible.ResultsSeventeen studies were identified: seven predicting healthcare costs and 10 healthcare utilisation. Multimorbidity was found to be associated with increased total costs, hospital costs, care transition costs, primary care use, dental care use, emergency department use, and hospitalisations. Several studies demonstrated the high cost of depression and of hospitalisation associated with multimorbidity.ConclusionIn the UK, multimorbidity increases healthcare utilisation and costs of primary, secondary, and dental care. Future research is needed to examine whether integrated care schemes offer efficiencies in healthcare provision for multimorbidity.

Focusing on debates around the risk/benefits of e-cigarettes within the field of public health, this chapter argues that the for/against sides in these debates construct e-cigarettes as different objects, with implicit assumptions about what these objects ‘are’, how people will respond to them, and their comparability to tobacco cigarettes. Drawing on practice theory approaches, this chapter questions such assumptions, pointing out that objects are ‘made’ through practices and thus cannot be divided from their contexts, with different contexts enacting differing objects. The ‘riskiness’ of objects is therefore relational rather than an inherent quality in technologies themselves. Such debates tell us more about the assumptions embedded within public health itself and are themselves examples of how new technologies create new relations and material effects.

In recent years, health behaviour interventions have received a great deal of attention in both research and policy as a means of encouraging people to lead healthier lives. The emphasis of such interventions has varied over time, in terms of level of intervention (e.g. individual vs community) and drawing on different disciplinary perspectives. Recently, a number of critiques have focused on how health behaviour interventions sometimes sideline issues of social context, framing health as a matter of individual choice and, by implication, a personal responsibility. Part of this criticism is that health behaviour interventions often do not draw on alternative social science understandings of the structured and contextual aspects of behaviour and health. Yet to our knowledge, no study has attempted to empirically assess the extent to which, and in what ways, the health behaviour intervention field has paid attention to social context. In this article, we undertake this task using bibliometric techniques in order to map out the health behaviour intervention field. We find that the number of health behaviour interventions has grown rapidly in recent years, especially since around 2006, and that references to social science disciplines and concepts that foreground issues of social context are rare and, relatively speaking, constitute less of the field post 2006. More quantifiable concepts are used most, and those more close to the complexities of social context are mentioned least. The document co-citation analysis suggests that pre 2006, documents referring to social context were relatively diffuse in the network of key citations, but post 2006 this influence had largely diminished. The journal co-citation analysis shows less disciplinary overlap post 2006. At present, health behaviour interventions are continuing to focus on individualised approaches drawn from behavioural psychology and behavioural economics. Our findings lend empirical support to a number of recent papers that suggest more interdisciplinary collaboration is needed to advance the field.

Background: We report the main results, among adults, of a cluster-randomised-trial of Well London, a community engagement programme promoting healthy eating, physical activity and mental well-being in deprived neighbourhoods. The hypothesis was that benefits would be neighbourhood-wide, and not restricted to intervention participants.The trial was part of a multi-component process/outcome evaluation which included non-experimental components (self-reported behaviour change amongst participants, case studies and evaluations of individual projects) which suggested health, well-being and social benefits to participants.\ud Methods: Twenty matched pairs of neighbourhoods in London were randomised to intervention/control condition. Primary outcomes (five portions fruit/vegetables/day; 5x30 min of moderate intensity physical activity/week, abnormal General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)-12 score and Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) score) were measured by post-intervention questionnaire survey, among 3986 adults in a random sample of households across neighbourhoods.\ud Results: There was no evidence of impact on primary outcomes: healthy eating (relative risk [RR] 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.17); physical activity (RR:1.01, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.16); abnormal GHQ12 (RR:1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.61); WEMWBS (mean difference [MD]: −1.52, 95% CI −3.93 to 0.88). There was evidence of impact on some secondary outcomes: reducing unhealthy eating-score (MD: −0.14, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.27) and increased perception that people in the neighbourhood pulled together (RR: 1.92, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.29).\ud Conclusions: The trial findings do not provide evidence supporting the conclusion of non-experimental components of the evaluation that intervention improved health behaviours, well-being and social outcomes. Low participation rates and population churn likely compromised any impact of the intervention. Imprecise estimation of outcomes and sampling bias may also have influenced findings. There is a need for greater investment in refining such programmes before implementation; new methods to understand, longitudinally different pathways residents take through such interventions and their outcomes, and new theories of change that apply to each pathway.