Search

This paper addresses a central paradox that affects the nature of the student experience in the UK. On the one hand, the marketisation of higher education, with its associated emphasis on performativity indicators, may be seen to have reduced students to numbers, with the attendant consequence that the affective domain of studying and learning has been lost. On the other hand, there is more attention given to student feelings than was ever the case in the past and questions about student satisfaction have become more prominent. This paper will explore this paradox using empirical data gathered from a longitudinal study of ‘non-traditional’ students at one ancient university in Scotland. We indicate the ways in which the tension between the technicist spaces of the neo-liberal university and its empathetic, caring spaces are mediated by students as they make their way through their degrees. We argue that caring relationships with staff are of central importance to students’ well-being and success at university, and that students actively seek to construct support when and where they need it.

Aims and Objectives: to undertake an analysis of UK national daily newspaper coverage of accident and emergency treatment targets, in order to understand if the media could be seen to be creating a scandal. Background: Emergency Department treatment targets have become common in developed countries. In the United Kingdom (UK), hospitals are required to treat and discharge patients within four hours, and statistics are published daily. Breaches of targets are regularly reported by the UK print media. Design: exploratory research of tabloid newspaper articles that reported on four-hour treatment targets in the UK during a seven-month period over the winter of 2014-15 (n=1,317). An interpretivist thematic approach was utilised during analysis. Results: The main ‘problem’ identified by newspapers was the failure to meet the target, rather than negative effects on patient care (where they existed). Proposed solutions were diverse. Many articles did not describe who was to blame for the failure. Conclusion: We conclude that the media created a feeling of scandal, and hypothesise that this is related to political reasons and the availability of data on a daily basis. Relevance to clinical practice: it is important for nursing staff to understand the influence of the media on patients and how stories are reported.

Mental health tribunals are responsible for making decisions about compulsory treatment for individuals considered a risk to themselves and others due to mental disorder. They are generally designed to provide safeguards for individuals subject to compulsory treatment by testing whether national legislative criteria and international human rights standards have been met. Despite this, they have been criticised for being dominated by the medical domain, focusing rigidly on legal criteria and for restricting human rights, including the rights to liberty and access to justice. As a result, questions have arisen over the extent to which mental health tribunals are in‐ deed operating in line with their legislative intentions and international human rights requirements. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise international evidence on this and to assess the extent to which this is reflected in such literature. A systematic search of the literature was conducted on the 17 April 2018 for articles published between 2000 and 2018 in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, ASSIA and Web of Science. All study designs were included within this review, provided they reported empirical findings. Thirty‐two studies met the inclusion criteria. Eight themes were identified across the literature and these were participation, information and understanding, patient representation, the power of the medical domain, feelings of powerlessness, perceptions of fairness, risk and the impact on relation‐ ships. The findings call into question whether mental health tribunals necessarily operate in compliance with international human rights standards. This article suggests that mental health tribunals may need to do more to safeguard legislative principles and human rights standards that promote patient autonomy.

Background: Alcohol consumption has posed well-documented problems for Scottish society in terms of morbidity, mortality, and wider societal costs. Objectives: To investigate the lived experiences and drinking behaviors of people with alcohol-related harm in Scotland against a backdrop of recent economic downturn, falling incomes, welfare reform, and changes to state benefits. Methods: As part of a larger Scottish study (2012–2014) of 639 individuals attending hospital or admitted, relating to an alcohol problem, 20 participants completed semistructured interviews about their drinking and purchasing habits that were subjected to thematic analysis. Conclusions: Key themes elucidated participants’ everyday drink-related behaviors within their local environment including drinking triggers, sourcing alcohol, resourcing alcohol purchase, and views relating to substitution. The majority of participants had experienced reduced income and adapted their alcohol-purchasing behaviors accordingly, including “trading down” to cheaper alcohol. A reduction in food purchasing and heating was a common outcome, as was falling into, or increasing current, debt. More attention should be paid to the prevalence and accessibility of alcohol within local communities. Ultimately, as long as there is highly visible and easily accessible cheap alcohol, heavy drinkers may struggle to undertake positive steps to reduce their damaging consumption levels.

IntroductioneHealth strategies targeting health-related behaviour often incorporate persuasive software design. To further engage patients with their overall health management, consumer-facing web portals may be integrated with data from one or more care providers. This study aimed to explore effectiveness for healthier behaviour of persuasive design characteristics within a web application integrated with the primary health care electronic record; also patient and general practitioner (GP) preferences for future integrated records.MethodsMixed methods study within the Consumer Navigation of Electronic Cardiovascular Tools randomised controlled trial. Participants were patients with moderate-high risk of cardiovascular disease, and their GPs. Survey and web analytic data were analysed with descriptive statistics. Interview and focus group transcripts were recorded, transcribed, coded and analysed for themes.ResultsSurveys (n = 397) received from patients indicated improved medication adherence (31.8%); improved mental health and well-being (40%); higher physical activity (47%); and healthier eating (61%). Users of the interactive features reported benefiting from personalised cardiovascular disease risk score (73%); goal tracking (69%); risk factor self-monitoring (52%) and receipt of motivational health tips (54%). Focus group and interview participants (n = 55) described customisations that would increase portal appeal and relevance, including more provider interaction. Of the GP survey respondents (n = 38), 74% reported increased patient attendance and engagement with their care. For future integrated portals, 94% of GPs were in favour and key themes among interviewees (n = 17) related to design optimisation, impact on workflow and data security.ConclusionIntervention features reflecting the persuasive design categories of Primary Task support, Dialogue support and System Credibility support facilitated healthier lifestyle behaviour. Patients valued customisable functions and greater patient-provider interactivity. GPs identified system challenges but saw advantages for patients and the health care relationship. Future studies could further elucidate the persuasive design principles that are at play and which may promote adoption of EHR-integrated consumer portals.

Background Qualitative methods are increasingly used to study the process of clinical trials and patients understanding of the rationale for trials, randomisation and reasons for taking part or refusing. Patients' understandings are inevitably influenced by the recruiting clinician's understanding of the trial, yet relatively little qualitative work has explored clinicians' perceptions and understandings of trials. This study interviewed surgeons shortly after the multi-centre, pragmatic RCT in which they had participated had been completed. Methods We used in-depth interviews with surgeons who participated in the Spine Stabilisation Trial (a pragmatic RCT) to explore their understanding of the trial purpose and how this understanding had influenced their recruitment procedures and interpretation of the results. A purposive sample of eleven participating surgeons was chosen from 8 of the 15 UK trial centres. Results Although the surgeons thought that the trial was addressing an important question there was little agreement about what this question was: although it was a trial of 'equivalent' treatments, some thought that it was a trial of surgery, others a trial of rehabilitation and others that it was exploring what to do with patients in whom all other treatment options had been unsuccessful. The surgeons we interviewed were not aware of the rationale for the pragmatic inclusion criteria and nearly all were completely baffled about the meaning of 'equipoise'. Misunderstandings about the entry criteria were an important source of confusion about the results and led to reluctance to apply the results to their own practice. Conclusion The study suggests several lessons for the conduct of future multi-centre trials. Recruiting surgeons (and other clinicians) may not be familiar with the rationale for pragmatic designs and may need to be regularly reminded about the purpose during the study. Reassurance may be necessary that a pragmatic design is not considered a design fault. We conclude that it does matter if clinicians do not understand the rationale for the trial if, as we have shown here, their perception of the trial aims and methods adversely affects who they recruit; if their views affect what the patients are told; and if they mistakenly view the results as unscientific, unreliable and ultimately irrelevant to their practice.

Objectives To assess the clinical effectiveness of surgical stabilisation (spinal fusion) compared with intensive rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain. Design Multicentre randomised controlled trial. Setting 15 secondary care orthopaedic and rehabilitation centres across the United Kingdom. Participants 349 participants aged 18-55 with chronic low back pain of at least one year's duration who were considered candidates for spinal fusion. Intervention Lumbar spine fusion or an intensive rehabilitation programme based on principles of cognitive behaviour therapy. Main outcome measure The primary outcomes were the Oswestry disability index and the shuttle walking test measured at baseline and two years after randomisation. The SF-36 instrument was used as a secondary outcome measure. Results 176 participants were assigned to surgery and 173 to rehabilitation. 284 (81%) provided follow-up data at 24 months. The mean Oswestry disability index changed favourably from 46.5 (SD 14.6) to 34.0 (SD 21.1) in the surgery group and from 44.8 (SD14.8) to 36.1 (SD 20.6) in the rehabilitation group. The estimated mean difference between the groups was –4.1 (95% confidence interval –8.1 to –0.1, P = 0.045) in favour of surgery. No significant differences between the treatment groups were observed in the shuttle walking test or any of the other outcome measures. Conclusions Both groups reported reductions in disability during two years of follow-up, possibly unrelated to the interventions. The statistical difference between treatment groups in one of the two primary outcome measures was marginal and only just reached the predefined minimal clinical difference, and the potential risk and additional cost of surgery also need to be considered. No clear evidence emerged that primary spinal fusion surgery was any more beneficial than intensive rehabilitation.

Objective: To evaluate a progressive fitness programme for patients with chronic low back pain. Design: Single blind randomised controlled trial. Assessments were carried out before and after treatment by an observer blinded to the study and included a battery of validated measures. All patients were followed up by postal questionnaire six months after treatment. Setting: Physiotherapy department of orthopaedic hospital. Subjects: 81 patients with chronic low back pain referred from orthopaedic consultants for physiotherapy. The patients were randomly allocated to a fitness programme or control group. Intervention: Both groups were taught specific exercises to carry out at home and referred to a back-school for education in back care. Patients allocated to the fitness class attended eight exercise classes over four weeks in addition to the home programme and backschool. Results: Significant differences between the groups were shown in the changes before and after treatment in scores on the Oswestry low back pain disability index (P Conclusion: There is a role for supervised fitness programmes in the management of moderately disabled patients with chronic low back pain. Further clinical trials, however, need to be established in other centres to confirm these findings. Key messages Key messages Recent research suggests a need for a more dynamic approach with a move away from long term rest towards progressive activity and exercise This study shows that a supervised fitness programme can help to reduce pain and disability and improve patients9 confidence Beneficial effects of treatment were maintained six months after treat- ment when compared with a control group who were advised to exercise independently Simply advising patients with low back pain to exercise is not effective in reducing disability and pain

Striking differences exist in outcomes for cancer between developed countries with comparable healthcare systems. We compare the healthcare systems of 3 countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), 3 UK jurisdictions (England, Wales and Northern Ireland), 3 Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario) and 2 Australian states (New South Wales, Victoria) using a framework which assesses the possible contribution of primary care systems to a range of health outcomes, drawing on key characteristics influencing population health. For many of the characteristics we investigated there are no significant differences between those countries with poorer cancer outcomes (England and Denmark) and the rest. In particular, regulation, financing, the existence of patient lists, the GP gatekeeping role, direct access to secondary care, the degree of comprehensiveness of primary care services, the level of cost sharing and the type of primary care providers within healthcare systems were not specifically and consistently associated with differences between countries. Factors that could have an influence on patient and professional behaviour, and consequently contribute to delays in cancer diagnosis and poorer cancer outcomes in some countries, include centralisation of services, free movement of patients between primary care providers, access to secondary care, and the existence of patient list systems. It was not possible to establish a causal correlation between healthcare system characteristics and cancer outcomes. Further studies should explore in greater depth the associations between single health system factors and cancer outcomes, recognising that in complex systems where context is all-important, it will be difficult to establish causal relationships. Better understanding of the interaction between healthcare system variables and patient and professional behaviour may generate new hypotheses for further research., Highlights • We examined cancer outcomes in six developed countries with comparable healthcare systems. • Clear differences exist in cancer outcomes between countries with comparable healthcare systems. • Centralisation, movement of patients between providers, access to secondary care, and list systems appear influential. • Better understanding of interactions between system variables and patient and professional behaviour may improve outcomes.