Search

Actively involving service users, patients and carers in the creation and development of health research in the UK has recently come under pressure to articulate why involvement is a good use of resources. This has led to a growing interest in creating ways to measure the impact of involving patients, service users and carers in research. However, there is a concern that fundamentally important issues about why we should meaningfully involve service users, patients and carers are missing from the current measurement discourses and activities undertaken in relation to measurement. This paper argues three distinct points, and is based on the experience of the authors working with Folk.us as well as other fields of involvement. Firstly, there should be an open and honest debate about what is meant by the need to measure and assess the effects of involving people in research, addressing issues such as who benefits from the measurement and assessment and why the involvement is being done. Secondly, if at the conclusion of the debate it is deemed necessary to measure and assess, there must be a full and frank discussion about what criteria are appropriate for the proper reporting of involvement activities. This discussion would need to include the less obvious activities that are crucial to active involvement, such as administrative tasks, and where such activities would sit within these criteria. Thirdly, we will consider when such criteria should be applied, at the beginning or end of projects and, indeed, whether one can categorize the 'beginning' or 'end' of involvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over 300 therapies have been proposed for premenstrual syndrome. To date there has been only one survey conducted in the UK of PMS treatments prescribed by GPs, a questionnaire-based study by the National Association of Premenstrual Syndrome in 1989. Since then, selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors have been licensed for severe PMS/PMDD, and governmental recommendations to reduce the dosage of vitamin B6 (the first choice over-thecounter treatment for many women with PMS) have been made. This study investigates the annual rates of diagnoses and prescribing patterns for premenstrual syndrome (1993-1998) within a computerised general practitioner database. Methods: Retrospective survey of prescribing data for premenstrual syndrome between 1993-1998 using the General Practice Research Database for the West Midlands Region which contains information on 282,600 female patients Results: Overall the proportion of women with a prescription-linked diagnosis of premenstrual syndrome has halved over the five years. Progestogens including progesterone were the most commonly recorded treatment for premenstrual syndrome during the whole study period accounting for over 40% of all prescriptions. Selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors accounted for only 2% of the prescriptions in 1993 but rose to over 16% by 1998, becoming the second most commonly recorded treatment. Vitamin B6 accounted for 22% of the prescriptions in 1993 but dropped markedly between 1997 and 1998 to 11%. Conclusions: This study shows a yearly decrease in the number of prescriptions linked to diagnoses for premenstrual syndrome. Progestogens including progesterone, is the most widely prescribed treatment for premenstrual syndrome despite the lack of evidence demonstrating their efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]