Search

Background: Health systems are seeking to harness digital tools to promote patient autonomy and increase the efficiency of care worldwide. The NHS Long Term Plan created the right for patients to access 'digital first' primary care by 2023-2024, including online patient access to full medical records., Aim: To identify and understand the unintended consequences of online patient access to medical records., Design and Setting: Qualitative interview study in 10 general practices in South West and North West England., Method: Semi-structured individual interviews with 13 patients and 16 general practice staff with experience of patient online access to health records., Results: Online access generated unintended consequences that negatively impacted patients' understanding of their health care, with patients finding surprising or difficult to interpret information. Online access impacted GPs' documentation practices, such as when GPs pre-emptively attempted to minimise potential misunderstandings to aid patient understanding of their health care. In other cases, this negatively impacted the quality of the records and patient safety when GPs avoided documenting speculations or concerns. Contrary to assumptions that workload would be reduced, online access introduced extra work, such as managing and monitoring access, and taking measures to prevent possible harm to patients., Conclusion: The unintended consequences described by both staff and patients show that, to achieve the intended consequences set out in NHS policy, additional work is necessary to prepare records for sharing and to prepare patients about what to expect. It is crucial that practices are adequately supported and resourced to manage the unintended consequences of online access, now that it is the default position. A table of potential unintended consequences and mitigation measures is provided to aid practice managers and clinicians implementing online access., (© The Authors.)

Obesity is a major worldwide public health problem. Clinicians are asked to communicate public health messages, including encouraging and supporting weight loss, during consultations with patients living with obesity. However, research shows that talking about weight with patients rarely happens and both parties find it difficult to initiate. Current guidelines on how to have such conversations do not include evidence-based examples of what to say, when to say it and how to avoid causing offence (a key concern for clinicians). To address this gap, we examined 237 audio recorded consultations between clinicians and patients living with obesity in the UK in which weight was discussed opportunistically. Conversation analysis revealed that framing advice as depersonalised generic information was one strategy clinicians used when initiating discussions. This contrasted to clinicians who made advice clearly relevant and personalised to the patient by first appraising their weight. However not all personalised forms of advice worked equally well. Clinicians who spoke delicately when personalising the discussion avoided the types of patient resistance that we found when clinicians were less delicate. More delicate approaches included forecasting upcoming discussion of weight along with delicacy markers in talk (e.g. strategic use of hesitation). Our findings suggest that clinicians should not avoid talking about a patient's weight, but should speak delicately to help maintain good relationships with patients. The findings also demonstrate the need to examine communication practices to develop better and specific guidance for clinicians. Data are in British English., Competing Interests: PA spoke at a symposium for the 10.13039/100010334Royal College of General Practitioners that was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, who paid his employees for this., (© 2022 The Authors.)

This qualitative study explores social work educators' perceptions on the role of lived experience in teaching within undergraduate and postgraduate social work education programmes across universities in Britain. Thirty-five semi-structured online interviews were conducted with social work educators from 27 universities across Scotland, Wales and England. Findings were that educators indicated specific ways that people with lived experience (PwLE) can transform student learning. They give an opportunity to expose students to different perspectives, challenge stereotypes about people who access services, help students reflect on their own personal and professional values, demonstrate that the curriculum is connected to and grounded in the real world, and provide crucial preparation before practice. While the extant literature highlights the positive benefits of PwLE involvement in higher education programmes, ongoing work is required to support PwLE involvement consistently and sustainably, and to ensure more diverse representation of PwLE in order that students are exposed to a broader, real world understanding of practice., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)., (© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.)

For the past decade, within family medicine there has been a focus on cultivating doctors gut feelings as 'a way of knowing' in cancer diagnostics. In this paper, building on interviews with family doctors in Oxford shire, UK we explore the embodied and temporal dimensions of clinical reasoning and how the cultivation of doctors' gut feelings is related to hierarchies of medical knowledge, professional training, and doctors' fears of litigation. Also, we suggest that the introduction of gut feeling in clinical practice is an attempt to develop a theory of clinical reasoning that fits the biopolitics of our contemporary. The turn towards predictive medicine and the values introduced by accelerated diagnostic regimes, we conclude, introduce a need for situated and embodied modes of reading bodies. We contribute theoretically by framing our analysis within a sensorial anthropology approach., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: Guidelines recommend that clinicians should offer patients with obesity referrals to weight management services. However, clinicians and patients worry that such conversations will generate friction, and the risk of this is greatest when patients say no. We examined how doctors actually respond to patient refusals, and how patients reacted to clinicians in turn., Methods: Conversation analysis of 226 GP-patient interactions recorded during a clinical trial of weight management referrals in UK primary care., Results: Some clinicians responded to refusals by delivering further information or offering referral again. These actions treated patient refusals as unwelcome, and acted to pursue acceptance instead. However, pursuit did not lead to acceptance. Rather, pursuing acceptance lengthened consultations and led to frustration, offence, or anger. Clinicians who accepted refusals and closed the consultation avoided friction and negative emotional displays., Conclusion: Patient refusals have the potential to create negative consequences in the consultation and clinician responses were key in avoiding these. When clinicians acknowledged the legitimacy of patient refusals, negative consequences were avoided, and the conversation was briefer and smoother., Practice Implications: When patients refuse the offer of a free weight management referral, GPs should accept this refusal, rather than trying to persuade patients to accept., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic required general practice to rapidly adapt to remote consultations and assessment of patients, creating new, and exacerbating existing, vulnerabilities for many patients., Aim: To explore GP perspectives and concerns about safeguarding practice during the pandemic, focusing on challenges and opportunities created by remote consultation., Design and Setting: Qualitative interview study., Method: Eighteen GPs from Oxford, London, Southampton, Liverpool, Manchester, and Reading were interviewed between June and November 2020, using a flexible topic guide and fictional vignettes to explore child and adult safeguarding scenarios. Interviews were audio-recorded, thematically coded, and analysed., Results: GPs worried about missing observational information during remote consultations and that conversations might not be private or safe. Loss of continuity and pooled triage lists were seen as further weakening safeguarding opportunities. GPs experienced remote consulting as more 'transactional', with reduced opportunities to explore 'other reasons' including new safeguarding needs. However, they also recognised that remote consulting created opportunities for some vulnerable patients. While supporting known vulnerable patients was difficult, identifying new or unknown vulnerabilities was harder still. Most reported that remote consulting during COVID-19 was harder, riskier, and emotionally draining, contributing to increased GP anxiety and reduced job satisfaction., Conclusion: The GPs interviewed raised important concerns about how to identify and manage safeguarding in the context of remote consultations. Current guidance recommends face-to-face consultation for safeguarding concerns, but pressure to use remote forms of access (within or beyond the pandemic) and the fact that safeguarding needs may be unknown makes this an issue that warrants urgent attention., (© The Authors.)

Background: Health services are increasingly using digital tools to deliver care, and online consultations are being widely adopted in primary care settings. The intended consequences of online consultations are to increase patient access to care and increase the efficiency of care., Aim: To identify and understand the unintended consequences of online consultations in primary care., Design and Setting: Qualitative interview study in eight general practices using online consultation tools in South West and North West England between February 2019 and January 2020., Method: Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 19 patients and 18 general practice staff., Results: Consequences of online consultations were identified that restricted patient access to care by making it difficult for some patients to communicate effectively with a GP and disadvantaging digitally-excluded patients. This stemmed from patient uncertainty about how their queries were dealt with, and whether practices used online consultations as their preferred method for patients to contact the practice. Consequences were identified that limited increases in practice efficiency by creating additional work, isolation, and dissatisfaction for some staff., Conclusion: Unintended consequences often present operational challenges that are foreseeable and partly preventable. However, these challenges must be recognised and solutions resourced sufficiently. Not everyone may benefit and local decisions will need to be made about trade-offs. Process changes tailored to local circumstances are critical to making effective use of online consultation tools. Unintended consequences also present clinical challenges that result from asynchronous communication. Online consultation tools favour simple, well-formulated information exchange that leads to diffuse relationships and a more transactional style of medicine., (© The Authors.)

Background: Gut feelings may be useful when dealing with uncertainty, which is ubiquitous in primary care. Both patients and GPs experience this uncertainty but patients' views on gut feelings in the consultation have not been explored., Aim: To explore patients' perceptions of gut feelings in decision making, and to compare these perceptions with those of GPs., Design and Setting: Qualitative interviews with 21 patients in Oxfordshire, UK., Method: Patients whose referral to a cancer pathway was based on their GP's gut feeling were invited to participate. Semi-structured interviews were conducted from November 2019 to January 2020, face to face or over the telephone. Data were analysed with a thematic analysis and mind-mapping approach., Results: Some patients described experiencing gut feelings about their own health but often their willingness to share this with their GP was dependent on an established doctor-patient relationship. Patients expressed similar perspectives on the use of gut feelings in consultations to those reported by GPs. Patients saw GPs' gut feelings as grounded in their experience and generalist expertise, and part of a process of evidence gathering. Patients suggested that GPs were justified in using gut feelings because of their role in arranging access to investigations, the difficult 'grey area' of presentations, and the time- and resource-limited nature of primary care. When GPs communicated that they had a gut feeling, some saw this as an indication that they were being taken seriously., Conclusion: Patients accepted that GPs use gut feelings to guide decision making. Future research on this topic should include more diverse samples and address the areas of concern shared by patients and GPs., (© The Authors.)

Background: Feasibility studies are often conducted before committing to a randomised controlled trial (RCT), yet there is little published evidence to inform how useful feasibility studies are, especially in terms of adding or reducing waste in research. This study attempted to examine how many feasibility studies demonstrated that the full trial was feasible and whether some feasibility studies were inherently likely to be feasible or not feasible, based on the topic area and/or research setting., Methods: Keyword searches were conducted on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) registry to identify all completed feasibility studies which had been conducted in the UK., Results: A total of 625 records from the 1933 identified were reviewed before it became evident that it would be futile to continue. Of 329 feasibility studies identified, 160 had a known outcome (49%), 133 (83%) trials were deemed to be feasible and only 27 (17%) were reported to be non-feasible. There were therefore too few studies to allow the intended comparison of differences in non-feasible studies by topic and/or setting., Conclusions: There were too few studies reported as non-feasible to draw any useful conclusions on whether topic and/or setting had an effect. However, the high feasibility rate (83%) may suggest that non-feasible studies are subject to publication bias or that many feasible studies are redundant and may be adding waste to the research pathway., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

We consider what might be learned from the unintended, apparently unanticipated, consequences of the use of digital health (including alternatives to face to face consultations, electronic medical records, use of apps and online monitoring) in primary care. We chose a conceptual literature review method, to seek a higher order understanding of the nuanced patterning of unintended consequences of digital health technologies (for people, relationships, organisations and ways of working) which are rarely simply positive or negative. The approach is informed by realist review, which recognises that experiences and outcomes of interventions work (or fail) in different ways in particular contexts. We present three higher order themes to illuminate underpinning mechanisms for unintended consequences in digital health technologies in primary care. These themes are illustrated by case examples, with particular focus on those that have been little discussed in the literature. Following Merton's (1936) differentiation between consequences for the actor(s) and others, which are mediated through the culture and social structure, we discuss consequences that i) disrupt power relations between patients and health professionals or between different groups of health professions, ii) contribute to paradoxical outcomes and iii) result in a potentially corrosive sub-culture of pessimism about digital health. We conclude that when implementing or evaluating digital technologies in primary care, it is wise to consider the 'dark logic' of the intervention (Bonell et al., 2015). Attention to issues of power relations, the potential for paradoxical outcomes, and impacts on the expectations of staff in relation to digital innovation are particularly salient in relation to the dramatic changes in primary care delivery initiated during the Covid-19 pandemic. Fostering a sense of ownership and interest in monitoring the effects that matter to the organisation will likely help counter pessimism and renew interest in deploying those digital innovations that show promise., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Two-thirds of UK adults do not have an up-to-date weight record in primary care. Some studies suggest that doctors do not raise the topic of weight management for fear of causing embarrassment or offence, or are doubtful whether people will make changes. However, for people with weight-related long-term conditions, conversations with general practitioners (GPs) can be crucial. Our study explores how people with long-term conditions associated with overweight recall and interpret conversations about weight in British primary care. An experienced qualitative researcher interviewed 41 people aged <42 years with long-term conditions associated with overweight. A maximum variation sample was sought, and transcribed interviews were analysed thematically. We revealed that patients with weight-related long-term conditions have different experiences and expectations about the role of GPs in supporting weight management. If a GP did not raise weight management in the context of the long-term condition patients formed the impression that their overweight was not seen as "doctorable" that is, as an appropriate topic for the consultation, rather than a personal or "lifestyle" concern. This was explained in multiple ways, which are captured in two themes; perceiving weight as "doctorable"; and weight doctoring in primary care. The findings highlight the need for increased attention on weight-related long-term conditions in primary care. Interventions from GPs would be welcome if conducted in a sensitive, non-judgmental manner and based on sound evidence about what works., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical Obesity published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of World Obesity Federation.)

People increasingly provide feedback about healthcare services online. These practices have been lauded for enhancing patient power, choice and control, encouraging greater transparency and accountability, and contributing to healthcare service improvement. Online feedback has also been critiqued for being unrepresentative, spreading inaccurate information, undermining care relations, and jeopardising professional autonomy. Through a thematic analysis of 37 qualitative interviews, this paper explores the relationship between online feedback and care improvement as articulated by healthcare service users (patients and family members) who provided feedback across different online platforms and social media in the UK. Online feedback was framed by interviewees as, ideally, a public and, in many cases, anonymous 'conversation' between service users and healthcare providers. These 'conversations' were thought of not merely as having the potential to bring about tangible improvements to healthcare, but as in themselves constituting an improvement in care. Vital to this was the premise that providing feedback was an enactment of care - care for other patients, certainly, but also care for healthcare as such and even for healthcare professionals. Ultimately, feedback was understood as an enactment of care for the National Health Service (NHS), as symbolically encompassing all of the above. Putting these findings in dialogue with STS scholarship on care, we argue that, in this context, the provision of online feedback can be understood as a form of care that is, simultaneously, both directed at healthcare (in the round, including patients, professionals, services, organisations, and, of course, health itself) and part of healthcare. We conceptualise this as 'caring for care'. This conceptualization moves beyond dominant framings of online feedback in terms of 'choice' and 'voice'. It embeds online feedback within pre-existing healthcare systems, relations and moral commitments, foregrounds the mutuality of care relations, and draws attention to the affective labour of feedback practices., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: GPs are encouraged to make brief interventions to support weight loss, but they report concern about these conversations, stating that they need more details on what to say. Knowing how engage in these conversations could encourage GPs to deliver brief interventions for weight loss more frequently., Objective: To examine which specific words and phrases were successful in achieving conversational alignment and minimizing misunderstanding, contributing to effective interventions., Methods: A conversation analysis of English family practice patients participating in a trial of opportunistic weight-management interventions, which incorporated the offer of referral to community weight-management services (CWMS). Qualitative conversation analysis was applied to 246 consultation recordings to identify communication patterns, which contributed to clear, efficient interventions., Results: Analysis showed variation in how GPs delivered interventions. Some ways of talking created misunderstandings or misalignment, while others avoided these. There were five components of clear and efficient opportunistic weight-management referrals. These were (i) exemplifying CWMS with a recognizable brand name (ii) saying weight-management 'programme' or 'service', rather than 'group' or 'club' (iii) stating that the referral is 'free' early on (iv) saying the number CWMS visits available on referral (v) stating that the CWMS programme available was 'local'., Conclusions: When making a brief opportunistic intervention to support weight loss, clinicians can follow these five steps to create a smooth and efficient intervention. Knowing this may allay clinicians' fears about these consultations being awkward and improve adherence to guidelines., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: The use of gut feelings to guide clinical decision making in primary care has been frequently described but is not considered a legitimate reason for cancer referral., Aim: To explore the role that gut feeling plays in clinical decision making in primary care., Design and Setting: Qualitative interview study with 19 GPs in Oxfordshire, UK., Method: GPs who had referred patients to a cancer pathway based on a gut feeling as a referral criterion were invited to participate. Interviews were conducted between November 2019 and January 2020, and transcripts were analysed using the one sheet of paper method., Results: Gut feeling was seen as an essential part of decision making that facilitated appropriate and timely care. GPs distanced their gut feelings from descriptions that could be seen as unscientific, describing successful use as reliant on experience and clinical knowledge. This was especially true for patients who fell within a 'grey area' where clinical guidelines did not match the GP's assessment of cancer risk, either because the guidance inadequately represented or did not include the patient's presentation. GPs sought to legitimise their gut feelings by gathering objective clinical evidence, careful examination of referral procedures, and consultation with colleagues., Conclusion: GPs described their gut feelings as important to decision making in primary care and a necessary addition to clinical guidance. The steps taken to legitimise their gut feelings matched that expected in good clinical practice., (© The Authors.)

Objectives: To examine patients' accounts of their use of the internet before seeing a general practitioner (GP) using thematic analysis of semistructured interviews., Design: Qualitative semistructured interview study with transcripts analysed thematically., Setting: Primary care patients consulting with 10 GPs working at 7 GP practices of varying sizes and at a range of locations around London and the Southeast of England., Participants: 28 adult patients: 16 women and 12 men ranging in age from 18 to 75 from a range of self-defined ethnic backgrounds. Participants were selected based on instances when the patients reported having used the internet before the consultation, when patients referred to the internet in the consultation or when the physician used the internet or made reference to it during the consultation., Results: Patients report that they can find health information online that they believe is reliable and helpful for both themselves and their GP. However, they report uncertainty about how to share internet-based findings and reluctance to disclose their efforts at researching health issues online for fear of appearing disrespectful or interfering with the flow of the consultation., Conclusions: Despite the democratisation of access to information about health due via the internet, patients continue to experience their use of the internet for health information as a sensitive and potentially problematic topic. The onus may well be on GPs to raise the likelihood (without judgement) that patients will have looked things up before consulting and invite them to talk about what they found., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Research participation is beneficial to patients, clinicians and healthcare services. There is currently poor alignment between UK clinical research activity and local prevalence of disease. The National Institute of Health Research is keen to encourage chief investigators (CIs) to base their research activity in areas of high patient need, to support equity, efficiency and capacity building. We explored how CIs choose sites for their trials and suggest ways to encourage them to recruit from areas with the heaviest burden of disease., Methods: Qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of 30 CIs of ongoing or recently completed multi-centre trials, all of which were funded by the UK National Institute of Health Research., Results: CIs want to deliver world-class trials to time and budget. Approaching newer, less research-active sites appears risky, potentially compromising trial success. CIs fear that funders may close the trial if recruitment (or retention) is low, with potential damage to their research reputation. We consider what might support a shift in CI behaviour. The availability of 'heat maps' showing the disparity between disease prevalence and current research activity will help to inform site selection. Embedded qualitative research during trial set up and early, appropriate patient and public involvement and engagement can provide useful insights for a more nuanced and inclusive approach to recruitment. Public sector funders could request more granularity in recruitment reports and incentivise research activity in areas of greater patient need. Accounts from the few CIs who had 'broken the mould' suggest that nurturing new sites can be very successful in terms of efficient recruitment and retention., Conclusion: While improvements in equity and capacity building certainly matter to CIs, most are primarily motivated by their commitment to delivering successful trials. Highlighting the benefits to trial delivery is therefore likely to be the best way to encourage CIs to focus their research activity in areas of greatest need.

In this article we consider how an online resource that publishes the findings and video, audio and written extracts from narrative interview studies has developed as an international collaboration, currently including 14 countries worldwide. In the two decades since the initiative was founded, the robust, national qualitative studies for DIPEx International have branched out from patient information and support to learning and teaching, insights and service improvement and cross-national comparisons. Embracing the challenge to reflect plural discourses of illness, health and care in societies that appear increasingly polarised, the DIPEx collaboration presents polyphonic perspectives that stand as potential counters to reductive dualities. As a result the collaboration has established a collection of unique, international resources that can be leveraged to promote understanding and learning from people's experiences of illness and care.

Guidelines and evidence suggest primary care clinicians should give opportunistic interventions to motivate weight loss, but these rarely occur in practice. We sought to examine why by systematically reviewing qualitative research examining general practitioners' ('GPs') and nurses' views of discussing weight with patients. We systematically searched English language publications (1945-2018) to identify qualitative interview and focus group studies. Thematic methods were used to synthesise the findings from these papers. We synthesised the studies by identifying second-order themes (explanations offered by the original researchers) and third-order constructs (new explanations which went beyond those in the original publications). Quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs checklist was undertaken. We identified 29 studies (>601 GPs, nurses and GP trainees) reporting views on discussing weight with patients. Key second-order themes were lack of confidence in treatments and patients' ability to make changes, stigma, interactional difficulty of discussing the topic and a belief of a wider societal responsibility needed to deal with patients with overweight and obesity. The third-order analytical theme was that discussions about weight were not a priority, and other behavioural interventions, including those relating to smoking, often took precedent. GPs and nurses reported that noting body mass index measurements at every consultation alongside a framework to deliver interventions would likely increase the frequency and perceived efficacy of behavioural weight interventions. GPs and nurses acknowledge the importance of obesity as a health issue, but this is insufficient, particularly amongst GPs, for them to construe this as a medical problem to address with patients in consultations. Strategies to implement clinical guidelines need to make tackling obesity a clinical priority. Training to overcome interactional difficulties, regular weighing of patients and changing expectations and understanding of weight loss interventions are also probably required., (© 2020 The Authors. Obesity Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of World Obesity Federation.)

Objectives: Little is known about the management of female genital mutilation (FGM) in primary care. There have been significant recent statutory changes relevant to general practitioners (GPs) in England, including a mandatory reporting duty. We undertook a realist synthesis to explore what influences how and when GPs discuss FGM with their patients., Setting: Primary care in England., Data Sources: Realist literature synthesis searching 10 databases with terms: GPs, primary care, obstetrics, gynaecology, midwifery and FGM (UK and worldwide). Citation chasing was used, and relevant grey literature was included, including searching FGM advocacy organisation websites for relevant data. Other potentially relevant literature fields were searched for evidence to inform programme theory development. We included all study designs and papers that presented evidence about factors potentially relevant to considering how, why and in what circumstances GPs feel able to discuss FGM with their patients., Primary Outcome Measure: This realist review developed programme theory, tested against existing evidence, on what influences GPs actions and reactions to FGM in primary care consultations and where, when and why these influences are activated., Results: 124 documents were included in the synthesis. Our analysis found that GPs need knowledge and training to help them support their patients with FGM, including who may be affected, what needs they may have and how to talk sensitively about FGM. Access to specialist services and guidance may help them with this role. Reporting requirements may complicate these conversations., Conclusions: There is a pressing need to develop (and evaluate) training to help GPs meet FGM-affected communities' health needs and to promote the accessibility of primary care. Education and resources should be developed in partnership with community members. The impact of the mandatory reporting requirement and the Enhanced Dataset on healthcare interactions in primary care warrants evaluation., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018091996., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SD is a trustee of Oxford Against Cutting. Following this project, she has acted as the Royal College of General Practitioners college representative for female genital mutilation. SD has held small grants to develop and report on the patient and public involvement project that underpinned this research. There are no other author competing interests to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Despite widespread acknowledgement of internet use for information about health, patients report not disclosing use of online health information in consultations. This paper compares patients' reported use of the internet with matched video recordings of consultations. The concepts of doctorability and epistemics are employed to consider similarities and differences between patients' reports in interviews and actions in the consultation. Data are drawn from the Harnessing Resources from the Internet study conducted in the UK. The data set consists of 281 video-recorded general practice consultations, with pre-consultation questionnaires completed by all patients, interviews with all 10 participating doctors and 28 selected patients. We focus on the 28 patient interviews and associated consultation recordings. A conversation analytic (CA) approach is used to systematically inspect both the interview and consultation data. In interviews patients presented use of the internet as associated with appropriate self-management and help-seeking. In consultations patients skilfully translated what they had found on the internet in order to provide grounds for the actions they sought. We conclude that patients translate and utilise what they have found on the internet to assert the doctorability of their presenting problems. Furthermore, patients design their talk in both interviews and consultations to accord with their understanding of the epistemic rights of both doctors and patients. Patients search the internet so they are informed about their medical problem, however they carefully manage disclosure of information to avoid disrupting the smooth running of medical interactions., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare. Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Objective: To develop a core outcome set for pre-eclampsia., Design: Consensus development study., Setting: International., Population: Two hundred and eight-one healthcare professionals, 41 researchers and 110 patients, representing 56 countries, participated., Methods: Modified Delphi method and Modified Nominal Group Technique., Results: A long-list of 116 potential core outcomes was developed by combining the outcomes reported in 79 pre-eclampsia trials with those derived from thematic analysis of 30 in-depth interviews of women with lived experience of pre-eclampsia. Forty-seven consensus outcomes were identified from the Delphi process following which 14 maternal and eight offspring core outcomes were agreed at the consensus development meeting. Maternal core outcomes: death, eclampsia, stroke, cortical blindness, retinal detachment, pulmonary oedema, acute kidney injury, liver haematoma or rupture, abruption, postpartum haemorrhage, raised liver enzymes, low platelets, admission to intensive care required, and intubation and ventilation. Offspring core outcomes: stillbirth, gestational age at delivery, birthweight, small-for-gestational-age, neonatal mortality, seizures, admission to neonatal unit required and respiratory support., Conclusions: The core outcome set for pre-eclampsia should underpin future randomised trials and systematic reviews. Such implementation should ensure that future research holds the necessary reach and relevance to inform clinical practice, enhance women's care and improve the outcomes of pregnant women and their babies., Tweetable Abstract: 281 healthcare professionals, 41 researchers and 110 women have developed #preeclampsia core outcomes @HOPEoutcomes @jamesmnduffy. [Correction added on 29 June 2020, after first online publication: the order has been corrected.]., (© 2020 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Advocates of online alternatives to face-to-face interviewing suggest online approaches save money and time, whereas others have raised concerns about the quality and content of the resulting data. These issues affect researchers designing and costing their studies and application reviewers and research funders. We conducted a scoping review of English language articles describing the range of online alternative approaches. Furthermore, we systematically identified studies directly comparing online alternatives with face-to-face approaches. Synthesis of these 11 articles (565 participants) suggests that online alternatives should not be viewed as a straightforward replacement for face-to-face, a particularly important finding given the rapid communication changes occurring in the COVID-19 pandemic. When applied with consideration of the evolving evidence on their strengths and weaknesses, online methods may increase the likelihood of obtaining the desired sample, but responses are shorter, less contextual information is obtained, and relational satisfaction and consensus development are lower.

Background: Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes all procedures that intentionally harm or alter female genitalia for non-medical reasons. In 2015, reporting duties were introduced, applicable to GPs working in England including a mandatory reporting duty and FGM Enhanced Dataset. Our patient and public involvement work identified the exploration of potential impacts of these duties as a research priority., Aim: To explore the perspectives of GPs working in England on potential challenges and resource needs when supporting women and families affected by FGM., Design and Setting: Qualitative study with GPs working in English primary care., Method: Semi-structured interviews focused around a fictional scenario of managing FGM in primary care. The authors spoke to 17 GPs from five English cities, including those who saw women who have experienced FGM often, rarely, or never. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim for thematic analysis. Lipsky's theory of street-level bureaucracy was drawn on to support analysis., Results: Managing women with FGM was experienced as complex. Challenges included knowing how and when to speak about FGM, balancing care of women and their family's potential care and safeguarding needs, and managing the mandated reporting and recording requirements. GPs described strategies to manage these tensions that helped them balance maintaining patient-doctor relationships with reporting requirements. This was facilitated by access to FGM holistic services., Conclusion: FGM reporting requirements complicate consultations. The potential consequences on trust between women affected by FGM and their GP are clear. The tensions that GPs experience in supporting women affected by FGM can be understood through the theoretical lens of street-level bureaucracy. This is likely to be relevant to other areas of proposed mandated reporting., (© British Journal of General Practice 2020.)

Background: Growing evidence for the role of GPs' gut feelings in cancer diagnosis raises questions about their origin and role in clinical practice., Aim: To explore the origins of GPs' gut feelings for cancer, their use, and their diagnostic utility., Design and Setting: Systematic review and meta-analysis of international research on GPs' gut feelings in primary care., Method: Six databases were searched from inception to July 2019, and internet searches were conducted. A segregated method was used to analyse, then combine, quantitative and qualitative findings., Results: Twelve articles and four online resources were included that described varied conceptualisations of gut feelings. Gut feelings were often initially associated with patients being unwell, rather than with a suspicion of cancer, and were commonly experienced in response to symptoms and non-verbal cues. The pooled odds of a cancer diagnosis were four times higher when gut feelings were recorded (OR 4.24, 95% confidence interval = 2.26 to 7.94); they became more predictive of cancer as clinical experience and familiarity with the patient increased. Despite being included in some clinical guidelines, GPs had varying experiences of acting on gut feelings as some specialists questioned their diagnostic value. Consequently, some GPs ignored or omitted gut feelings from referral letters, or chose investigations that did not require specialist approval., Conclusion: GPs' gut feelings for cancer were conceptualised as a rapid summing up of multiple verbal and non-verbal patient cues in the context of the GPs' clinical knowledge and experience. Triggers of gut feelings not included in referral guidance deserve further investigation as predictors of cancer. Non-verbal cues that trigger gut feelings appear to be reliant on continuity of care and clinical experience; they tend to remain poorly recorded and are, therefore, inaccessible to researchers., (©The Authors.)

Objectives: To develop consensus definitions for the core outcome set for pre-eclampsia., Study Design: Potential definitions for individual core outcomes were identified across four formal definition development initiatives, nine national and international guidelines, 12 Cochrane systematic reviews, and 79 randomised trials. Eighty-six definitions were entered into the consensus development meeting. Ten healthcare professionals and three researchers, including six participants who had experience of conducting research in low- and middle-income countries, participated in the consensus development process. The final core outcome set was approved by an international steering group., Results: Consensus definitions were developed for all core outcomes. When considering stroke, pulmonary oedema, acute kidney injury, raised liver enzymes, low platelets, birth weight, and neonatal seizures, consensus definitions were developed specifically for low- and middle-income countries because of the limited availability of diagnostic interventions including computerised tomography, chest x-ray, laboratory tests, equipment, and electroencephalogram monitoring., Conclusions: Consensus on measurements for the pre-eclampsia core outcome set will help to ensure consistency across future randomised trials and systematic reviews. Such standardization should make research evidence more accessible and facilitate the translation of research into clinical practice. Video abstract can be available at: www.dropbox.com/s/ftrgvrfu0u9glqd/6.%20Standardising%20definitions%20in%20teh%20pre-eclampsia%20core%20outcome%20set%3A%20a%20consensus%20development%20study.mp4?dl=0., (Copyright © 2020 International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Improving patient experience is widely regarded as a key component of health care quality. However, while a considerable amount of data are collected about patient experience, there are concerns this information is not always used to improve care. This study explored whether and how frontline staff use patient experience data for service improvement., Methods: We conducted a year-long ethnographic case study evaluation, including 299 hours of observations and 95 interviews, of how frontline staff in six medical wards at different hospital sites in the United Kingdom used patient experience data for improvement., Results: In every site, staff undertook quality improvement projects using a range of data sources. Teams of health care practitioners and ancillary staff engaged collectively in a process of sense-making using formal and informal sources of patient experience data. While survey data were popular, 'soft' intelligence - such as patients' stories, informal comments and observations - also informed staff's improvement plans, without always being recognized as data. Teams with staff from different professional backgrounds and grades tended to make more progress than less diverse teams, being able to draw on a wider net of practical, organizational and social resources, support and skills, which we describe as team-based capital., Conclusions: Organizational recognition, or rejection, of specific forms of patient experience intelligence as 'data' affects whether staff feel the data are actionable. Teams combining a diverse range of staff generated higher levels of 'team-based capital' for quality improvement than those adopting a single disciplinary approach. This may be a key mechanism for achieving person-centred improvement in health care.

Experiences of cancer diagnosis are changing in light of both the increasingly technological-clinical diagnostic processes and the socio-political context in which interpersonal relations take place. This has raised questions about how we might understand patient-doctor relationship marked by asymmetries of knowledge and social capital, but that emphasise patients' empowered choices and individualised care. As part of an interview study of 155 participants with bowel or lung cancer across Denmark, England and Sweden, we explored participants' stories of the decisions made during their cancer diagnostic process. By focusing on the intersections of care, choice and medical authority - a convivial pastoral dynamic - we provide a conceptual analysis of the normative ambivalences in people's stories of their cancer diagnosis. We found that participants drew from care, choice and medical authority to emphasise their relationality and interdependence with their doctors in their stories of their diagnosis. Importantly negotiations of an asymmetrical patient-doctor relationship were part of an on-going realisation of the healthcare processes as a human endeavour. We were therefore able to draw attention to the limitations of dichotomising emancipatory-empowerment discourses and argue for a theorisation of the patient-doctor relationship as a contextually bounded and relationally ambivalent humanity., (© 2020 The Authors. Sociology of Health & Illness published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Foundation for SHIL.)

Background: Research funders use a wide variety of application assessment processes yet there is little evidence on their relative advantages and disadvantages. A broad distinction can be made between processes with a single stage assessment of full proposals and those that first invite an outline, with full proposals invited at a second stage only for those which are shortlisted. This paper examines the effects of changing from a one-stage to a two-stage process within the UK's National Institute for Health Research's (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme which made this change in 2015., Methods: A retrospective comparative design was used to compare eight one-stage funding competitions (912 applications) with eight two-stage funding competitions (1090 applications). Comparisons were made between the number of applications submitted, number of peer and lay reviews required, the duration of the funding round, average external peer review scores, and the total costs involved., Results: There was a mean number of 114 applications per funding round for the one-stage process and 136 for the two-stage process. The one-stage process took a mean of 274 days and the two-stage process 348 days to complete, although those who were not funded (i.e. the majority) were informed at a mean of 195 days (mean 79 days earlier) under the two-stage process. The mean peer review score for full applications using the one-stage process was 6.46 and for the two-stage process 6.82 (5.6% difference using a 1-10 scale (with 10 being the highest), but there was no significant difference between the lay reviewer scores. The one-stage process required a mean of 423 peer reviews and 102 lay reviewers and the two-stage process required a mean of 208 peer reviews and 50 lay reviews (mean difference of 215 peer reviews and 52 lay reviews) per funding round. Overall cost per funding round changed from £148,908 for the one-stage process to £105,342 for the two-stage process saving approximately £43,566 per round., Conclusion: We conclude that a two-stage application process increases the number of applications submitted to a funding round, is less burdensome and more efficient for all those involved with the process, is cost effective and has a small increase in peer reviewer scores. For the addition of fewer than 11 weeks to the process substantial efficiencies are gained which benefit funders, applicants and science. Funding agencies should consider adopting a two-stage application assessment process., Competing Interests: BM is employed through NIHR to manage RfPB and its databases. SZ is the Programme Director of RfPB. TS is the chair of one of the regional RfPB panels and L-MY was previously a RfPB panel member. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research, or the Department of Health and social Care. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background: Safety netting is a diagnostic strategy that involves monitoring patients with symptoms possibly indicative of serious illness, such as cancer, until they are resolved. Optimising safety-netting practice in primary care has been proposed to improve quality of care and clinical outcomes. Introducing guidelines is a potential means to achieve this., Aim: To seek the insight of frontline GPs regarding proposed safety-netting guidelines for suspected cancer in UK primary care., Design and Setting: A qualitative interview study with 25 GPs practising in Oxfordshire, UK., Method: Transcripts from semi-structured interviews were analysed thematically by a multidisciplinary research team using a mind-mapping approach., Results: GPs were supportive of initiatives to optimise safety netting. Guidelines on establishing who has responsibility for follow-up, keeping patient details up to date, and ensuring test result review is conducted by someone with knowledge of cancer guidelines were already being followed. Sharing diagnostic uncertainty and ensuring an up-to-date understanding of guidelines were only partially implemented. Neither informing patients of all (including negative) test results nor ensuring recurrent unexplained symptoms are always flagged and referred were considered feasible. The lack of detail, for example, the expected duration of symptoms, caused some concern. Overall, doubts were expressed about the feasibility of the guidelines given the time, recruitment, and resource challenges faced in UK primary care., Conclusion: GPs expressed general support for safety netting, yet were unconvinced that key elements of the guidelines were feasible, especially in the context of pressures on general practice staffing and time., (© British Journal of General Practice 2019.)

Objective: To quantify the effect of different methodological decisions on the identification of potential core outcomes to inform the development of recommendations for future core coutcome set developers., Design: Mixed methods study., Setting: A core outcome set for pre-eclampsia was used as an exemplar., Sample: A long list of potential core outcomes was developed by undertaking a systematic review of pre-eclampsia trials and performing a thematic analysis of in-depth patient interviews., Methods: Specific methods used to generate long lists of potential core outcomes were evaluated., Results: Different methodological decisions had a substantial impact on the identification of potential core outcomes. Extracting outcomes from published pre-eclampsia trials was an effective way of identifying 48 maternal, eight fetal, 25 neonatal outcomes, and eight patient-reported outcomes. Limiting the extraction of outcomes to primary outcomes or outcomes commonly reported in pre-eclampsia trials reduced the number and diversity of potential core outcomes identified. Thematic analysis of in-depth patient interviews ensured an additional five patient reported outcomes and six outcomes related to future child health were identified., Conclusions: Future core outcome set developers should use quantitative and qualitative methods when developing a long list of potential core outcomes. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: @OfficialNIHR research published in @BJOGtweets informs new recommendations for future @coreoutcomes developers., (© 2019 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

In an increasingly connected world, information about health can be exchanged at any time, in any location or direction, and is no longer dominated by traditional authoritative sources. We consider the ways information and advice given in consultations by doctors transcends the boundary between the clinic and the home. We explore how information that is widely accessible outside the consultation is transformed by General Practitioners (GPs) into a medical offering. Data comprise 18 consultations identified from 144 consultations between unselected patients and five GPs. We use conversation analytic methods to explore four ways in which GPs used online resources; (i) to check information; (ii) as an explanatory tool; (iii) to provide information for patients for outside the consultation; (iv) to signpost further explanation and self-help. We demonstrate the interactional delicacy with which resources from the Internet are introduced and discussed, developing and extending Nettleton's (2004) idea of 'e-scaped medicine' to argue that Internet resources may be 'recaptured' by GPs, with information transformed and translated into a medical offering so as to maintain the asymmetry between patients and practitioners necessary for the successful functioning of medical practice., (Chapters © 2019 The Authors. Book Compilation © 2019 Foundation for the Sociology of Health & Illness/John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To explore patients' and General Practitioners' (GPs) accounts of how responsibility for follow-up was perceived and shared in their experiences of cancer safety netting occurring within the past 6 months., Design: In-depth interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed through an abductive process, exploring anticipated and emergent themes. Conceptualisations of 'responsibility' were explored by drawing on a transactional to interdependent continuum drawing from the shared decision-making literature., Settings and Participants: A purposive sample of 25 qualified GPs and 23 adult patients in Oxfordshire, UK., Results: The transactional sharing approach involves responsibility being passed from GP to patient. Patients expected and were willing to accept responsibility in this way as long as they received clear guidance from their GP and had capacity. In interdependent sharing, GPs principally aimed to reach consensus and share responsibility with the patient by explaining their rationale, uncertainty or by stressing the potential seriousness of the situation. Patients sharing this responsibility could be put at risk if no follow-up or timeframe was suggested, they had inadequate information, were falsely reassured or their concerns were not addressed at re-consultation., Conclusion: GPs and patients exchange and share responsibility using a combination of transactional and interdependent styles, tailoring information based on patient characteristics and each party's level of concern. Clear action plans (written where necessary) at the end of every consultation would help patients decide when to re-consult. Further research should investigate how responsibility is shared within and outside the consultation, within primary care teams and with specialist services., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Clinical guidelines exhort clinicians to encourage patients to improve their health behaviours. However, most offer little support on how to have these conversations in practice. Clinicians fear that health behaviour change talk will create interactional difficulties and discomfort for both clinician and patient. This review aims to identify how healthcare professionals can best communicate with patients about health behaviour change (HBC)., Methods: We included studies which used conversation analysis or discourse analysis to study recorded interactions between healthcare professionals and patients. We followed an aggregative thematic synthesis approach. This involved line-by-line coding of the results and discussion sections of included studies, and the inductive development and hierarchical grouping of descriptive themes. Top-level themes were organised to reflect their conversational positioning., Results: Of the 17,562 studies identified through systematic searching, ten papers were included. Analysis resulted in 10 top-level descriptive themes grouped into three domains: initiating; carrying out; and closing health behaviour change talk. Of three methods of initiation, two facilitated further discussion, and one was associated with outright resistance. Of two methods of conducting behaviour change talk, one was associated with only minimal patient responses. One way of closing was identified, and patients did not seem to respond to this positively. Results demonstrated a series of specific conversational practices which clinicians use when talking about HBC, and how patients respond to these. Our results largely complemented clinical guidelines, providing further detail on how they can best be delivered in practice. However, one recommended practice - linking a patient's health concerns and their health behaviours - was shown to receive variable responses and to often generate resistance displays., Conclusions: Health behaviour change talk is smoothly initiated, conducted, and terminated by clinicians and this rarely causes interactional difficulty. However, initiating conversations by linking a person's current health concern with their health behaviour can lead to resistance to advice, while other strategies such as capitalising on patient initiated discussions, or collaborating through question-answer sequences, may be well received.

Background: People's social and economic circumstances are important determinants of their health, health experiences, healthcare access, and healthcare outcomes. However, patients' socioeconomic circumstances are rarely asked about or documented in healthcare settings. We conducted a systematic review of published reasons for why patients' socioeconomic contexts (including education, employment, occupation, housing, income, or wealth) should, or should not, be enquired about., Methods: Systematic review of literature published up to and including 2016. A structured literature search using databases of medicine and nursing (pubmed, embase, global health), ethics (Ethicsweb), social sciences (Web of Science), and psychology (PsychINFO) was followed by a 'snowball' search. Eligible publications contained one or more reasons for: asking patients about socioeconomic circumstances; collecting patients' socioeconomic information; 'screening' patients for adverse socioeconomic circumstances; or linking other sources of individual socioeconomic data to patients' healthcare records. Two authors conducted the screening: the first screened all references, the second author screened a 20% sample with inter-rater reliability statistically confirmed. 'Reason data' was extracted from eligible publications by two authors, then analysed and organised., Results: We identified 138 eligible publications. Most offered reasons for why patients' should be asked about their socioeconomic circumstances. Reasons included potential improvements in: individual healthcare outcomes; healthcare service monitoring and provision; population health research and policies. Many authors also expressed concerns for improving equity in health. Eight publications suggested patients should not be asked about their socioeconomic circumstances, due to: potential harms; professional boundaries; and the information obtained being inaccurate or unnecessary., Conclusions: This first summary of literature on the subject found many published reasons for why patients' social and economic circumstances should be enquired about in healthcare settings. These reasons include potential benefits at the levels of individuals, health service provision, and population, as well as the potential to improve healthcare equity. Cautions and caveats include concerns about the clinician's role in responding to patients' social problems; the perceived importance of social health determinants compared with biomedical factors; the use of average population data from geographic areas to infer the socioeconomic experience of individuals. Actual evidence of outcomes is lacking: our review suggests hypotheses that can be tested in future research.

Australia and the United Kingdom have introduced policies to protect employees who experience mental illness, including depression. However, a better understanding of the experiential issues workers face (e.g. sense of moral failure) is needed for the provision of appropriate and beneficial support. We analysed 73 interviews from the United Kingdom and Australia where narratives of depression and work intersected. Participants encountered difficulties in being (and performing as if) 'authentic' at work, with depression contributing to confusions about the self. The diffuse post-1960s imperative to 'be yourself' is experienced in conflicting ways: while some participants sought support from managers and colleagues (e.g. sick leave, back-to-work plans), many others put on a façade in an attempt to perform the 'well' and 'authentic' employee. We outline the contradictory forces at play for participants when authenticity and visibility are expected, yet, moral imperatives to be good (healthy) employees are normative.

Objective: To identify outcomes relevant to women with lived experience of pre-eclampsia., Design: Qualitative interview study., Setting: A national study conducted in the United Kingdom., Sample: Purposive sample of women with lived experience of pre-eclampsia., Methods: Thematic analysis of qualitative interview transcripts., Results: Thirty women with lived experience of pre-eclampsia were interviewed. Thematic analysis identified 71 different treatment outcomes. Fifty-nine of these had been previously reported by pre-eclampsia trials. Outcomes related to maternal and neonatal morbidity, commonly reported by pre-eclampsia trials, were frequently discussed by women with lived experience of pre-eclampsia. Twelve outcomes had not been previously reported by pre-eclampsia trials. When compared with published research, it was evident that the outlook of women with lived experience of pre-eclampsia was broader. They considered pre-eclampsia in relation to the 'whole' person and attached special significance to outcomes relating to emotional wellbeing and the future health, development and wellbeing of their offspring., Conclusions: Selecting, collecting and reporting outcomes relevant to women with pre-eclampsia should ensure that future pre-eclampsia research has the necessary reach and relevance to inform clinical practice. Future core outcome set development studies should use qualitative research methods to ensure that the long list of potential core outcomes holds relevance to patients., Tweetable Abstract: What do women want? A national study identifies key treatment outcomes for women with pre-eclampsia. Next step: @coreoutcomes for #preeclampsia @NIHR&#95;DC., (© 2019 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Many adults diagnosed with a life-threatening condition have children living at home; they and their partners face the dual challenge of coping with the diagnosis while trying to maintain a parenting role. Parents are often uncertain about how, when, and what to tell their children about the condition, and are fearful of the effect on their family. There is evidence that children are often aware that something is seriously wrong and want honest information. Health-care professionals have a key role in supporting and guiding parents and caregivers to communicate with their children about the diagnosis. However, the practical and emotional challenges of communicating with families are compounded by a scarcity of evidence-based guidelines. This Review considers children's awareness and understanding of their parents' condition, the effect of communication around parental life-threatening condition on their wellbeing, factors that influence communication, and the challenges to achieving effective communication. Children's and parents' preferences about communication are outlined. An expert workshop was convened to generate principles for health-care professionals, intended as practical guidance in the current absence of empirically derived guidelines., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

When a child is diagnosed with a life-threatening condition, one of the most challenging tasks facing health-care professionals is how to communicate this to the child, and to their parents or caregivers. Evidence-based guidelines are urgently needed for all health-care settings, from tertiary referral centres in high-income countries to resource limited environments in low-income and middle-income countries, where rates of child mortality are high. We place this Review in the context of children's developing understanding of illness and death. We review the effect of communication on children's emotional, behavioural, and social functioning, as well as treatment adherence, disease progression, and wider family relationships. We consider the factors that influence the process of communication and the preferences of children, families, and health-care professionals about how to convey the diagnosis. Critically, the barriers and challenges to effective communication are explored. Finally, we outline principles for communicating with children, parents, and caregivers, generated from a workshop of international experts., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Clinical research should ultimately improve patient care. To enable this, randomized controlled trials must select, collect, and report outcomes that are both relevant to clinical practice and genuinely reflect the perspectives of key stakeholders including health care professionals, researchers, and patients. Unfortunately, many randomized controlled trials fall short of this requirement. Complex issues, including a failure to take into account the perspectives of key stakeholders when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and measurement instruments, and outcome reporting bias make research evidence difficult to interpret, undermining the translation of research into clinical practice. Problems with poor outcome selection, measurement, and reporting can be addressed by developing, disseminating, and implementing core outcome sets. A core outcome set represents a minimum data set of outcomes developed using robust consensus science methods engaging diverse stakeholders including health care professionals, researchers, and patients. Core outcomes should be routinely utilized by researchers, collected in a standardized manner, and reported consistently in the final publication. They are currently being developed across our specialty including infertility, endometriosis, and preeclampsia. Recognizing poorly selected, collected, and reported outcomes as serious hindrances to progress in our specialty, more than 80 journals including the Journal, have come together to support the Core Outcomes in Women's and Newborn Health (CROWN) initiative. The consortium supports researchers to develop, disseminate, and implement core outcome sets. Implementing core outcome sets could make a profound contribution to addressing poorly selected, collected, and reported outcomes. Implementation should ensure future randomized controlled trials hold the necessary reach and relevance to inform clinical practice, enhance patient care, and improve patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In astrophysics, the 'Goldilocks Zone' describes the circumstellar habitable zone, in which planets, sufficiently similar to Earth, could support human life. The children's story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, one of the most popular fairy tales in the English language, uses this metaphor to describe conditions for life that are neither too hot nor too cold and neither too close to the sun nor too far from its warmth. We propose that the 'Goldilocks Zone' also offers an apt metaphor for the struggle that people face when deciding if and when to consult a health care provider with a possible health problem. Drawing on decades of research in Denmark, England and Sweden on people's accounts of their experiences of accessing health care, this essay considers the ambivalence of health care seeking that individuals face in identifying when it is 'just right' to consult a general practitioner and the steps that health systems and individual clinicians might take to widen the zone.

Objectives: To compare and examine whether, when and how patients with lung cancer in three countries, with different survival rates, talk about cigarette smoking and its relationship with help-seeking., Design: A qualitative cross-country comparison with analysis of narrative interviews., Setting: Participants in Sweden, Denmark and England were interviewed during 2015-2016. Interviews, using a narrative approach, were conducted in participants' home by trained and experienced qualitative researchers., Participants: Seventy-two men and women diagnosed with lung cancer were interviewed within 6 months of their diagnosis., Results: The English participants, regardless of their own smoking status, typically raised the topic of smoking early in their interviews. Smoking was mentioned in relation to symptom appraisal and interactions with others, including health professionals. Participants in all three countries interpreted their symptoms in relation to their smoking status, but in Sweden (unlike England) there was no suggestion that this deterred them from seeking care. English participants, but not Swedish or Danish, recounted reluctance to consult healthcare professionals with their symptoms while they were still smoking, some gave up shortly before consulting. Some English patients described defensive strategies to challenge stigma or pre-empt other people's assumptions about their culpability for the disease. A quarter of the Danish and 40% of the Swedish participants did not raise the topic of smoking at any point in their interview., Conclusion: The causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer is well known in all three countries, yet this comparative analysis suggests that the links between a sense of responsibility, stigma and reluctance to consult are not inevitable. These findings help illuminate why English patients with lung cancer tend to be diagnosed at a later stage than their Swedish counterparts., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Guidelines encourage GPs to make brief opportunistic interventions to support weight loss. However, GPs fear that starting these discussions will lead to lengthy consultations. Recognising that patients are committed to take action could allow GPs to shorten brief interventions., Aim: To examine which patient responses indicated commitment to action, and the time saved if these had been recognised and the consultation closed sooner., Design and Setting: A mixed-method cohort study of UK primary care patients participating in a trial of opportunistic weight management interventions., Method: Conversation analysis was applied to 226 consultation audiorecordings to identify types of responses from patients that indicated that an offer of referral to weight management was well received. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated to examine associations between response types and likelihood of weight management programme attendance., Results: Affirmative responses, for example 'yes', displayed no conversational evidence that the referral was well received and showed no association with attendance: 'yes' (OR 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37 to 3.95, P = 0.97). However, 'oh'-prefaced responses and marked positive responses, for example 'lovely', showed conversational evidence of enthusiasm and were associated with higher odds of commercial weight management service attendance. Recognising these could have saved doctors a mean of 31 seconds per consultation., Conclusion: When doctors make brief opportunistic interventions that incorporate the offer of help, 'oh'-prefaced or marked positive responses indicate enthusiastic acceptance of the offer and a higher likelihood of take-up. Recognising these responses and moving swiftly to facilitate patient action would shorten the brief intervention in many cases., (© British Journal of General Practice 2018.)

Introduction: Many patients now turn to the internet as a resource for healthcare information and advice. However, patients' use of the internet to manage their health has been positioned as a potential source of strain on the doctor-patient relationship in primary care. The current evidence about what happens when internet-derived health information is introduced during consultations has relied on qualitative data derived from interview or questionnaire studies. The 'Harnessing resources from the internet to maximise outcomes from GP consultations (HaRI)' study combines questionnaire, interview and video-recorded consultation data to address this issue more fully., Methods and Analysis: Three data collection methods are employed: preconsultation patient questionnaires, video-recorded consultations between general practitioners (GP) and patients, and semistructured interviews with GPs and patients. We seek to recruit 10 GPs practising in Southeast England. We aim to collect up to 30 patient questionnaires and video-recorded consultations per GP, yielding up to 300. Up to 30 patients (approximately three per participating GP) will be selected for interviews sampled for a wide range of sociodemographic characteristics, and a variety of ways the use of, or information from, the internet was present or absent during their consultation. We will interview all 10 participating GPs about their views of online health information, reflecting on their own usage of online information during consultations and their patients' references to online health information. Descriptive, conversation and thematic analysis will be used respectively for the patient questionnaires, video-recorded consultations and interviews., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval has been granted by the London-Camden & Kings Cross Research Ethics Committee. Alongside journal publications, dissemination activities include the creation of a toolkit to be shared with patients and doctors, to guide discussions of material from the internet in consultations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The receptionist is pivotal to the smooth running of general practice in the UK, communicating with patients and booking appointments., Aim: The authors aimed to explore the role of the receptionist in the implementation of new approaches to consultations in primary care., Design and Setting: The authors conducted a team-based focused ethnography. Three researchers observed eight general practices across England and Scotland between June 2015 and May 2016., Method: Interviews were conducted with 39 patients and 45 staff in the practices, all of which had adopted one or more methods (telephone, email, e-consultation, or internet video) for providing an alternative to face-to-face consultation., Results: Receptionists have a key role in facilitating patient awareness regarding new approaches to consultations in primary care, while at the same time ensuring that patients receive a consultation appropriate to their needs. In this study, receptionists' involvement in implementation and planning for the introduction of alternative approaches to face-to-face consultations was minimal, despite the expectation that they would be involved in delivery., Conclusion: A shared understanding within practices of the potential difficulties and extra work that might ensue for reception staff was lacking. This might contribute to the low uptake by patients of potentially important innovations in service delivery. Involvement of the wider practice team in planning and piloting changes, supporting team members through service reconfiguration, and providing an opportunity to discuss and contribute to modifications of any new system would ensure that reception staff are suitably prepared to support the introduction of a new approach to consultations., (© British Journal of General Practice 2018.)

Background: Safety netting is a diagnostic strategy used in UK primary care to ensure patients are monitored until their symptoms or signs are explained. Despite being recommended in cancer diagnosis guidelines, little evidence exists about which components are effective and feasible in modern-day primary care., Aim: To understand the reality of safety netting for cancer in contemporary primary care., Design and Setting: A qualitative study of GPs in Oxfordshire primary care., Method: In-depth interviews with a purposive sample of 25 qualified GPs were undertaken. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically using constant comparison., Results: GPs revealed uncertainty about which aspects of clinical practice are considered safety netting. They use bespoke personal strategies, often developed from past mistakes, without knowledge of their colleagues' practice. Safety netting varied according to the perceived risk of cancer, the perceived reliability of each patient to follow advice, GP working patterns, and time pressures. Increasing workload, short appointments, and a reluctance to overburden hospital systems or create unnecessary patient anxiety have together led to a strategy of selective active follow-up of patients perceived to be at higher risk of cancer or less able to act autonomously. This left patients with low-risk-but-not-no-risk symptoms of cancer with less robust or absent safety netting., Conclusion: GPs would benefit from clearer guidance on which aspects of clinical practice contribute to effective safety netting for cancer. Practice systems that enable active follow-up of patients with low-risk-but-not-no-risk symptoms, which could represent malignancy, could reduce delays in cancer diagnosis without increasing GP workload., (© British Journal of General Practice 2018.)