Search

In this article, we present an exemplar of the initial theory-building phase of theory-driven evaluation for the PARTNERS2 project, a collaborative care intervention for people with experience of psychosis in England. Initial theory-building involved analysis of the literature, interviews with key leaders and focus groups with service users. The initial programme theory was developed from these sources in an iterative process between researchers and stakeholders (service users, practitioners, commissioners) involving four activities: articulation of 442 explanatory statements systematically developed using realist methods; debate and consensus; communication; and interrogation. We refute two criticisms of theory-driven evaluation of complex interventions. We demonstrate how the process of initial theory-building made a meaningful contribution to our complex intervention in five ways. Although time-consuming, it allowed us to develop an internally coherent and well-documented intervention. This study and the lessons learnt provide a detailed resource for other researchers wishing to build theory for theory-driven evaluation.

In this article, we present an exemplar of the initial theory-building phase of theory-driven evaluation for the PARTNERS2 project, a collaborative care intervention for people with experience of psychosis in England. Initial theory-building involved analysis of the literature, interviews with key leaders and focus groups with service users. The initial programme theory was developed from these sources in an iterative process between researchers and stakeholders (service users, practitioners, commissioners) involving four activities: articulation of 442 explanatory statements systematically developed using realist methods; debate and consensus; communication; and interrogation. We refute two criticisms of theory-driven evaluation of complex interventions. We demonstrate how the process of initial theory-building made a meaningful contribution to our complex intervention in five ways. Although time-consuming, it allowed us to develop an internally coherent and well-documented intervention. This study and the lessons learnt provide a detailed resource for other researchers wishing to build theory for theory-driven evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and reduces hospitalizations in patients with heart failure, but international uptake of cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure remains low. DESIGN AND METHODS: The aim of this multicentre randomized trial was to compare the REACH-HF (Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronicHeart Failure) intervention, a facilitated self-care and home-based cardiac rehabilitation programme to usual care for adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The study primary hypothesis was that the addition of the REACH-HF intervention to usual care would improve disease-specific HRQoL (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (MLHFQ)) at 12 months compared with usual care alone. RESULTS: The study recruited 216 participants, predominantly men (78%), with an average age of 70 years and mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 34%. Overall, 185 (86%) participants provided data for the primary outcome. At 12 months, there was a significant and clinically meaningful between-group difference in the MLHFQ score of -5.7 points (95% confidence interval -10.6 to -0.7) in favour of the REACH-HF intervention group ( p = 0.025). With the exception of patient self-care ( p < 0.001) there was no significant difference in other secondary outcomes, including clinical events ( p > 0.05) at follow-up compared with usual care. The mean cost of the REACH-HF intervention was £418 per participant. CONCLUSIONS: The novel REACH-HF home-based facilitated intervention for HFrEF was clinically superior in disease-specific HRQoL at 12 months and offers an affordable alternative to traditional centre-based programmes to address current low cardiac rehabilitation uptake rates for heart failure.

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether a preconsultation web-based intervention enables patients with diabetes to articulate their agenda in a consultation in the hospital outpatient clinic with their diabetologist. METHODS AND DESIGN: A qualitative study embedded in a pragmatic pilot randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Two city outpatient departments in England. PARTICIPANTS: 25 patients attending a follow-up consultation and 6 diabetologists. INTERVENTION: The PACE-D, a web-based tool adapted for patients with diabetes to use before their consultation to generate an agenda of topics to discuss with their diabetologist. DATA COLLECTION: 25 participants had their consultation with their diabetologist audio-recorded: 12 in the control arm and 13 in the intervention arm; 12 of the latter also had their PACE-D intervention session and a consultation recorded. Semi-structured interviews with 6 diabetologists, and 12 patients (6 in the intervention group and 6 in the control group). ANALYSIS: Thematic discourse analysis undertaken with patient representatives trained in qualitative data analysis techniques. RESULTS: We identified four consultation types: diabetologist facilitated; patient identified; consultant facilitated and patient initiated and patient ignored. We also identified three critical aspects that explained the production and utilisation of the agenda form: existing consultative style; orientation to the use of the intervention and impact on the consultation. Where patients and diabetologists have a shared preference for a consultant-led or patient-led consultation, the intervention augments effective communication and shared decision making. However, where preferences diverge (eg, there is a mismatch in patients' and diabetologists' preferences and orientations), the intervention does not improve the potential for shared decision making. CONCLUSION: A simple web-based intervention facilitates the articulation of patients' unvoiced agenda for a consultation with t

BACKGROUND: Guidelines and evidence-based drug treatment recommendations are usually based on the results of clinical trials, which have limited generalisability in routine clinical settings due to their restrictive eligibility criteria. These trials are also conducted in ideal and rigorously controlled settings. N of 1 trials, which are single patient multiple crossover studies, offer a means of increasing the evidence base and individualising care for individuals in clinical practice. This systematic review of the N of 1 drug treatment trial aims to investigate its usefulness for achieving optimal individualised patient care. METHODS: The following databases will be searched for relevant articles: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO (all via Ovid), AMED, CINAHAL (via EBSCO), The Cochrane Library (including CENTRAL, NHS EED, and DARE), and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters). Supplementary searches will include ongoing trial databases and organisational websites. All N of 1 trials in which patients have been treated with a drug will be considered. Outcomes will include information on the clinical usefulness of N of 1 trials-i.e. achievement of optimal individualised care, health-care utilisation of patients, frequently used practices, experiences of clinical care or participation in N of 1 trials, adherence to treatment plan, and unwanted effects of the treatment. Screening of included papers will be undertaken independently by two reviewers, while data extraction and the quality of reporting will be conducted by one reviewer and checked by another. Both quantitative and qualitative summaries will be reported using appropriate methods. DISCUSSION: This review will provide new insights into the clinical utility of N of 1 drug trials in helping participants find the most acceptable treatment as defined by patients and clinicians based on the selected outcome measures and the perspectives of participants involved in such trials. Findings from this review will inform the developmen

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of running a randomised controlled trial of a preconsultation web-based intervention (Presenting Asking Checking Expressing (PACE-D)) to improve the quality of care and clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes. DESIGN AND SETTING: A feasibility study (with randomisation) conducted at outpatient diabetes clinics at two secondary care hospitals in Devon, UK. PARTICIPANTS: People with diabetes (type 1 and type 2) attending secondary care general diabetes outpatient clinics. INTERVENTION: The PACE-D, a web-based tool adapted for patients with diabetes to use before their consultation to generate an agenda of topics to discuss with their diabetologist. OUTCOMES: The percentage of eligible patients who were recruited and the percentage of participants for whom routine glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) data (the putative primary outcome) could be extracted from medical notes and who completed secondary outcome assessments via questionnaire at follow-up were reported. RESULTS: In contrast with the planned recruitment of 120 participants, only 71 participants were randomised during the 7-month recruitment period. This comprised 18.7% (95% CI 14.9% to 23.0%) of those who were eligible. Mean (SD) age of the participants was 56.5 (12.4) years and 66.2% had type 1 diabetes. Thirty-eight patients were randomised to the intervention arm and 33 to the control arm. HbA1c data were available for only 73% (95% CI 61% to 83%) of participants at the 6 months follow-up. The questionnaire-based data were collected for 66% (95% CI 54% to 77%) of the participants at 6 months follow-up. Participants reported that the PACE-D tool was easy to use. CONCLUSIONS: A randomised controlled trial of the preconsultation web-based intervention as set out in our current protocol is not feasible without significant modification to improve recruitment and follow-up of participants. The study also provides insights into the feasibility and challenges of conducting compl

Contains fulltext : 165909.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

INTRODUCTION: The Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) trial is part of a research programme designed to develop and evaluate a health professional facilitated, home-based, self-help rehabilitation intervention to improve self-care and health-related quality of life in people with heart failure and their caregivers. The trial will assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the REACH-HF intervention in patients with systolic heart failure and impact on the outcomes of their caregivers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A parallel two group randomised controlled trial with 1:1 individual allocation to the REACH-HF intervention plus usual care (intervention group) or usual care alone (control group) in 216 patients with systolic heart failure (ejection fraction <45%) and their caregivers. The intervention comprises a self-help manual delivered by specially trained facilitators over a 12-week period. The primary outcome measure is patients' disease-specific health-related quality of life measured using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire at 12 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes include survival and heart failure related hospitalisation, blood biomarkers, psychological well-being, exercise capacity, physical activity, other measures of quality of life, patient safety and the quality of life, psychological well-being and perceived burden of caregivers at 4, 6 and 12 months' follow-up. A process evaluation will assess fidelity of intervention delivery and explore potential mediators and moderators of changes in health-related quality of life in intervention and control group patients. Qualitative studies will describe patient and caregiver experiences of the intervention. An economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness of the REACH-HF intervention plus usual care versus usual care alone in patients with systolic heart failure. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the North West-Lancaster Research

OBJECTIVES: To identify the needs of caregivers supporting a person with heart failure and to inform the development of a caregiver resource to be used as part of a home-based self-management programme. METHODS: A qualitative study informed by thematic analysis involving 26 caregivers in individual interviews or a focus group. RESULTS: Three distinct aspects of caregiver support in heart failure management were identified. Firstly, caregivers identified needs about supporting management of heart failure including: coping with the variability of heart failure symptoms, what to do in an emergency, understanding and managing medicines, providing emotional support, promoting exercise and physical activity, providing personal care, living with a cardiac device and supporting depression management. Secondly, as they make the transition to becoming a caregiver, they need to develop skills to undertake difficult discussions about the role; communicate with health professionals; manage their own mental health, well-being and sleep; and manage home and work. Thirdly, caregivers require skills to engage social support, and voluntary and formal services while recognising that the long-term future is uncertain. DISCUSSION: The identification of the needs of caregiver has been used to inform the development of a home-based heart failure intervention facilitated by a trained health care practitioner.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes is a chronic condition associated with many long-term complications. People with diabetes need to actively manage their condition, which can be complex. In consultations with healthcare professionals, patients receive advice about their diabetes but do not always discuss things which concern them, perhaps because of the perceived limited time or embarrassment. We want to test a 'preconsultation' intervention in which the patient is supported by a healthcare assistant to complete a web-based intervention aimed at producing an agenda to help them identify important areas for discussion in the consultation. Use of this agenda may enable the patient to play a more active role in that consultation and consequently become more confident, and hence more successful, in managing their condition. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this pilot randomised controlled trial, 120 people with diabetes will be randomised with equal allocation to receive the intervention or usual clinical care. The primary outcome is reduction in glycosylated haemoglobin(HbA1c). Secondary outcomes are patient-reported communication, enablement, self-care activity, diabetes-dependent quality of life, empowerment, satisfaction, health-related quality of life and resource use. The aim of the pilot study was to estimate parameters to inform the design of the definitive trial. Follow-up on quantitative outcomes will be at 3 and 6 months. A nested qualitative study will collect data on the patients' experiences of producing an agenda. Resource use data and medication use will also be collected via a review of medical records for a sample of participants. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval was granted by the NHS Research Ethics Committee North West-Preston (13/NW/0123). Dissemination will include publication of quantitative and qualitative findings, and experience of public involvement in peer-reviewed journals. Results will also be disseminated to trial participants via workshops led by lay coa

Item does not contain fulltext, Here we discuss 15 recommendations for reducing the risks of medication errors: 1. Provision of sufficient undergraduate learning opportunities to make medical students safe prescribers. 2. Provision of opportunities for students to practise skills that help to reduce errors. 3. Education of students about common types of medication errors and how to avoid them. 4. Education of prescribers in taking accurate drug histories. 5. Assessment in medical schools of prescribing knowledge and skills and demonstration that newly qualified doctors are safe prescribers. 6. European harmonization of prescribing and safety recommendations and regulatory measures, with regular feedback about rational drug use. 7. Comprehensive assessment of elderly patients for declining function. 8. Exploration of low-dose regimens for elderly patients and preparation of special formulations as required. 9. Training for all health-care professionals in drug use, adverse effects, and medication errors in elderly people. 10. More involvement of pharmacists in clinical practice. 11. Introduction of integrated prescription forms and national implementation in individual countries. 12. Development of better monitoring systems for detecting medication errors, based on classification and analysis of spontaneous reports of previous reactions, and for investigating the possible role of medication errors when patients die. 13. Use of IT systems, when available, to provide methods of avoiding medication errors; standardization, proper evaluation, and certification of clinical information systems. 14. Nonjudgmental communication with patients about their concerns and elicitation of symptoms that they perceive to be adverse drug reactions. 15. Avoidance of defensive reactions if patients mention symptoms resulting from medication errors.

Contains fulltext : 52947.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)