Search

Objective The objective of this study is to identify the top 10 research priorities on reducing and stopping psychiatric medication that reflect the perspectives and unmet needs of three key stakeholder groups (people with lived experience, family members/carers/supporters and healthcare professionals).Methods A priority-setting partnership was conducted using the James Lind Alliance’s seven-step process. This involved (1) creating an international Steering Group of key stakeholder representatives and (2) identifying potential partners; (3) gathering stakeholders’ uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medication using an online survey and summarising the survey responses; (4) checking the summary questions against existing evidence and verifying uncertainties; (5) shortlisting the questions using a second online survey; (6) determining the top 10 research questions through a prioritisation workshop; and (7) disseminating the results.Results A total of 3635 questions were collected in the initial survey from 884 respondents of which 32 questions were verified as uncertainties. These questions were then ranked in a second online survey by 526 respondents and the findings discussed in a final prioritisation workshop by 30 participants to produce the final top 10 list of research questions. These questions cover a range of areas including the most effective ways of safely reducing/stopping psychiatric medication and providing support to individuals undergoing the discontinuation process, as well as the best ways to educate healthcare professionals on this topic.Conclusion The top 10 list of research priorities was produced through extensive engagement with key stakeholders and highlights important uncertainties and gaps in the existing evidence base that need to be addressed by future research.

Abstract Background Many individuals worldwide continue to take benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRAs) long term (≥3 months). The aim of this study was to conduct a content analysis of the views and experiences of discontinuing long‐term BZRA use as documented in the free‐text responses of respondents to an online questionnaire examining mediators of behaviour change relating to the discontinuation of long‐term BZRA use. Design The questionnaire was disseminated via online BZRA support groups to community‐based adults with either current or previous experience of long‐term BZRA use. The four free‐text questions focused on (1) barriers and (2) facilitators to discontinuing BZRA use; (3) additional supports required to discontinue BZRA use; and (4) additional comments regarding BZRA use. Response data were analysed using summative content analysis. Results The most commonly reported barrier to BZRA discontinuation related to the consequences of stopping the medication, including withdrawal symptoms and the possibility of return of the original symptoms. The most common facilitator that respondents reported would help them in discontinuing BZRA use was support, primarily from medical professionals. Many respondents reported having been harmed or negatively affected in some way because of BZRA use. Several respondents expressed regret over ever taking BZRAs and/or reported that, with the benefit of hindsight, they should never have taken BZRAs in the first instance. Conclusion The findings highlight the range of barriers faced by those attempting BZRA discontinuation and the importance of additional supports. Holistic and person‐centred approaches are needed to support discontinuation of long‐term BZRA use that considers an individual's personal circumstances and wider social context. Patient or Public Contribution ‘Experts by experience’ with previous experience of long‐term BZRA use were involved in developing the questionnaire and writing the manuscript as collaborators. Individuals with lived experience of taking BZRAs completed the questionnaire.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AmR) is widely considered a global health threat and is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and costs. Inappropriate antimicrobial use is the most important modifiable risk factor for AmR. Most human antimicrobial medicines use occurs in primary care [prescribed by general practitioners (GPs), dispensed by community pharmacists (CPs)]. However, up to 50% of use is deemed inappropriate. Point-of-care diagnostic tests are used as a basis for antimicrobial stewardship interventions to improve the diagnostic certainty of respiratory tract infections (RTIs), and therefore ensure prudent antimicrobial use. However, there is a lack of guidance on their use, and they are therefore not routinely used in clinical practice. Objective: A scoping review will be conducted to synthesise the available evidence to inform the development of best practice guidance for using point-of-care diagnostics in the management of RTIs in primary care. Methods: A scoping review will be conducted following guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and reported using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Databases including Web of Science, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, the International HTA database and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, as well as grey literature, will be searched. Screening will be undertaken independently by two reviewers to identify studies and literature reporting the use of point-of-care diagnostics in the management of RTIs in primary care by GPs and/ or CPs. Findings will be described using narrative synthesis. Conclusion: The findings of this scoping review will be used to produce draft guidance on the use of point-of-care diagnostic tests in primary care, which will undergo further development using a Delphi consensus methodology involving experts in the field of RTIs, antimicrobial stewardship, point-of-care diagnostics and primary care.

Abstract Introduction Long‐term benzodiazepine receptor agonist (BZRA) use persists in healthcare settings worldwide and poses risks of patient harm. Objective This study aimed to develop an intervention to support discontinuation of long‐term BZRA use among willing individuals. Methods The intervention development process aligned with the UK Medical Research Council's complex intervention framework. This involved a previous systematic review of brief interventions targeting long‐term BZRA use in primary care and qualitative interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework that explored barriers and facilitators to discontinuing long‐term BZRA use. A codesign approach was used involving an active partnership between experts by experience, researchers and clinicians. Intervention content was specified in terms of behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Results The SAFEGUARDING‐BZRAs (Supporting sAFE and GradUAl ReDuctIon of loNG‐term BenZodiazepine Receptor Agonist uSe) toolkit comprises 24 BCTs and includes recommendations targeted at primary care‐based clinicians for operationalizing each BCT to support individuals with BZRA discontinuation. Conclusion The SAFEGUARDING‐BZRAs toolkit has been developed using a systematic and theory‐based approach that addresses identified limitations of previous research. Further research is needed to assess its usability and acceptability by service users and clinicians, as well as its potential to effectively support safe and gradual reduction of long‐term BZRA use. Patient or Public Contribution The qualitative interview phase included patients as participants. The codesign process included ‘experts by experience’ with either current or previous experience of long‐term BZRA use as collaborators.

Abstract Background Patients and the public have an integral role in educating healthcare professionals. Authentic partnerships between higher education institutions and patients and the public are essential. This study examined key stakeholders’ views, experiences and expectations of patient and public involvement (PPI) including the nature of the involvement and requirements for partnership. Methods Purposive and snowball sampling was used to recruit key stakeholders, including patients and members of the public involved in health professions education, and academics interested in PPI. Focus groups were held with patient and public participants, providing the opportunity to gain multiple perspectives in an interactive group setting. Academics with an interest in PPI were interviewed using a semi-structured approach. Topic guides were derived from the literature and piloted prior to data collection. Focus groups and interviews were conducted until data saturation was achieved. All data was audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and thematically analysed. Results Four focus groups were conducted involving 23 patient and public participants (median number of participants per focus group of 6). Nine interviews were conducted with academics (face-to-face [n = 8] or by telephone [n = 1]). Five themes were developed: previous experiences of PPI, training requirements, challenges/barriers to PPI, facilitators of PPI and future ideas for PPI. All participants held positive views of the value of PPI. Participants had mixed views in terms of training, which depended on the level of involvement, but similar views on the challenges and facilitators for PPI in education. There was agreement that PPI requires institutional vision and investment to build strong relationships and a culture of PPI best practice. Conclusions There is a need for more strategic and formal involvement of patients and the public to ensure that that PPI becomes sustainably embedded in health professions education.

Background: There is a growing number of service users looking to discontinue use of psychiatric medicines. Tapering is the recommended approach for reducing and/or discontinuing the use of psychiatric medicines. This involves gradually reducing the dose over time to minimise the potential for withdrawal symptoms. However, many uncertainties exist regarding the process of reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines. This study will use a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the Top 10 unanswered questions and uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines. Methods: The Priority Setting Partnership will be conducted using the James Lind Alliance methodology. It will involve seven stages: (i) creating an international Steering Group of representatives from key stakeholder groups that will include people with lived experience of taking and/or stopping psychiatric medicines, family members, carers/supporters and healthcare professionals, and identifying potential partners to support key activities (e.g. dissemination); (ii) gathering uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines from key stakeholders using an online survey; (iii) data processing and summarising the survey responses; (iv) checking the summary questions against existing evidence and verifying uncertainties; (v) shortlisting the questions using a second online survey; (vi) determining the Top 10 research questions through an online prioritisation workshop; (vii) disseminating results. Conclusions: This study will use a Priority Setting Partnership to generate a Top 10 list of research questions and uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines. This list will help to guide future research and deliver responsive and strategic allocation of research resources, with a view to ultimately improving the future health and well-being of individuals who are taking psychiatric medicines.

Objectives To examine the views and experiences of community pharmacists in Northern Ireland (NI) regarding changes in community pharmacy practice/processes in preparation for, and response to, the COVID-19 pandemic.Design Cross-sectional telephone-administered questionnaire.Setting and participants Geographically stratified representative sample of 130 community pharmacists in NI between March and May 2021.Outcome measures Community pharmacists’ responses to questions focusing on their preparation, experience and response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive analysis was conducted including frequencies and percentages. Free-text comments were summarised using thematic analysis.Results One hundred and thirty pharmacists completed the questionnaire. Pharmacists responded comprehensively to implementing infection control measures, for example, management of social distancing in the shop (96.2%), making adjustments to premises, for example, barriers/screens (95.4%), while maintaining medicines supply (100.0%) and advice to patients (93.1%). Newly commissioned services were provided, for example, emergency supply service (93.1%), influenza vaccination for healthcare workers (77.7%) and volunteer deliveries to vulnerable people (54.6%). Pharmacists were least prepared for the increased workload and patients’ challenging behaviour, but the majority (96.9%) reported that they felt better prepared during the second wave. Pharmacists agreed/strongly agreed that they would be able to re-establish normal services (87.7%), were willing to administer COVID-19 vaccines (80.7%) and provide COVID-19 testing (60.8%) in the future.Conclusions Community pharmacists remained accessible and maintained supply of essential medicines and advice to patients throughout the pandemic. Provision of modified and additional services such as vaccination reinforced the clinical and public health role of pharmacy

Background: In the context of a recovery-oriented approach to mental healthcare, the role of psychotropic medication over extended or indefinite periods is increasingly being called into question. To minimise the risks of withdrawal symptoms and relapse, it is crucial that service users who want to discontinue psychotropic medication are supported throughout the tapering process. However, in the absence of effective interventions and supports, service users are increasingly relying on online resources for guidance and support. To date, the evidence base for mobile phone applications (‘apps’) and app-based interventions supporting discontinuation of psychotropic use has not been examined. This scoping review aims to examine the content, underpinning evidence base and impact of available mobile phone apps and app-based interventions to support psychotropic tapering. Methods: A scoping review will be conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance and results will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guideline. Several electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ACM and IEEE Xplore) will be searched from 2008 onwards. Searches of the major app stores will also be conducted, specifically Apple's App Store (iOS) and Google Play Store (Android). Following screening, key information will be extracted from the included studies and apps. Identified apps will be coded using the Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) Taxonomy. The findings will be described using narrative synthesis. Conclusions: This scoping review will provide a broad overview of available apps to support psychotropic tapering, including a summary of their content using the BCT Taxonomy. The review findings will guide future research relating to the development, implementation and evaluation of app-based interventions to support the tapering of psychotropic medication.

Abstract Background Healthcare and other professionals are expected to support behaviour change in people living with chronic disease. However, effective behaviour change interventions are largely absent in routine encounters. The Train4Health project, a European strategic partnership for higher education, sought to address this problem. The primary aim of this study, which is part of an early work package, was to develop an interprofessional competency framework for health and other professions to support behaviour change for the self-management of chronic disease at a European level. A secondary aim was to derive a set of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) from an established taxonomy to link with framework competencies. Methods The study comprised two interlinked parts. Part 1 involved a two-round e-Delphi study with an interprofessional panel of 48 experts across 12 European countries to develop the behaviour change competency framework. Preparatory work included drafting a list of competency statements based on seven existing frameworks. Part 2 involved an expert panel of six behavioural psychologists deriving a set of BCTs to link with framework competencies. Their feedback was based on preparatory work, which focused on seven high priority chronic diseases for self-management, identified through European projects on self-management and identifying five relevant target behaviours from key clinical guidelines. A literature search yielded 29 effective BCTs for the target behaviours in the selected chronic diseases. Results Twenty-seven competency statements, were presented in Round 1 to the Delphi panel. Consensus was achieved for all statements. Based on comments, two statements were removed, one was added, and 14 were modified. All 15 statements subjected to Round 2 were consensus-approved, yielding a total of 12 foundational competencies for behaviour change in self-management of chronic disease and 14 behaviour change competencies. Four behaviour change competencies related to BCTs. Behavioural psychologists’ feedback led to a core set of 21 BCTs deemed applicable to the five target behaviours across the seven chronic diseases. Conclusions A behaviour change competency framework comprising 26 statements for European health and other professionals to support self-management of chronic disease was developed, linked with a core set of 21 BCTs from an established taxonomy.

Background: The burden of osteoarthritis (OA) to individuals and health systems is substantial and is expected to increase due to population ageing and rising prevalence of obesity and multimorbidity. Primary care-based models of care (MoCs) are being increasingly developed in response to this growing burden. However, these MoCs have yet to be formally reviewed. A MoC can be defined as an ‘evidence-informed strategy, framework or pathway that outlines the optimal manner in which condition-specific care should be delivered to consumers within a local health system’. Objective: To identify and describe the available research regarding the extent, nature and characteristics of MoCs for OA that have been developed or evaluated in primary care. Methods: A scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Arksey and O’Malley scoping review framework and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Systematic literature searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science and LILACs will be conducted from 2010 to present, aligning with publication dates of recent clinical guidelines. A structured iterative search of grey literature will be conducted. Full-text original quantitative or mixed method studies which describe the development or evaluation of MoCs for OA in primary care will be considered. Data will be charted and synthesised and a narrative synthesis will be conducted. Conclusions: This scoping review will provide a broad overview regarding the extent, nature and characteristics of the available literature on primary care based MoCs for OA. Findings will be used to identify gaps in the current evidence to identify areas for future research.

Background: The burden of osteoarthritis (OA) to individuals and health systems is substantial and is expected to increase due to population ageing and rising prevalence of obesity and multimorbidity. Primary care-based models of care (MoCs) are being increasingly developed in response to this growing burden. However, these MoCs have yet to be formally reviewed. A MoC can be defined as an ‘evidence-informed strategy, framework or pathway that outlines the optimal manner in which condition-specific care should be delivered to consumers within a local health system’. Objective: To identify and describe the available research regarding the extent, nature and characteristics of MoCs for OA that have been developed or evaluated in primary care. Methods: A scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Arksey and O’Malley scoping review framework and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Systematic literature searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science and LILACs will be conducted from 2010 to present, aligning with publication dates of recent clinical guidelines. A structured iterative search of grey literature will be conducted. Full-text original quantitative or mixed method studies which describe the development or evaluation of MoCs for OA in primary care will be considered. Data will be charted and synthesised and a narrative synthesis will be conducted. Conclusions: This scoping review will provide a broad overview regarding the extent, nature and characteristics of the available literature on primary care based MoCs for OA. Findings will be used to identify gaps in the current evidence to identify areas for future research.