Search

Rationale, aims and objectives: Increasing awareness of people’s lung health through use of lung function tests or symptom-based questionnaires is a potential method to aid smoking cessation. We investigated the impact of case-finding lung function tests for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on smoking behaviour. Methods: Our trial used a novel waiting list randomised controlled trial design, nested within a case-finding cohort study. The cohort comprised current smokers aged 35 years or more, from general practices in Yorkshire and Humberside, who were randomised to receive lung function tests (spirometry, microspirometry, peak flow meter measurement and a WheezoMeter) and case-finding questionnaires either immediately (‘tests now’) or later (‘waiting list’ control). Outcome measures included self-reported smoking cessation and number of cigarettes smoked at follow-up (at 2, 3 or 6 months after randomisation, depending on study site), with 409 participants included in the primary analysis. Results: Smoking cessation at follow-up was very similar across groups (8.8% in the ‘tests now’ group, compared to 9.2% in the ‘waiting list’ group). Completing case-finding lung function tests did not significantly impact smoking cessation (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.57-1.77, adjusting for age, gender, baseline number of cigarettes smoked and study site). A sensitivity analysis, assuming participants with missing data were still smoking, gave similar results (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.47- 1.56). Analysis of the number of cigarettes smoked at follow-up using negative binomial regression adjusting for the same factors above gave an IRR of 0.95 (95% CI 0.88-1.03). Conclusions: There is no evidence from this trial of an effect of lung function tests on smoking cessation among a population of smokers aged 35 years or over. Indeed, when assuming those with missing data were smokers, a slightly lower odds of smoking cessation was observed in the ‘test now’ group compared to the ‘waiting list’ group.

Thematic Framework. (DOCX 14Â kb)

Background: Gypsies, Travellers and Roma (referred to as Travellers) are less likely to access health services, including immunisation. To improve immunisation rates, we need to understand what helps and hinders individuals in these communities in taking up immunisations. Aims: (1) Investigate the barriers to and facilitators of acceptability and uptake of immunisations among six Traveller communities across four UK cities; and (2) identify possible interventions to increase uptake of immunisations in these Traveller communities that could be tested in a subsequent feasibility study. Methods: Three-phase qualitative study underpinned by the social ecological model. Phase 1: interviews with 174 Travellers from six communities: Romanian Roma (Bristol); English Gypsy/Irish Traveller (Bristol); English Gypsy (York); Romanian/Slovakian Roma (Glasgow); Scottish Showpeople (Glasgow); and Irish Traveller (London). Focus on childhood and adult vaccines. Phase 2: interviews with 39 service providers. Data were analysed using the framework approach. Interventions were identified using a modified intervention mapping approach. Phase 3: 51 Travellers and 25 service providers attended workshops and produced a prioritised list of potentially acceptable and feasible interventions. Results: There were many common accounts of barriers and facilitators across communities, particularly across the English-speaking communities. Scottish Showpeople were the most similar to the general population. Roma communities experienced additional barriers of language and being in a new country. Men, women and service providers described similar barriers and facilitators. There was widespread acceptance of childhood and adult immunisation, with current parents perceived as more positive than their elders. A minority of English-speaking Travellers worried about multiple/combined childhood vaccines, adult flu and whooping cough. Cultural concerns about vaccines offered during pregnancy and about human papillomavirus were most evident in the Bristol English Gypsy/Irish Traveller community. Language, literacy, discrimination, poor school attendance, poverty and housing were identified by Travellers and service providers as barriers for some. Trustful relationships with health professionals were important and continuity of care was valued. A few English-speaking Travellers described problems of booking and attending for immunisation. Service providers tailored their approach to Travellers, particularly the Roma. Funding cuts, NHS reforms and poor monitoring challenged their work. Five ‘top-priority’ interventions were agreed across communities and service providers to improve the immunisation among Travellers who are housed or settled on an authorised site: (1) cultural competence training for health professionals and frontline staff; (2) identification of Travellers in health records to tailor support and monitor uptake; (3) provision of a named frontline person in general practitioner practices to provide respectful and supportive service; (4) flexible and diverse systems for booking appointments, recall and reminders; and (5) protected funding for health visitors specialising in Traveller health, including immunisation. Limitations: No Travellers living on the roadside or on unofficial encampments were interviewed. We should exert caution in generalising to these groups. Future work: To include development, implementation and evaluation of a national policy plan (and practice guidance plan) to promote the uptake of immunisation among Traveller communities.

INTRODUCTION: Perinatal depression is well recognised as a mental health condition but

Background\ud \ud Pragmatic trials compare the effects of different decisions in usual clinical practice.\ud \ud Objectives\ud \ud To develop and evaluate methods to implement simple pragmatic trials using routinely collected electronic health records (EHRs) and recruiting patients at the point of care; to identify the barriers and facilitators for general practitioners (GPs) and patients and the experiences of trial participants.\ud \ud Design\ud \ud Two exemplar randomised trials (Retropro and eLung) with qualitative evaluations.\ud \ud Setting\ud \ud Four hundred and fifty-nine English and Scottish general practices contributing EHRs to a research database, of which 17 participated in the trials.\ud \ud Participants\ud \ud Retropro aimed to recruit 300 patients with hypercholesterolaemia and high cardiovascular risk and eLung aimed to recruit 150 patients with a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation.\ud \ud Interventions\ud \ud Retropro randomised between simvastatin and atorvastatin and eLung between immediate antibiotics and deferred or non-use. eLung recruited during an unscheduled consultation using EHR flagging.\ud \ud Main outcome measure\ud \ud Successful trial completion with implementation of information technology (IT) system for flagging and data processing and documentation of operational and scientific experiences.\ud \ud Data sources\ud \ud EHR research database.\ud \ud Results\ud \ud The governance approval process took over 3 years. A total of 58.8% of the practices (n = 270) expressed interest in participating. The number of interested practices dropped substantially with each stage of the governance process. In Retropro, 6.5% of the practices (n = 30) were eventually approved and 3.7% (n = 17) recruited patients; in eLung, these numbers were 6.8% (n = 31) and 1.3% (n = 6) respectively. Retropro successfully completed recruitment (301 patients) whereas eLung recruited 31 patients. Retropro recruited 20.6% of all statin starters in recruiting practices and 1.1% in the EHR database; the comparable numbers for eLung were 32.3% and 0.9% respectively. The IT system allowed for complex eligibility criteria with central on and off control of recruitment and flagging at a practice. Good Clinical Practice guidelines, governance and consent procedures were found to have substantially affected the intended simple nature of the trials. One qualitative study of 13 clinicians found that clinicians were generally positive about the principle of computerised trial recruitment (flagging during consultation). However, trials which did not include patients with acute illness were favoured. The second qualitative process evaluation interviewed 27 GPs about their actual experiences, including declining, recruiting and non-recruiting GPs. Opportunistic patient recruitment during a routine GP consultation was found to be the most controversial element. The actual experiences of recruiting patients during unscheduled consultation were generally more positive than the hypothetical views of GPs. Several of the recruiting GPs reported the process took 5 minutes and was straightforward and feasible on most occasions. Almost all GPs expressed their strong support for the use of EHRs for trials. Ten eLung participants were interviewed, all of whom considered it acceptable to be recruited during a consultation and to use EHRs for trials.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud \ud EHR point-of-care trials are feasible, although the recruitment of clinicians is a major challenge owing to the complexity of trial approvals. These trials will provide substantial evidence on clinical effectiveness only if trial interventions and participating clinicians and patients are typical of usual clinical care and trials are simple to initiate and conduct. Recommendations for research include the development of evidence and implementation of risk proportionality in trial governance and conduct.\ud \ud Trial registration\ud \ud Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33113202 and ISRCTN72035428.\ud \ud Funding\ud \ud This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and the Wellcome Trust and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

This paper aims to introduce a method for mapping local service provision to local demographic and health outcome data, to inform evidence-based policy and practice in public health. A mapping exercise was conducted in London, England with the aims of: (1) describing services provided for breastfeeding women in primary and tertiary health care sectors and government, voluntary and private sectors; and (2) linking this information with routine data on deprivation, breastfeeding rates and health outcomes. Quantitative data on local breastfeeding services were collected via an online questionnaire by a designated 'mapping lead' in each locality. Data were collected at the level of individual health care organisations on the provision, nature and management of breastfeeding services, and related organisational inputs such as leadership, staffing, accreditation and policy. Demographic and health outcome data were identified from existing routine national data collections. Ninety-one per cent of eligible acute and primary care organisations participated in the mapping exercise. A range of mapping tools and profile were developed and launched in 2009 (http://atlas.chimat.org.uk/IAS/dataviews/view?viewId=66). These tools can be used for descriptive analyses of service provision on the basis of local need. Comparative analyses on the impact of service provision on breastfeeding or health outcomes will be feasible from 18 months of data collection onwards. This case study has demonstrated the potential utility of this mapping method to inform effective implementation and evaluation of public health policy in practice consistent with the World Health Organisation framework. Formal evaluation of the utility of the tools is recommended.