Mindfulness for people with chronic pain: Factors affecting engagement and suggestions for programme optimisation.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain is a common, multifactorial condition and pharmacological treatments have limited benefits. Mindfulness is a holistic approach that might be of value in the management of chronic pain. However, attrition rates from mindfulness-based interventions are high and factors affecting engagement are unknown. The aim of this study was to inform the design of a mindfulness programme that would be accessible and acceptable for people with chronic pain. METHODS: Interpretative phenomenological analysis of interview data from people with chronic pain who had taken part in an 8-week mindfulness programme based on mindfulness-based stress reduction revealed factors affecting engagement with and suggestions for tailoring the programme. Factors were grouped into physical, psychological and social domains. Further suggestions for tailoring the programme to address these factors were generated through a nominal group of healthcare professionals and a focus group with service users who had chronic pain. FINDINGS: Physical factors included disability and discomfort with some practices; psychological factors included expectations of the mindfulness programme and understanding the relationship between mindfulness and pain; and social factors included loneliness and support from others. The proposed modifications to the mindfulness programme supported by healthcare professionals and/or service users to address these are described in this paper. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study involved public contributions at a number of stages. The University of Aberdeen Division of Applied Health Sciences Service User Group (who were members of the public with chronic pain) was involved in the design of the study. Patients with chronic pain recruited from general medical practice who took part in the mindfulness programme were interviewed on their experience of the programme. Patients with chronic pain who attended the mindfulness programme, and healthcare professionals with expertise in chronic pain and/or mindfulness, attended meetings to design a tailored mindfulness programme for people with chronic pain.

Can-Pain-a digital intervention to optimise cancer pain control in the community: development and feasibility testing.

PURPOSE: To develop a novel digital intervention to optimise cancer pain control in the community. This paper describes intervention development, content/rationale and initial feasibility testing. METHODS: Determinants of suboptimal cancer pain management were characterised through two systematic reviews; patient, caregiver and healthcare professional (HCP) interviews (n = 39); and two HCP focus groups (n = 12). Intervention mapping was used to translate results into theory-based content, creating the app "Can-Pain". Patients with/without a linked caregiver, their general practitioners and community palliative care nurses were recruited to feasibility test Can-Pain over 4 weeks. RESULTS: Patients on strong opioids described challenges balancing pain levels with opioid intake, side effects and activities and communicating about pain management problems with HCPs. Can-Pain addresses these challenges through educational resources, contemporaneous short-acting opioid tracking and weekly patient-reported outcome monitoring. Novel aspects of Can-Pain include the use of contemporaneous breakthrough analgesic reports as a surrogate measure of pain control and measuring the level at which pain becomes bothersome to the individual. Patients were unwell due to advanced cancer, making recruitment to feasibility testing difficult. Two patients and one caregiver used Can-Pain for 4 weeks, sharing weekly reports with four HCPs. Can-Pain highlighted unrecognised problems, promoted shared understanding about symptoms between patients and HCPs and supported shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary testing suggests that Can-Pain is feasible and could promote patient-centred pain management. We will conduct further small-scale evaluations to inform a future randomised, stepped-wedge trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Qualitative research: ClinicalTrials.gov , reference NCT02341846 Feasibility study: NIHR CPMS database ID 34172.

Process evaluation for the Care Homes Independent Pharmacist Prescriber Study (CHIPPS).

BACKGROUND: Medicines management in care homes requires significant improvement. CHIPPS was a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of integrating pharmacist independent prescribers into care homes to assume central responsibility for medicines management. This paper reports the parallel mixed-methods process evaluation. METHOD: Intervention arm consisted of 25 triads: Care homes (staff and up to 24 residents), General Practitioner (GP) and Pharmacist Independent Prescriber (PIP). Data sources were pharmaceutical care plans (PCPs), pharmacist activity logs, online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Results were mapped to the process evaluation objectives following the Medical Research Council framework. RESULTS: PCPs and activity logs were available from 22 PIPs. Questionnaires were returned by 16 PIPs, eight GPs, and two care home managers. Interviews were completed with 14 PIPs, eight GPs, nine care home managers, six care home staff, and one resident. All stakeholders reported some benefits from PIPs having responsibility for medicine management and identified no safety concerns. PIPs reported an increase in their knowledge and identified the value of having time to engage with care home staff and residents during reviews. The research paperwork was identified as least useful by many PIPs. PIPs conducted medication reviews on residents, recording 566 clinical interventions, many involving deprescribing; 93.8% of changes were sustained at 6 months. For 284 (50.2%) residents a medicine was stopped, and for a quarter of residents, changes involved a medicine linked to increased falls risk. Qualitative data indicated participants noted increased medication safety and improved resident quality of life. Contextual barriers to implementation were apparent in the few triads where PIP was not known previously to the GP and care home before the trial. In three triads, PIPs did not deliver the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was generally implemented as intended, and well-received by most stakeholders. Whilst there was widespread deprescribing, contextual factors effected opportunity for PIP engagement in care homes. Implementation was most effective when communication pathways between PIP and GP had been previously well-established. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The definitive RCT was registered with the ISRCTN registry (registration number  ISRCTN 17847169 ).

Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush).

BACKGROUND: Anti-fungals are available for oral and intra-vaginal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review is to assess the relative effectiveness (clinical cure) of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungals for the treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. Secondary objectives include the assessment of the relative effectiveness in terms of mycological cure, in addition to safety, side effects, treatment preference, time to first relief of symptoms, and costs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 29 August 2019 together with reference checking and citation searching. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials published in any language comparing at least one oral anti-fungal with one intra-vaginal anti-fungal in women (aged 16 years or over) with a mycological diagnosis (positive culture, microscopy for yeast, or both) of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. We excluded trials if they solely involved participants who were HIV positive, immunocompromised, pregnant, breast feeding or diabetic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 26 trials (5007 participants). Eight anti-fungals are represented. All but three trials included participants with acute vulvovaginal candidiasis. Trials were conducted in Europe: UK (3), Croatia (2). Finland (2), the Netherlands (2), Germany (1), Italy (1), Sweden (1) and one trial across multiple European countries, USA (7) Thailand (2), Iran (2), Japan (1) and Africa (Nigeria) (1). The duration of follow-up varied between trials. The overall risk of bias of the included trials was high. There was probably little or no difference shown between oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatment for clinical cure at short-term follow-up (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.43; 13 trials; 1859 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and long-term follow-up (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.50; 9 trials; 1042 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of clinical cure at short-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 77%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 75% and 83%; if the rate of clinical cure at long term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 84%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 80% and 89%. Oral treatment probably improves mycological cure over intra-vaginal treatment at short term (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.50: 19 trials; 3057 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and long-term follow-up (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.60; 13 trials; 1661 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of mycological cure at short-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 80%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 80% and 85%; if the rate of mycological cure at long-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 66%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 67% and 76%. In terms of patient safety, there is a low risk of participants withdrawing from the studies due to adverse drug effects for either treatment (23 trials; 4637 participants; high-certainty evidence). Due to the low certainty of evidence, it is undetermined whether oral treatments reduced the number of side effects compared with intra-vaginal treatments (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.29; 16 trials; 3155 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of side effects with intra-vaginal treatment is 12%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 10% and 15%. We noted that the type of side effects differed, with intra-vaginal treatments being more often associated with local reactions, and oral treatments being more often associated with systemic effects including gastro-intestinal symptoms and headaches. Oral treatment appeared to be the favoured treatment preference over intra-vaginal treatment or no preference (12 trials; 2206 participants), however the data were poorly reported and the certainty of the evidence was low. There was little or no difference in time to first relief of symptoms between oral and intra-vaginal treatments: four trials favoured the oral treatment, four favoured intra-vaginal, one study reported no difference and one was unclear. The measurements varied between the 10 trials (1910 participants) and the certainty of the evidence was low. Costs were not reported in any of the trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral anti-fungal treatment probably improves short- and long-term mycological cure over intra-vaginal treatment for uncomplicated vaginal candidiasis. Oral treatment was the favoured treatment preference by participants, though the certainty of this evidence is low. The decision to prescribe or recommend an anti-fungal for oral or intra-vaginal administration should take into consideration safety in terms of withdrawals and side effects, as well as cost and treatment preference. Unless there is a previous history of adverse reaction to one route of administration or contraindications, women who are purchasing their own treatment should be given full information about the characteristics and costs of treatment to make their own decision. If health services are paying the treatment cost, decision-makers should consider whether the higher cost of some oral anti-fungals is worth the gain in convenience, if this is the patient's preference.

Community pharmacy personnel interventions for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacists could provide effective smoking cessation treatment because they offer easy access to members of the community. They are well placed to provide both advice on the correct use of smoking cessation products and behavioural support to aid smoking cessation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions delivered by community pharmacy personnel to assist people to stop smoking, with or without concurrent use of pharmacotherapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, along with clinicaltrials.gov and the ICTRP, for smoking cessation studies conducted in a community pharmacy setting, using the search terms pharmacist* or pharmacy or pharmacies. Date of the most recent search: January 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of interventions delivered by community pharmacy personnel to promote smoking cessation amongst their clients who were smokers, compared with usual pharmacy support or any less intensive programme. The main outcome measure was smoking cessation rates at six months or more after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for study screening, data extraction and management. We conducted a meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model to generate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We identified seven studies including 1774 participants. We judged three studies to be at high risk of bias and four to be at unclear risk. Each study provided face-to-face behavioural support delivered by pharmacy staff, and required pharmacy personnel training. Typically such programmes comprised support starting before quit day and continuing with weekly appointments for several weeks afterwards. Comparators were either minimal or less intensive behavioural support for smoking cessation, typically comprising a few minutes of one-off advice on how to quit. Participants in both intervention and control arms received equivalent smoking cessation pharmacotherapy in all but one study. All studies took place in high-income countries, and recruited participants visiting pharmacies. We pooled six studies of 1614 participants and detected a benefit of more intensive behavioural smoking cessation interventions delivered by community pharmacy personnel compared with less intensive cessation interventions at longest follow-up (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.97; I2 = 54%; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacists can provide effective behavioural support to people trying to stop smoking. However, this conclusion is based on low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision. Further research could change this conclusion.

The use, quality and effectiveness of pelvic examination in primary care for the detection of gynaecological cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Urgent suspected cancer referral guidelines recommend that women with gynaecological cancer symptoms should have a pelvic examination (PE) prior to referral. We do not know to what extent GPs comply, their competency at PE, or if PE shortens the diagnostic interval. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review of the use, quality and effectiveness of PE in primary care for women with suspected gynaecological cancer. METHOD: PRISMA guidelines were followed. Three databases were searched using four terms: PE, primary care, competency and gynaecological cancer. Citation lists of all identified papers were screened independently for eligibility by two reviewers. Data extraction was performed in duplicate and independently. Paper quality was assessed using the relevant Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Emergent themes and contrasting issues were explored in a narrative ecological synthesis. MAIN FINDINGS: Twenty papers met the inclusion criteria. 52% or less of women with suspicious symptoms had a PE. No papers directly explored GPs' competence at performing PE. Pre-referral PE was associated with reduced diagnostic delay and earlier stage diagnosis. Ecological synthesis demonstrated a complex interplay between patient and practitioner factors and the environment in which examination is performed. Presenting symptoms are commonly misattributed by patients and practitioners resulting in misdiagnosis and lack of PE. CONCLUSION: We do not know if pre-referral PE leads to better outcomes for patients. PE is often not performed for women with gynaecological cancer symptoms, and evidence that it may result in earlier stage of diagnosis is weak. More research is needed.

Pharmacist services for non-hospitalised patients.

BACKGROUND: This review focuses on non-dispensing services from pharmacists, i.e. pharmacists in community, primary or ambulatory-care settings, to non-hospitalised patients, and is an update of a previously-published Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of pharmacists' non-dispensing services on non-hospitalised patient outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trial registers in March 2015, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We included non-English language publications. We ran top-up searches in January 2018 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Studies awaiting classification'. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of pharmacist services compared with the delivery of usual care or equivalent/similar services with the same objective delivered by other health professionals. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. Two review authors independently checked studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risks of bias. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 116 trials comprising 111 trials (39,729 participants) comparing pharmacist interventions with usual care and five trials (2122 participants) comparing pharmacist services with services from other healthcare professionals. Of the 116 trials, 76 were included in meta-analyses. The 40 remaining trials were not included in the meta-analyses because they each reported unique outcome measures which could not be combined. Most trials targeted chronic conditions and were conducted in a range of settings, mostly community pharmacies and hospital outpatient clinics, and were mainly but not exclusively conducted in high-income countries. Most trials had a low risk of reporting bias and about 25%-30% were at high risk of bias for performance, detection, and attrition. Selection bias was unclear for about half of the included studies.Compared with usual care, we are uncertain whether pharmacist services reduce the percentage of patients outside the glycated haemoglobin target range (5 trials, N = 558, odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.22; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may reduce the percentage of patients whose blood pressure is outside the target range (18 trials, N = 4107, OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.55; low-certainty evidence) and probably lead to little or no difference in hospital attendance or admissions (14 trials, N = 3631, OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.11; moderate-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to adverse drug effects (3 trials, N = 590, OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.24) and may slightly improve physical functioning (7 trials, N = 1329, mean difference (MD) 5.84, 95% CI 1.21 to 10.48; low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to mortality (9 trials, N = 1980, OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.12, low-certaintly evidence).Of the five studies that compared services delivered by pharmacists with other health professionals, no studies evaluated the impact of the intervention on the percentage of patients outside blood pressure or glycated haemoglobin target range, hospital attendance and admission, adverse drug effects, or physical functioning. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that pharmacist services have varying effects on patient outcomes compared with usual care. We found no studies comparing services delivered by pharmacists with other healthcare professionals that evaluated the impact of the intervention on the six main outcome measures. The results need to be interpreted cautiously because there was major heterogeneity in study populations, types of interventions delivered and reported outcomes.There was considerable heterogeneity within many of the meta-analyses, as well as considerable variation in the risks of bias.

Estimating the burden of minor ailment consultations in general practices and emergency departments through retrospective review of routine data in North East Scotland.

BACKGROUND: Minor ailment attendances in general practices and emergency departments (EDs) place significant burden on health care resources. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence and type of minor ailment consultations for adults in general practice and ED that could be managed in a community pharmacy. METHODS: Retrospective review of routine data from general practices (n = 2) and one ED in North East Scotland. Two independent consensus panels assessed each consultation summary to determine whether it represented a minor ailment. Outcomes included prevalence of consultations for minor ailments in general practice and ED and frequency of different minor ailment type that could be managed in community pharmacies. RESULTS: In total, of the 494 general practice and 550 ED consultations assessed, 13.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 18.6-25.9%] and 5.3% (95% CI: 4.0-8.0%), respectively, were categorized as minor ailments suitable for management in community pharmacies. Consensus among panel members was moderate for general practice consultations, but fair to poor for ED consultations. Agreement between uni- and multi-disciplinary panels was good. Applied to national data, these estimates would equate to ~18 million general practice and 6500000 ED consultations that could be redirected to community pharmacy, equating to ~£1.1 billion in resources. CONCLUSION: Minor ailment consultations still present a major burden on higher cost settings. Effective strategies are needed to raise awareness among patients and health professionals regarding conditions that can be managed effectively in pharmacies and to change patient health-seeking behaviour for such conditions.

The effect of an internet option and single-sided printing format to increase the response rate to a population-based study: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Paper questionnaires are a common means to collect self-reported information in population-based epidemiological studies. Over the past decades, the response rates to epidemiological studies have been decreasing which can affect the selection process of eligible subjects and lead to non-response bias. Hence, research into strategies to increase questionnaire response rates is crucial. The aim of this study was therefore to explore the effectiveness of single-sided questionnaires and an internet option for response in increasing response rates to a population-based study. METHODS: A 2 × 2 factorial experiment was embedded within a large population-based study of pain and pain management. Persons in the study sample were 4600 residents in Grampian (north of Scotland) aged 25 years and over who were randomly selected from health board records. Sampled persons were randomly assigned to either receive a single-sided or double-sided questionnaire with or without an internet option to respond. The study questionnaire was distributed via post. RESULTS: The overall study response rate was 36.3%. When compared to the reference group that received no intervention (response rate = 35.5%), the response rate changed only marginally when single-sided questionnaires were distributed (35.8%) or when an option to reply via the internet was provided (34.3%). A somewhat higher increase in response rates was achieved when both strategies were employed (39.6%). Overall, no significant effect on response rate was determined for each strategy or their interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this study suggests that neither single-sided questionnaires nor the option to reply via the internet resulted in a significant increase in response rates to population-based studies.

What influences GPs' use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Omission of pelvic examination (PE) has been associated with diagnostic delay in women diagnosed with gynaecological cancer. However, PEs are often not carried out by GPs. AIM: To determine the perceptions of GPs about the role of PEs, the barriers to and facilitators of PEs, and GPs' experience of PEs in practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative semi-structured interview study conducted in one health board in Scotland (mixed urban and rural) with an approximate population of 500 000. METHOD: Interviews were conducted face-to-face or by telephone between March and June 2019. Framework analysis used the COM-B behaviour change model concepts of capability, opportunity, and motivation. RESULTS: Data was compatible with all three domains of the COM-B framework. Capability related to training in and maintenance of skills. These went beyond carrying out the examination to interpreting it reliably. Opportunity related to the clinical environment and the provision of chaperones for intimate examination. Interviewees described a range of motivations towards or against PEs that were unrelated to either capability or opportunity. These all related to providing high-quality care, but this was defined in different ways: 'doing what is best for the individual', 'doctors examine', and 'GPs as pragmatists'. CONCLUSION: GPs' reasons for carrying out, or not carrying out, PEs in women with symptoms potentially indicating cancer are complex. The COM-B framework provides a way of understanding this complexity. Interventions to increase the use of PEs, and critics of its non-use, need to consider these multiple factors.

Enhancing deprescribing: A qualitative understanding of the complexities of pharmacist-led deprescribing in care homes.

The English National Overprescribing Review identified that older people often take eight or more medicines a day. The report recommended pharmacists in primary care should take responsibility for addressing polypharmacy. Overprescribing is a safety concern in care homes as approximately half of older care home residents are prescribed at least one medicine that is unnecessary or now harmful. This predisposes them to adverse outcomes including hospitalisation and mortality. Deprescribing is the planned activity of stopping or reducing a medicine that may no longer be appropriate. Deprescribing, when performed by a pharmacist, is a multidisciplinary activity requiring close communication with general practitioners (GPs) and care home staff. A recently completed trial that integrated pharmacists with prescribing rights into older peoples' care homes found significant variation in proactive deprescribing activity. The aim of the current study was to specifically explore beliefs and practices of deprescribing in care homes. A qualitative approach was adopted to examine individual, social and contextual factors that acted as enablers and barriers to pharmacist deprescribing in care homes. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants of the previous study (16 pharmacists, 6 GPs and 7 care home staff from Northern Ireland, Scotland and England). Using thematic analysis, we identified two themes: (a) Structures and systems affecting deprescribing, that is the context in which deprescribing happened, including team involvement and routine practices in GP surgeries and care homes; (b) Balancing risks when deprescribing, that is the perception of individual risk and social barriers were mitigated by understanding the medical background of residents. This supported the clinical understanding that risks from overprescribing were greater than risks from deprescribing. While deprescribing can involve all health professionals in the primary care team, these results suggest the pharmacist is well placed to lead the process; by having both clinical competence and professional willingness to drive this activity forward.

Patient views and experiences of making adverse drug reaction reports to the Yellow Card Scheme in the UK.

PURPOSE: To describe the characteristics of patient reporters to the UK's Yellow Card Scheme (YCS) and the suspect drugs reported, and to determine patient views and experiences of making a Yellow Card report. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed for distribution by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to all patients reporting through the YCS between March 2008 and January 2009. Associations between reporting method (online, postal and telephone) and questionnaire responses were examined using Pearson's Chi-squared test. RESULTS: Evaluable questionnaires were returned by 1362 out of 2008 reporters (68%). Respondents' median (IQR) age was 56.5 (43.0, 67.0) years, 910 (66.8%) were female, 1274 (93.5%) were white and 923 (67.8%) had at least a further education qualification. The most frequent reporting method was postal (59.8%), followed by online (32.8%) and telephone (6.3%). Online reporters were younger with a higher education level than those using other reporting methods. Most respondents, 1274 (93.6%), thought that the report was fairly or very easy to complete, although many identified the need for improvements to the system. One third (n = 448; 32.9%) expected feedback from the MHRA and 828 (60.8%) would have liked feedback. Almost all respondents (n = 1302; 95.6%) would report again. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients found the current methods of reporting suspected ADRs easy to use and would recommend them to others. Different methods of reporting were used by different demographic subgroups of reporters. Improvements to the system, including the provision of feedback to reporters, could be made.

"I'm empowered to look after myself" - Mindfulness as a way to manage chronic pain: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of participant experiences in Scotland.

BACKGROUND AND PRIMARY AIM: Chronic pain is a common problem that can impact on psychological and social wellbeing and activity levels. Despite pharmacological treatments, there is often a lack of improvement in physical and emotional functioning and health-related quality of life. Mindfulness meditation has become an increasingly popular self-management technique. The aim of the study was to explore the experiences of patients with chronic pain who took part in a mindfulness programme. METHODS: A mixed-methods feasibility study was carried out. Participants were aged 18 years or over with non-malignant chronic pain recruited from general medical practices in Fort William, Scotland. In 2013 participants undertook an eight-week mindfulness programme based on Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and were interviewed immediately post-programme and at eight-months' post-programme. Analysis of qualitative data involved Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). FINDINGS: Thirty-four patients consented to take part in the study; twenty-four took part in the programme (14 attended four or more sessions, 10 attended one to three). Twenty-three were interviewed. Participant experiences of the programme were themed under: factors affecting experience (influence of earlier life events; the process of taking part in, and of relating to, the programme); and effects of the programme (impact on emotions, mental health, adverse events and a process of change). The process of change, resulting after better understanding the relationship between mindfulness and pain, involved learning to 'listen to the body', gaining a sense of community, learning to accept pain, and approaching life with more self-care, awareness, appreciation and empowerment. CONCLUSION: Participants reported a variety of experiences. For some, these included undergoing a process of change which may have supported them in living with their painful condition. This contributes to our understanding of how mindfulness could benefit people with chronic pain.

Development and feasibility testing of an evidence-based training programme for pharmacist independent prescribers responsible for the medicines-related activities within care homes.

INTRODUCTION: The UK pharmacists with independent prescribing rights (pharmacist independent prescribers [PIPs]) are authorised to prescribe within their areas of competence. To enable PIPs to provide pharmaceutical care to residents in care homes and assume responsibility for medicines management, a process for development and assessment of competence is required. The aim of this research was to develop a training and accreditation process (training programme) to enable PIPs to operate safely and effectively within care homes. METHODS: Located in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland across four sites and based on a systematic review, it consisted of four phases: (1) initial stakeholder engagement, (2) uni-professional focus groups and interviews, (3) expert panel consensus and (4) feasibility testing. Four PIPs were trained each to provide pharmaceutical care to 10 care home residents. An expert panel synthesised the evidence at each stage to develop each iteration of the training programme. Content analysis was used throughout. RESULTS: Differences in baseline knowledge of PIPs required inclusion of a Personal Development Framework and the provision of a mentor. Face-to-face training focussed on managing medicines for a complex older person, minimising prescribing costs and supporting people without capacity. Provision of time to understand local context and develop relationships with care homes and general practitioners was identified as a central requirement. PIPs were assessed for competency via viva. Feasibility testing demonstrated that the derived training programme was acceptable, practical and effective. DISCUSSION: The model seemed to work, but due to small numbers, larger-scale testing of the training programme is now required.

Progression from external pilot to definitive randomised controlled trial: a methodological review of progression criteria reporting.

OBJECTIVES: Prespecified progression criteria can inform the decision to progress from an external randomised pilot trial to a definitive randomised controlled trial. We assessed the characteristics of progression criteria reported in external randomised pilot trial protocols and results publications, including whether progression criteria were specified a priori and mentioned in prepublication peer reviewer reports. STUDY DESIGN: Methodological review. METHODS: We searched four journals through PubMed: British Medical Journal Open, Pilot and Feasibility Studies, Trials and Public Library of Science One. Eligible publications reported external randomised pilot trial protocols or results, were published between January 2018 and December 2019 and reported progression criteria. We double data extracted 25% of the included publications. Here we report the progression criteria characteristics. RESULTS: We included 160 publications (123 protocols and 37 completed trials). Recruitment and retention were the most frequent indicators contributing to progression criteria. Progression criteria were mostly reported as distinct thresholds (eg, achieving a specific target; 133/160, 83%). Less than a third of the planned and completed pilot trials that included qualitative research reported how these findings would contribute towards progression criteria (34/108, 31%). The publications seldom stated who established the progression criteria (12/160, 7.5%) or provided rationale or justification for progression criteria (44/160, 28%). Most completed pilot trials reported the intention to proceed to a definitive trial (30/37, 81%), but less than half strictly met all of their progression criteria (17/37, 46%). Prepublication peer reviewer reports were available for 153/160 publications (96%). Peer reviewer reports for 86/153 (56%) publications mentioned progression criteria, with peer reviewers of 35 publications commenting that progression criteria appeared not to be specified. CONCLUSIONS: Many external randomised pilot trial publications did not adequately report or propose prespecified progression criteria to inform whether to proceed to a future definitive randomised controlled trial.

Transparency of informed consent in pilot and feasibility studies is inadequate: a single-center quality assurance study.

BACKGROUND: Pilot and feasibility studies (PAFS) often have complex objectives aimed at assessing feasibility of conducting a larger study. These may not be clear to participants in pilot studies. METHODS: Here, we aimed to assess the transparency of informed consent in PAFS by investigating whether researchers communicate, through patient information leaflets and consent forms, key features of the studies. We collected this data from original versions of these documents submitted for ethics approval and the final approved documents for PAFS submitted to the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board, Canada. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-four PAFS, submitted for ethics approval from 2004 to 2020, were included, and we found that of the approved consent documents which were provided to participants, 83.2% (153) stated the terms "pilot" or "feasibility" in their title, 12% (22) stated the definition of a pilot/feasibility study, 42.4% (78) of the studies stated their intent to assess feasibility, 19.6% (36) stated the specific feasibility objectives, 1.6% (3) stated the criteria for success of the pilot study, and 0.5% (1) stated all five of these criteria. After ethics review, a small increase in transparency occurred, ranging from 1.6 to 2.8% depending on the criteria. By extracting data from the protocols of the PAFS, we found that 73.9% (136) stated intent to assess feasibility, 71.2% (131) stated specific feasibility objectives, and 33.7% (62) stated criteria for success of the study to lead to a larger study. CONCLUSION: The transparency of informed consent in PAFS is inadequate and needs to be specifically addressed by research ethics guidelines. Research ethics boards and researchers ought to be made aware and mindful of best practices of informed consent in the context of PAFS.

Effect of outpatient pharmacists' non-dispensing roles on patient outcomes and prescribing patterns.

BACKGROUND: The roles of pharmacists in patient care have expanded from the traditional tasks of dispensing medications and providing basic medication counseling to working with other health professionals and the public. Multiple reviews have evaluated the impact of pharmacist-provided patient care on health-related outcomes. Prior reviews have primarily focused on in-patient settings. This systematic review focuses on services provided by outpatient pharmacists in community or ambulatory care settings. This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2000. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of outpatient pharmacists' non-dispensing roles on patient and health professional outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: This review has been split into two phases. For Phase I, we searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (January 1966 through March 2007). For Phase II, we searched MEDLINE/EMBASE (January 1966 through March 2008). The Phase I results are reported in this review; Phase II will be summarized in the next update. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing 1. Pharmacist services targeted at patients versus services delivered by other health professionals; 2. Pharmacist services targeted at patients versus the delivery of no comparable service; 3. Pharmacist services targeted at health professionals versus services delivered by other health professionals; 4. Pharmacist services targeted at health professionals versus the delivery of no comparable service. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-three studies were included; 36 studies were pharmacist interventions targeting patients and seven studies were pharmacist interventions targeting health professionals. For comparison 1, the only included study showed a significant improvement in systolic blood pressure for patients receiving medication management from a pharmacist compared to usual care from a physician. For comparison 2, in the five studies evaluating process of care outcomes, pharmacist services reduced the incidence of therapeutic duplication and decreased the total number of medications prescribed. Twenty-nine of 36 studies reported clinical and humanistic outcomes. Pharmacist interventions resulted in improvement in most clinical outcomes, although these improvements were not always statistically significant. Eight studies reported patient quality of life outcomes; three studies showed improvement in at least three subdomains. For comparison 3, no studies were identified meeting the inclusion criteria. For comparison 4, two of seven studies demonstrated a clear statistically significant improvement in prescribing patterns. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Only one included study compared pharmacist services with other health professional services, hence we are unable to draw conclusions regarding comparisons 1 and 3. Most included studies supported the role of pharmacists in medication/therapeutic management, patient counseling, and providing health professional education with the goal of improving patient process of care and clinical outcomes, and of educational outreach visits on physician prescribing patterns. There was great heterogeneity in the types of outcomes measured across all studies. Therefore a standardized approach to measure and report clinical, humanistic, and process outcomes for future randomized controlled studies evaluating the impact of outpatient pharmacists is needed. Heterogeneity in study comparison groups, outcomes, and measures makes it challenging to make generalised statements regarding the impact of pharmacists in specific settings, disease states, and patient populations.

Views of parents and pharmacists following participation in a paediatric pharmacovigilance study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences and views of community pharmacists and parents participating in a prospective paediatric pharmacovigilance study. METHOD: Twenty-five pharmacists and 32 parents were approached for telephone interview. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically to identify recurring issues and themes. RESULTS: Seventeen pharmacists and 22 parents were interviewed. Parents and pharmacists agreed that more information about the side effects of medicines in children was required. Both groups reported willingness to participate in future prospective pharmacovigilance studies, although pharmacists expressed concerns about the lack of financial incentives. Pharmacists reported that parents had concerns regarding the confidentiality of their child's ADR data and the study data collection process. CONCLUSION: This study highlighted positive and negative opinions of parents and pharmacists regarding their experiences in this research project. Maintaining confidentiality in relation to indication and medicines prescribed were important issues for parents whereas time constraints and lack of financial incentives were key issues influencing participation by community pharmacists.

Interventions to Reduce Anticholinergic Burden in Adults Aged 65 and Older: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Older age is associated with multimorbidity and polypharmacy with high anticholinergic burden (ACB). High ACB is linked to adverse events such as poor physical functioning, dementia, cardiovascular disease, and falls. Interventions are needed to reduce this burden. AIMS/OBJECTIVES: The aim was to systematically review the literature to identify and describe studies of clinical and cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce ACB in adults (≥65 years) on polypharmacy regimes, compared with usual care. The objective was to answer the following questions: What are the contents of the interventions? Were these interventions clinically effective? Were these interventions cost effective?. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Systematic review of interventions to reduce anticholinergic burden in adults aged 65 and older in any clinical setting. METHODS: Eligible papers reported primary or secondary research describing any type of intervention including systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, or nonrandomized pre-post intervention studies (PPIs) published in English from January 2010 to February 2019. Databases searched included CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). RESULTS: The search yielded 5862 records. Eight studies (4 RCTs, 4 PPIs) conducted in hospital (4), community (2), nursing homes (1), and retirement villages (1) met the inclusion criteria. Pharmacists, either individually or as part of a team, provided the intervention in the majority of studies (6/8). Most (7/8) involved individual patient medication review followed by feedback to the prescriber. Two of the 4 RCTs and all non-RCTs reported a decrease in ACB following the intervention. No study reported cost outcome. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Pharmacists may be well placed to implement an ACB reduction intervention. This is the first systematic review of interventions to reduce ACB in older adults, and it highlights the need for development and testing of high-quality pragmatic clinical and cost-effectiveness trials in community and specific patient populations at high risk of harm from ACB. [PROSPERO registration: CRD42018089764].

Assessing the transparency of informed consent in feasibility and pilot studies: a single-centre quality assurance study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Pilot/feasibility studies assess the feasibility of conducting a larger study. Although researchers ought to communicate the feasibility objectives to their participants, many research ethics guidelines do not comment on how informed consent applies to pilot studies. It is unclear whether researchers and research ethics boards clearly communicate the purpose of pilot studies to participants consenting.The primary objective of this study is to assess whether pilot/feasibility studies submitted for ethics approval to a research ethics board transparently communicate the purpose of the study to participants through their informed consent practice. A highly transparent consent practice entails the consent documents communicate: (1) the term 'pilot' or 'feasibility' in the title; (2) the definition of a pilot/feasibility study; (3) the primary objectives of the study are to assess feasibility; (4) the specific feasibility objectives; and (5) the criteria for the study to successfully lead to the main study. The secondary objectives are to assess whether there is a difference between submitted and revised versions of the consent documents (revisions are made to obtain research ethics approval), to determine factors associated with transparent consent practices and to assess the consistency with which pilot and feasibility studies assess feasibility outcomes as their primary objectives. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a retrospective review of informed consent information for pilot/feasibility studies submitted to the Hamilton integrated Research Ethics Board, Canada. We will look at submitted and revised consent documents for pilot/feasibility studies submitted over a 14-year period. We will use descriptive statistics to summarise data, reporting results as percentages with 95% CIs, and conduct logistic regression to determine characteristics associated with transparent consent practices. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Hamilton integrated Research Ethics Board, and the results of this study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.