Placing the patient at the centre of chronic wound care: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic wounds are a major health burden and have a severe impact on well-being. This synthesis of qualitative studies was undertaken to inform a health technology assessment of antimicrobial wound dressings. It aimed to explore patients' experiences of chronic wounds and determine improvements for clinical practice. METHOD: Inclusion criteria included use of qualitative methods, and English language publication. Databases searched included MEDLINE (Ovid), MEDLINE in Process (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOHost), and PsychInfo (EBSCOHost). Searches were limited to 1990-2014. The method of analysis was Framework synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies were included. The synthesis confirmed the severe physical, social and psychological impact of the chronic wound. Inadequately controlled pain and sleeplessness, restrictions to lifestyle, and the loss of previous life roles can lead to feelings of hopelessness and helplessness and therefore depression and anxiety. Dressings and dressing changes are a key aspect of treatment and provide opportunities for positive interaction and person centred-care. CONCLUSION: People with chronic wounds can be supported to live well within the severe physical, psychological and social restrictions of a chronic wound. Effective clinical pain management and the recognition of the experience of acute and chronic pain are of the utmost importance to people with a chronic wound. Treatment should not be purely focused on healing but incorporate symptom management, coping and wellbeing via person-centred and holistic care.

Patient and public attitudes to and awareness of clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review with thematic and narrative syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are typically written for healthcare providers but there is increasing interest in producing versions for the public, patients and carers. The main objective of this review is to identify and synthesise evidence of the public's attitudes towards clinical practice guidelines and evidence-based recommendations written for providers or the public, together with their awareness of guidelines. METHODS: We included quantitative and qualitative studies of any design reporting on public, patient (and their carers) attitudes and awareness of guidelines written for providers or patients/public. We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, ERIC, ASSIA and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2012. We also searched relevant websites, reviewed citations and contacted experts in the field. At least two authors independently screened, abstracted data and assessed the quality of studies. We conducted a thematic analysis of first and second order themes and performed a separate narrative synthesis of patient and public awareness of guidelines. RESULTS: We reviewed 5415 records and included 26 studies (10 qualitative studies, 13 cross sectional and 3 randomised controlled trials) involving 24 887 individuals. Studies were mostly good to fair quality. The thematic analysis resulted in four overarching themes: Applicability of guidelines; Purpose of guidelines for patient; Purpose of guidelines for health care system and physician; and Properties of guidelines. Overall, participants had mixed attitudes towards guidelines; some participants found them empowering but many saw them as a way of rationing care. Patients were also concerned that the information may not apply to their own health care situations. Awareness of guidelines ranged from 0-79%, with greater awareness in participants surveyed on national guideline websites. CONCLUSION: There are many factors, not only formatting, that may affect the uptake and use of guideline-derived material by the public. Producers need to make clear how the information is relevant to the reader and how it can be used to make healthcare improvements although there were problems with data quality. Awareness of guidelines is generally low and guideline producers cannot assume that the public has a more positive perception of their material than of alternative sources of health information.

Choosing and using methodological search filters: searchers' views.

BACKGROUND: Search filters or hedges are search strategies developed to assist information specialists and librarians to retrieve different types of evidence from bibliographic databases. The objectives of this project were to learn about searchers' filter use, how searchers choose search filters and what information they would like to receive to inform their choices. METHODS: Interviews with information specialists working in, or for, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) were conducted. An online questionnaire survey was also conducted and advertised via a range of email lists. RESULTS: Sixteen interviews were undertaken and 90 completed questionnaires were received. The use of search filters tends to be linked to reducing a large amount of literature, introducing focus and assisting with searches that are based on a single study type. Respondents use numerous ways to identify search filters and can find choosing between different filters problematic because of knowledge gaps and lack of time. CONCLUSIONS: Search filters are used mainly for reducing large result sets (introducing focus) and assisting with searches focused on a single study type. Features that would help with choosing filters include making information about filters less technical, offering ratings and providing more detail about filter validation strategies and filter provenance.

Experiences of living with long COVID and of accessing healthcare services: a qualitative systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of people living with long COVID and how they perceive the healthcare services available to them. DESIGN: Qualitative systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Electronic literature searches of websites, bibliographic databases and discussion forums, including PubMed LitCovid, Proquest COVID, EPPI Centre living systematic map of evidence, medRxiv, bioRxiv, Medline, Psychinfo and Web of Science Core Collection were conducted to identify qualitative literature published in English up to 13 January 2021. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Papers reporting qualitative or mixed-methods studies that focused on the experiences of long COVID and/or perceptions of accessing healthcare by people with long COVID. Title/abstract and full-text screening were conducted by two reviewers independently, with conflicts resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. QUALITY APPRAISAL: Two reviewers independently appraised included studies using the qualitative CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) checklist. Conflicts were resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Thematic synthesis, involving line-by-line reading, generation of concepts, descriptive and analytical themes, was conducted by the review team with regular discussion. RESULTS: Five studies published in 2020 met the inclusion criteria, two international surveys and three qualitative studies from the UK. Sample sizes varied from 24 (interview study) to 3762 (survey). Participants were predominantly young white females recruited from social media or online support groups. Three analytical themes were generated: (1) symptoms and self-directed management of long COVID; (2) emotional aspects of living with long COVID and (3) healthcare experiences associated with long COVID. CONCLUSIONS: People experience long COVID as a heterogeneous condition, with a variety of physical and emotional consequences. It appears that greater knowledge of long COVID is required by a number of stakeholders and that the design of emerging long COVID services or adaptation of existing services for long COVID patients should take account of patients' experiences in their design.

Safety and efficacy of de-labelling penicillin allergy in adults using direct oral challenge: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% of people have an unverified penicillin allergy, with multiple personal and public health consequences. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of direct oral challenge, without prior skin testing, in this population. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar were searched from inception to 28 June 2020 (updated November 2020) to find published and unpublished studies that reported direct oral challenge for the purpose of removal of penicillin allergy labels. Population weighted mean was used to calculate the proportion of patients who developed an immediate or delayed reaction to direct oral challenge across the studies. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in the review, with a sample size of 1202 (range 7-328). Studies included inpatient and outpatient cohorts assessed as low risk for true allergy. In pooled analysis of all 13 studies there were 41/1202 (3.41%) mild immediate or delayed reactions to direct oral challenge. The population-weighted mean incidence of immediate or delayed reaction to an oral challenge across studies was also 3.41% (95% CI: 2.38%-4.43%). There were no reports of serious adverse reactions, 96.5% of patients could be de-labelled and many were subsequently successfully treated with penicillin. CONCLUSIONS: Direct oral challenge is safe and effective for de-labelling patients assessed as low risk for true allergy. Non-specialist clinicians competent in using an assessment algorithm can offer evaluation of penicillin allergy labels using direct oral challenge in appropriate patients. These measures will facilitate optimal infection treatment for patients, support antimicrobial stewardship, and minimize antimicrobial resistance.

Assessing the performance of methodological search filters to improve the efficiency of evidence information retrieval: five literature reviews and a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Effective study identification is essential for conducting health research, developing clinical guidance and health policy and supporting health-care decision-making. Methodological search filters (combinations of search terms to capture a specific study design) can assist in searching to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: This project investigated the methods used to assess the performance of methodological search filters, the information that searchers require when choosing search filters and how that information could be better provided. METHODS: Five literature reviews were undertaken in 2010/11: search filter development and testing; comparison of search filters; decision-making in choosing search filters; diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) study methods; and decision-making in choosing diagnostic tests. We conducted interviews and a questionnaire with experienced searchers to learn what information assists in the choice of search filters and how filters are used. These investigations informed the development of various approaches to gathering and reporting search filter performance data. We acknowledge that there has been a regrettable delay between carrying out the project, including the searches, and the publication of this report, because of serious illness of the principal investigator. RESULTS: The development of filters most frequently involved using a reference standard derived from hand-searching journals. Most filters were validated internally only. Reporting of methods was generally poor. Sensitivity, precision and specificity were the most commonly reported performance measures and were presented in tables. Aspects of DTA study methods are applicable to search filters, particularly in the development of the reference standard. There is limited evidence on how clinicians choose between diagnostic tests. No published literature was found on how searchers select filters. Interviewing and questioning searchers via a questionnaire found that filters were not appropriate for all tasks but were predominantly used to reduce large numbers of retrieved records and to introduce focus. The Inter Technology Appraisal Support Collaboration (InterTASC) Information Specialists' Sub-Group (ISSG) Search Filters Resource was most frequently mentioned by both groups as the resource consulted to select a filter. Randomised controlled trial (RCT) and systematic review filters, in particular the Cochrane RCT and the McMaster Hedges filters, were most frequently mentioned. The majority indicated that they used different filters depending on the requirement for sensitivity or precision. Over half of the respondents used the filters available in databases. Interviewees used various approaches when using and adapting search filters. Respondents suggested that the main factors that would make choosing a filter easier were the availability of critical appraisals and more detailed performance information. Provenance and having the filter available in a central storage location were also important. LIMITATIONS: The questionnaire could have been shorter and could have included more multiple choice questions, and the reviews of filter performance focused on only four study designs. CONCLUSIONS: Search filter studies should use a representative reference standard and explicitly report methods and results. Performance measures should be presented systematically and clearly. Searchers find filters useful in certain circumstances but expressed a need for more user-friendly performance information to aid filter choice. We suggest approaches to use, adapt and report search filter performance. Future work could include research around search filters and performance measures for study designs not addressed here, exploration of alternative methods of displaying performance results and numerical synthesis of performance comparison results. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and Medical Research Council-NIHR Methodology Research Programme (grant number G0901496).