An expert consensus definition of failure of a treatment to provide adequate relief (F-PAR) for chronic constipation - an international Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: As treatments for constipation become increasingly available, it is important to know when to progress along the treatment algorithm if the patient is not better. AIM: To establish the definition of failure of a treatment to provide adequate relief (F-PAR) to support this management and referral process in patients with chronic constipation. METHODS: We conducted an international Delphi Survey among gastroenterologists and general practitioners with a special interest in chronic constipation. An initial questionnaire based on recognised rating scales was developed following a focus group. Data were collected from two subsequent rounds of questionnaires completed by all authors. Likert scales were used to establish a consensus on a shorter list of more severe symptoms. RESULTS: The initial focus group yielded a first round questionnaire with 84 statements. There was good consensus on symptom severity and a clear severity response curve, allowing 67 of the symptom-severity pairings to be eliminated. Subsequently, a clear consensus was established on further reduction to eight symptom statements in the final definition, condensed by the steering committee into five diagnostic statements (after replicate statements had been removed). CONCLUSIONS: We present an international consensus on chronic constipation, of five symptoms and their severities, any of which would be sufficient to provide clinical evidence of treatment failure. We also provide data representing an expert calibration of commonly used rating scales, thus allowing results of clinical trials expressed in terms of those scales to be converted into estimates of rates of provision of adequate relief.

Oxfordshire Women and Their Children's Health (OxWATCH): protocol for a prospective cohort feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Some specific pregnancy disorders are known to be associated with increased incidence of long-term maternal ill health (eg, gestational diabetes with late onset type 2 diabetes; pre-eclampsia with arterial disease). To what degree these later health conditions are a consequence of the woman's constitution prior to pregnancy rather than pregnancy itself triggering changes in a woman's health is unknown. Additionally, there is little prospective evidence for the impact of pre-pregnancy risk factors on the outcome of pregnancy. To understand the importance of pre-pregnancy health requires the recruitment of women into a long-term cohort study before their first successful pregnancy. The aim of this feasibility study is to test recruitment procedures and acceptability of participation to inform the planning of a future large-scale cohort study. METHODS: The prospective cohort feasibility study will recruit nulliparous women aged 18-40 years. Women will be asked to complete a questionnaire to assess the acceptability of our recruitment and data collection procedures. Baseline biophysical, genetic, socioeconomic, behavioural and psychological assessments will be conducted and samples of blood, urine, saliva and DNA will be collected. Recruitment feasibility and retention rates will be assessed. Women who become pregnant will be recalled for pregnancy and postpregnancy assessments. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by South Central Portsmouth REC (Ref: 12/SC/0492). The findings from the study will be disseminated through peer reviewed journals, national and international conference presentations and public events. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02419898.

The natural history of headache: predictors of onset and recovery.

The objective of this study was to determine predictors of onset of new headache episodes and recovery from headache over one year. A population-based cohort study was conducted, comprising a baseline postal survey to a random sample of adults aged>or=18 years, with follow-up survey after 1 year. Risk factor data at baseline were compared with headache status at follow-up in two groups: (i) those free of recent headache at baseline and (ii) those with a recent headache at baseline. In respondents free of recent headache at baseline, previous headache [risk ratio (RR) 4.15], the presence of other pain at baseline (RR 1.43), severe sleep problems (RR 1.67) and drinking caffeine (RR 1.99) increased the risk of a new headache episode during the follow-up year. In respondents with recent headache at baseline, less severe headaches at baseline predicted recovery during the follow-up year, as did the absence of anxiety [recovery ratio (ReR) 2.84] and of sleep problems (ReR 2.77). Risks for increased headache-related disability reflected those for onset of a new episode and these risks increased in strength for large increases in disability. Sleep problems and caffeine consumption increase the risk of developing headache and thus provide targets for prevention. Low levels of anxiety, sleep problems and the absence of other pain improve the likelihood of recovering and remaining free from headache.

Advice and care for headaches: who seeks it, who gives it?

Using data from a cross-sectional survey and a prospective record linkage study the aims of this study were to: (i) determine sources of advice and care for headaches in a population survey of adults, and (ii) investigate prospectively the influences of headaches on general practice consultation in a 12-month follow-up of the responders to the population survey. A population based cross-sectional survey was mailed to 4885 adults (aged > or = 18 years) with an adjusted response rate of 56% (n = 2662). The main outcome measures of interest were (i) self-report advice and care-seeking in the survey (ii) consultation with general practitioner for headache and for other conditions in 12-month period subsequent to the survey. Reporting a recent GP consultation for headache was associated with younger age (mean: 46 vs 48 years), female gender (68% vs 60%), and greater headache severity as measured by frequency, pain, and associated disability. The commonest sources of advice and care in the past were GPs (27%), opticians (21%), and pharmacists (8%). Consultations for headache were not common in the 12-months following the survey (n = 144); however, those reporting a recent headache were almost 4 times more likely to consult subsequently with a headache than those not (relative risk; 95% CI: 3.7; 1.9, 7.0). Recent reporting of headache was also associated with an increased risk of consulting for mental disorders (1.7; 1.2, 2.6), diseases of the digestive (1.6; 1.1, 2.3) and respiratory system (1.4; 1.1, 1.8), and a decreased risk of consulting for circulatory diseases (0.8; 0.7, 1.0). Only a minority of headache sufferers consult their GP, regardless of severity, with opticians and pharmacists being other important sources of information. Headache appears to have an additional impact upon GP workload through increased rates of consultations for nonheadache conditions amongst headache sufferers. The interesting findings regarding rates of consultation for digestive and circulatory conditions amongst headache sufferers may be linked to the use of headache medication.

North Staffordshire Headache Survey: development, reliability and validity of a questionnaire for use in a general population survey.

The North Staffordshire Headache Survey aims to measure the effect and impact of headaches, medicine use and healthcare utilization in a general population sample. A self-reporting questionnaire was piloted in a general population sample, with reliability being tested in a sample of pilot responders after one month and validity by comparing pilot responders with primary and secondary care headache consulters. One hundred and twenty-two (61%) responded to the pilot survey, with 56% of items having completion rates of 90% or more, and tests showed good internal consistency (>90%). One-month test-retest data showed good agreement, though questions relating to specific time periods (with partial or no overlap between survey periods) showed expected lower agreement. The headache consulters reported greater frequency, duration and severity of headaches than the population sample suggesting good construct validity. Results from these studies indicate that the questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument to collect data about headaches in the general population.

Epidemiology of headache in an English district.

Headache prevalence, characteristics and impact in adults were measured using a cross-sectional general population survey in North Staffordshire, UK. A postal survey was mailed out to 4885 adults (aged > or = 18 years) with an adjusted response rate of 56% (n = 2662). Of respondents 93% reported headache ever and 70% in the last 3 months. Women and younger people reported higher headache prevalences. Of those reporting headache in the last 3 months, 23% experienced headache at least weekly and 16% experienced severe headache pain. Headaches affected work, home or social activities in 43% of sufferers and 20% reported at least moderate headache-related disability. Higher levels of disability were associated with higher levels of pain, 61% with severe disability reporting severe pain compared with 13% who had mild or moderate disability. In the total adult population sample headache affected more than two-thirds in the last 3 months and 14% of all adults reported headache-related disability of at least moderate level, which translates to a large burden in the general population.

Self reported clinical pharmacist interventions under-estimate their input to patient care.

OBJECTIVE: Pharmacists' impact on individual patient care is difficult to measure especially the contribution made by clinical pharmacy ward visits. This study set out to determine what activities pharmacists actually undertook on a clinical pharmacy ward visit and compare this with the usual method of measuring clinical pharmacist performance, self-reported pharmacist interventions. METHOD: Observational analysis was carried out on 16 pharmacists providing a ward clinical pharmacy service in four acute hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Percentage of pharmacist interventions recorded. RESULTS: A total of 34 wards were visited during the study which included both medical and surgical specialties. Average time spent per patient was less than two minutes for most pharmacists and three-quarters of the pharmacists checked over 80% of patient drug charts. Interventions represented 68% of pharmacist activities on the wards but on questioning the pharmacists reported that they would record only 31% of those interventions. Comparison of the interventions the pharmacists stated they would record with an historical sample of recorded interventions from the four hospitals showed a similar pattern in each intervention category. However, pharmacists were more likely to record interaction type interventions and less likely to record interventions on incomplete/illegal prescriptions, which were regarded as routine practice. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists reported they would record less than one-third of interventions observed. If recorded pharmacist interventions continue to be used the main source of evidence of outputs of clinical pharmacy service, a better way of capturing this data needs to be developed.

The impact of antidepressants on sleep and anxiety: a comparative study of fluoxetine and dothiepin using the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire.

Fluoxetine (20 mg) was compared to dothiepin (150 mg) in a multicentre, prospective, double blind, randomised clinical trial involving 125 patients with major depression treated for an initial phase of 6 weeks and then followed up for a further 6 months. There was no difference in the efficacy of the two drugs based on the results of established rating scales (MADRS, HAM-D, BPRS). The impact of both drugs on sleep measured using the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire showed no significant differences between treatments, however drowsiness and disturbed sleep were reported more frequently as side effects with dothiepin. Symptoms of anxiety responded equally well to both treatments. The short term and long term tolerability of dothiepin was inferior to that of fluoxetine. The place of dothiepin in treatment should be reassessed in the light of its anticholinergic adverse event profile, particularly in the elderly. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.