Stakeholders' views of recurrent sore throat, tonsillitis and their management: a qualitative interview study for the NAtional Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults (NATTINA Part 1).

OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of recurrent sore throats and tonsillitis in adults and stakeholder views of treatment pathways. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interview design reporting novel data from a feasibility study for a UK national trial of tonsillectomy in adults. SETTING: Nine study sites linked to ear, nose and throat departments in National Health Service hospitals located across the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen patients, 11 general practitioners and 22 ear, nose and throat staff consented to in-depth interviews, which were analysed using a framework analysis approach. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Views of stakeholder groups. RESULTS: Recurrent sore throats were reported to severely impact patients' family, work and social life. Ear, nose and throat staff stated that patients faced increasing barriers to secondary care service access. General practitioners were under pressure to reduce 'limited clinical value' surgical procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study suggest that there is a disconnect between the attitudes of the stakeholders and the reality of recurrent sore throat, tonsillectomy procedures and service provision. More evidence for the role of tonsillectomy is needed from randomised controlled trials to determine whether it should continue to be ranked as a procedure of limited clinical effectiveness.

'Thinking that somebody's going to delay [a tonsillectomy] for one to two years is quite horrifying really': a qualitative feasibility study for the NAtional Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults (NATTINA Part 2).

OBJECTIVES: Level one evidence on the value of adult tonsillectomy versus non-surgical management remains scarce. Before embarking on a costly national randomised controlled trial, it is essential to establish its feasibility. DESIGN: Feasibility study with in-depth qualitative and cognitive interviews. SETTING: ENT staff and patients were recruited from nine hospital centres across England and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who were referred for tonsillectomy (n = 15), a convenience sample of general practitioners (n = 11) and ear, nose and throat staff (n = 22). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To ascertain whether ear, nose and throat staff would be willing to randomise patients to the treatment arms. To assess general practitioners' willingness to refer patients to the NAtional Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults (NATTINA) centres. To assess patients' willingness to be randomised and the acceptability of the deferred surgery treatment arm. To ascertain whether the study could progress to the pilot trial stage. RESULTS: Ear, nose and throat staff and general practitioners were willing to randomise patients to the proposed NATTINA. Not all ENT staff were in equipoise concerning the treatment pathways. Patients were reluctant to be randomised into the deferred surgery group if they had already waited a substantial time before being referred. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the NATTINA may not be feasible. Proposed methods could not be realistically assessed without a pilot trial. Due to the importance of the question, as evidenced by NATTINA clinicians, and strong support from ENT staff, the pilot trial proceeded, with modifications.

'So much post, so busy with practice--so, no time!': a telephone survey of general practitioners' reasons for not participating in postal questionnaire surveys.

BACKGROUND: Response rates by general practitioners (GPs) to postal surveys have consistently fallen, compromising the validity of this type of research. If postal survey work is to continue we need to understand GPs' reasons for not participating and respond appropriately. AIM: To investigate GPs' reasons for not responding to postal surveys. METHOD: A qualitative study was carried out to determine GPs reasons for not participating in postal surveys, which were drawn from a telephone survey of 276 non-responders to a postal questionnaire survey. Practitioners' comments were recorded and reasons for their non-response quantified using content analysis. RESULTS: Primary reasons for GPs not replying to the postal survey were that questionnaires had got lost in paperwork (34%), that GPs were too busy for the extra work involved (21%), and that questionnaires were routinely 'binned' (16%). Higher practice workloads, including increased administration, meant that participation in research had become a low priority. GPs provided some suggestions for researchers that would increase their chances of questionnaires being returned. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers need to be aware of the pressures of service general practice and to rationalize the amount of research material sent to GPs. GPs were most likely to respond to postal surveys that had a high interest factor, that involved localized research relevant to general practice, and that incorporated a personalized approach by researchers, including good-quality explanatory information.