Analysis of Patient-Provider Interactions Regarding the Burden and Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Adults with Chronic Noncancer Pain.

OBJECTIVE: This analysis of patient-health care provider discussions of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) evaluated the dynamics of interactions, identified communication gaps, and assessed the functional burden of opioid-induced constipation on patients' lives. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant database of >120,000 patient-provider conversations. SETTING: Outpatient offices in the United States. METHODS: Conversations between providers and patients prescribed opioids that occurred in the United States (January 2014-May 2016) and included a discussion of opioid-induced constipation were identified. Demographics and prespecified opioid-induced constipation conversation characteristics were evaluated for these conversations. RESULTS: This analysis included 216 patient-provider discussions. Most patients (76.4% [165/216]) were ≥50 years old. Most conversations were with pain management specialists (39.8% [86/216]) or primary care physicians (36.6% [79/216]). Overall, 64.4% (139/216) of patients reported experiencing symptoms of constipation. Health care providers indicated that symptoms of constipation could be caused by opioid use for 75.5% (105/139) of patients with constipation. In most cases (82.4% [178/216]), providers did not probe about specific constipation symptoms. Few patients (11.5% [16/139]) with OIC discussed the burden of OIC with their providers; burdens reported by patients with OIC included emergency room visits and reduced food or fluid intake. No specific action was recommended for 33.8% (47/139) of patients with constipation. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, when opioid-induced constipation was discussed, health care providers did not inquire about specific symptoms for most patients, opioids were not cited as a cause of constipation in approximately one-quarter of patients with opioid-induced constipation, and no clear treatment plan or guidance was recommended for one-third of patients. Results of this analysis suggest that more education may be needed to improve patient-provider communication about opioid-induced constipation.

Making waves: Promoting municipal water reuse without a prevailing scarcity driver.

The wealth of water reuse research in scarcity and/or rapid urbanisation contexts has underpinned significant change in many relatively water scarce contexts. Less progress has been achieved in water rich contexts; a fact illustrated by the lack of change on the ground. The Climate Emergency demands that all municipalities urgently contribute to more efficient resource management of water. Consequently, to advance municipal scale reuse projects in locations where scarcity is not forcing the issue, for example Scotland, there is a need to predicate water reuse on different drivers, specifically climate change and the circular economy. Moreover, greater contextual sensitivity needs to be applied when exploring barriers to reuse to more critically exploit opportunities, for example avenues to reform complex regulatory frameworks, different contingencies around trust, and different potential degrees of the yuck factor. To achieve this, new initiatives need to be urgently undertaken to consider the barriers to reuse that will not be swept aside by the imperative of  scarcity. The notion of a yum factor, whereby positive sentiments are nurtured to combat instinctive repugnance, coined as yuck by the bioethicist Arthur Caplan, is advanced as a strategic objective to promote more rapid expansion of municipal scale reuse.

Optimizing language for effective communication of gene therapy concepts with hemophilia patients: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: For communities of people living with hemophilia and other genetic conditions, gene therapy could represent a paradigm shift in treatment strategies. As investigational therapeutic modalities such as gene therapy become more widely used and discussed, there is a critical need for all stakeholders to communicate using a lexicon that is intelligible, accurate, consistent, and representative of novel treatments. In doing so, expectations can be more carefully managed and potential risks, benefits, and limitations better understood. In recognition of this need, a first-ever study of gene therapy lexicon was conducted using established methods of market research and linguistic analysis. METHODS: Ninety-four participants representing hematologists, nurses, caregivers, and people with hemophilia A, in six countries (US, UK, Spain, Germany, France, Italy) took part in a series of in-depth interviews, face-to-face focus groups, an advisory board meeting, and online group interviews to develop, refine, and test verbal, written, and pictorial language concepts through a three-phase iterative process. Sessions were conducted in local languages using detailed discussion guides. Feedback from participants was captured using real-time instant-response dial testing to measure moment-by-moment emotional responses to language stimuli. Semiquantitative analysis of the responses informed selection of preferred language concepts for final testing, and qualitative discussion explored preference rationale. Participants also completed polling and forced rank and choice written exercises. RESULTS: Study feedback showed that the hemophilia community has preferences around consistent lexicon to describe hemophilia and its management. Expert linguistic analysis of feedback from the three phases enabled agreement of a consensus lexicon of vocabulary and an optimized summary narrative for talking about gene therapy amongst people affected by hemophilia A. Preferences were largely consistent across audiences and countries, although some country-specific recommendations were made. A representative summary phrase was agreed: "Gene therapy is being studied in clinical trials with the aim to allow the body to produce factor VIII protein on its own". CONCLUSIONS: The use of preferred language across different stakeholders increases understanding and comfort during discussions of novel and complex therapeutic modalities such as gene therapy. Consistent use of community-informed lexicon minimizes miscommunication and facilitates informed decision-making regarding potential future treatment opportunities.

Protecting and restoring Europe's waters: An analysis of the future development needs of the Water Framework Directive.

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is a pioneering piece of legislation that aims to protect and enhance aquatic ecosystems and promote sustainable water use across Europe. There is growing concern that the objective of good status, or higher, in all EU waters by 2027 is a long way from being achieved in many countries. Through questionnaire analysis of almost 100 experts, we provide recommendations to enhance WFD monitoring and assessment systems, improve programmes of measures and further integrate with other sectoral policies. Our analysis highlights that there is great potential to enhance assessment schemes through strategic design of monitoring networks and innovation, such as earth observation. New diagnostic tools that use existing WFD monitoring data, but incorporate novel statistical and trait-based approaches could be used more widely to diagnose the cause of deterioration under conditions of multiple pressures and deliver a hierarchy of solutions for more evidence-driven decisions in river basin management. There is also a growing recognition that measures undertaken in river basin management should deliver multiple benefits across sectors, such as reduced flood risk, and there needs to be robust demonstration studies that evaluate these. Continued efforts in 'mainstreaming' water policy into other policy sectors is clearly needed to deliver wider success with WFD goals, particularly with agricultural policy. Other key policy areas where a need for stronger integration with water policy was recognised included urban planning (waste water treatment), flooding, climate and energy (hydropower). Having a deadline for attaining the policy objective of good status is important, but even more essential is to have a permanent framework for river basin management that addresses the delays in implementation of measures. This requires a long-term perspective, far beyond the current deadline of 2027.