Sun protection policies of Australian primary schools in a region of high sun exposure.

Queensland, Australia has the highest rates of skin cancer globally. Predetermined criteria were used to score the comprehensiveness of sun protection policies (SPP) of primary schools across Queensland. SPP were sought for schools in 10 regions (latitude range 16.3°S-28.1°S) from 2011 to 2014. Of the 723 schools sampled, 90.9% had a written SPP available publicly. Total SPP scores were low {mean 3.6 [95% CI: 3.4-3.9]; median 2 [interquartile range (IQR) 2, 4]}, with only 3.2% of schools achieving the maximum score of 12. Median SPP scores were higher in Northern and Central Queensland [both 2 (IQR 2, 6) and (IQR 2, 5), respectively] than in Southern Queensland [2 (IQR 2, 3); P = 0.004]. Clothing and hat-wearing were addressed in most policies (96% and 89%) while few schools used their SPP to plan outdoor events (5.2%) or reschedule activities to minimize sun exposure (11.7%). The SunSmart Schools program has been operating in Queensland for 17 years, and while most primary schools now have a written SPP, most are not comprehensive. Incentive-based approaches (5-star-rating award scheme and grants) may assist in addressing this issue, to reduce sun exposure of students and teachers. These data provide a baseline from which improvements in the comprehensiveness of school SPPs can be evaluated.

Celecoxib compared with sustained-release paracetamol for osteoarthritis: a series of n-of-1 trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of n-of-1 trials for short-term choice of drugs for osteoarthritis, with particular reference to comparing the efficacy of sustained-release [SR] paracetamol with celecoxib in individual patients. METHODS: Evaluation of community-based patients undergoing n-of-1 trials which consisted of double-blind, crossover comparisons of celecoxib 200 or 400 mg/day with sustained-release paracetamol 1330 mg three times a day in three pairs of 2 week treatment periods per drug with random order of the drugs within pairs. Outcomes evaluated were pain and stiffness in sites nominated by the patient, functional limitation scores, preferred medication, side effects and changes in drug use after an n-of-1 trial. Participants were 59 patients with osteoarthritis in multiple sites (hip 6, knee 24, hand 6, shoulder/neck 8, back 14, foot 5), with pain for >or=1 month severe enough to warrant consideration of long-term use of celecoxib but for whom there was doubt about its efficacy. Forty-one n-of-1 trials were completed. RESULTS: Although on average, celecoxib showed better scores than SR paracetamol [0.2 (0.1) for pain, 0.3 (0.1) for stiffness and 0.3 (0.1) for functional limitation], 33 of the 41 individual patients (80%) failed to identify the differences between SR paracetamol and celecoxib in terms of overall symptom relief. Of the eight patients who were able to identify the differences, seven had better relief with celecoxib and one with SR paracetamol. In 25 out of 41 [61%] patients, subsequent management was consistent with their trial results. CONCLUSIONS: N-of-1 trials may provide a rational and effective method to best choose drugs for individuals with osteoarthritis. SR paracetamol is more useful than celecoxib for most patients of whom management is uncertain.

Valerian does not appear to reduce symptoms for patients with chronic insomnia in general practice using a series of randomised n-of-1 trials.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of valerian for the management of chronic insomnia in general practice. DESIGN: Valerian versus placebo in a series of n-of-1 trials, in Queensland, Australia. RESULTS: Of 42 enrolled patients, 24 (57%) had sufficient data for inclusion into the n-of-1 analysis. Response to valerian was fair for 23 (96%) participants evaluating their "energy level in the previous day" but poor or modest for all 24 (100%) participants' response to "total sleep time" and for 23 (96%) participants' response to "number of night awakenings" and "morning refreshment". As a group, the proportion of treatment successes ranged from 0.35 (95% CI 0.23, 0.47) to 0.55 (95% CI 0.43, 0.67) for the six elicited outcome sleep variables. There was no significant difference in the number (P=0.06), distribution (P=1.00) or severity (P=0.46) of side effects between valerian and placebo treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Valerian was not shown to be appreciably better than placebo in promoting sleep or sleep-related factors for any individual patient or for all patients as a group.

N of 1 trials. Practical tools for medication management.

BACKGROUND: In single patient (n of 1) trials, a patient acts as his or her own control in a study comparing the effectiveness of a drug with placebo or another drug. The aim of a single patient trial (SPT) is to identify the best treatment for the individual patient, formalising a 'trial of treatment' by using blinding and multiple crossover periods. OBJECTIVE: We have successfully piloted SPTs for osteoarthritis and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and several others are currently being piloted. Barriers encountered include: obtaining identical placebos, ethical approval for individual SPTs, standardising doses, determining length of treatment periods, patient withdrawals and cost of the SPTs. DISCUSSION: Only prescribing medications if an individual has been shown to be a responder can greatly benefit general practitioners, patients and the healthcare system. We have established the infrastructure necessary to offer a single patient trial service to GPs and patients anywhere in Australia. This has the potential to revolutionise prescribing for certain chronic conditions.

Preliminary experiences with a single-patient trials service in general practice.

OBJECTIVE: To pilot a single-patient trials (SPTs) service in general practice, designed to improve decision-making about long-term medications for chronic conditions. DESIGN: 12-week within-patient, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover comparison of ibuprofen with paracetamol for osteoarthritis, involving three pairs of two-week treatment periods for each participating patient. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Patients attending an academic general practice with a clinical diagnosis of osteoarthritis, with pain of at least a month's duration severe enough to warrant consideration of long-term non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain and stiffness; measures of overall arthritis compared with previous fortnight; preference for NSAID at the end of each two-week treatment period; use of escape analgesia; side effects; and management changes as a result of the SPTs. RESULTS: Eight of 14 patients completed SPTs. One was a clear responder to NSAIDs, five were non-responders, and two were indefinite. Of the five who were using NSAIDs' before the SPT, two continued and three ceased using them. Clinically useful information assisted decision-making for all eight participants. Medication management changed for six. CONCLUSIONS: Single-patient trials can be successfully implemented in general practice and might be a valuable method for GPs to identify patients who respond to medication for chronic stable conditions such as osteoarthritis, in which individual response to medication is variable.

Managing ADHD in general practice. N of 1 trials can help!

OBJECTIVE: To pilot single patient trials designed to improve decision making about stimulant use for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in general practice. METHOD: Patients previously stabilised on dexamphetamine were enrolled from a general practice. Each undertook a six week same patient randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover comparison of dexamphetamine with placebo for ADHD. Rating scales were completed weekly by self, parent and teacher. RESULTS: Three of the four patients were clear responders to dexamphetamine (including a noncompleter, as his results still demonstrated a clear response). The results were clinically useful in each case. Management was confirmed for three patients and changed for one (who ceased dexamphetamine). DISCUSSION: Prescribing stimulant medications only to children with diagnosed ADHD and who are found to respond, limits use of these worrisome drugs to those who will respond, and minimises their use in those who will not benefit.