Testing a faith-placed education intervention for bowel cancer screening in Muslim communities using a two-group non-randomised mixed-methods approach: Feasibility study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Inequalities exist in uptake of bowel cancer screening in England with low uptake in areas with high deprivation and amongst certain ethnic and religious groups. Individuals from these groups are more likely to receive a late diagnosis of bowel cancer. Uptake in Muslim communities, for example, has been shown to be lower than in the general population. Culturally adapted interventions are needed to address these inequalities. This feasibility study aims to assess the acceptability and accessibility of an educational faith-placed bowel cancer screening intervention in the East of England, alongside its impact on bowel screening uptake. It was developed by the British Islamic Medical Association in partnership with community stakeholders and professionals. METHODS: Ethical approval was granted on the 27 October 2021, REC reference number 21/EE/0231. A two-group non-randomised feasibility mixed methods study will be conducted, using surveys, focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Participants eligible for bowel screening will be recruited through local mosques and community venues. We aim to recruit 100 participants to the intervention group and 150 to the comparison group (not receiving the intervention). Intervention group participants will complete a survey at baseline, post-intervention and at six-month follow up. Comparison group participants will complete a survey at baseline and at six-month follow up. Outcomes will include: intention to take up screening; actual screening uptake; knowledge, attitudes, barriers and facilitators towards screening. Regional screening hub records will be used to ascertain actual screening uptake at six-month follow-up. Quantitative survey data will be summarised using descriptive statistics (e.g., proportion), and exploratory univariate analysis will be undertaken (e.g., chi-squared test). Two focus group interviews will be conducted with intervention group participants (with up to 16 participants). Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with 10 clinicians delivering the intervention to explore the acceptability of the intervention, training, and delivery. All qualitative data will be subject to a general inductive analysis. DISCUSSION: The findings will inform how faith-placed interventions can be implemented to increase uptake of bowel cancer screening, and potentially other health promotion programmes, to address health inequalities in ethnically diverse communities in England.

Digitising diabetes education for a safer Ramadan: Design, delivery, and evaluation of massive open online courses in Ramadan-focused diabetes education.

AIMS: Ramadan-focused diabetes education is critical to facilitate safer Ramadan fasting amongst Muslim people living with diabetes. We present the design, delivery, and evaluation of two parallel massive open online courses (MOOCs) in Ramadan-focused diabetes education for people with diabetes and HCPs. METHODS: Two Ramadan-focused diabetes education MOOCs were developed and delivered for Ramadan 2023: one for HCPs in English, and another for people with diabetes in English, Arabic and Malay. A user-centred iterative design process was adopted, informed by user feedback from a 2022 pilot MOOC. Evaluation comprised a mixed-methods evaluation of pre- and post-course user surveys. RESULTS: The platform was utilised by people with diabetes and their family, friends and healthcare professionals. Overall, a total of 1531 users registered for the platform from 50 countries, 809 started a course with a 48% subsequent completion rate among course starters. Qualitative analysis showed users found the course a user-friendly and authoritative information source. In the HCP MOOC, users reported improved post-MOOC Ramadan awareness, associated diabetes knowledge and ability to assess and advise patients in relation to their diabetes during Ramadan (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate the potential of MOOCs to deliver culturally tailored, high-quality, scalable, multilingual Ramadan-focused diabetes education to HCPs and people with diabetes.

Exploration of reasons for primary care testing (the Why Test study): a UK-wide audit using the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive.

BACKGROUND: Rates of blood testing have increased over the past two decades. Reasons for testing cannot easily be extracted from electronic health record databases. AIM: To explore who requests blood tests and why, and what the outcomes of testing are in UK primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective audit of electronic health records in general practices in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland was undertaken. METHOD: Fifty-seven clinicians from the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT) each reviewed the electronic health records of 50 patients who had blood tests in April 2021. Anonymised data were extracted including patient characteristics, who requested the tests, reasons for testing, test results, and outcomes of testing. RESULTS: Data were collected from 2572 patients across 57 GP practices. The commonest reasons for testing in primary care were investigation of symptoms (43.2%), monitoring of existing disease (30.1%), monitoring of existing medications (10.1%), and follow up of previous abnormalities (6.8%); patient requested testing was rare in this study (1.5%). Abnormal and borderline results were common, with 26.6% of patients having completely normal test results. Around one-quarter of tests were thought to be partially or fully unnecessary when reviewed retrospectively by a clinical colleague. Overall, 6.2% of tests in primary care led to a new diagnosis or confirmation of a diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The utilisation of a national collaborative model (PACT) has enabled a unique exploration of the rationale and outcomes of blood testing in primary care, highlighting areas for future research and optimisation.

Early Experience with the Paul Glaucoma Implant in Childhood Glaucoma: A Case Series.

Purpose: The Paul glaucoma implant (PGI, Advanced Ophthalmic Innovations, Singapore, Republic of Singapore) is a recently developed novel non-valved glaucoma drainage device (GDD) designed to effectively reduce the intraocular pressure (IOP) in glaucoma patients with a theoretically reduced risk of postoperative complications such as hypotony, endothelial cell loss, strabismus, and diplopia. Limited literature has evaluated its use in adult glaucoma; however, its use in pediatric glaucoma has not been reported to date. We present our early experience with PGI in refractory childhood glaucoma. Patients and Methods: This study was retrospective single-surgeon case series in a single tertiary center. Results: Three eyes of 3 patients with childhood glaucoma were enrolled in the study. During nine months of follow-up, postoperative IOP and number of glaucoma medications were significantly lower than preoperative values in all the enrolled patients. None of the patients developed postoperative complications including postoperative hypotony, choroidal detachment, endophthalmitis, or corneal decompensation. Conclusion: PGI is an efficient and relatively safe surgical treatment option in patients with refractory childhood glaucoma. Further studies with larger number of participants and longer follow-up period are required to confirm our encouraging results.

Informing the UK Muslim Community on Organ Donation: Evaluating the Effect of a National Public Health Programme by Health Professionals and Faith Leaders.

There is a significant shortage of transplantable organs in the UK particularly from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups, of which Muslims make a large proportion. The British Islamic Medical Association (BIMA) held a nationwide series of community gatherings with the aim of describing the beliefs and attitudes to organ donation amongst British Muslims and evaluate the efficacy of a national public health programme on views and uncertainties regarding religious permissibility and willingness to register. Eight public forums were held across the UK between June 2019 and March 2020 by the British Islamic Medical Association (BIMA). A panel of experts consisting of health professionals and Imams discussed with audiences the procedures, experiences and Islamic ethico-legal rulings on organ donation. Attendees completed a self-administered questionnaire which captured demographic data along with opinions before and after the session regarding religious permissibility and willingness to register given permissibility. A total of 554 respondents across seven UK cities were included with a M:F ratio 1:1.1. Only 45 (8%) respondents were registered as organ donors. Amongst those not registered multiple justifications were detailed, foremost of which was religious uncertainty (73%). Pre-intervention results indicated 50% of respondents were unsure of the permissibility of organ donation in Islam. Of those initially unsure or against permissibility or willingness to register, 72% changed their opinion towards deeming it permissible and 60% towards a willingness to register indicating a significant change in opinion (p < 0.001). The effectiveness of our interventions suggests further education incorporating faith leaders alongside local healthcare professionals to address religious and cultural concerns can reduce uncertainty whilst improving organ donation rates among the Muslim community.

Why Test study protocol: a UK-wide audit using the Primary Care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT) to explore the reasons for primary care testing.

BACKGROUND: The number of blood tests done in primary care has been increasing over the past 20 years. Some estimates suggest that up to one-quarter of these tests may not have been needed. This could lead to a cascade effect of further investigations, appointments, or referrals, as well as anxiety for patients, increased workload, and costs to the health service. To better understand the impact and sequelae of blood tests on patients, it is necessary to know why blood tests are requested and what is done with the results. AIM: To explore who orders blood tests and why, and how test results are actioned in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: Retrospective audit of electronic health records in general practices across the UK. METHOD: The Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT), a UK-wide network of primary care health professionals, will be utilised to collect data from individual practices. PACT members will be asked to review the electronic health records of 50 patients who had recent blood tests in their practice, and manually extract anonymised data on who requested the test, the indication, the result, and subsequent actions. Data will also be collected from PACT members to assess the feasibility of the collaborative model. CONCLUSION: PACT offers a unique opportunity to extract clinical data which cannot otherwise be obtained. Understanding the indications for tests will help identify priority areas for research to optimise testing and patient safety in primary care.

Ramadan fasting: recommendations for patients with cardiovascular disease.

Ramadan fasting is observed by most of the 1.8 billion Muslims around the world. It lasts for 1 month per the lunar calendar year and is the abstention from any food and drink from dawn to sunset. While recommendations on 'safe' fasting exist for patients with some chronic conditions, such as diabetes mellitus, guidance for patients with cardiovascular disease is lacking. We reviewed the literature to help healthcare professionals educate, discuss and manage patients with cardiovascular conditions, who are considering fasting. Studies on the safety of Ramadan fasting in patients with cardiac disease are sparse, observational, of small sample size and have short follow-up. Using expert consensus and a recognised framework, we risk stratified patients into 'low or moderate risk', for example, stable angina or non-severe heart failure; 'high risk', for example, poorly controlled arrhythmias or recent myocardial infarction; and 'very high risk', for example, advanced heart failure. The 'low-moderate risk' group may fast, provided their medications and clinical conditions allow. The 'high' or 'very high risk' groups should not fast and may consider safe alternatives such as non-consecutive fasts or fasting shorter days, for example, during winter. All patients who are fasting should be educated before Ramadan on their risk and management (including the risk of dehydration, fluid overload and terminating the fast if they become unwell) and reviewed after Ramadan to reassess their risk status and condition. Further studies to clarify the benefits and risks of fasting on the cardiovascular system in patients with different cardiovascular conditions should help refine these recommendations.

Effects of fasting on solid organ transplant recipients during Ramadan - a practical guide for healthcare professionals.

Fasting in the month of Ramadan is an obligatory act for healthy adult Muslims. It requires abstinence from food and drink from dawn to sunset. Although there are exemptions from fasting, many patients are keen to fulfil what they see as a religious obligation, even if this may be against medical advice in some cases. Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients often ask healthcare professionals for advice on fasting. Studies on the effect of fasting in transplant patients have all been done in the Middle East and North Africa where the average fasting duration is between 12 and 14 hours. In comparison, in temperate regions in the summer, fasting duration can be as long as 20 hours. Fasting when patients have to take immunosuppression 12 hours apart with little time variation poses unique challenges. In this review, current literature is reviewed, and a decision-making tool has been developed to assist clinicians in discussing the risks of fasting in transplant recipients, with consideration also given to circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic.Our review highlights that SOT recipients wishing to fast should undergo a thorough risk assessment, ideally 3 months before Ramadan. They may require medication changes and a plan for regular monitoring of graft function and electrolytes in order to fast safely. Recommendations have been based on risk tiers (very high risk, high risk and low/moderate risk) established by the International Diabetes Federation and the Diabetes and Ramadan International Alliance. Patients in the 'very high risk' and 'high risk' categories should be encouraged to explore alternative options to fasting such as winter fasting or Fidyah. Those in the 'low/moderate' category may be able to cautiously fast with guidance from their clinician. Prior to the commencement of Ramadan, all patients must receive up-to-date education on sick-day rules, instructions on when to terminate their fast or abstain from fasting.

Effects of fasting on patients with chronic kidney disease during Ramadan and practical guidance for healthcare professionals.

There are an estimated 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, with the majority of them choosing to fast during the month of Ramadan. Fasting, which requires abstinence from food and drink from dawn to sunset can be up to 20 h per day during the summer months in temperate regions. Fasting can be especially challenging in patients on haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. Moreover, there is concern that those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) can experience electrolyte imbalance and worsening of renal function. In this article, current literature is reviewed and a decision-making management tool has been developed to assist clinicians in discussing the risks of fasting in patients with CKD, with consideration also given to circumstances such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Our review highlights that patients with CKD wishing to fast should undergo a thorough risk assessment ideally within a month before Ramadan, as they may require medication changes and a plan for regular monitoring of renal function and electrolytes in order to fast safely. Recommendations have been based on risk tiers (very high risk, high risk and low-moderate risk) established by the International Diabetes Federation and the Diabetes and Ramadan International Alliance. Patients in the very high risk and high risk categories should be encouraged to explore alternative options to fasting, while those in the low-moderate category may be able to fast safely with guidance from their clinician. Prior to the commencement of Ramadan, all patients must receive up-to-date education on sick-day rules and instructions on when to terminate their fast or abstain from fasting.

Changing how we risk-categorise in Ramadan: Does the IDF-DAR scoring system achieve the requirements for people with diabetes internationally?

The IDF-DAR guidance was most recently updated this year. The most notable change is the moving to a scoring system from a tabulated risk categorization to determine and classify the risk of harm from fasting derived from an online survey. This change may be appealing and is welcomed. However, such a system and the methodology underpinning it is not without limitations. This commentary highlights some of these limitations and the associated limited safe options available to individuals with diabetes desiring to fast during Ramadan. Overlooked clinical considerations that deserve formal recognition include the role of technology (aspects relating to glucose monitoring and/or insulin delivery) and previous experience of safe Ramadan fasting. Further, duration of fast (which can almost double in temperate regions from winter to summer) needs greater emphasis. We also advocate separate scoring systems for people with type 1 diabetes and complex type 2 diabetes. The guidance acknowledges fasting is an individual's decision, however the general message needs to be more person-centred and currently only presents a binary approach to fasting - all or nothing choices. We propose and discuss addition options including, trial fasting of voluntary fasts, starting the fast and terminating due to health and/or safety, intermittent fasting and winter fasting.