Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings.

BACKGROUND: Many people with chronic disease have more than one chronic condition, which is referred to as multimorbidity. The term comorbidity is also used but this is now taken to mean that there is a defined index condition with other linked conditions, for example diabetes and cardiovascular disease. It is also used when there are combinations of defined conditions that commonly co-exist, for example diabetes and depression. While this is not a new phenomenon, there is greater recognition of its impact and the importance of improving outcomes for individuals affected. Research in the area to date has focused mainly on descriptive epidemiology and impact assessment. There has been limited exploration of the effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of health-service or patient-oriented interventions designed to improve outcomes in people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and seven other databases to 28 September 2015. We also searched grey literature and consulted experts in the field for completed or ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised clinical trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual. This includes studies where participants can have combinations of any condition or have combinations of pre-specified common conditions (comorbidity), for example, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. The comparison was usual care as delivered in that setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality, and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of the results where possible and carried out a narrative synthesis for the remainder of the results. We present the results in a 'Summary of findings' table and tabular format to show effect sizes across all outcome types. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 17 RCTs examining a range of complex interventions for people with multimorbidity. Nine studies focused on defined comorbid conditions with an emphasis on depression, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The remaining studies focused on multimorbidity, generally in older people. In 11 studies, the predominant intervention element was a change to the organisation of care delivery, usually through case management or enhanced multidisciplinary team work. In six studies, the interventions were predominantly patient-oriented, for example, educational or self-management support-type interventions delivered directly to participants. Overall our confidence in the results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from low to high certainty. There was little or no difference in clinical outcomes (based on moderate certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved (based on high certainty evidence) and there were modest reductions in mean depression scores for the comorbidity studies that targeted participants with depression (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.63 to -0.2). There was probably a small improvement in patient-reported outcomes (moderate certainty evidence). The intervention may make little or no difference to health service use (low certainty evidence), may slightly improve medication adherence (low certainty evidence), probably slightly improves patient-related health behaviours (moderate certainty evidence), and probably improves provider behaviour in terms of prescribing behaviour and quality of care (moderate certainty evidence). Cost data were limited. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies the emerging evidence to support policy for the management of people with multimorbidity and common comorbidities in primary care and community settings. There are remaining uncertainties about the effectiveness of interventions for people with multimorbidity in general due to the relatively small number of RCTs conducted in this area to date, with mixed findings overall. It is possible that the findings may change with the inclusion of large ongoing well-organised trials in future updates. The results suggest an improvement in health outcomes if interventions can be targeted at risk factors such as depression in people with co-morbidity.

Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions.

BACKGROUND: Shared care has been used in the management of many chronic conditions with the assumption that it delivers better care than primary or specialty care alone; however, little is known about the effectiveness of shared care. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of shared care health service interventions designed to improve the management of chronic disease across the primary/specialty care interface. This is an update of a previously published review.Secondary questions include the following:1. Which shared care interventions or portions of shared care interventions are most effective?2. What do the most effective systems have in common? SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library to 12 October 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: One review author performed the initial abstract screen; then two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating the effectiveness of shared care interventions for people with chronic conditions in primary care and community settings. The intervention was compared with usual care in that setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of results when possible and carried out a narrative synthesis of the remainder of the results. We presented the results in a 'Summary of findings' table, using a tabular format to show effect sizes for all outcome types. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 42 studies of shared care interventions for chronic disease management (N = 18,859), 39 of which were RCTs, two CBAs and one an NRCT. Of these 42 studies, 41 examined complex multi-faceted interventions and lasted from six to 24 months. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from moderate to high certainty. Results showed probably few or no differences in clinical outcomes overall with a tendency towards improved blood pressure management in the small number of studies on shared care for hypertension, chronic kidney disease and stroke (mean difference (MD) 3.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.68 to 5.25)(based on moderate-certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved, particularly in response to depression treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.62; six studies, N = 1708) and recovery from depression (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.57 to 4.26; 10 studies, N = 4482) in studies examining the 'stepped care' design of shared care interventions (based on high-certainty evidence). Investigators noted modest effects on mean depression scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.29, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.20; six studies, N = 3250). Differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), processes of care and participation and default rates in shared care services were probably limited (based on moderate-certainty evidence). Studies probably showed little or no difference in hospital admissions, service utilisation and patient health behaviours (with evidence of moderate certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that shared care improves depression outcomes and probably has mixed or limited effects on other outcomes. Methodological shortcomings, particularly inadequate length of follow-up, may account in part for these limited effects. Review findings support the growing evidence base for shared care in the management of depression, particularly stepped care models of shared care. Shared care interventions for other conditions should be developed within research settings, with account taken of the complexity of such interventions and awareness of the need to carry out longer studies to test effectiveness and sustainability over time.

Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings.

BACKGROUND: Many people with chronic disease have more than one chronic condition, which is referred to as multimorbidity. The term comorbidity is also used but this is now taken to mean that there is a defined index condition with other linked conditions, for example diabetes and cardiovascular disease. It is also used when there are combinations of defined conditions that commonly co-exist, for example diabetes and depression. While this is not a new phenomenon, there is greater recognition of its impact and the importance of improving outcomes for individuals affected. Research in the area to date has focused mainly on descriptive epidemiology and impact assessment. There has been limited exploration of the effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of health-service or patient-oriented interventions designed to improve outcomes in people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and seven other databases to 28 September 2015. We also searched grey literature and consulted experts in the field for completed or ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised clinical trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual. This includes studies where participants can have combinations of any condition or have combinations of pre-specified common conditions (comorbidity), for example, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. The comparison was usual care as delivered in that setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality, and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of the results where possible and carried out a narrative synthesis for the remainder of the results. We present the results in a 'Summary of findings' table and tabular format to show effect sizes across all outcome types. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18 RCTs examining a range of complex interventions for people with multimorbidity. Nine studies focused on defined comorbid conditions with an emphasis on depression, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The remaining studies focused on multimorbidity, generally in older people. In 12 studies, the predominant intervention element was a change to the organisation of care delivery, usually through case management or enhanced multidisciplinary team work. In six studies, the interventions were predominantly patient-oriented, for example, educational or self-management support-type interventions delivered directly to participants. Overall our confidence in the results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from low to high certainty. There was little or no difference in clinical outcomes (based on moderate certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved (based on high certainty evidence) and there were modest reductions in mean depression scores for the comorbidity studies that targeted participants with depression (standardized mean difference (SMD) -2.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.52 to -1.95). There was probably a small improvement in patient-reported outcomes (moderate certainty evidence) although two studies that specifically targeted functional difficulties in participants had positive effects on functional outcomes with one of these studies also reporting a reduction in mortality at four year follow-up (Int 6%, Con 13%, absolute difference 7%). The intervention may make little or no difference to health service use (low certainty evidence), may slightly improve medication adherence (low certainty evidence), probably slightly improves patient-related health behaviours (moderate certainty evidence), and probably improves provider behaviour in terms of prescribing behaviour and quality of care (moderate certainty evidence). Cost data were limited. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies the emerging evidence to support policy for the management of people with multimorbidity and common comorbidities in primary care and community settings. There are remaining uncertainties about the effectiveness of interventions for people with multimorbidity in general due to the relatively small number of RCTs conducted in this area to date, with mixed findings overall. It is possible that the findings may change with the inclusion of large ongoing well-organised trials in future updates. The results suggest an improvement in health outcomes if interventions can be targeted at risk factors such as depression, or specific functional difficulties in people with multimorbidity.

An analytic observational study on complaints management in the general practice out of hours care setting: who complains, why, and what can we do about it?

BACKGROUND: General Practice Co-Operatives provide most out of hours care in communities in Ireland. Limited data exists on patient complaints. This study reports on complaints at Kildare and West Wicklow Doctors on Call ('K Doc'), a GP Co-Operative in Ireland, examining the impact of a formal risk reduction strategy implemented (2010-2013). The aim of the study was to determine if it was possible to reduce the rate of written complaints per 1000 consultations through a formal approach encompassing evaluation of complaints, improved communication in relation to complaints, and more direct use of insights gained from complaints analysis in continuing professional development at the Co-Operative. METHODS: Initially, complaints submitted over an 18 month period (01.06.08 to 31.12.09) were analysed. Complaint rate (number of complaints per 1000 consultations), complainant demographics, aspects of complaint response at the Co-Operative, and nature of complaint were recorded. Based on analysis, a risk reduction strategy was undertaken, including procedural change, focused training and education. Areas selected for improvement during a second phase of data collection included complaints rate, timeliness of Co-Operative response to complaint, and rate of complaint notification to patient's GP. Further analysis was then carried out over a 45 month period (01.01.10 to 30.09.13). RESULTS: From 2008-2013, 216,716 patient consultations occurred. Complaints were received from 131 individuals, regarding 125 patients. Following introduction of risk reduction strategy, complaints rate reduced by 36 %, from 0.77 to 0.49 per 1000 consultations (p = 0.02) between the two periods of data collection. Timeliness of response from Co-Operative to the complainant improved from 63 % to 75 %. Notification of complaint to the patient's GP improved from 48 % to 96 %. Most complaints were not associated with medically significant events. The largest categories of complaint related to clinical care (55 % n = 69), cost (46 %, n = 58), communication (42 %, n = 53), and process of care (15 %, n = 19). Mothers of affluent paediatric patients were most likely to make formal complaints. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports a statistically significant reduction in complaints rate of 36 % following introduction of risk reduction strategies at a GP Co -Operative. Out of hours consulting is known to be an area of high medical risk. Findings are of interest where number and costs of complaints against GPs are elsewhere reported to be rising, contributing to medical inflation, and to public concern.

Weight, body image and bullying in 9-year-old children.

AIM: To explore the association between weight and bullying; considering victims and perpetrators as two aspects of bullying, and subjective perception and objective measurement as two aspects of weight. METHODS: This study is based on the first wave of data collection from Growing Up in Ireland - the National Longitudinal Study of Children. The two-stage sample design included a sample of 910 primary schools in Ireland, from which a sample of 8568 nine-year-old children and their families was randomly selected. Analysis is based on statistically reweighted data to ensure that it is representative of all 9-year-olds in Ireland. RESULTS: Significantly (P < 0.001) more girls were overweight or obese (33.1%: 23.1% overweight and 10% obese) than boys (25.2%: 18.3% and 6.9%). Children who were body mass index (BMI) classified as overweight or obese were significantly (P < 0.001) more likely to be victimised when compared with children whose BMI was not classified as overweight or obese. BMI-classified thinness was not significantly associated with victimisation; however, the body image of being skinny or very skinny was significantly (P = 0.015) associated with being victimised. Bullying perpetration was not associated with BMI-derived weight classification but was significantly (P < 0.001) associated with the child's own self-description of weight. CONCLUSIONS: Overall body image was found to have a stronger association with victimisation and bullying perpetration than objective BMI-derived weight classification. Further research investigating the mediating role of body image in the relationship between weight, victimisation and bullying is necessary to better understand this association.

Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings.

BACKGROUND: Many people with chronic disease have more than one chronic condition, which is referred to as multimorbidity. While this is not a new phenomenon, there is greater recognition of its impact and the importance of improving outcomes for individuals affected. Research in the area to date has focused mainly on descriptive epidemiology and impact assessment. There has been limited exploration of the effectiveness of interventions for multimorbidity. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CAB Health, AMED, HealthStar, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the EPOC Register and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), and the EPOC Register in April 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) reporting on interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. The outcomes included any validated measure of physical or mental health, psychosocial status including quality of life outcomes, well-being, and measures of disability or functional status. We also included measures of patient and provider behaviour including measures of medication adherence, utilisation of health services, and acceptability of services and costs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed study quality. Meta-analysis of results was not possible so we carried out a narrative synthesis of the results from the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies examining a range of complex interventions for patients with multimorbidity were identified. All were RCTs and there was low risk of bias. Two of the nine studies focused on specific co-morbidities. The remaining studies focused on multimorbidity, generally in older patients. All studies involved complex interventions with multiple elements. In six of the ten studies, the predominant intervention element was a change to the organisation of care delivery, usually through case management or enhanced multidisciplinary team work. In the remaining four studies, the interventions were predominantly patient oriented. Overall the results were mixed with a trend towards improved prescribing and medication adherence. The results indicate that it is difficult to improve outcomes in this population but that interventions focusing on particular risk factors or functional difficulties in patients with co-morbid conditions or multimorbidity may be more effective. Cost data were limited with no economic analyses included, though the improvements in prescribing and risk factor management in some studies provided potentially significant cost savings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the paucity of research into interventions to improve outcomes for multimorbidity with the focus to date being on co-morbid conditions or multimorbidity in older patients. The limited results suggest that interventions to date have had mixed effects but have shown a tendency to improve prescribing and medication adherence, particularly if interventions can be targeted at risk factors or specific functional difficulties in people with co-morbid conditions or multimorbidity. There is a need for clear definitions of participants, consideration of appropriate outcomes, and further pragmatic studies based in primary care settings.

Cost effectiveness of peer support for type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to examine the cost-effectiveness of a group-based peer support intervention in general practice for patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Incremental cost utility analysis combining within trial and beyond trial components to compare the lifetime costs and benefits of alternative strategies: CONTROL: standardized diabetes care; INTERVENTION: group-based peer support in addition to standardized diabetes care. Within trial analysis was based on a cluster randomized controlled trial of 395 patients with type 2 diabetes in the east of Ireland. Beyond trial analysis was conducted using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model. Uncertainty was explored using a range of sensitivity analyses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated. RESULTS: Compared with the control strategy, the intervention was associated with an increase of 0.09 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], -0.05 to 0.25) in mean quality-adjusted life-years per patient and savings of €637.43 (95 percent CI, -2455.19 to 1125.45) in mean healthcare cost per patient and €623.39 (95 percent CI, -2507.98 to 1298.49) in mean total cost per patient respectively. The likelihood of the intervention being cost-effective was appreciably higher than 80 percent for a range of potential willingness-to-pay cost-effectiveness thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that while a group-based peer support intervention shows a trend toward improved risk factor management, we found no significant differences in final cost or effectiveness endpoints between intervention and control. The probabilistic results suggest that the intervention was more cost-effective, with probability values of higher than 80 percent across a range of potential cost-effectiveness threshold values.

General practitioner workforce planning: assessment of four policy directions.

BACKGROUND: Estimating the supply of GPs into the future is important in forecasting shortages. The lengthy training process for medicine means that adjusting supply to meet demand in a timely fashion is problematic. This study uses Ireland as a case study to determine the future demand and supply of GPs and to assess the potential impact of several possible interventions to address future shortages. METHODS: Demand was estimated by applying GP visit rates by age and sex to national population projections. Supply was modelled using a range of parameters derived from two national surveys of GPs. A stochastic modelling approach was adopted to determine the probable future supply of GPs. Four policy interventions were tested: increasing vocational training places; recruiting GPs from abroad; incentivising later retirement; increasing nurse substitution to enable practice nurses to deliver more services. RESULTS: Relative to most other European countries, Ireland has few GPs per capita. Ireland has an ageing population and demand is estimated to increase by 19% by 2021. Without intervention, the supply of GPs will be 5.7% less than required in 2021. Increasing training places will enable supply to meet demand but only after 2019. Recruiting GPs from overseas will enable supply to meet demand continuously if the number recruited is approximately 0.8 per cent of the current workforce per annum. Later retirement has only a short-term impact. Nurse substitution can enable supply to meet demand but only if large numbers of practice nurses are recruited and allowed to deliver a wide range of GP services. CONCLUSIONS: A significant shortfall in GP supply is predicted for Ireland unless recruitment is increased. The shortfall will have numerous knock-on effects including price increases, longer waiting lists and an increased burden on hospitals. Increasing training places will not provide an adequate response to future shortages. Foreign recruitment has ethical considerations but may provide a rapid and effective response. Increased nurse substitution appears to offer the best long-term prospects of addressing GP shortages and presents the opportunity to reshape general practice to meet the demands of the future.

Primary medical care in Irish prisons.

BACKGROUND: An industrial dispute between prison doctors and the Irish Prison Service (IPS) took place in 2004. Part of the resolution of that dispute was that an independent review of prison medical and support services be carried out by a University Department of Primary Care. The review took place in 2008 and we report here on the principal findings of that review. METHODS: This study utilised a mixed methods approach. An independent expert medical evaluator (one of the authors, DT) inspected the medical facilities, equipment and relevant custodial areas in eleven of the fourteen prisons within the IPS. Semistructured interviews took place with personnel who had operational responsibility for delivery of prison medical care. Prison doctors completed a questionnaire to elicit issues such as allocation of clinician's time, nurse and administrative support and resources available. RESULTS: There was wide variation in the standard of medical facilities and infrastructure provided across the IPS. The range of medical equipment available was generally below that of the equivalent general practice scheme in the community. There is inequality within the system with regard to the ratio of doctor-contracted time relative to the size of the prison population. There is limited administrative support, with the majority of prisons not having a medical secretary. There are few psychiatric or counselling sessions available. CONCLUSIONS: People in prison have a wide range of medical care needs and there is evidence to suggest that these needs are being met inconsistently in Irish prisons.

Antibiotic use in early childhood and risk of obesity: longitudinal analysis of a national cohort.

BACKGROUND: Taking oral antibiotics during childhood has been linked with an increased risk of childhood obesity. This study assessed any potential association in number of courses of antibiotics taken between 2-3 and 4-5 years of age and body mass trajectory up to age 5. METHODS: The study was a secondary analysis of 8186 children and their parents from the infant cohort of the Irish National Longitudinal Study of Children. Antibiotic use was measured by parental recall between ages 2-3 and 4-5. Longitudinal models described the relationship between antibiotic exposure and body mass index (BMI) standard deviation scores and binary outcomes, and examined interactions between covariates, which included socioeconomic status, diet assessed by food frequency questionnaires and maternal BMI. RESULTS: Any antibiotic usage between 2 and 3 years did not predict risk of overweight or obesity at age 5. Four or more courses of antibiotics between 2 and 3 years were independently associated with obesity at age 5 (odds ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.11-2.31). Effect size was modest (coefficient + 0.09 body mass SD units, standard error 0.04, P = 0.037). Maternal BMI modified the relationship: ≥ 4 courses of antibiotics between 2 and 3 years were associated with a + 0.12 body mass SD units increase in weight at age 5 among children of normal-weight mothers (P = 0.035), but not in children of overweight mothers. CONCLUSIONS: Number of antibiotic courses, rather than antibiotic use, may be an important factor in any link between early antibiotic exposure and subsequent childhood obesity. Research is needed to confirm differential effects on babies of normal versus overweight/obese mothers independent of socioeconomic factors.

Multimorbidity in younger deprived patients: an exploratory study of research and service implications in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity has been defined as the co-existence of two or more chronic conditions. It has a profound impact on both the individuals affected and on their use of healthcare services. The limited research to date has focused on its epidemiology rather than the development of interventions to improve outcomes in multimorbidity patients, particularly for patients aged less than 65 years. Potential barriers to such research relate to methods of disease recording and coding and examination of the process of care. We aimed to assess the feasibility of identifying younger individuals with multimorbidity at general practice level and to explore the effect of multimorbidity on the type and volume of health care delivered. We also describe the barriers encountered in attempting to carry out this exploratory research. METHODS: Cross sectional survey of GP records in two large urban general practices in Dublin focusing on poorer individuals with at least three chronic conditions and aged between 45 and 64 years. RESULTS: 92 patients with multimorbidity were identified. The median number of conditions was 4 per patient. Individuals received a mean number of 7.5 medications and attended a mean number of GP visits of 11.3 in the 12 months preceding the survey. Barriers to research into multimorbidity at practice level were identified including difficulties relating to GP clinical software; variation in disease coding; assessment of specialist sector activity through the GP-specialist communications and assessment of the full scale of primary care activity in relation to other disciplines and other types of GP contacts such as home visits and telephone contacts. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the importance of multimorbidity in general practice and indicates that it is feasible to identify younger patients with multimorbidity through their GP records. This is a first step towards planning a clinical intervention to improve outcomes for such patients in primary care.

Patients' attitudes to co-payments for general practitioner services: do they reflect the prevailing system?

OBJECTIVES: Most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries have introduced cost-sharing. This study compares the views of patients who are used to a service that is free at the point of delivery with those who are used to a system where 70% of patients pay for consultations. METHODS: Secondary analysis of survey data from a random sample of 11,870 patients in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. RESULTS: A 52% response rate was achieved, though respondents were representative of the two populations. Attitudes generally reflected the national status quo with little support for co-payments where there was currently no charging, but broad support where charging was established. Charging for missed appointments would be supported where there were delays in getting an appointment. CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed to understand what underlies support for, or opposition to, charges. However, it is apparent that patients' opinions need to be considered when formulating health care policy.

Development of a complex intervention to test the effectiveness of peer support in type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a chronic illness which requires the individual to assume responsibility for their own care with the aim of maintaining glucose and blood pressure levels as close to normal as possible. Traditionally self management training for diabetes has been delivered in a didactic setting. In recent times alternatives to the traditional delivery of diabetes care have been investigated, for example, the concept of peer support which emphasises patient rather than professional domination. The aim of this paper is to describe the development of a complex intervention of peer support in type 2 diabetes for a randomised control trial in a primary care setting. METHODS: The Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions for randomised control trials (RCT) was used as a theoretical guide to designing the intervention. The first three phases (Preclinical Phase, Phase 1, Phase 2) of this framework were examined in depth. The Preclinical Phase included a review of the literature relating to type 2 diabetes and peer support. In Phase 1 the theoretical background and qualitative data from 4 focus groups were combined to define the main components of the intervention. The preliminary intervention was conducted in Phase 2. This was a pilot study conducted in two general practices and amongst 24 patients and 4 peer supporters. Focus groups and semi structured interviews were conducted to collect additional qualitative data to inform the development of the intervention. RESULTS: The four components of the intervention were identified from the Preclinical Phase and Phase 1. They are: 1. Peer supporters; 2. Peer supporter training; 3. Retention and support for peer supporters; 4. Peer support meetings. The preliminary intervention was implemented in the Phase 2. Findings from this phase allowed further modeling of the intervention, to produce the definitive intervention. CONCLUSION: The MRC framework was instrumental in the development of a robust intervention of peer support of type 2 diabetes in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42541690.

Changing illness perceptions in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes, a randomised controlled trial of a family-based intervention: protocol and pilot study.

BACKGROUND: This paper presents the pilot study and protocol for a randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a psychological, family-based intervention to improve outcomes in those with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. The intervention has been designed to change the illness perceptions of patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes, and their family members. It is a complex psychological intervention, developed from the Self-Regulatory Model of Illness Behaviour. The important influence the family context can have in psychological interventions and diabetes management is also recognised, by the inclusion of patients' family members. METHODS/DESIGN: We aim to recruit 122 patients with persistently poorly controlled diabetes. Patients are deemed to have persistent poor control when at least two out of their last three HbA1c readings are 8.0% or over. Patients nominate a family member to participate with them, and this patient/family member dyad is randomly allocated to either the intervention or control group. Participants in the control group receive their usual care. Participants in the intervention group participate, with their family members, in three intervention sessions. Sessions one and two are delivered in the participant's home by a health psychologist. Session one takes place approximately one week after session two, with the third session, a follow-up telephone call, one week later. The intervention is based upon clarifying the illness perceptions of both the patient and the family member, examining how they influence self-management behaviours, improving the degree of similarity of patient and family member perceptions in a positive direction and developing personalized action plans to improve diabetes management. DISCUSSION: This study is the first of its kind to incorporate the evidence from illness perceptions research into developing and applying an intervention for people with poorly controlled diabetes and their families. This study also acknowledges the important role of family members in effective diabetes care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN62219234.

Peer support in type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial in primary care with parallel economic and qualitative analyses: pilot study and protocol.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a chronic illness, which requires the individual to assume responsibility for their own care with the aim of maintaining glucose and blood pressure levels as close to normal as possible. Traditionally self-management training for diabetes has been delivered in a didactic manner. In recent times alternatives to the traditional delivery of diabetes care have been investigated, for example, the concept of peer support which emphasises patient rather than professional domination. This paper describes the pilot study and protocol for a study that aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a peer support intervention for people with type 2 diabetes in a primary care setting. METHODS/DESIGN: A pilot study was conducted to access the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of a peer support intervention. We used the MRC Framework for the evaluation of complex interventions. Elements of the intervention were defined and the study protocol was finalized. In this cluster randomised controlled trial twenty general practices are assigned to control and intervention groups. Each practice compiles a diabetes register and randomly selects 21 patients. All practices implement a standardised diabetes care system. In the intervention group all practices recruit three peer supporters. The peer supporters are trained to conduct nine group meetings in their general practice over a period of two years. Each meeting has a structured component. The primary outcomes are blood pressure, total cholesterol, HBA1c and the Diabetes Well-being score. In addition to biophysical, psychosocial, economic and health service utilization data peer supporter activity and qualitative data are collected. DISCUSSION: Peer support is a complex intervention and evaluating such an intervention presents challenges to researchers. This study will evaluate whether a peer support programme for patients with type 2 diabetes improves biophysical and psychosocial outcomes and whether it is an acceptable, cost effective intervention in the primary care setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42541690.

Consultation charges in Ireland deter a large proportion of patients from seeing the GP: results of a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of a consultation charge on the health-seeking behaviour of patients. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of patients carried out in Northern Ireland, where services are free at the point of delivery, and the Republic of Ireland, where 70% of the population are charged a consultation fee to see the general practitioner (GP). RESULTS: There were 11 870 respondents to the survey (response rate 52%). In the Republic of Ireland, 18.9% of patients (4.4% of non-paying patients and 26.3% of paying patients) had a medical problem in the previous year but had not consulted the doctor because of cost; this compares with only 1.8% of patients in Northern Ireland. Because those in the Republic of Ireland on low income are entitled to free care, the effects of the consultation charge were most marked in the middle of the income distribution, with such patients being over four times as likely to have been deterred as those in the most affluent group. However, amongst paying patients, it was the poorest and those with the worst health who were most affected. Compared to the most affluent patients and those without depression, the likelihood of not having seen the GP due to cost was 6.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.79, 11.09) for the poorest patients and 2.01 (95% CI 1.53, 2.52) for those with depression. CONCLUSION: Even in countries with exemptions for the poor and more vulnerable, a consultation charge can deter a large proportion of poorer and less healthy patients from seeing their GP.

Adapting developing country epidemiological assessment techniques to improve the quality of health needs assessments in developed countries.

BACKGROUND: We were commissioned to carry out three health assessments in urban areas of Dublin in Ireland. We required an epidemiologically robust method that could collect data rapidly and inexpensively. We were dealing with inadequate health information systems, weak planning data and a history of inadequate recipient involvement in health service planning. These problems had also been identified by researchers carrying out health assessments in developing countries. This paper reports our experience of adapting a cluster survey model originally developed by international organisations to assess community health needs and service coverage in developing countries and applying our adapted model to three urban areas in Dublin, Ireland METHODS: We adapted the model to control for socio-economic heterogeneity, to take account of the inadequate population list, to ensure a representative sample and to account for a higher prevalence of degenerative and chronic diseases. We employed formal as well as informal communication methods and adjusted data collection times to maximise participation. RESULTS: The model we adapted had the capacity to ascertain both health needs and health care delivery needs. The community participated throughout the process and members were trained and employed as data collectors. The assessments have been used by local health boards and non-governmental agencies to plan and deliver better or additional services. CONCLUSION: We were able to carry out high quality health needs assessments in urban areas by adapting and applying a developing country health assessment method. Issues arose relating to health needs assessment as part of the planning cycle and the role of participants in the process.

Clinically inexplicable frequent attenders in general practice.

This study was based in an isolated rural practice, and it identified 107 frequent attenders (1.95% of the practice population), who created five times the consultation workload of a similar group matched for age and sex. The general practitioners (GPs) classified 60 (56%) of these patients as attending for clinically inexplicable reasons. This subgroup had higher rates of long-term medication and hospital referral, and more free access to primary health care. The study also identified very high levels of kinship and relationship by marriage within this group (47%).