What influences GPs' use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Omission of pelvic examination (PE) has been associated with diagnostic delay in women diagnosed with gynaecological cancer. However, PEs are often not carried out by GPs. AIM: To determine the perceptions of GPs about the role of PEs, the barriers to and facilitators of PEs, and GPs' experience of PEs in practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative semi-structured interview study conducted in one health board in Scotland (mixed urban and rural) with an approximate population of 500 000. METHOD: Interviews were conducted face-to-face or by telephone between March and June 2019. Framework analysis used the COM-B behaviour change model concepts of capability, opportunity, and motivation. RESULTS: Data was compatible with all three domains of the COM-B framework. Capability related to training in and maintenance of skills. These went beyond carrying out the examination to interpreting it reliably. Opportunity related to the clinical environment and the provision of chaperones for intimate examination. Interviewees described a range of motivations towards or against PEs that were unrelated to either capability or opportunity. These all related to providing high-quality care, but this was defined in different ways: 'doing what is best for the individual', 'doctors examine', and 'GPs as pragmatists'. CONCLUSION: GPs' reasons for carrying out, or not carrying out, PEs in women with symptoms potentially indicating cancer are complex. The COM-B framework provides a way of understanding this complexity. Interventions to increase the use of PEs, and critics of its non-use, need to consider these multiple factors.

Enhancing deprescribing: A qualitative understanding of the complexities of pharmacist-led deprescribing in care homes.

The English National Overprescribing Review identified that older people often take eight or more medicines a day. The report recommended pharmacists in primary care should take responsibility for addressing polypharmacy. Overprescribing is a safety concern in care homes as approximately half of older care home residents are prescribed at least one medicine that is unnecessary or now harmful. This predisposes them to adverse outcomes including hospitalisation and mortality. Deprescribing is the planned activity of stopping or reducing a medicine that may no longer be appropriate. Deprescribing, when performed by a pharmacist, is a multidisciplinary activity requiring close communication with general practitioners (GPs) and care home staff. A recently completed trial that integrated pharmacists with prescribing rights into older peoples' care homes found significant variation in proactive deprescribing activity. The aim of the current study was to specifically explore beliefs and practices of deprescribing in care homes. A qualitative approach was adopted to examine individual, social and contextual factors that acted as enablers and barriers to pharmacist deprescribing in care homes. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants of the previous study (16 pharmacists, 6 GPs and 7 care home staff from Northern Ireland, Scotland and England). Using thematic analysis, we identified two themes: (a) Structures and systems affecting deprescribing, that is the context in which deprescribing happened, including team involvement and routine practices in GP surgeries and care homes; (b) Balancing risks when deprescribing, that is the perception of individual risk and social barriers were mitigated by understanding the medical background of residents. This supported the clinical understanding that risks from overprescribing were greater than risks from deprescribing. While deprescribing can involve all health professionals in the primary care team, these results suggest the pharmacist is well placed to lead the process; by having both clinical competence and professional willingness to drive this activity forward.

"I'm empowered to look after myself" - Mindfulness as a way to manage chronic pain: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of participant experiences in Scotland.

BACKGROUND AND PRIMARY AIM: Chronic pain is a common problem that can impact on psychological and social wellbeing and activity levels. Despite pharmacological treatments, there is often a lack of improvement in physical and emotional functioning and health-related quality of life. Mindfulness meditation has become an increasingly popular self-management technique. The aim of the study was to explore the experiences of patients with chronic pain who took part in a mindfulness programme. METHODS: A mixed-methods feasibility study was carried out. Participants were aged 18 years or over with non-malignant chronic pain recruited from general medical practices in Fort William, Scotland. In 2013 participants undertook an eight-week mindfulness programme based on Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and were interviewed immediately post-programme and at eight-months' post-programme. Analysis of qualitative data involved Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). FINDINGS: Thirty-four patients consented to take part in the study; twenty-four took part in the programme (14 attended four or more sessions, 10 attended one to three). Twenty-three were interviewed. Participant experiences of the programme were themed under: factors affecting experience (influence of earlier life events; the process of taking part in, and of relating to, the programme); and effects of the programme (impact on emotions, mental health, adverse events and a process of change). The process of change, resulting after better understanding the relationship between mindfulness and pain, involved learning to 'listen to the body', gaining a sense of community, learning to accept pain, and approaching life with more self-care, awareness, appreciation and empowerment. CONCLUSION: Participants reported a variety of experiences. For some, these included undergoing a process of change which may have supported them in living with their painful condition. This contributes to our understanding of how mindfulness could benefit people with chronic pain.

Can-Pain-a digital intervention to optimise cancer pain control in the community: development and feasibility testing.

PURPOSE: To develop a novel digital intervention to optimise cancer pain control in the community. This paper describes intervention development, content/rationale and initial feasibility testing. METHODS: Determinants of suboptimal cancer pain management were characterised through two systematic reviews; patient, caregiver and healthcare professional (HCP) interviews (n = 39); and two HCP focus groups (n = 12). Intervention mapping was used to translate results into theory-based content, creating the app "Can-Pain". Patients with/without a linked caregiver, their general practitioners and community palliative care nurses were recruited to feasibility test Can-Pain over 4 weeks. RESULTS: Patients on strong opioids described challenges balancing pain levels with opioid intake, side effects and activities and communicating about pain management problems with HCPs. Can-Pain addresses these challenges through educational resources, contemporaneous short-acting opioid tracking and weekly patient-reported outcome monitoring. Novel aspects of Can-Pain include the use of contemporaneous breakthrough analgesic reports as a surrogate measure of pain control and measuring the level at which pain becomes bothersome to the individual. Patients were unwell due to advanced cancer, making recruitment to feasibility testing difficult. Two patients and one caregiver used Can-Pain for 4 weeks, sharing weekly reports with four HCPs. Can-Pain highlighted unrecognised problems, promoted shared understanding about symptoms between patients and HCPs and supported shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary testing suggests that Can-Pain is feasible and could promote patient-centred pain management. We will conduct further small-scale evaluations to inform a future randomised, stepped-wedge trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Qualitative research: ClinicalTrials.gov , reference NCT02341846 Feasibility study: NIHR CPMS database ID 34172.

Protocol for the process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of independent pharmacist prescribing in care home: the CHIPPS study.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing, monitoring and administration of medicines in care homes could be improved. A cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) is ongoing to evaluate the effectiveness of an independent prescribing pharmacist assuming responsibility for medicines management in care homes compared to usual care. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To conduct a mixed-methods process evaluation of the RCT, in line with Medical Research Council (MRC) process evaluation guidance, to inform interpretation of main trial findings and if the service is found to be effective and efficient, to inform subsequent implementation. OBJECTIVES: 1. To describe the intervention as delivered in terms of quality, quantity, adaptations and variations across triads and time. 2. To explore the effects of individual intervention components on the primary outcomes. 3. To investigate the mechanisms of impact. 4. To describe the perceived effectiveness of relevant intervention components [including pharmacist independent prescriber (PIP) training and care home staff training] from participant [general practitioner (GP), care home, PIP and resident/relative] perspectives. 5. To describe the characteristics of GP, care home, PIP and resident participants to assess reach. 6. To estimate the extent to which intervention delivery is normalised among the intervention healthcare professionals and related practice staff. METHODS: A mix of quantitative (surveys, record reviews) and qualitative (interviews) approaches will be used to collect data on the extent of the delivery of detailed tasks required to implement the new service, to collect data to confirm the mechanism of impact as hypothesised in the logic model, to collect explanatory process and final outcome data, and data on contextual factors which could have facilitated or hindered effective and efficient delivery of the service. DISCUSSION: Recruitment is ongoing and the trial should complete in early 2020. The systematic and comprehensive approach that is being adopted will ensure data is captured on all aspects of the study, and allow a full understanding of the implementation of the service and the RCT findings. With so many interrelated factors involved it is important that a process evaluation is undertaken to enable us to identify which elements of the service were deemed to be effective, explain any differences seen, and identify enablers, barriers and future adaptions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17847169. Date registered: 15 December 2017.

Protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of independent pharmacist prescribing in care homes: the CHIPPS study.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing, monitoring and administration of medicines in care homes could be improved. Research has identified the need for one person to assume overall responsibility for the management of medicines within each care home. and shown that a pharmacist independent prescriber service is feasible in this context. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-independent prescribing service in care homes compared to usual general practitioner (GP)-led care. OBJECTIVES: To perform a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an internal pilot to determine the intervention's effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and enable modelling beyond the end of the trial. METHODS: This protocol is for a cluster RCT with a 3-month internal pilot to confirm that recruitment is achievable, and there are no safety concerns. The unit of randomisation is a triad comprising a pharmacist-independent prescriber (PIP) based in a GP practice with sufficient registered patients resident in one or more care homes to allow recruitment of an average of 20 participants. In the intervention group, the PIP will, in collaboration with the GP: assume responsibility for prescribing and managing residents' medicines including medication review and pharmaceutical care planning; support systematic ordering and administration in the care home, GP practice and supplying pharmacy; train care home and GP practice staff; communicate with GP practice, care home, supplying community pharmacy and study team. The intervention will last 6 months. The primary outcome will be resident falls at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include resident health-related quality of life, falls at 3 months, medication burden, medication appropriateness, mortality and hospitalisations. A full health economic analysis will be undertaken. The target sample size is 880 residents (440) in each arm) from 44 triads. This number is sufficient to detect a decrease in fall rate from 1.5 per individual to 1.178 (relative reduction of 21%) with 80% power and an ICC of 0.05 or less. DISCUSSION: Recruitment is on-going and the trial should complete in early 2020. The trial results will have implications for the future management of residents in care homes and the ongoing implementation of independent pharmacist prescribing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ID: 17847169. Registered on 15 December 2017.

Interventions to Reduce Anticholinergic Burden in Adults Aged 65 and Older: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Older age is associated with multimorbidity and polypharmacy with high anticholinergic burden (ACB). High ACB is linked to adverse events such as poor physical functioning, dementia, cardiovascular disease, and falls. Interventions are needed to reduce this burden. AIMS/OBJECTIVES: The aim was to systematically review the literature to identify and describe studies of clinical and cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce ACB in adults (≥65 years) on polypharmacy regimes, compared with usual care. The objective was to answer the following questions: What are the contents of the interventions? Were these interventions clinically effective? Were these interventions cost effective?. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Systematic review of interventions to reduce anticholinergic burden in adults aged 65 and older in any clinical setting. METHODS: Eligible papers reported primary or secondary research describing any type of intervention including systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, or nonrandomized pre-post intervention studies (PPIs) published in English from January 2010 to February 2019. Databases searched included CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). RESULTS: The search yielded 5862 records. Eight studies (4 RCTs, 4 PPIs) conducted in hospital (4), community (2), nursing homes (1), and retirement villages (1) met the inclusion criteria. Pharmacists, either individually or as part of a team, provided the intervention in the majority of studies (6/8). Most (7/8) involved individual patient medication review followed by feedback to the prescriber. Two of the 4 RCTs and all non-RCTs reported a decrease in ACB following the intervention. No study reported cost outcome. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Pharmacists may be well placed to implement an ACB reduction intervention. This is the first systematic review of interventions to reduce ACB in older adults, and it highlights the need for development and testing of high-quality pragmatic clinical and cost-effectiveness trials in community and specific patient populations at high risk of harm from ACB. [PROSPERO registration: CRD42018089764].

Community pharmacy personnel interventions for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacists could provide effective smoking cessation treatment because they offer easy access to members of the community. They are well placed to provide both advice on the correct use of smoking cessation products and behavioural support to aid smoking cessation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions delivered by community pharmacy personnel to assist people to stop smoking, with or without concurrent use of pharmacotherapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, along with clinicaltrials.gov and the ICTRP, for smoking cessation studies conducted in a community pharmacy setting, using the search terms pharmacist* or pharmacy or pharmacies. Date of the most recent search: January 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of interventions delivered by community pharmacy personnel to promote smoking cessation amongst their clients who were smokers, compared with usual pharmacy support or any less intensive programme. The main outcome measure was smoking cessation rates at six months or more after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for study screening, data extraction and management. We conducted a meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model to generate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We identified seven studies including 1774 participants. We judged three studies to be at high risk of bias and four to be at unclear risk. Each study provided face-to-face behavioural support delivered by pharmacy staff, and required pharmacy personnel training. Typically such programmes comprised support starting before quit day and continuing with weekly appointments for several weeks afterwards. Comparators were either minimal or less intensive behavioural support for smoking cessation, typically comprising a few minutes of one-off advice on how to quit. Participants in both intervention and control arms received equivalent smoking cessation pharmacotherapy in all but one study. All studies took place in high-income countries, and recruited participants visiting pharmacies. We pooled six studies of 1614 participants and detected a benefit of more intensive behavioural smoking cessation interventions delivered by community pharmacy personnel compared with less intensive cessation interventions at longest follow-up (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.97; I2 = 54%; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacists can provide effective behavioural support to people trying to stop smoking. However, this conclusion is based on low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision. Further research could change this conclusion.

The use, quality and effectiveness of pelvic examination in primary care for the detection of gynaecological cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Urgent suspected cancer referral guidelines recommend that women with gynaecological cancer symptoms should have a pelvic examination (PE) prior to referral. We do not know to what extent GPs comply, their competency at PE, or if PE shortens the diagnostic interval. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review of the use, quality and effectiveness of PE in primary care for women with suspected gynaecological cancer. METHOD: PRISMA guidelines were followed. Three databases were searched using four terms: PE, primary care, competency and gynaecological cancer. Citation lists of all identified papers were screened independently for eligibility by two reviewers. Data extraction was performed in duplicate and independently. Paper quality was assessed using the relevant Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Emergent themes and contrasting issues were explored in a narrative ecological synthesis. MAIN FINDINGS: Twenty papers met the inclusion criteria. 52% or less of women with suspicious symptoms had a PE. No papers directly explored GPs' competence at performing PE. Pre-referral PE was associated with reduced diagnostic delay and earlier stage diagnosis. Ecological synthesis demonstrated a complex interplay between patient and practitioner factors and the environment in which examination is performed. Presenting symptoms are commonly misattributed by patients and practitioners resulting in misdiagnosis and lack of PE. CONCLUSION: We do not know if pre-referral PE leads to better outcomes for patients. PE is often not performed for women with gynaecological cancer symptoms, and evidence that it may result in earlier stage of diagnosis is weak. More research is needed.

Do pharmacists contribute to patients' management of symptoms suggestive of cancer: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Limited awareness of cancer symptoms results in patient delay in seeking help and contributes to delay in diagnosis. Few UK studies have investigated the potential for community pharmacists to facilitate earlier detection of cancer. This study aimed to investigate what actions patients take to manage their early cancer symptoms, to identify the extent of current community pharmacy involvement and to consider the potential role for community pharmacists to facilitate appropriate management and appraisal of potential early cancer symptoms. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with lung, colorectal or gastro-oesophageal cancer in the preceding 12 months were identified during clinic visits by consultants. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed, using the Framework Approach. KEY FINDINGS: Twenty-five consenting patients were interviewed: two-thirds were male and more than half had lung cancer. Although all had experienced potential cancer symptoms prior to diagnosis, most underestimated seriousness and misattributed causation. Symptoms were managed by lifestyle changes and self-selecting medicines from local shops, supermarkets and pharmacies but without engaging with the pharmacist. CONCLUSIONS: For symptom management, participants self-selected medicines from community pharmacies, but pharmacy staff were rarely involved. Involving community pharmacists or their staff at the point of sale of these medicines might have facilitated earlier cancer diagnosis. Further research is needed to quantify how many patients with symptoms suggestive of cancer present in community pharmacies to understand if a pharmacist's role in facilitating symptom management and appraisal of potential cancer symptoms would be acceptable and effective, before developing any interventions.

New professional roles and patient satisfaction: Evidence from a European survey along three clinical pathways.

This paper reports the results of an empirical analysis exploring the impact of new professions (eg a physician associate) and new professional roles on patient experiences of and satisfaction with care. A sub set of data from a patient survey conducted as part of the MUNROS programme of work was used. The overall survey aim was to describe and quantify the use of new professionals and new roles for established health care professionals other than medical doctors, in primary and secondary care sectors in three care pathways in nine European countries Ordered logit models were used to investigate the association between: (1) patient satisfaction with the last visit; (2) with their care provider; (3) with the information provided and a set of covariates explaining the involvement of new professional roles in three clinical pathways: type 2 diabetes, heart disease and breast cancer. For patients with breast cancer, high levels of satisfaction are associated with the involvement of new professions/professional roles in the provision of conditions specific education and monitoring. For patients with heart disease, the involvement of new professions/professional roles is likely to have a negative impact on satisfaction. For patients with Type 2 diabetes results are ambivalent. Patients belonging to countries experiencing innovative models of healthcare delivery and with high levels of involvement of new professions/professional roles are generally more satisfied. In conclusion, the introduction of new professions does not affect patient satisfaction negatively, therefore introducing new health professional roles is a pursuable strategy from a patient satisfaction perspective, at least for breast cancer and type 2 diabetes.

What are the current challenges of managing cancer pain and could digital technologies help?

OBJECTIVES: Pain remains a problem for people with cancer despite effective treatments being available. We aimed to explore current pain management strategies used by patients, caregivers and professionals and to investigate opportunities for digital technologies to enhance cancer pain management. METHODS: A qualitative study comprising semistructured interviews and focus groups. Patients with cancer pain, their caregivers and health professionals from Northeast Scotland were recruited from a purposive sample of general practices. Professionals were recruited from regional networks. RESULTS: Fifty one participants took part in 33 interviews (eight patients alone, six patient/caregiver dyads and 19 professionals) and two focus groups (12 professionals). Living with cancer was hard work for patients and caregivers and comparable to a 'full-time job'. Patients had personal goals which involved controlling pain intensity and balancing this with analgesic use, side effects, overall symptom burden and social/physical activities.Digital technologies were embraced by most patients, and made living life with advanced cancer easier and richer (eg, video calls with family). Technology was underutilised for pain and symptom management. There were suggestions that technology could support self-monitoring and communicating problems to professionals, but patients and professionals were concerned about technological monitoring adding to the work of managing illness. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer pain management takes place in the context of multiple, sometimes competing personal goals. It is possible that technology could be used to help patients share individual symptom experiences and goals, thus enhancing tailored care. The challenge is for digital solutions to add value without adding undue burden.

A controlled trial of screening, brief intervention and referral for treatment (SBIRT) implementation in primary care in the United Arab Emirates.

Aim This project evaluated the effectiveness of screening brief intervention and referral for treatment (SBIRT) in primary care in Abu Dhabi to manage patients with problematic substance use. This study aimed to determine whether: (i) training primary care physicians on the SBIRT model increased the identification of patients using substances at a harmful, hazardous or dependent level; (ii) training improved physicians' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs in self-efficacy in managing substance use. BACKGROUND: Substance use is increasing in the United Arab Emirates yet there has been no formal primary care intervention. SBIRT was considered an appropriate model given its endorsement by the WHO. METHODS: A controlled trial (two intervention and two matched control clinics) was undertaken. Intervention physicians (n=17) were trained in SBIRT. Physicians' attitudes were measured before and after training and eight months after implementation. Target recruitment was 900 patients. Inclusion criteria were: consenting UAE national, ⩾18 years, using the 'walk-in' primary care clinic. Patient data was collected by physician-administered questionnaire. Prevalence of drug use was measured through electronic patient records. Findings A total of 906 patients were screened, aged 18-82 years and 496 (55%) were female. Of these, 5.7% reported use of amphetamine, 3.9% alcohol, 3.3%, sedatives, 1.7% opioids and 1.1% cannabis. In all, 21 people had a moderate/high ASSIST score and received a brief intervention, but did not attend follow-up; three high-risk people were referred for specialist treatment. Physicians' attitudes towards patients with problematic substance use and providing treatment improved after training, but returned to pre-training levels after eight months. Including the 21 individuals identified from intervention screening, the prevalence of substance use increased to 0.208% (95% CI 0.154-0.274), significantly higher than in control clinics (P<0.001). In conclusion, physicians were generally positive towards SBIRT and SBIRT increased recorded drug related conditions at a practice level. However, poor patient attendance at follow-up requires investigation.

Can patient-reported measurements of pain be used to improve cancer pain management? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Cancer pain is a distressing and complex experience. It is feasible that the systematic collection and feedback of patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) relating to pain could enhance cancer pain management. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of interventions in which patient-reported pain data were collected and fed back to patients and/or professionals in order to improve cancer pain control. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases were searched for randomised and non-randomised controlled trials in which patient-reported data were collected and fed back with the intention of improving pain management by adult patients or professionals. We conducted a narrative synthesis. We also conducted a meta-analysis of studies reporting pain intensity. RESULTS: 29 reports from 22 trials of 20 interventions were included. PROM measures were used to alert physicians to poorly controlled pain, to target pain education and to link treatment to management algorithms. Few interventions were underpinned by explicit behavioural theories. Interventions were inconsistently applied or infrequently led to changes in treatment. Narrative synthesis suggested that feedback of PROM data tended to increase discussions between patients and professionals about pain and/or symptoms overall. Meta-analysis of 12 studies showed a reduction in average pain intensity in intervention group participants compared with controls (mean difference=-0.59 (95% CI -0.87 to -0.30)). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that assess and feedback cancer pain data to patients and/or professionals have so far led to modest reductions in cancer pain intensity. Suggestions are given to inform and enhance future PROM feedback interventions.

Does mindfulness improve outcomes in patients with chronic pain? Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain and its associated distress and disability are common reasons for seeking medical help. Patients with chronic pain use primary healthcare services five times more than the rest of the population. Mindfulness has become an increasingly popular self-management technique. AIM: To assess the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions for patients with chronic pain. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis including randomised controlled trials of mindfulness-based interventions for chronic pain. There was no restriction to study site or setting. METHOD: The databases MEDLINE(®), Embase, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Index to Theses were searched. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened iteratively against inclusion criteria of: randomised controlled trials of mindfulness-based intervention; patients with non-malignant chronic pain; and economic, clinical, or humanistic outcome reported. Included studies were assessed with the Yates Quality Rating Scale. Meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included. Chronic pain conditions included: fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic musculoskeletal pain, failed back surgery syndrome, and mixed aetiology. Papers were of mixed methodological quality. Main outcomes reported were pain intensity, depression, physical functioning, quality of life, pain acceptance, and mindfulness. Economic outcomes were rarely reported. Meta-analysis effect sizes for clinical outcomes ranged from 0.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.05 to 0.30) (depression) to 1.32 (95% CI = -1.19 to 3.82) (sleep quality), and for humanistic outcomes 0.03 (95% CI = -0.66 to 0.72) (mindfulness) to 1.58 (95% CI = -0.57 to 3.74) (pain acceptance). Studies with active, compared with inactive, control groups showed smaller effects. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence for effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions for patients with chronic pain. Better-quality studies are required.

Effects of community based cardiac rehabilitation: Comparison with a hospital-based programme.

BACKGROUND: With typically fewer than 35% of eligible patients attending outpatient cardiac rehabilitation (CR), more accessible provision is required. Community-based cardiac rehabilitation is one option but its effects need to be compared with those of hospital-based CR. AIMS: The purpose of this study was to compare changes in health-related quality of life (HRQOL), anxiety and depression, and exercise and smoking rates, between attendees at community-based and hospital-based CR programmes. METHOD: A prospective comparative cohort design was used. Consecutive patients admitted to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary and eligible for CR were recruited and followed up by self-report questionnaire. Outcomes were health status (RAND-36), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Godin Leisure-Time Exercise and smoking status. RESULTS: There were 136 of 179 (75%) attenders at community-based CR, compared to 169 of 209 (80%) at hospital-based CR (p=0.242). In univariate analysis, there were no significant differences between the two groups in health status, HADS, and frequency or intensity of exercise immediately after the CR programme or six months later. Adjusting for other significant factors, patients who attended community CR reported higher RAND-36 energy scores at six months compared with attenders at hospital CR (p=0.020), but were less likely to undertake frequent exercise (p=0.041). CONCLUSIONS: Community-based CR appears to achieve similar attendance rates and effects on health status and health behaviour as hospital-based CR. This option might help overcome the poor attendance of patients with long travelling times to hospital-based CR.

Does training in motivational interviewing for community pharmacists improve outcomes for methadone patients? A cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Feasibility of pharmacist delivered motivational interviewing (MI) to methadone patients has been demonstrated, but its efficacy is untested. This study aimed to determine whether pharmacists trained in MI techniques can improve methadone outcomes. METHODS: A cluster randomised controlled trial by pharmacy, with community pharmacies across Scotland providing supervised methadone to >10 daily patients, aged >18 years, started on methadone <24 months. Pharmacies were randomised to intervention or control. Intervention pharmacists received MI training and a resource pack. Control pharmacists continued with normal practice. Primary outcome was illicit heroin use. Secondary outcomes were treatment retention, substance use, injecting behaviour, psychological/physical health, treatment satisfaction and patient feedback. Data were collected via structured interviews at baseline and 6 months. KEY FINDINGS: Seventy-six pharmacies recruited 542 patients (295 intervention, 247 control), mean age 32 years; 64% male; 91% unemployed; mean treatment length 9 months. No significant difference in outcomes between groups for illicit heroin use (32.4% cf. 31.4%), although within-groups use reduced (P < 0.001); treatment retention was higher in the intervention group but not significantly (88% cf. 81%; P = 0.34); no significant difference between groups in treatment satisfaction, although this improved significantly in intervention (P < 0.05). More intervention than control patients said pharmacists had 'spoken more,' which approached statistical significance (P = 0.06), and more intervention patients found this useful (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Limited intervention delivery may have reduced study power. The intervention did not significantly reduce heroin use, but there are indications of positive benefits from increased communication and treatment satisfaction.

Are pharmacy-based minor ailment schemes a substitute for other service providers? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacy-based minor ailment schemes (PMASs) have been introduced throughout the UK to reduce the burden of minor ailments on high-cost settings, including general practice and emergency departments. AIM: This study aimed to explore the effect of PMASs on patient health- and cost-related outcomes; and their impact on general practices. DESIGN AND SETTING: Community pharmacy-based systematic review. METHOD: Standard systematic review methods were used, including searches of electronic databases, and grey literature from 2001 to 2011, imposing no restrictions on language or study design. Reporting was conducted in the form recommended in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and checklist. RESULTS: Thirty-one evaluations were included from 3308 titles identified. Reconsultation rates in general practice, following an index consultation with a PMAS, ranged from 2.4% to 23.4%. The proportion of patients reporting complete resolution of symptoms after an index PMAS consultation ranged from 68% to 94%. No study included a full economic evaluation. The mean cost per PMAS consultation ranged from £1.44 to £15.90. The total number of consultations and prescribing for minor ailments at general practices often declined following the introduction of PMAS. CONCLUSION: Low reconsultation and high symptom-resolution rates suggest that minor ailments are being dealt with appropriately by PMASs. PMAS consultations are less expensive than consultations with GPs. The extent to which these schemes shift demand for management of minor ailments away from high-cost settings has not been fully determined. This evidence suggests that PMASs provide a suitable alternative to general practice consultations. Evidence from economic evaluations is needed to inform the future delivery of PMASs.

Pharmacist-led management of chronic pain in primary care: results from a randomised controlled exploratory trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of pharmacist medication review, with or without pharmacist prescribing, with standard care, for patients with chronic pain. DESIGN: An exploratory randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Six general practices with prescribing pharmacists in Grampian (3) and East Anglia (3). PARTICIPANTS: Patients on repeat prescribed pain medication (4815) were screened by general practitioners (GPs), and mailed invitations (1397). 196 were randomised and 180 (92%) completed. Exclusion criteria included: severe mental illness, terminally ill, cancer related pain, history of addiction. RANDOMISATION AND INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised using a remote telephone service to: (1) pharmacist medication review with face-to-face pharmacist prescribing; (2) pharmacist medication review with feedback to GP and no planned patient contact or (3) treatment as usual (TAU). Blinding was not possible. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were the SF-12v2, the Chronic Pain Grade (CPG), the Health Utilities Index 3 and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Outcomes were collected at 0, 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: In the prescribing arm (n=70) two patients were excluded/nine withdrew. In the review arm (n=63) one was excluded/three withdrew. In the TAU arm (n=63) four withdrew. Compared with baseline, patients had an improved CPG in the prescribing arm, 47.7% (21/44; p=0.003) and in the review arm, 38.6% (17/44; p=0.001), but not the TAU group, 31.3% (15/48; ns). The SF-12 Physical Component Score showed no effect in the prescribing or review arms but improvement in TAU (p=0.02). The SF-12 Mental Component Score showed no effect for the prescribing or review arms and deterioration in the TAU arm (p=0.002). HADS scores improved within the prescribing arm for depression (p=0.022) and anxiety (p=0.007), between groups (p=0.022 and p=0.045, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomised controlled trial of pharmacist prescribing in the UK, and suggests that there may be a benefit for patients with chronic pain. A larger trial is required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.isrctn.org/ISRCTN06131530. Medical Research Council funding.

Needs assessment study for community pharmacy travel medicine services.

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacists in the UK currently provide limited travel medicine services. An enhanced service could offer the traveling public general advice, provision of immunizations, and malaria prophylaxis. The assessment of need for a travel vaccine service from community pharmacies is key to the decision to develop the service. METHOD: The needs assessment used a questionnaire survey of potential travelers recruited from community pharmacies and the regional travel clinic. RESULTS: In total, 151 completed questionnaires were received (response rate 40%); nearly three times as many replies were from females (74%) than males (26%). Details for 230 different proposed visits abroad and 174 different past visits were analyzed. General medical practice (54.3%) and community pharmacies (36.4%) were rated as providing the most useful advice. Most respondents (76.4%) required advice on vaccines, 53.9% on malaria prophylaxis, and 54.9% on bite prevention. Many (58.9%) agreed, or strongly agreed, that they would use the community pharmacy to provide travel immunizations, while 43% (strongly) agreed that they would be prepared to pay to obtain travel medicine services including immunizations. The median amount that participants were prepared to pay for a full travel assessment was pound 10, pound 13 for the administration of typhoid vaccine, pound 70 for a course of rabies vaccine, and pound 25 for malaria tablets for Kenya. Nearly three quarters (74.8%) agreed, or strongly agreed, that the community pharmacy would provide a convenient location from which to obtain travel services and 70.2% that the pharmacy could provide a one-stop shop for travel medicine services. CONCLUSIONS: Members of the traveling public do visit community pharmacies, and most people are traveling for holiday purposes. The results suggest that travelers would be prepared to use the community pharmacy to provide travel advice and immunizations.