Early implementation of the structured medication review in England: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: NHS England has introduced a new structured medication review (SMR) service within primary care networks (PCNs) forming during the COVID-19 pandemic. Policy drivers are addressing problematic polypharmacy, reducing avoidable hospitalisations, and delivering better value from medicines spending. This study explores early implementation of the SMR from the perspective of the primary care clinical pharmacist workforce. AIM: To identify factors affecting the early implementation of the SMR service. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study in general practice between September 2020 and June 2021. METHOD: Two semi-structured interviews were carried out with each of 10 newly appointed pharmacists (20 in total) in 10 PCNs in Northern England; and one interview was carried out with 10 pharmacists already established in GP practices in 10 other PCNs across England. Audiorecordings were transcribed verbatim and a modified framework method supported a constructionist thematic analysis. RESULTS: SMRs were not yet a PCN priority and SMR implementation was largely delegated to individual pharmacists; those already in general practice appearing to be more ready for implementation. New pharmacists were on the primary care education pathway and drew on pre-existing practice frames, habits, and heuristics. Those lacking patient-facing expertise sought template-driven, institution-centred practice. Consequently, SMR practices reverted to prior medication review practices, compromising the distinct purposes of the new service. CONCLUSION: Early SMR implementation did not match the vision for patients presented in policy of an invited, holistic, shared decision-making opportunity offered by well-trained pharmacists. There is an important opportunity cost of SMR implementation without prior adequate skills development, testing, and refining.

The Need for Culturally Competent Care Within Gastroenterology Services: Evidence from Research with Adults of South Asian Origin Living with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: It is widely acknowledged that the incidence of inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] is rising within South Asian populations, yet research into the experiences of this group of patients is rare. In this study the lived experiences of UK South Asian adults with IBD, including support from gastroenterology services, was investigated. METHODS: A sample of 33 patients representing the diversity of the UK South Asian population were recruited through five gastroenterology clinics in England. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted, audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using the Framework approach. RESULTS: Although many experiences align with those of the general IBD population, participants believed that South Asian cultures and/or religions can lead to additional challenges. These are linked to: family and friends' understanding of IBD; self and family attributions regarding IBD; stigma surrounding ill health; the taboo of bowel symptoms; managing 'spicy food'; beliefs about food and ill health; roles within the family; living with extended family; the use of complementary and alternative therapies; and visits to family overseas. Religious faith helped many to cope with having IBD, but symptoms could hamper their ability to practise faith. Gastroenterology services were viewed positively, but unmet needs were identified, some of which were culturally specific. CONCLUSION: Gastroenterology services have an important role to play in helping patients to overcome the challenges they encounter in their everyday life, both by providing individual patients with culturally appropriate care and advice, and via interventions to increase awareness and understanding of IBD within wider South Asian communities.

Rights to social determinants of flourishing? A paradigm for disability and public health research and policy.

BACKGROUND: The term evidence based medicine was introduced in the early 1990s in clinical medicine to educate clinicians about how to assess the 'credibility' of research to ensure best treatments for their patients. The evidence based medicine paradigm has become more diffuse in times of austerity and randomised controlled designs are being used to address complex issues in public health and disability research. This research is not addressing inequalities in terms of disability nor how people can live well with disabilities. MAIN TEXT: We argue that there are four ways that public health research needs to change if it wants to address inequalities linked to disability: 1) rethinking theoretical connections between public health and disability; 2) building ethics and equity into interventions through a human rights approach; 3) ensuring ethical inclusion through intersectionality; and 4) evaluating policy and other social impacts to ensure they capture diversity. We argue that these are key issues to building a social determinants of flourishing. CONCLUSIONS: We need to understand how disability might have an accumulative impact across the life course, as well as how to ensure equity for people living with disabilities. This means conceptualising a social determinants of flourishing where we evaluate how exactly randomised controlled trials and public health interventions, not only lead to greater equality but also ensure rights to health and wellbeing.

Self-efficacy and embodiment associated with Alexander Technique lessons or with acupuncture sessions: A longitudinal qualitative sub-study within the ATLAS trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A large randomised controlled trial found that the provision of either Alexander Technique lessons or acupuncture, for those with chronic neck pain, resulted in significantly increased self-efficacy when compared with usual care alone. In turn, enhanced self-efficacy was associated with significant reductions in neck pain at 6 and 12 months. In this analysis we explore the perspectives of participants within the trial, with the aim of gaining a better understanding of how these interventions had an impact. METHODS: We used a longitudinal qualitative approach; in-depth interviews, informed by a topic guide, were conducted with a sample of the trial population. Participants were interviewed twice: at around six months (n = 30) and twelve months (n = 26) after trial entry. Analysis was guided by the principles of grounded theory, and key themes were developed. RESULTS: Five key themes emerged: pre-trial experiences of biomedical treatment against which subsequent interventions were compared; emergence of tangible benefits from the interventions; factors that contributed to the observed benefits, notably growing self-care and self-efficacy; a developing sense of embodiment as an integral part of the transformative process; and contribution of these factors to sustaining benefits over the longer term. CONCLUSIONS: In-depth interviews revealed a rich array of experiences. They gave insight into the positive impact of the interventions on development of self-care, self-efficacy and embodiment. These findings complement the quantitative trial data, providing a more nuanced understanding of the factors that underpin the previously quantified improvement in self-efficacy and its association with longer-term reductions in pain.

An economic evaluation of Alexander Technique lessons or acupuncture sessions for patients with chronic neck pain: A randomized trial (ATLAS).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture and usual care, and Alexander Technique lessons and usual care, compared with usual GP care alone for chronic neck pain patients. METHODS: An economic evaluation was undertaken alongside the ATLAS trial, taking both NHS and wider societal viewpoints. Participants were offered up to twelve acupuncture sessions or twenty Alexander lessons (equivalent overall contact time). Costs were in pounds sterling. Effectiveness was measured using the generic EQ-5D to calculate quality adjusted life years (QALYs), as well as using a specific neck pain measure-the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). RESULTS: In the base case analysis, incremental QALY gains were 0.032 and 0.025 in the acupuncture and Alexander groups, respectively, in comparison to usual GP care, indicating moderate health benefits for both interventions. Incremental costs were £451 for acupuncture and £667 for Alexander, mainly driven by intervention costs. Acupuncture was likely to be cost-effective (ICER = £18,767/QALY bootstrapped 95% CI £4,426 to £74,562) and was robust to most sensitivity analyses. Alexander lessons were not cost-effective at the lower NICE threshold of £20,000/QALY (£25,101/QALY bootstrapped 95% CI -£150,208 to £248,697) but may be at £30,000/QALY, however, there was considerable statistical uncertainty in all tested scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with usual care, acupuncture is likely to be cost-effective for chronic neck pain, whereas, largely due to higher intervention costs, Alexander lessons are unlikely to be cost-effective. However, there were high levels of missing data and further research is needed to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of these interventions.

Alexander Technique Lessons or Acupuncture Sessions for Persons With Chronic Neck Pain: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Management of chronic neck pain may benefit from additional active self-care-oriented approaches. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical effectiveness of Alexander Technique lessons or acupuncture versus usual care for persons with chronic, nonspecific neck pain. DESIGN: Three-group randomized, controlled trial. (Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN15186354). SETTING: U.K. primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Persons with neck pain lasting at least 3 months, a score of at least 28% on the Northwick Park Questionnaire (NPQ) for neck pain and associated disability, and no serious underlying pathology. INTERVENTION: 12 acupuncture sessions or 20 one-to-one Alexander lessons (both 600 minutes total) plus usual care versus usual care alone. MEASUREMENTS: NPQ score (primary outcome) at 0, 3, 6, and 12 months (primary end point) and Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy Scale score, quality of life, and adverse events (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: 517 patients were recruited, and the median duration of neck pain was 6 years. Mean attendance was 10 acupuncture sessions and 14 Alexander lessons. Between-group reductions in NPQ score at 12 months versus usual care were 3.92 percentage points for acupuncture (95% CI, 0.97 to 6.87 percentage points) (P = 0.009) and 3.79 percentage points for Alexander lessons (CI, 0.91 to 6.66 percentage points) (P = 0.010). The 12-month reductions in NPQ score from baseline were 32% for acupuncture and 31% for Alexander lessons. Participant self-efficacy improved for both interventions versus usual care at 6 months (P < 0.001) and was significantly associated (P < 0.001) with 12-month NPQ score reductions (acupuncture, 3.34 percentage points [CI, 2.31 to 4.38 percentage points]; Alexander lessons, 3.33 percentage points [CI, 2.22 to 4.44 percentage points]). No reported serious adverse events were considered probably or definitely related to either intervention. LIMITATION: Practitioners belonged to the 2 main U.K.-based professional associations, which may limit generalizability of the findings. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture sessions and Alexander Technique lessons both led to significant reductions in neck pain and associated disability compared with usual care at 12 months. Enhanced self-efficacy may partially explain why longer-term benefits were sustained. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Arthritis Research UK.

Alexander Technique Lessons, Acupuncture Sessions or usual care for patients with chronic neck pain (ATLAS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic neck pain is a common condition in the adult population. More research is needed to evaluate interventions aiming to facilitate beneficial long-term change. We propose to evaluate the effect of Alexander Technique lessons and acupuncture in a rigorously conducted pragmatic trial with an embedded qualitative study. METHODS/DESIGN: We will recruit 500 patients who have been diagnosed with neck pain in primary care, who have continued to experience neck pain for at least three months with 28% minimum cut-off score on the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). We will exclude patients with serious underlying pathology, prior cervical spine surgery, history of psychosis, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, osteoporosis, haemophilia, cancer, HIV or hepatitis, or with alcohol or drug dependency currently or in the last 12 months, or actively pursuing compensation or with pending litigation.The York Trials Unit will randomly allocate participants using a secure computer-based system. We will use block randomisation with allocation to each intervention arm being unambiguously concealed from anyone who might subvert the randomisation process.Participants will be randomised in equal proportions to Alexander Technique lessons, acupuncture or usual care alone. Twenty 30-minute Alexander Technique lessons will be provided by teachers registered with the Society of Teachers of the Alexander Technique and twelve 50-minute sessions of acupuncture will be provided by acupuncturists registered with the British Acupuncture Council. All participants will continue to receive usual GP care.The primary outcome will be the NPQ at 12 months, with the secondary time point at 6 months, and an area-under-curve analysis will include 3, 6 and 12 month time-points. Adverse events will be documented. Potential intervention effect modifiers and mediators to be explored include: self-efficacy, stress management, and the incorporation of practitioner advice about self-care and lifestyle. Qualitative material will be used to address issues of safety, acceptability and factors that impact on longer term outcomes. DISCUSSION: This study will provide robust evidence on whether there are significant clinical benefits to patients, economic benefits demonstrating value for money, and sufficient levels of acceptability and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15186354.

Effectiveness of earlier antenatal screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia in primary care: cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of offering antenatal screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia in primary care as a way of facilitating earlier uptake of screening. DESIGN: Partial factorial cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 25 UK general practices from deprived inner city areas. PARTICIPANTS: Anonymised data on all pregnant women attending participating practices during a six month period before randomisation and a seven month period after randomisation. This included 1708 eligible women. INTERVENTION: Practices were randomised to three groups for seven months: parallel testing in general practice (tests for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia offered to both parents when pregnancy was first reported); sequential testing in general practice (tests offered to mothers when pregnancy was first reported, and subsequently to the partners of women who were found to be carriers); and midwife care (tests offered to mothers at first consultation with a midwife). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome (available for all women) was the proportion of eligible women screened before 10 weeks' (70 days') gestation. Secondary outcomes were an offer of screening to women before 10 weeks' gestation, gestational age at testing, mean interval from first visit to the general practice visit to screening, and women's knowledge of the carrier status of their baby's father before 77 days' (11 weeks') gestation. The study was designed to detect a 20% absolute increase in screening uptake. Cluster level analyses were adjusted for age group, parity, ethnic group, primary care organisation, and number of general practitioners per practice. RESULTS: Data were analysed for 1708 eligible women. In the midwife care arm, 2% (9/441) of women were screened before 10 weeks' gestation compared with 24% (161/677) in the GP parallel testing arm and 28% (167/590) in the GP sequential testing arm. The estimated adjusted difference between the midwife care and GP parallel testing arms was 16.5% (95% confidence interval 7.1% to 25.8%; P=0.002) and between the midwife care and GP sequential testing arms was 27.8% (14.8% to 40.7%; P<0.001). By 26 weeks' gestation the proportion of women screened across the three trial arms was similar (81%). The proportion of women who knew the carrier status of the baby's father by 11 weeks' gestation was 0% (0/441) in the midwife care arm, 2% (13/677) in the GP parallel testing arm (P=0.003), and 1% (3/590) in the GP sequential testing arm (P=0.374). CONCLUSION: Offering antenatal screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia as part of consultations for pregnancy confirmation in primary care increases the proportion of women screened before 10 weeks' gestation. Even with intervention, however, only a minority of women were screened before 10 weeks. Additional interventions should be considered to achieve testing early in pregnancy for most women wanting such tests so that couples with affected pregnancies have less time pressure to choose options, which may include termination of the pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN00677850.