A person-centred consultation intervention to improve shared decision-making about, and uptake of, osteoporosis medicines (iFraP): a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial protocol.

Background: Good quality shared decision-making (SDM) conversations involve people with, or at risk of osteoporosis and clinicians collaborating to decide, where appropriate, which evidence-based medicines best fit the person's life, beliefs, and values. We developed the improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments (iFraP) intervention comprising a computerised Decision Support Tool (DST), clinician training package and information resources, for use in UK Fracture Liaison Service consultations.Two primary objectives to determine (1) the effect of the iFraP intervention on patient-reported ease in decision-making about osteoporosis medicines, and (2) cost-effectiveness of iFraP intervention compared to usual NHS care. Secondary objectives are to determine the iFraP intervention effect on patient reported outcome and experience measures, clinical effectiveness (osteoporosis medicine adherence), and to explore intervention acceptability, mechanisms, and processes underlying observed effects, and intervention implementation. Methods: The iFraP trial is a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial in patients referred to a Fracture Liaison Service, with nested mixed methods process evaluation and health economic analysis. Participants aged ≥50 years (n=380) are randomised (1:1 ratio) to one of two arms: (1) iFraP intervention (iFraP-i) or (2) comparator usual NHS care (iFraP-u) and are followed up at 2-weeks and 3-months. The primary outcome is ease of decision-making assessed 2 weeks after the consultation using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The primary objectives will be addressed by comparing the mean DCS score in each trial arm (using analysis of covariance) for patients given an osteoporosis medicine recommendation, alongside a within-trial cost-effectiveness and value of information (VoI) analysis. Process evaluation data collection includes consultation recordings, semi-structured interviews, and DST analytics. Discussion: The iFraP trial will answer important questions about the effectiveness of the new 'iFraP' osteoporosis DST, coupled with clinician training, on SDM and informed initiation of osteoporosis medicines. Trial registration ISRCTN: 10606407, 21/11/2022 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10606407.

Background: For people with osteoporosis, broken bones (called 'fragility fractures') can occur from low or no trauma and cause significant disability. Medicines can strengthen bone and lower the chance of fragility fractures. However, many people who experience a fragility fracture do not start or continue taking osteoporosis medicines. People commonly choose not to take osteoporosis medicines because they are unsure what medicines are for, confused about fracture 'risk' and/or worried about side-effects. To address this, we developed the 'iFraP intervention': 1. The iFraP 'decision-support tool': to support patients and healthcare professionals talk together to make decisions about medicines2. iFraP training for healthcare professionals to:a. use the tool in appointments with patientsb. give understandable, clear and consistent information c. listen to and address patient concerns This trial investigates whether the iFraP intervention makes decision-making about osteoporosis medicines easier, and whether it is cost-effective, acceptable and practical to deliver. Methods: 380 patients will take part who will be 50 years and older and referred to a fracture prevention service, because they have broken a bone. Patients taking part will be allocated to receive either a usual NHS appointment or an appointment using the iFraP intervention. Patients will complete a questionnaire before their appointment, and 2 weeks and 3 months afterwards. Some patients will be asked if they consent to have their appointment recorded and/or be interviewed, to understand how the decision-support tool is being used, and patient's views of the iFraP intervention. Outputs: If successful, the iFraP intervention will benefit patients and the NHS by helping patients make decisions about osteoporosis medicine. If the iFraP intervention increases the number of people with osteoporosis that start and continue taking osteoporosis medicines, iFraP will lower the number of future fractures, and reduce the negative outcomes that result from fractures (e.g. significant disability).

Exploring practice and perspectives on shared decision-making about osteoporosis medicines in Fracture Liaison Services: the iFraP development qualitative study.

Interviews and focus groups with patients, FLS clinicians, and GPs identified challenges relating to clinical and shared decision-making about bone health and osteoporosis medicines. Findings will inform the development of the multicomponent iFraP intervention to address identified training needs and barriers to implementation to facilitate SDM about osteoporosis medicines. PURPOSE: The iFraP (improving uptake of Fracture Prevention treatments) study aimed to develop a multicomponent intervention, including an osteoporosis decision support tool (DST), to support shared decision-making (SDM) about osteoporosis medicines. To inform iFraP intervention development, this qualitative study explored current practice in relation to communication about bone health and osteoporosis medicines, anticipated barriers to, and facilitators of, an osteoporosis DST, and perceived training needs. METHODS: Patients attending an FLS consultation (n = 8), FLS clinicians (n = 9), and general practitioners (GPs; n = 7) were purposively sampled to participate in a focus group and/or telephone interview. Data were transcribed, inductively coded, and then mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) as a deductive framework to systematically identify possible barriers to, and facilitators of, implementing a DST. RESULTS: Inductive codes were deductively mapped to 12 TDF domains. FLS clinicians were perceived to have specialist expertise (knowledge). However, clinicians described aspects of clinical decision-making and risk communication as difficult (cognitive skills). Patients reflected on decisional uncertainty about medicines (decision processes). Discussions about current practice and the proposed DST indicated opportunities to facilitate SDM, if identified training needs are met. Potential individual and system-level barriers to implementation were identified, such as differences in FLS configuration and a move to remote consulting (environmental context and resources). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding of current practice revealed unmet training needs, indicating that using a DST in isolation would be unlikely to produce a sustained shift to SDM. Findings will shape iFraP intervention development to address unmet needs.

Acceptability of a proposed practice pharmacist-led review for opioid-treated patients with persistent pain: A qualitative study to inform intervention development.

Introduction: Regular review of patients prescribed opioids for persistent non-cancer pain (PCNP) is recommended but not routinely undertaken. The PROMPPT (Proactive clinical Review of patients taking Opioid Medicines long-term for persistent Pain led by clinical Pharmacists in primary care Teams) research programme aims to develop and test a pharmacist-led pain review (PROMPPT) to reduce inappropriate opioid use for persistent pain in primary care. This study explored the acceptability of the proposed PROMPPT review to inform early intervention development. Methods: Interviews (n = 15) and an online discussion forum (n = 31) with patients prescribed opioids for PCNP and interviews with pharmacists (n = 13), explored acceptability of a proposed PROMPPT review. A prototype PROMPPT review was then tested and refined through 3 iterative cycles of in-practice testing (IPT) (n = 3 practices, n = 3 practice pharmacists, n = 13 patients). Drawing on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA), a framework was generated (including a priori TFA constructs) allowing for deductive and inductive thematic analysis to identify aspects of prospective and experienced acceptability. Results: Patients felt uncertain about practice pharmacists delivering the proposed PROMPPT review leading to development of content for the invitation letter for IPT (introducing the pharmacist and outlining the aim of the review). After IPT, patients felt that pharmacists were suited to the role as they were knowledgeable and qualified. Pharmacists felt that the proposed reviews would be challenging. Although challenges were experienced during delivery of PROMPPT reviews, pharmacists found that they became easier to deliver with time, practise and experience. Recommendations for optimisations after IPT included development of the training to include examples of challenging consultations. Conclusions: Uptake of new healthcare interventions is influenced by perceptions of acceptability. Exploring prospective and experienced acceptability at multiple time points during early intervention development, led to mini-optimisations of the prototype PROMPPT review ahead of a non-randomised feasibility study.

Reviews for multimorbidity risk in people with inflammatory conditions: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: People with inflammatory rheumatological conditions (IRCs) are at high risk of developing other conditions including cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mood disorders. AIM: To explore perspectives of people with IRCs and healthcare practitioners (HCPs) on the content and delivery of a review consultation aimed at identification and management of multiple long-term conditions (mLTCs). DESIGN & SETTING: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with people with IRCs and HCPs in primary and secondary care. METHOD: People with IRCs participated in individual semi-structured interviews by telephone or online platform. HCPs (including primary and secondary care clinicians) participated in online focus groups. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen people with IRCs were interviewed; three focus groups with HCPs were conducted. The following two main themes were identified: reflecting on the value of review consultations; and what would a new review look like? Overall, people with IRCs and HCPs reflected that access to reviews is inequitable, leading to duplication of reviews and fragmentation in care. People with IRCs, at times, had difficulty conceptualising reviews, especially when discussing their future risk of conditions. People suggested that preparation before the healthcare review could align patient and HCP agendas as part of a flexible and person-centred discussion. CONCLUSION: Any review introduced for people with IRCs must move beyond a 'tick-box' exercise. To gain maximum value from a review, preparation from both patient and HCP may be required alongside a person-centred approach while ensuring they are targeted at people most likely to benefit.

Designing a primary care pharmacist-led review for people treated with opioids for persistent pain: a multi-method qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are frequently prescribed for persistent non-cancer pain despite limited evidence of long-term effectiveness and risk of harm. Evidence-based interventions to address inappropriate opioid prescribing are lacking. AIM: To explore perspectives of people living with persistent pain to understand barriers and facilitators in reducing opioids in the context of a pharmacist-led primary care review, and identify review components and features for optimal delivery. DESIGN & SETTING: A multi-method qualitative study undertaken in the primary care setting in the UK. METHOD: Adults with experience of persistent pain and taking opioids participated in semi-structured interviews (n = 15, 73% female) and an online discussion forum (n = 31). The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) provided a framework for data collection and thematic analysis, involving deductive analysis to TDF domains, inductive analysis within domains to generate sub-themes, and sub-theme comparison to form across-domain overarching themes. The behaviour change technique taxonomy (v1) and motivational behaviour change technique classification system were used to systematically map themes to behaviour change techniques to identify potential review components and delivery features. RESULTS: Thirty-two facilitator and barrier sub-themes for patients reducing opioids were identified across 13 TDF domains. These combined into the following six overarching themes: learning to live with pain; opioid reduction expectations; assuming a medical model; pharmacist-delivered reviews; pharmacist-patient relationship; and patient engagement. Sub-themes mapped to 21 unique behaviour change techniques, yielding 17 components and five delivery features for the proposed PROMPPT review. CONCLUSION: This study generated theoretically informed evidence for design of a practice pharmacist-led PROMPPT review. Future research will test the feasibility and acceptability of the PROMPPT review and pharmacist training.

Identifying carers in general practice (STATUS QUO): a multicentre, cross-sectional study in England.

OBJECTIVES: To determine General Practice (GP) recording of carer status and the number of patients self-identifying as carers, while self-completing an automated check-in screen prior to a GP consultation. DESIGN: A descriptive cross-sectional study. SETTING: 11 GPs in the West Midlands, England. Recruitment commenced in September 2019 and concluded in January 2020. PARTICIPANTS: All patients aged 10 years and over, self-completing an automated check-in screen, were invited to participate during a 3-week recruitment period. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The current coding of carers at participating GPs and the number of patients identifying themselves as a carer were primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measures included the number of responses attained from automated check-in screens as a research data collection tool and whether carers felt supported in their carer role. RESULTS: 80.3% (n=9301) of patients self-completing an automated check-in screen participated in QUantifying the identification Of carers in general practice (STATUS QUO Study) (62.6% (n=5822) female, mean age 52.9 years (10-98 years, SD=20.3)). Prior to recruitment, the clinical code used to denote a carer was identified in 2.7% (n=2739) of medical records across the participating GPs.10.1% (n=936) of participants identified themselves as a carer. They reported feeling supported with their own health and social care needs: always 19.3% (n=150), a lot of the time 13.2% (n=102), some of the time 40.8% (n=317) and never 26.7% (n=207). CONCLUSIONS: Many more participants self-identified as a carer than were recorded on participating GP lists. Improvements in the recording of the population's caring status need to be actioned, to ensure that supportive implementation strategies for carers are effectively received. Using automated check-in facilities for research continues to provide high participation rates.

The cost-effectiveness of adding an ultrasound corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection to advice and education for hip osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence for the comparative cost-effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injection in people with hip osteoarthritis (OA) remains unclear. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of best current treatment (BCT) comprising advice and education plus a single ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection (USGI) of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide and 4 ml 1% lidocaine hydrochloride (BCT+US-T) versus BCT alone. METHODS: A trial-based cost-utility analysis of BCT+US-T compared with BCT was undertaken over 6 months. Patient-level cost data were obtained, and effectiveness was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), allowing the calculation of cost per QALY gained from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective. RESULTS: BCT+US-T was associated with lower mean NHS costs (BCT+US-T minus BCT: £-161.6, 95% CI: £-583.95 to £54.18) and small but significantly higher mean QALYs than BCT alone over 6 months (BCT+US-T minus BCT: 0.0487, 95% CI: 0.0091, 0.0886). In the base case, BCT+US-T was the most cost-effective and dominated BCT alone. Differences in total costs were driven by number of visits to NHS consultants, private physiotherapists, and chiropractors, and hip surgery, which were more common with BCT alone than BCT+US-T. CONCLUSION: Intra-articular corticosteroid injection plus BCT (BCT+US-T) for patients with hip OA results in lower costs and better outcomes, and is highly cost-effective, compared with BCT alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2014-003412-37 (August 8, 2015) and registered with Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN 50550256 (July 28, 2015). TRIAL PROTOCOL: Full details of the trial protocol can be found in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0#citeas. DOI: doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0.

Variation in UK fracture liaison service consultation conduct and content before and during the COVID pandemic: results from the iFraP-D UK survey.

We conducted a survey of FLSs' consultation conduct and content which identified marked variation in whether FLS HCPs discussed osteoporosis medicine with patients. A review of service pro formas showed more content related to 'investigating' and 'intervening' than to 'informing'. We propose an expanded FLS typology and model FLS pro forma. PURPOSE: To investigate the nature of direct patient contact in fracture liaison service (FLS) delivery, examine the use and content of pro formas to guide information eliciting and sharing in FLS consultations, and determine service changes which were implemented as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An electronic survey of UK FLS healthcare practitioners (HCPs) was distributed through clinical networks, social media, and other professional networks. Participants were asked to upload service pro formas used to guide consultation content. Documentary analysis findings were mapped to UK FLS clinical standards. RESULTS: Forty-seven HCPs responded, providing data on 39 UK FLSs, over half of all 74 FLSs reporting to FLS-database. Results showed variation in which HCP made clinical decisions, whether medicines were discussed with patients or not, and in prescribing practice. Services were variably affected by COVID, with most reporting a move to more remote consulting. The documentary analysis of eight service pro formas showed that these contained more content related to 'investigating' and 'intervening', with fewer pro formas prompting the clinician to offer information and support (e.g., about coping with pain). Based on our findings we propose an expanded FLS typology and have developed a model FLS pro forma. CONCLUSION: There is marked variation in the delivery of services and content of consultations in UK FLSs including discussion about osteoporosis medications. Clinical standards for FLSs should clarify the roles of primary and secondary HCPs and the importance of holistic approaches to patient care.

Experiences of living with hip osteoarthritis and of receiving advice, education and ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection in the hip injection trial. A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The Hip Injection Trial (HIT) compared the effectiveness of adding a single ultrasound-guided intra-articular injection of either corticosteroid and local anaesthetic or local anaesthetic alone to advice and education among people with hip osteoarthritis (OA). This nested qualitative study explored participants' experiences of living with hip OA and of the trial treatment they received. METHOD: Semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken with a purposeful sample of trial participants after a 2-month trial follow-up. Interviewers were blinded to which injection participants had received. Thematic analysis using constant comparison was undertaken prior to knowing the trial results. RESULTS: 34 trial participants were interviewed across all arms. OA causes pain, physical limitations, difficulties at work, lowered mood, and disrupted sleep. Those who received advice and education alone felt that they had not received 'treatment' and described little/no benefit. Participants in both injection groups described marked improvements in pain, physical function, and other aspects of life (e.g., sleep, confidence). The perceived magnitude of benefit appeared greater among those who received the corticosteroid injection; however, the length of benefit varied in both injection groups. There was uncertainty about the longer-term benefits of injection and repeated injections. CONCLUSION: Hip OA is highly burdensome. Participants perceived little/no benefit from advice and education alone but reported marked improvements when combined with either injection. However, the magnitude of benefit was greater among those who received corticosteroid. The varying duration of response to injection and uncertainty regarding longer-term benefits of injection and repeated injections suggests that these areas are important for future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2014-003412-37; ISRCTN50550256.

The acceptability and feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a walking intervention for older people with persistent musculoskeletal pain in primary care: A mixed methods evaluation of the iPOPP pilot trial.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is associated with physical inactivity in older people. While walking is an acceptable form of physical activity, the effectiveness of walking interventions in this population has yet to be established. OBJECTIVES: To assess the acceptability and feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the effectiveness of a healthcare assistant-led walking intervention for older people with persistent MSK pain (iPOPP) in primary care. METHODS: A mixed method, three arm pilot RCT was conducted in four general practices and recruited patients aged ≥65 years with persistent MSK pain. Participants were randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to: (i) usual care, (ii) usual care plus a pedometer intervention, or (iii) usual care plus the iPOPP walking intervention. Descriptive statistics were used in an exploratory analysis of the quantitative data. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. A triangulation protocol was used to integrate the analyses from the mixed methods. RESULTS: All pre-specified success criteria were achieved in terms of feasibility (recruitment, follow-up and iPOPP intervention adherence) and acceptability. Triangulation of the data identified the need, in the future, to make the iPOPP training (for intervention deliverers) more patient-centred to better support already active patients and the use of individualised goal setting and improve accelerometry data collection processes to increase the amount of valid data. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot trial suggests that the iPOPP intervention and a future full-scale RCT are both acceptable and feasible. The use of a triangulation protocol enabled more robust conclusions about acceptability and feasibility to be drawn.

Incorporating FRAX into a nurse-delivered integrated care review: a multi-method qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: People with inflammatory rheumatological conditions (IRCs) are at increased risk of common comorbidities including osteoporosis. AIM: To explore the barriers to and facilitators of implementing nurse-delivered fracture risk assessments in primary care, in the context of multimorbidity reviews for people with IRCs. DESIGN & SETTING: A multi-method qualitative study in primary care. METHOD: As part of a process evaluation in a pilot trial, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 patients, two nurses, and three GPs. Twenty-four patient-nurse INCLUDE review consultations were audiorecorded and transcribed. A framework analysis was conducted using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). RESULTS: Nurses reported positive views about the value of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) and they felt confident to deliver the assessments following training. Barriers to implementation, as identified by TDF, particularly related to the domains of knowledge, skills, professional roles, and environmental context. GPs reported difficulty keeping up to date with osteoporosis guidelines and voiced differing opinions about whether fracture risk assessment was the role of primary or secondary care. Lack of integration of FRAX into IT systems was a barrier to use. GPs and nurses had differing views about the nurse role in communicating risk and acting on FRAX findings; for example, explanations of the FRAX result and action needed were limited. Patients reported limited understanding of FRAX outcomes. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that, with appropriate training including risk communication, practice nurses are likely to be confident to play a key role in conducting fracture risk assessments, but further work is needed to address the barriers identified.

Clinical effectiveness of one ultrasound guided intra-articular corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection in addition to advice and education for hip osteoarthritis (HIT trial): single blind, parallel group, three arm, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of adding a single ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of corticosteroid and local anaesthetic to advice and education in adults with hip osteoarthritis. DESIGN: Pragmatic, three arm, parallel group, single blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Two community musculoskeletal services in England. PARTICIPANTS: 199 adults aged ≥40 years with hip osteoarthritis and at least moderate pain: 67 were randomly assigned to receive advice and education (best current treatment (BCT)), 66 to BCT plus ultrasound guided injection of triamcinolone and lidocaine, and 66 to BCT plus ultrasound guided injection of lidocaine. INTERVENTIONS: BCT alone, BCT plus ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide and 4 mL 1% lidocaine hydrochloride, or BCT plus ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of 5 mL 1% lidocaine. Participants in the ultrasound guided arms were masked to the injection they received. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported current intensity of hip pain (0-10 Numerical Rating Scale) over six months. Outcomes were self-reported at two weeks and at two, four, and six months. RESULTS: Mean age of the study sample was 62.8 years (standard deviation 10.0) and 113 (57%) were women. Average weighted follow-up rate across time points was 93%. Greater mean improvement in hip pain intensity over six months was reported with BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine compared with BCT: mean difference -1.43 (95% confidence interval -2.15 to -0.72), P<0.001; standardised mean difference -0.55 (-0.82 to -0.27). No difference in hip pain intensity over six months was reported between BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine compared with BCT plus ultrasound-lidocaine (-0.52 (-1.21 to 0.18)). The presence of ultrasound confirmed synovitis or effusion was associated with a significant interaction effect favouring BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine (-1.70 (-3.10 to -0.30)). One participant in the BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine group with a bioprosthetic aortic valve died from subacute bacterial endocarditis four months after the intervention, deemed possibly related to the trial treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of triamcinolone is a treatment option to add to BCT for people with hip osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2014-003412-37; ISRCTN50550256.

Acceptability of, and preferences for, remote consulting during COVID-19 among older patients with two common long-term musculoskeletal conditions: findings from three qualitative studies and recommendations for practice.

BACKGROUND: Guidance for choosing face-to-face vs remote consultations (RCs) encourages clinicians to consider patient preferences, however, little is known about acceptability of, and preferences for RCs, particularly amongst patients with musculoskeletal conditions. This study aimed to explore the acceptability of, and preferences for, RC among patients with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Three UK qualitative studies, exploring patient experiences of accessing and receiving healthcare, undertaken during the pandemic, with people with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Study team members agreed a consistent approach to conduct rapid deductive analysis using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) on transcripts from each data set relating to RC, facilitated by group meetings to discuss interpretations. Findings from the three studies were pooled. RESULTS: Findings from 1 focus group and 64 interviews with 35 people were included in the analysis. Participants' attitudes to RC, views on fairness (ethicality) and sense-making (intervention coherence) varied according to their needs within the consultation and views of the pandemic. Some participants valued the reduced burden associated with RC, while others highly valued non-verbal communication and physical examination associated with face-to-face consults (opportunity costs). Some participants described low confidence (self-efficacy) in being able to communicate in RCs and others perceived RCs as ineffective, in part due to suboptimal communication. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptability of, and preferences for RC appear to be influenced by societal, healthcare provider and personal factors and in this study, were not condition-dependant. Remote care by default has the potential to exacerbate health inequalities and needs nuanced implementation.

Integrating case-finding and initial management for osteoarthritis, anxiety, and depression into primary care long-term condition reviews: results from the ENHANCE pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is increasingly the norm; however, primary care remains focused on single diseases. Osteoarthritis, anxiety, and depression are frequently comorbid with other long-term conditions (LTCs), but rarely prioritized by clinicians. OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an intervention integrating case-finding and management for osteoarthritis, anxiety, and depression within LTC reviews. METHODS: A pilot stepped-wedge RCT across 4 general practices recruited patients aged ≥45 years attending routine LTC reviews. General practice nurses provided usual LTC reviews (control period), then, following training, delivered the ENHANCE LTC review (intervention period). Questionnaires, an ENHANCE EMIS-embedded template and consultation audio-recordings, were used in the evaluation. RESULTS: General practice recruitment and training attendance reached prespecified success criteria. Three hundred and eighteen of 466 (68%) of patients invited responded; however, more patients were recruited during the control period (206 control, 112 intervention). Eighty-two percent and 78% returned their 6-week and 6-month questionnaires, respectively. Integration of the ENHANCE LTC review into routine LTC reviews varied. Case-finding questions were generally used as intended for joint pain, but to a lesser extent for anxiety and depression. Initial management through referrals and signposting were lacking, and advice was more frequently provided for joint pain. The stepped-wedge design meant timing of the training was challenging and yielded differential recruitment. CONCLUSION: This pilot trial suggests that it is feasible to deliver a fully powered trial in primary care. Areas to optimize include improving the training and reconsidering the stepped-wedge design and the approach to recruitment by targeting those with greatest need. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN: 12154418). Date registered: 6 August 15. Date first participant was enrolled: 13 July 2015. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12154418?q=depression%20schizophrenia&filters=conditionCategory:Not%20Applicable&sort=&offset=5&totalResults=9&page=1&pageSize=20&searchType=basic-search.

Resistance or appropriation?: Uptake of exercise after a nurse-led intervention to promote self-management for osteoarthritis.

The philosophical underpinning of trials of complex interventions is critiqued for not taking into account causal mechanisms that influence potential outcomes. In this article, we draw from in-depth interviews (with practice nurses and patients) and observations of practice meetings and consultations to investigate the outcomes of a complex intervention to promote self-management (in particular exercise) for osteoarthritis in primary care settings. We argue that nurses interpreted the intervention as underpinned by the need to educate rather than work with patients, and, drawing from Habermasian theory, we argue that expert medicalised knowledge (system) clashed with lay 'lifeworld' prerogatives in an uneven communicative arena (the consultation). In turn, the advice and instructions given to patients were not always commensurate with their 'lifeworld'. Consequently, patients struggled to embed exercise routines into their daily lives for reasons of unsuitable locality, sense-making that 'home' was an inappropriate place to exercise and using embodied knowledge to test the efficacy of exercise on pain. We conclude by arguing that using Habermasian theory helped to understand reasons why the trial failed to increase exercise levels. Our findings suggest that communication styles influence the outcomes of self-management interventions, reinforce the utility of theoretically informed qualitative research embedded within trials to improve conduct and outcomes and indicate incorporating perspectives from human geography can enhance Habermas-informed research and theorising.

The attitudes towards, and beliefs about, physical activity in people with osteoarthritis and comorbidity: A qualitative investigation.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the attitudes towards, and beliefs about, physical activity (PA) in older adults with osteoarthritis (OA) and comorbidity to understand experiences and seek ways to improve PA participation. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with adults aged ≥45, with self-reported OA and comorbidity (N = 17). Face-to-face interviews explored participant perspectives regarding; (1) attitudes and beliefs about PA in the context of OA and comorbidity and (2) how people with OA and comorbidity could be encouraged to improve and maintain PA levels. Data were transcribed verbatim and inductive thematic analysis was undertaken using a framework approach. RESULTS: Participants did not conceptualise multiple long-term conditions (LTCs) together and instead self-prioritised OA over other LTCs. Barriers to PA included uncertainty about both the general management of individual LTCs and the effectiveness of PA for their LTCs; and, negative perceptions about their health, ageing and PA. Participants experienced dynamic and co-existing barriers to PA, and problematized this as a multi-level process, identifying a barrier, then a solution, followed by a new barrier. Facilitators of PA included social support and support from knowledgeable healthcare professionals (HCPs), together with PA adapted for OA and comorbidity and daily life. PA levels could be increased through targeted interventions to increase self-efficacy for managing OA alongside other LTCs and self-efficacy for PA. CONCLUSION: People with OA and comorbidity experience complicated PA barriers. To increase PA levels, tailored PA interventions could include HCP and social support to anticipate and overcome multi-level PA barriers and target increased self-efficacy for LTC management and PA.

Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments: a protocol for Development of a consultation intervention (iFraP-D).

INTRODUCTION: Prevention of fragility fractures, a source of significant economic and personal burden, is hindered by poor uptake of fracture prevention medicines. Enhancing communication of scientific evidence and elicitation of patient medication-related beliefs has the potential to increase patient commitment to treatment. The Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments (iFraP) programme aims to develop and evaluate a theoretically informed, complex intervention consisting of a computerised web-based decision support tool, training package and information resources, to facilitate informed decision-making about fracture prevention treatment, with a long-term aim of improving informed treatment adherence. This protocol focuses on the iFraP Development (iFraP-D) work. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The approach to iFraP-D is informed by the Medical Research Council complex intervention development and evaluation framework and the three-step implementation of change model. The context for the study is UK fracture liaison services (FLS), which enact secondary fracture prevention. An evidence synthesis of clinical guidelines and Delphi exercise will be conducted to identify content for the intervention. Focus groups with patients, FLS clinicians and general practitioners and a usual care survey will facilitate understanding of current practice, and investigate barriers and facilitators to change. Design of the iFraP intervention will be informed by decision aid development standards and theories of implementation, behaviour change, acceptability and medicines adherence. The principles of co-design will underpin all elements of the study through a dedicated iFraP community of practice including key stakeholders and patient advisory groups. In-practice testing of the prototype intervention will inform revisions ready for further testing in a subsequent pilot and feasibility randomised trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from North West-Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (19/NW/0559). Dissemination and knowledge mobilisation will be facilitated through national bodies and networks, publications and presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: researchregistry5041.

Acceptability of nurse-led reviews for inflammatory rheumatological conditions: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: People with inflammatory rheumatological conditions (IRCs), are at increased risk of comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, anxiety and depression. The INCLUDE pilot trial evaluated a nurse-delivered review of people with IRCs which sought to identify and initiate management of comorbid conditions. AIM: A nested qualitative study was undertaken to examine the acceptability of the INCLUDE review. METHODS: A qualitative interview-based design in UK primary care settings. A purposive sample of 20 patients who attended an INCLUDE review, were interviewed. Inductive thematic analysis was undertaken. Themes were agreed through multidisciplinary team discussion and mapped onto constructs of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). RESULTS: Six themes mapped onto six of the seven TFA constructs. Patients reported the review to be effective by identifying and initiating management of previously unrecognised comorbid conditions. Some participants reported barriers to following recommendations, such as lifestyle modifications or taking more medication. CONCLUSION: A nurse-delivered review to identify comorbidities is acceptable to patients with IRCs. The TFA provided a novel analytical lens.