Shared decision-making in back pain consultations: an illusion or reality?

PURPOSE: Amid a political agenda for patient-centred healthcare, shared decision-making is reported to substantially improve patient experience, adherence to treatment and health outcomes. However, observational studies have shown that shared decision-making is rarely implemented in practice. The purpose of this study was to measure the prevalence of shared decision-making in clinical encounters involving physiotherapists and patients with back pain. METHOD: Eighty outpatient encounters (comprising 40 h of data) were observed audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the 12-item OPTION scale. The higher the score, the greater is the shared decision-making competency of the clinicians. RESULTS: The mean OPTION score was 24.0% (range 10.4-43.8%). CONCLUSION: Shared decision-making was under-developed in the observed back pain consultations. Clinicians' strong desire to treat acted as a barrier to shared decision-making and further work should focus on when and how it can be implemented.

Dietary advice given by a dietitian versus other health professional or self-help resources to reduce blood cholesterol.

BACKGROUND: The average level of blood cholesterol is an important determinant of the risk of coronary heart disease. Blood cholesterol can be reduced by dietary means. Although dietitians are trained to provide dietary advice, for practical reasons it is also given by other health professionals and occasionally through the use of self-help resources. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of dietary advice given by a dietitian compared with another health professional, or the use of self-help resources, in reducing blood cholesterol in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library (to Issue 3 2002), the EPOC trial register (October 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2002), EMBASE (1980 to September 2002), Cinahl (1982 to August 2002), Human Nutrition (1991 to 1998), Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, hand searched conference proceedings on nutrition and heart disease, and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of dietary advice given by a dietitian compared with another health professional or self-help resources. The main outcome was difference in blood cholesterol between dietitian groups compared with other intervention groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve studies with 13 comparisons were included, involving 727 people receiving advice from dietitians, 515 from other health professionals and 551 people using self-help resources. Four studies compared dietitian with doctor, seven with self-help resources, and only one study was found for each of the dietitian versus nurse and dietitian versus counsellor comparisons. Participants receiving advice from dietitians experienced a greater reduction in blood cholesterol than those receiving advice only from doctors (-0.25 mmol/L (95% CI -0.37, -0.12 mmol/L)). There was no statistically significant difference in change in blood cholesterol between dietitians and self-help resources (-0.10 mmol/L (95% CI -0.22, 0.03 mmol/L)). No statistically significant differences were detected for secondary outcome measures between any of the comparisons with the exception of dietitian versus nurse for HDLc, where the dietitian group showed a greater reduction (-0.06 mmol/L (95% CI -0.11, -0.01)) and dietitian versus counsellor for body weight, where the dietitian group showed a greater reduction (-5.80 kg (95% CI -8.91, -2.69 kg)). No significant heterogeneity between the studies was detected. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Dietitians were better than doctors at lowering blood cholesterol in the short to medium term, but there was no evidence that they were better than self-help resources. The results should be interpreted with caution as the studies were not of good quality and the analysis was based on a limited number of trials. More evidence is required to assess whether change can be maintained in the longer term. There was no evidence that dietitians provided better outcomes than nurses.

Dietary advice given by a dietitian versus other health professional or self-help resources to reduce blood cholesterol.

BACKGROUND: The average level of blood cholesterol is an important determinant of the risk of coronary heart disease. Blood cholesterol can be reduced by dietary means. Although dietitians are trained to provide dietary advice, for practical reasons it is also given by other health professionals and occasionally through the use of self-help resources. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of dietary advice given by a dietitian compared with another health professional, or the use of self-help resources, in reducing blood cholesterol in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library (to Issue 2 1999), MEDLINE (1966 to January 1999), EMBASE (1980 to December 1998), Cinahl (1982 to December 1998), Human Nutrition (1991 to 1998), Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, hand searched conference proceedings on nutrition and heart disease, and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of dietary advice given by a dietitian compared with another health professional or self-help resources. The main outcome was difference in blood cholesterol between dietitian groups compared with other intervention groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies with 12 comparisons were included, involving 704 people receiving advice from dietitians, 486 from other health professionals and 551 people using self-help leaflets. Four studies compared dietitian with doctor, seven with self-help resources, and one compared dietitian with nurse. Participants receiving advice from dietitians experienced a greater reduction in blood cholesterol than those receiving advice only from doctors (-0.25 mmol/L (95% CI -0.37, -0.12 mmol/L)). There was no statistically significant difference in change in blood cholesterol between dietitians and self-help resources (-0.10 mmol/L (95% CI -0.22, 0.03 mmol/L)). No statistically significant differences were detected for secondary outcome measures between any of the comparisons with the exception of dietitian versus nurse for HDLc, where the dietitian groups showed a greater reduction (-0.06 mmol/L (95% CI -0.11, -0.01)). No significant heterogeneity between the studies was detected. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Dietitians were better than doctors at lowering blood cholesterol in the short to medium term, but there was no evidence that they were better than self-help resources. The results should be interpreted with caution as the studies were not of good quality and the analysis was based on a limited number of trials. More evidence is required to assess whether change can be maintained in the longer term. There was no evidence that dietitians provided better outcomes than nurses.

Diabetes risk score: towards earlier detection of type 2 diabetes in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is common, costly and often goes unrecognised for many years. When patients are diagnosed, the majority exhibit associated tissue damage or established cardiovascular risk. Evidence is accumulating that earlier detection and management of diabetes and related metabolic abnormalities may be beneficial. We aimed to develop and evaluate a score based on routinely collected information to identify people at risk of having undetected diabetes. METHODS: A population-based sample of 1077 people, aged 40 to 64 years, without known diabetes, from a single Cambridgeshire general practice, underwent clinical assessment including an oral glucose tolerance test. In a separate 12-month study, 41 practices in southern England reported clinical details of patients aged 40 to 64 years with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes. A notional population was created by random selection and pooling of half of each dataset. Data were entered into a regression model to produce a formula predicting the risk of diabetes. The performance of this risk score in detecting diabetes was tested in an independent, randomly selected, population-based sample. RESULTS: Age, gender, body mass index, steroid and antihypertensive medication, family and smoking history contributed to the score. In the test population at 72% specificity, the sensitivity of the score was 77% and likelihood ratio 2.76. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 80%. CONCLUSIONS: A simple score, using only data that are routinely collected in general practice, can help identify those at risk of diabetes. This score could contribute to efficient earlier detection through case-finding or targeted screening.

Quality assurance guidelines for clinical practice in speech/language pathology.

The quality assurance guidelines for clinical practice in speech/language pathology are effective for assuring the provision of quality clinical services to patients, as well as increasing revenues for hospitals and home care agencies by decreasing or eliminating denials for speech/language pathology claims. The guidelines can be used to evaluate the service and performance of speech therapists employed either directly or by independent contract.

A multi-centre, placebo controlled comparative study between 200 mg and 400 mg celiprolol in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.

A two-centre, double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized 3-way crossover study was undertaken to assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of celiprolol in mild to moderate essential hypertension. A 4-week single-blind placebo run-in/screening period, during which no antihypertensive medication was given, was followed by 3 consecutive 4-week treatment periods with placebo or celiprolol (200 mg or 400 mg daily). At the end of the 4-week placebo run-in/screening period, 26 hospital out-patients with a seated mean blood pressure (systolic/diastolic) of 161.4/101.7 mmHg and a mean pulse rate of 75 beats/min entered the double-blind crossover phase of the study. Results showed that there was no significant difference in seated mean systolic or diastolic blood pressure between 200 mg celiprolol daily (149.2/92.3 mmHg) and 400 mg celiprolol daily (149.1/92.5 mmHg). However, mean seated systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly (p less than 0.05) lower on celiprolol than on placebo (157.1/98.2 mmHg). Neither dose of celiprolol had a significant effect on seated pulse rate. No patient was withdrawn due to an adverse event and no laboratory assessment outside the normal range was reported to be of any clinical significance. It is concluded that oral celiprolol, 200 mg or 400 mg daily, is effective and well tolerated for controlling mild to moderate essential hypertension. Since both doses had very similar effects on blood pressure there is no advantage in this group of patients for the 400 mg daily dose of celiprolol.