Smoking, nicotine and pregnancy 2 (SNAP2) trial: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of an intervention to improve adherence to nicotine replacement therapy during pregnancy.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking during pregnancy is harmful to unborn babies, infants and women. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is offered as the usual stop-smoking support in the UK. However, this is often used in insufficient doses, intermittently or for too short a time to be effective. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) explores whether a bespoke intervention, delivered in pregnancy, improves adherence to NRT and is effective and cost-effective for promoting smoking cessation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-arm parallel-group RCT was conducted for pregnant women aged ≥16 years and who smoke ≥1 daily cigarette (pre-pregnancy smoked ≥5) and who agree to use NRT in an attempt to quit. Recruitment is from antenatal care settings and via social media adverts. Participants are randomised using blocked randomisation with varying block sizes, stratified by gestational age (<14 or ≥14 weeks) to receive: (1) usual care (UC) for stop smoking support or (2) UC plus an intervention to increase adherence to NRT, called 'Baby, Me and NRT' (BMN), comprising adherence counselling, automated tailored text messages, a leaflet and website. The primary outcome is biochemically validated smoking abstinence at or around childbirth, measured from 36 weeks gestation. Secondary outcomes include NRT adherence, other smoking measures and birth outcomes. Questionnaires collect follow-up data augmented by medical record information. We anticipate quit rates of 10% and 16% in the control and intervention groups, respectively (risk ratio=1.6). By recruiting 1320 participants, the trial should have 90% power (alpha=5%) to detect this intervention effect. An economic analysis will use the Economics of Smoking in Pregnancy model to determine cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was granted by Bloomsbury National Health Service's Research Ethics Committee (21/LO/0123). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be disseminated to the public, funders, relevant practice/policy representatives, researchers and participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16830506. PROTOCOL VERSION: 5.0, 10 Oct 2023.

Administering injectable medications prescribed in the anticipation of the end of life in the community: A mixed-methods observational study.

BACKGROUND: The prescription of injectable anticipatory medications ahead of possible need for last-days-of-life symptom relief is established community practice internationally. Healthcare teams and policy makers view anticipatory medication as having a key role in optimising effective and timely symptom control. However, how these medications are subsequently administered (used) is unclear and warrants detailed investigation to inform interdisciplinary practice and guidance. OBJECTIVE: To identify the frequency, timing and recorded circumstances of the administration of injectable end-of-life anticipatory medications prescribed for patients living at home and in residential care. DESIGN: A retrospective mixed-methods observational study using general practitioner (family doctor) and community nursing held clinical records. SETTING(S): Community-based care in two English counties. PARTICIPANTS: 167 deceased adult patients (aged 18+) registered with eleven general practitioner practices and two associated community nursing services. These were patients prescribed anticipatory medications, identified from the 30 most recent deaths per practice. Patients died between 1 March 2017 and 25 September 2019, from any cause except trauma, sudden death or suicide. METHODS: Patient characteristics, anticipatory medication discussions, recorded administration contexts and decision-making, medication details, recorded symptom control and comfort at death were collected from clinical records. Data analysis combined quantitative and qualitative analyses in a mixed methods approach. RESULTS: Anticipatory medications were administered to 59.9 % (100/167) patients, commenced between 0 and 586 days before death (median 3 days). Their usage was similar for patients who died from cancer and non-cancer conditions. Anticipatory medications were almost universally started and titrated by visiting nurses. Eleven patients had medications started between 59 days and 586 days before death for recorded reversible non-end-of-life care conditions. Only 5 % (5/100) of patient records contained detailed accounts of patient participation in decisions to start medications: four were recorded as being reluctant to commence medications but agreed to trial injections to relieve symptoms. Crucially, there was recurrent under-recording of the effectiveness of injectable medications and patient comfort. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribed medications were commonly administered by visiting community nurses to help manage last-days-of-life symptoms. However, patient records infrequently referred to the effectiveness of administered medication and perceived patient comfort. Most recorded references to patient and family preferences for involvement in anticipatory medication decision-making and their experiences of care were brief and perfunctory. More detailed information should be routinely recorded in clinical records to enable assessment of the appropriate and effective use of anticipatory medicines and how inter-professional collaboration and services could be developed to provide adequate twenty-four-hour cover. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Effectiveness of injectable end-of-life symptom control medications and patient comfort often under-recorded @Ben_Bowers__ @PELi_Cam @TheQNI.

Neuropsychiatric symptoms in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: mixed methods analysis of patient-derived attributional evidence in the international INSPIRE project.

OBJECTIVE: Attribution of neuropsychiatric symptoms in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) relies heavily on clinician assessment. Limited clinic time, variable knowledge, and symptom under-reporting contributes to discordance between clinician assessments and patient symptoms. We obtained attributional data directly from patients and clinicians in order to estimate and compare potential levels of direct attribution to SLE of multiple neuropsychiatric symptoms using different patient-derived measures. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative data analysed included: prevalence and frequency of neuropsychiatric symptoms, response to corticosteroids, and concurrence of neuropsychiatric symptoms with non-neuropsychiatric SLE disease activity. SLE patients were also compared with controls and inflammatory arthritis (IA) patients to explore attributability of neuropsychiatric symptoms to the direct disease effects on the brain/nervous system. RESULTS: We recruited 2,817 participants, including 400 clinicians. SLE patients (n = 609) reported significantly higher prevalences of neuropsychiatric symptoms than controls (n = 463) and IA patients (n = 489). SLE and IA patients' quantitative data demonstrated multiple neuropsychiatric symptoms relapsing/remitting with other disease symptoms such as joint pain. Over 45% of SLE patients reported resolution/improvement of fatigue, positive sensory symptoms, severe headache, and cognitive dysfunction with corticosteroids. Evidence of direct attributability in SLE was highest for hallucinations and severe headache. SLE patients had greater reported improvement from corticosteroids (p= 0.008), and greater relapsing-remitting with disease activity (p< 0.001) in the comparisons with IA patients for severe headache. Clinician and patients reported insufficient time to discuss patient-reported attributional evidence. Symptoms viewed as indirectly related/non-attributable were often less prioritised for discussion and treatment. CONCLUSION: We found evidence indicating varying levels of direct attributability of both common and previously unexplored neuropsychiatric symptoms in SLE patients, with hallucinations and severe headache assessed as the most directly attributable. There may also be-currently under-estimated-direct effects on the nervous system in IA and other systemic rheumatological diseases.

The feasibility of population screening for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation using hand-held electrocardiogram devices.

AIMS: There are few data on the feasibility of population screening for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) using hand-held electrocardiogram (ECG) devices outside a specialist setting or in people over the age of 75. We investigated the feasibility of screening when conducted without face-to-face contact ('remote') or via in-person appointments in primary care and explored impact of age on screening outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: People aged ≥65 years from 13 general practices in England participated in screening during 2019-20. This involved attending a practice nurse appointment (10 practices) or receiving an ECG device by post (three practices). Participants were asked to use a hand-held ECG for 1-4 weeks. Screening outcomes included uptake, quality of ECGs, AF detection rates, and uptake of anticoagulation if AF was detected. Screening was carried out by 2141 (87.5%) of people invited to practice nurse-led screening and by 288 (90.0%) invited to remote screening. At least 56 interpretable ECGs were provided by 98.0% of participants who participated for 3 weeks, with no significant differences by setting or age, except people aged 85 or over (91.1%). Overall, 2.6% (64/2429) screened participants had AF, with detection rising with age (9.2% in people aged 85 or over). A total of 53/64 (82.8%) people with AF commenced anticoagulation. Uptake of anticoagulation did not vary by age. CONCLUSION: Population screening for paroxysmal AF is feasible in general practice and without face-to-face contact for all ages over 64 years, including people aged 85 and over.

Wellbeing Impact Study of High-Speed 2 (WISH2): Protocol for a mixed-methods examination of the impact of major transport infrastructure development on mental health and wellbeing.

Although research has demonstrated that transport infrastructure development can have positive and negative health-related impacts, most of this research has not considered mental health and wellbeing separately from physical health. There is also limited understanding of whether and how any effects might be experienced differently across population groups, whether this differs according to the stage of development (e.g. planning, construction), and how changes to planned infrastructure may affect mental health and wellbeing. This paper presents a protocol for the Wellbeing Impact Study of HS2 (WISH2), which seeks to address these questions using a high-speed rail development in the UK as an applied example. WISH2 is a 10-year, integrated, longitudinal, mixed-methods project using general practices (primary medical care providers in the UK) as an avenue for participant recruitment and for providing a geographically defined population for which aggregated data on mental health indicators are available. The research comprises: (i) a combined longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional cohort study involving multiple waves of survey data collection and data from medical records; (ii) longitudinal, semi-structured interviews and focus groups with residents and community stakeholders from exposed areas; (iii) analysis of administrative data aggregated at the general practice population level; and (iv) health economic analysis of mental health and wellbeing impacts. The study findings will support the development of strategies to reduce negative impacts and/or enhance positive mental health and wellbeing impacts of high-speed rail developments and other large-scale infrastructure projects.

Attribution of neuropsychiatric symptoms and prioritisation of evidence in the diagnosis of neuropsychiatric lupus: mixed methods analysis of patient and clinician perspectives from the international INSPIRE study.

OBJECTIVE: Neuropsychiatric lupus (NPSLE) is challenging to diagnose. Many neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as headache and hallucinations, cannot be verified by tests or clinician assessment. We investigated prioritisations of methods for diagnosing NPSLE and attributional views. METHODS: Thematic and comparative analyses were used to investigate how clinicians prioritise sources of evidence from a 13-item list, and explore discordances in clinician and patient perspectives on attribution. RESULTS: We identified high levels of variability and uncertainty in clinicians' assessments of neuropsychiatric symptoms in SLE patients. In attributional decisions, clinicians (surveys n = 400, interviews n = 50) ranked clinicians' assessments above diagnostic tests (many of which they reported were often unenlightening in NPSLE). Clinicians ranked patient opinion of disease activity last, and 46% of patients reported never/rarely having been asked if their SLE was flaring, despite experienced patients often having "attributional insight". SLE Patients (surveys n = 676, interviews n = 27) estimated higher attributability of neuropsychiatric symptoms to the direct effects of SLE on the nervous system than clinicians (p < 0.001 for all symptoms excluding mania), and 24% reported that their self-assessment of disease activity was never/rarely concordant with their clinicians. Reports of misattributions were common, particularly of non-verifiable diffuse symptoms. Terminology differed between clinicians and influenced attribution estimates. CONCLUSION: NPSLE diagnostic tests and clinician assessments have numerous limitations, particularly in detecting diffuse neuropsychiatric symptoms that can be directly attributable and benefit from immunosuppression. Our findings suggest that incorporating patient attributional insights-although also subject to limitations-may improve attribution decision-making. Consensus regarding terminology and interpretations of "direct attributability" is required.

Prevalence and identification of neuropsychiatric symptoms in systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases: an international mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVE: A limited range of neuropsychiatric symptoms have been reported in systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), with varied symptom prevalence. This study aimed to investigate a wider range of potential symptoms than previous studies, compare patient self-reports with clinician estimates, and explore barriers to symptom identification. METHODS: Mixed methods were used. Data from SARDs patients (n = 1853) were compared with controls (n = 463) and clinicians (n = 289). In-depth interviews (n = 113) were analysed thematically. Statistical tests compared means of survey items between: patients and controls, 8 different SARD groups, and clinician specialities. RESULTS: Self-reported lifetime prevalences of all 30 neuropsychiatric symptoms investigated (including cognitive, sensorimotor and psychiatric) were significantly higher in SARDs than controls. Validated instruments assessed 55% of SARDs patients as currently having depression and 57% anxiety. Barriers to identifying neuropsychiatric symptoms included: 1) limits to knowledge, guidelines, objective tests, and inter-specialty cooperation; 2) subjectivity, invisibility and believability of symptoms; and 3) under-eliciting, under-reporting and under-documenting. A lower proportion of clinicians (4%) reported never/rarely asking patients about mental health symptoms than the 74% of patients who reported never/rarely being asked in clinic (p< 0.001). Over 50% of SARDs patients had never/rarely reported their mental health symptoms to clinicians; a proportion under-estimated at < 10% by clinicians (p< 0.001). CONCLUSION: Neuropsychiatric symptom self-reported prevalences are significantly higher in SARDs than controls, and greatly underestimated by most clinicians. Research relying on medical records and current guidelines is unlikely to accurately reflect patients' experiences of neuropsychiatric symptoms. Improved inter-specialty communication and greater patient involvement is needed in SARD care and research.

Improving the diagnostic process for patients with possible bladder and kidney cancer: a mixed-methods study to identify potential missed diagnostic opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Patients with bladder and kidney cancer may experience diagnostic delays. AIM: To identify patterns of suboptimal care and contributors of potential missed diagnostic opportunities (MDOs). DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, mixed-methods study recruiting participants from nine general practices in Eastern England between June 2018 and October 2019. METHOD: Patients with possible bladder and kidney cancer were identified using eligibility criteria based on National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for suspected cancer. Primary care records were reviewed at recruitment and at 1 year for data on symptoms, tests, referrals, and diagnosis. Referral predictors were examined using logistic regression. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 15 patients to explore their experiences of the diagnostic process, and these were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Participants (n = 940) were mostly female (n = 657, 69.9%), with a median age of 71 years (interquartile range 64-77 years). In total, 268 (28.5%) received a referral and 465 (48.5%) had a final diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI). There were 33 (3.5%) patients who were diagnosed with cancer, including prostate (n = 17), bladder (n = 7), and upper urothelial tract (n = 1) cancers. Among referred patients, those who had a final diagnosis of UTI had the longest time to referral (median 81.5 days). Only one-third of patients with recurrent UTIs were referred despite meeting NICE referral guidelines. Qualitative findings revealed barriers during the diagnostic process, including inadequate clinical examination, female patients given repeated antibiotics without clinical reviews, and suboptimal communication of test results to patients. CONCLUSION: Older females with UTIs might be at increased risk of MDOs for cancer. Targeting barriers during the initial diagnostic assessment and follow-up might improve quality of diagnosis.

Medical students remote consulting from home and from the health centre: A survey of prevalence and supervisor perspectives.

PURPOSE: A shift to remote consulting characterised the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in general practice which resulted in significant changes in the delivery of medical education. It is unclear whether these changes have been sustained and how they are perceived by faculty. METHODS: We surveyed a defined population of GP practices during April 2022 with questions to elicit estimates of medical student involvement in different types of remote consultation and supervisor ratings of their confidence in supervising different modalities of remote consultation. We performed thematic analysis on free text responses from a 'resistance to change' perspective. RESULTS: A response rate of 96% (n = 115) was achieved. Analysis of quantitative data identified that a significant proportion of student consultations were remote, however there was a large variation between practices. Supervisor confidence was lowest for students consulting from home. Thematic analysis identified ways in which clinical supervisors may perceive the innovation to be at odds with their overriding commitments to safety, simplicity and quality. CONCLUSIONS: Remote consultations form a significant proportion of medical student activity in many practices. Some supervisors are reluctant to supervise medical students consulting from home and our findings suggest ways of addressing this so that the benefits of the innovation can be harnessed.

The nature and prevalence of threats to medical student placement capacity in primary care: a survey of East of England GP practices.

BACKGROUND: GP practices deliver vital medical student teaching in the face of increasingly challenging circumstances. AIM: To understand the nature and scale of threats to medical student teaching capacity in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: An electronic survey of a predefined population of 120 East of England GP practices that host medical student placements. METHOD: The survey was completed on behalf of the practice by the GP lead for medical student teaching. They were asked to pick (from a list of 16) the four main challenges they faced delivering medical student teaching placements, then explain their selection and suggest solutions. Thematic analysis of free-text responses was undertaken from an activity theory perspective. RESULTS: Responses were received from 114 of the 120 practices in the study population (95% response rate). The most commonly selected challenges to delivering placements were clinical/practice workload (picked by 92 practices), and lack of space in the practice (picked by 63 practices). Thematic analysis produced a model whereby a practice's decision to continue hosting students was influenced by level of motivation and burden of teaching, but only if a certain level of resource enablement is present. Analysis of free-text responses suggested that space pressures were perceived as being exacerbated by the need to accommodate more clinicians, especially advanced practitioners employed by primary care networks (PCNs) under the additional roles reimbursement scheme (ARRS). CONCLUSION: This study provides much-needed quantitative evidence to support the view that lack of space in GP premises is a major threat to the future of undergraduate general practice.

Prioritising electrocardiograms for manual review to improve the efficiency of atrial fibrillation screening.

Screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) could reduce the incidence of stroke by identifying undiagnosed AF and prompting anticoagulation. However, screening may involve recording many electrocardiograms (ECGs) from each participant, several of which require manual review which is costly and time-consuming. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the number of ECG reviews could be reduced by using a model to prioritise ECGs for review, whilst still accurately diagnosing AF. A multiple logistic regression model was created to estimate the likelihood of an ECG exhibiting AF based on the mean RR-interval and variability in RR-intervals. It was trained on 1,428 manually labelled ECGs from 144 AF screening programme participants, and evaluated using 11,443 ECGs from 1,521 participants. When using the model to order ECGs for review, the number of reviews for AF participants was reduced by 74% since no further reviews are required after an AF ECG is identified; however, it did not impact the number of reviews in non-AF participants (the vast majority of participants), so the overall number of reviews was reduced by 3% with no missed AF diagnoses. When using the model to also exclude ECGs from review, the overall number of reviews was reduced by 28% with no missed AF diagnoses, and by 53% with only 4% of AF diagnoses missed. In conclusion, the workload can be reduced by using a model to prioritise ECGs for review. Ordering ECGs alone only provides only a moderate reduction in workload. The additional use of a threshold to exclude ECGs from review provides a much greater reduction in workload at the expense of some missed AF diagnoses. Clinical Relevance-This shows the potential benefit of using a model to prioritise electrocardiograms for review in order to reduce the manual workload of AF screening.

Will 'the feeling of abandonment' remain? Persisting impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on rheumatology patients and clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand rheumatology patient and clinician pandemic-related experiences, medical relationships and behaviours in order to help identify the persisting impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and inform efforts to ameliorate the negative impacts and build upon the positive ones. METHODS: Rheumatology patients and clinicians completed surveys (patients n = 1543, clinicians n = 111) and interviews (patients n = 41, clinicians n = 32) between April 2021 and August 2021. A cohort (n = 139) of systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease patients was also followed up from March 2020 to April 2021. Analyses used sequential mixed methods. Pre-specified outcome measures included the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental wellbeing score (WEMWBS), satisfaction with care and healthcare behaviours. RESULTS: We identified multiple ongoing pandemic-induced/increased barriers to receiving care. The percentage of patients agreeing they were medically supported reduced from 74.4% pre-pandemic to 39.7% during-pandemic. Ratings for medical support, medical security and trust were significantly (P <0.001) positively correlated with patient WEMWBS and healthcare behaviours, and decreased during the pandemic. Healthcare-seeking was reduced, potentially long-term, including from patients feeling 'abandoned' by clinicians, and a 'burden' from government messaging to protect the NHS. Blame and distrust were frequent, particularly between primary and secondary care, and towards the UK government, who <10% of clinicians felt had supported clinicians during the pandemic. Clinicians' efforts were reported to be impeded by inefficient administration systems and chronic understaffing, suggestive of the pandemic having exposed and exacerbated existing healthcare system weaknesses. CONCLUSION: Without concerted action-such as rebuilding trust, improved administrative systems and more support for clinicians-barriers to care and negative impacts of the pandemic on trust, medical relationships, medical security and patient help-seeking may persist in the longer term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is part of a pre-registered longitudinal multi-stage trial, the LISTEN study (ISRCTN-14966097), with later COVID-related additions registered in March 2021, including a pre-registered statistical analysis plan.

Telemedicine in rheumatology: a mixed methods study exploring acceptability, preferences and experiences among patients and clinicians.

OBJECTIVES: The Covid-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid global transition towards telemedicine; yet much remains unknown about telemedicine's acceptability and safety in rheumatology. To help address this gap and inform practice, this study investigated rheumatology patient and clinician experiences and views of telemedicine. METHODS: Sequential mixed methodology combined analysis of surveys and in-depth interviews. Between and within-group differences in views of telemedicine were examined for patients and clinicians using t-tests. RESULTS: Surveys (patients n = 1340, clinicians n = 111) and interviews (patients n = 31, clinicians n = 29) were completed between April 2021 and July 2021. The majority of patients were from the UK (96%) and had inflammatory arthritis (32%) or lupus (32%). Patients and clinicians rated telemedicine as worse than face-to-face consultations in almost all categories, although >60% found it more convenient. Building trusting medical relationships and assessment accuracy were great concerns (93% of clinicians and 86% of patients rated telemedicine as worse than face-to-face for assessment accuracy). Telemedicine was perceived to have increased misdiagnoses, inequalities and barriers to accessing care. Participants reported highly disparate telemedicine delivery and responsiveness from primary and secondary care. Although rheumatology clinicians highlighted the importance of a quick response to flaring patients, only 55% of patients were confident that their rheumatology department would respond within 48 hours. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate a preference for face-to-face consultations. Some negative experiences may be due to the pandemic rather than telemedicine specifically, although the risk of greater diagnostic inaccuracies using telemedicine is unlikely to be fully resolved. Training, choice, careful patient selection, and further consultation with clinicians and patients is required to increase telemedicine's acceptability and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This telemedicine study is part of a pre-registered longitudinal multi-stage trial, the LISTEN study (ISRCTN-14966097), with later Covid-related additions registered in March 2021, including a pre-registered statistical analysis plan.

Characteristics of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in primary care: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are undiagnosed, and UK general practice registers do not typically record heart failure (HF) subtype. Improvements in management of HFpEF is dependent on improved identification and characterisation of patients in primary care. AIM: To describe a cohort of patients recruited from primary care with suspected HFpEF and compare patients in whom HFpEF was confirmed and refuted. DESIGN & SETTING: Baseline data from a longitudinal cohort study of patients with suspected HFpEF recruited from primary care in two areas of England. METHOD: A screening algorithm and review were used to find patients on HF registers without a record of reduced ejection fraction (EF). Baseline evaluation included cardiac, mental and physical function, clinical characteristics, and patient reported outcomes. Confirmation of HFpEF was clinically adjudicated by a cardiologist. RESULTS: In total, 93 (61%) of 152 patients were confirmed HFpEF. The mean age of patients with HFpEF was 79 years, 46% were female, 80% had hypertension, and 37% took ≥10 medications. Patients with HFpEF were more likely to be obese, pre-frail or frail, report more dyspnoea and fatigue, were more functionally impaired, and less active than patients in whom HFpEF was refuted. Few had attended cardiac rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: Patients with confirmed HFpEF had frequent multimorbidity, functional impairment, frailty, and polypharmacy. Although comorbid conditions were similar between people with and without HFpEF, the former had more obesity, symptoms, and worse physical function. These findings highlight the potential to optimise wellbeing through comorbidity management, medication rationalisation, rehabilitation, and supported self-management.

Career intentions and perceptions of general practice on entry to medical school: baseline findings of a longitudinal survey at three UK universities.

BACKGROUND: Medical graduates from the universities of Oxford and Cambridge have a lower intention to become GPs compared with other UK medical graduates. It is not clear to what extent this difference is present on admission to medical school. AIM: To compare the career intention and influencing factors of students on admission to different UK medical schools. DESIGN & SETTING: First year of a 6-year prospective cohort study of medical students admitted in autumn 2020 to the three East of England medical schools: University of East Anglia (UEA), University of Cambridge (UOC), and Anglia Ruskin University (ARU). METHOD: An online survey instrument was administered at the beginning of the first year. This measured self-reported career interests and various influencing factors, including perceptions of general practice. RESULTS: UOC students declared a lower intention to become a doctor, a higher likelihood of choosing careers in pathology and public health, and a much lower likelihood of becoming a GP than students of UEA or ARU (all at P<0.001). In all three schools, the phrases least associated with general practice were 'opportunities for creativity/innovation' and 'research/academic opportunities', whereas the phrases most associated with general practice were 'favourable working hours' and 'flexibility'. However, research/academic opportunities were far more important, and favourable working hours far less important, to UOC students (P<0.001 for both) than to students of UEA or ARU. CONCLUSION: UOC students' lower intention to become a GP appears to be present on entry to medical school. This may be explained in part by these students placing a higher importance on research/academic opportunities, combined with the widely held perception that GP careers lack these opportunities.

The feasibility of the PAM intervention to support treatment-adherence in people with hypertension in primary care: a randomised clinical controlled trial.

The PAM intervention is a behavioural intervention to support adherence to anti-hypertensive medications and therefore to lower blood pressure. This feasibility trial recruited 101 nonadherent patients (54% male, mean age 65.8 years) with hypertension and high blood pressure from nine general practices in the UK. The trial had 15.5% uptake and 7.9% attrition rate. Patients were randomly allocated to two groups: the intervention group (n = 61) received the PAM intervention as an adjunct to usual care; the control group (n = 40) received usual care only. At 3 months, biochemically validated medication adherence was improved by 20% (95% CI 3-36%) in the intervention than control, and systolic blood pressure was reduced by 9.16 mmHg (95% CI 5.69-12.64) in intervention than control. Improvements in medication adherence and reductions in blood pressure suggested potential intervention effectiveness. For a subsample of patients, improvements in medication adherence and reductions in full lipid profile (cholesterol 1.39 mmol/mol 95% CI 0.64-1.40) and in glycated haemoglobin (3.08 mmol/mol, 95% CI 0.42-5.73) favoured the intervention. A larger trial will obtain rigorous evidence about the potential clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.Trial registration Trial date of first registration 28/01/2019. ISRCTN74504989. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN74504989 .

COVID-19 and shielding: experiences of UK patients with lupus and related diseases.

OBJECTIVE: The shielding guidance in the UK for the clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) commenced on 23 March 2020 in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of the pandemic and shielding on patients with lupus and related systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). METHODS: This was a mixed-methods cohort study (n = 111) including pre-lockdown baseline surveys (March 2020), follow-up surveys (June 2020) and in-depth interviews during July 2020 (n = 25). RESULTS: Most participants had a high level of anxiety regarding their mortality risk from COVID-19 and supported the concept of shielding. Shielding allocations and communications were perceived as inconsistently applied and delivered. More than half of those not classified as CEV reported feeling abandoned, at increased risk and with no support. Shielding communications increased feelings of being 'cared about', but also increased fear, and the 'vulnerable' labelling was perceived by some to damage social and self-identity. More than 80% of those classified as CEV stated that the classification and subsequent communications had changed their social-mixing behaviour. Despite many negative impacts of COVID-19 and shielding/lockdown being identified, including isolation, fear and reduced medical care, the quantitative data during the pandemic showed increases in most measures of wellbeing (which was low at both time points) from pre-lockdown, including reductions in the impact of fatigue and pain (P-values < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Shielding classifications and communications were, in general, viewed positively, although they were perceived as inconsistently delivered and anxiety-provoking by some participants. More frequent positively framed communication and wellbeing support could benefit all SARD patients. Slower-paced lockdown lifestyles might confer health/wellbeing benefits for some people with chronic diseases.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the medical care and health-care behaviour of patients with lupus and other systemic autoimmune diseases: a mixed methods longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to explore the self-reported impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on changes to care and behaviour in UK patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases, to help ensure that patient experiences are considered in future pandemic planning. METHODS: This was a longitudinal mixed methods study, with a cohort completing baseline surveys in March 2020 and follow-up surveys in June 2020 (n = 111), combined with thematic analysis of the LUPUS UK forum and participant interviews (n = 28). RESULTS: Cancellations of routine care and difficulties in accessing medical support contributed to some participants deteriorating physically, including reports of hospitalizations. The majority of participants reported that fear of COVID-19 and disruptions to their medical care had also adversely impacted their mental health. Feeling medically supported during the pandemic was correlated with multiple measures of mental health and perceptions of care, including the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being score (r = 0.44, P = 0.01). Five themes were identified: detrimental reduction in care; disparities in contact and communication (medical security vs abandonment sub-theme); perceived and actual endangerment; the perfect storm of reduced clinician ability to help and increased patient reticence to seek help; and identifying the patients most vulnerable to reduced medical care. CONCLUSION: The diversion of resources away from chronic disease care was perceived by many participants to have caused adverse outcomes. Fear about increased vulnerability to COVID-19 was high, contributing to health-care-avoidant behaviours. This study also highlights the influence of clinician accessibility and patients feeling medically supported on multiple measures of physical and mental health.

Process Evaluation of MAPS: A Highly Tailored Digital Intervention to Support Medication Adherence in Primary Care Setting.

Background: Medication adherence can prevent health risks, but many patients do not adhere to their prescribed treatment. Our recent trial found that a digital intervention was effective at improving medication adherence in non-adherent patients with Hypertension or Type 2 Diabetes; but we do not know how it brought about behavioural changes. This research is a post-trial process evaluation of the mechanism by which the intervention achieved its intended effects. Methods: A mixed methods design with quantitative and qualitative evidence synthesis was employed. Data was generated by two studies. Study 1 used questionnaires to measure the underlying mechanisms of and the medication adherence behaviour, and digital logfiles to objectively capture intervention effects on the process of behaviour change. Multilevel regression analysis on 57 complete intervention group cases tested the effects of the intervention at modifying the mechanism of behaviour change and in turn at improving medication adherence. Study 2 used in depth interviews with a subsample of 20 intervention patients, and eight practise nurses. Thematic analysis provided evidence about the overarching intervention functions and recommendations to improve intervention reach and impact in primary care. Results: Study 1 found that intervention effectiveness was significantly associated with positive changes in the underlying mechanisms of behaviour change (R2 = 0.26, SE = 0.98, P = 0.00); and this effect was heightened twofold when the tailored intervention content and reporting on medication taking (R2 = 0.59, SE = 0.74, P = 0.00) was interested into the regression model. Study 2 suggested that the intervention supported motivation and ability to adherence, although clinically meaningful effects would require very brief medication adherence risk appraisal and signposting to ongoing digitally delivered behavioural support during clinical consultations. Conclusion: This post trial process evaluation used objective methods to capture the intervention effect on the mechanisms of behaviour change to explain intervention effectiveness, and subjective accounts to explore the circumstances under which these effects were achieved. The results of this process evaluation will inform a large scale randomised controlled trial in primary care.

Acceptability of the Medication Adherence for Patients Support intervention to improve adherence to patients prescribed medications for hypertension or comorbidities, as an adjunct to primary care: A qualitative study.

Tailored interventions delivered via text and voice messages can improve adherence to multiple medications. However, no such intervention has been developed in the UK primary-care setting. We conducted focus groups with 12 patients with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or both conditions, presumed to be non-adherent and recruited from deprived neighborhoods, to assess the acceptability and inform the development of an intervention to provide ongoing support for adherence, as an adjunct to primary-care consultations. Patients recommended ways to improve the tailored content and delivery of the intervention; like highly interactive messages to report both medication taking and determinants of medication adherence.