Are childhood factors predictive of adult health literacy? A longitudinal birth cohort analysis.

Health literacy (HL), defined as the ability of an individual to understand and appraise health information to make informed decisions on their health, helps maintain and improve one's health and thus reduce the use of healthcare services. There is a recognised global effort to address insufficient HL in early life and understand how HL develops. This study examined the association of a range of factors including educational, speech and language ability, health and healthcare engagement, sleep problems, mental health, demographic, environmental, and maternal factors at different childhood stages (from 5 years to 11 years) with later adult HL at age 25. HL was measured using a HL ordinal score (insufficient, limited, or sufficient) derived from the European Literacy Survey Questionnaire-short version (HLS-EU-Q16) within a large UK based birth cohort (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children: ALSPAC study). Univariate proportional odds logistic regression models for the probability of having higher levels of HL were developed. Results of analysis of 4248 participants showed that poorer speech and language ability (aged 9 years, OR 0.18 95% CI 0.04 to 0.78), internalising in child (age 11 years, OR 0.62 95% CI 0.5 to 0.78), child depression (age 9 years, OR 0.67 95% CI 0.52 to 0.86), and the presence of maternal depression (child age 5, OR 0.80 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96), reduced the odds of sufficient HL when adult. Our results suggest some useful markers to identify children at potential risk of low HL that could be targeted for research into future interventions within school settings, for example, child's speech and language capability. In addition, this study identified child and maternal mental health as factors associated with later development of limited HL and future research should consider what potential mechanisms might explain this link.

Evaluation of quality and readability of online patient information on osteoporosis and osteoporosis drug treatment and recommendations for improvement.

Patient information is important to help patients fully participate in their healthcare. Commonly accessed osteoporosis patient information resources were identified and assessed for readability, quality, accuracy and consistency. Resources contained inconsistencies and scored low when assessed for quality and readability. We recommend optimal language and identify information gaps to address. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this paper is to identify commonly accessed patient information resources about osteoporosis and osteoporosis drug treatment, appraise the quality and make recommendations for improvement. METHODS: Patient information resources were purposively sampled and text extracted. Data extracts underwent assessment of readability (Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level) and quality (modified International Patient Decision Aid Standards (m-IPDAS)). A thematic analysis was conducted, and keywords and phrases were used to describe osteoporosis and its treatment identified. Findings were presented to a stakeholder group who identified inaccuracies and contradictions and discussed optimal language. RESULTS: Nine patient information resources were selected, including webpages, a video and booklets (available online), from government, charity and private healthcare providers. No resource met acceptable readability scores for both measures of osteoporosis information and drug information. Quality scores from the modified IPDAS ranged from 21 to 64% (7-21/33). Thematic analysis was informed by Leventhal's Common-Sense Model of Disease. Thirteen subthemes relating to the identity, causes, timeline, consequences and controllability of osteoporosis were identified. Phrases and words from 9 subthemes were presented to the stakeholder group who identified a predominance of medical technical language, misleading terms about osteoporotic bone and treatment benefits, and contradictions about symptoms. They recommended key descriptors for providers to use to describe osteoporosis and treatment benefits. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that commonly accessed patient information resources about osteoporosis have highly variable quality, scored poorly on readability assessments and contained inconsistencies and inaccuracies. We produced practical recommendations for information providers to support improvements in understanding, relevance, balance and bias, and to address information gaps.

Stratified primary care versus non-stratified care for musculoskeletal pain: findings from the STarT MSK feasibility and pilot cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain from the five most common presentations to primary care (back, neck, shoulder, knee or multi-site pain), where the majority of patients are managed, is a costly global health challenge. At present, first-line decision-making is based on clinical reasoning and stratified models of care have only been tested in patients with low back pain. We therefore, examined the feasibility of; a) a future definitive cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT), and b) General Practitioners (GPs) providing stratified care at the point-of-consultation for these five most common MSK pain presentations. METHODS: The design was a pragmatic pilot, two parallel-arm (stratified versus non-stratified care), cluster RCT and the setting was 8 UK GP practices (4 intervention, 4 control) with randomisation (stratified by practice size) and blinding of trial statistician and outcome data-collectors. Participants were adult consulters with MSK pain without indicators of serious pathologies, urgent medical needs, or vulnerabilities. Potential participant records were tagged and individuals sent postal invitations using a GP point-of-consultation electronic medical record (EMR) template. The intervention was supported by the EMR template housing the Keele STarT MSK Tool (to stratify into low, medium and high-risk prognostic subgroups of persistent pain and disability) and recommended matched treatment options. Feasibility outcomes included exploration of recruitment and follow-up rates, selection bias, and GP intervention fidelity. To capture recommended outcomes including pain and function, participants completed an initial questionnaire, brief monthly questionnaire (postal or SMS), and 6-month follow-up questionnaire. An anonymised EMR audit described GP decision-making. RESULTS: GPs screened 3063 patients (intervention = 1591, control = 1472), completed the EMR template with 1237 eligible patients (intervention = 513, control = 724) and 524 participants (42%) consented to data collection (intervention = 231, control = 293). Recruitment took 28 weeks (target 12 weeks) with > 90% follow-up retention (target > 75%). We detected no selection bias of concern and no harms identified. GP stratification tool fidelity failed to achieve a-priori success criteria, whilst fidelity to the matched treatments achieved "complete success". CONCLUSIONS: A future definitive cluster RCT of stratified care for MSK pain is feasible and is underway, following key amendments including a clinician-completed version of the stratification tool and refinements to recommended matched treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Name of the registry: ISRCTN. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 15366334. Date of registration: 06/04/2016.

Evidence flowers: An innovative, visual method of presenting "best evidence" summaries to health professional and lay audiences.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Barriers to dissemination and engagement with evidence pose a threat to implementing evidence-based medicine. Understanding, retention, and recall can be enhanced by visual presentation of information. The aim of this exploratory research was to develop and evaluate the accessibility and acceptability of visual summaries for presenting evidence syntheses with multiple exposures or outcomes to professional and lay audiences. METHODS: "Evidence flowers" were developed as a visual method of presenting data from 4 case scenarios: 2 complex evidence syntheses with multiple outcomes, Cochrane reviews, and clinical guidelines. Petals of evidence flowers were coloured according to the GRADE evidence rating system to display key findings and recommendations from the evidence summaries. Application of evidence flowers was observed during stakeholder workshops. Evaluation and feedback were conducted via questionnaires and informal interviews. RESULTS: Feedback from stakeholders on the evidence flowers collected from workshops, questionnaires, and interviews was encouraging and helpful for refining the design of the flowers. Comments were made on the content and design of the flowers, as well as the usability and potential for displaying different types of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence flowers are a novel and visually stimulating method for presenting research evidence from evidence syntheses with multiple exposures or outcomes, Cochrane reviews, and clinical guidelines. To promote access and engagement with research evidence, evidence flowers may be used in conjunction with other evidence synthesis products, such as (lay) summaries, evidence inventories, rapid reviews, and clinical guidelines. Additional research on potential adaptations and applications of the evidence flowers may further bridge the gap between research evidence and clinical practice.

Current evidence on risk factors for knee osteoarthritis in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of pain and disability and leads to a reduced quality of life. The aim was to determine the current evidence on risk factors for onset of knee pain/OA in those aged 50 and over. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of cohort studies for risk factors for the onset of knee pain. Two authors screened abstracts and papers and completed data extraction. Where possible, pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated via random effects meta-analysis and population attributable fractions (PAFs) derived. 6554 papers were identified and after screening 46 studies were included. The main factors associated with onset of knee pain were being overweight (pooled OR 1.98, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.57-2.20), obesity (pooled OR 2.66 95% CI 2.15-3.28), female gender (pooled OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.37-2.07), previous knee injury (pooled OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.91-4.19). Hand OA (pooled OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.90-1.87) was found to be non-significant. Smoking was found not to be a statistically significant risk or protective factor (pooled OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83-1.01). PAFs indicated that in patients with new onset of knee pain 5.1% of cases were due to previous knee injury and 24.6% related to being overweight or obese. Clinicians can use the identified risk factors to identify and manage patients at risk of developing or increasing knee pain. Obesity in particular needs to be a major target for prevention of development of knee pain. More research is needed into a number of potential risk factors.

Effects of patients' preferences on the treatment of atrial fibrillation: observational study of patient-based decision analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of patients' preferences in the treatment of atrial fibrillation by using individualized decision analysis in which probability and utility assessments are combined into a decision tree. DESIGN: Observational study based on interviews with patients. SETTING: 8 general practices in Avon, England. PARTICIPANTS: 260 randomly selected patients aged 70 to 85 years with atrial fibrillation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' treatment preferences regarding anticoagulation treatment (warfarin sodium) after individualized decision analysis; comparison of these preferences with treatment guidelines on the basis of comorbidity and absolute risk and compared with current prescription. RESULTS: Of 195 eligible patients, 97 participated in decision making using decision analysis. Among these 97, the decision analysis indicated that 59 (61%; 95% confidence interval, 50%-71%) would prefer anticoagulation treatment, considerably fewer than those who would be recommended treatment according to guidelines. There was marked disagreement between the decision analysis and guideline recommendations (kappa> or =0.25). Of 38 patients whose decision analysis indicated a preference for anticoagulation, 17 (45%) were being prescribed warfarin; on the other hand, 28 (47%) of 59 patients were not being prescribed warfarin, although the results of their decision analysis suggested they wanted to be. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of shared decision making, individualized decision analysis is valuable in a sizable proportion of elderly patients with atrial fibrillation. Taking account of patients' preferences would lead to fewer prescriptions for warfarin than under published recommendations. Decision analysis as a shared decision-making tool should be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.

The impact of patients' preferences on the treatment of atrial fibrillation: observational study of patient based decision analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of patients' preferences for the treatment of atrial fibrillation, by using individualised decision analysis combining probability and utility assessments into a decision tree. DESIGN: Observational study based on interviews with patients. SETTING: Eight general practices in Avon. PARTICIPANTS: 260 randomly selected patients aged 70-85 years with atrial fibrillation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' treatment preferences regarding anticoagulation treatment (warfarin) after individualised decision analysis; comparison of these preferences with treatment guidelines on the basis of comorbidity and absolute risk and compared with current prescription. RESULTS: Of 195 eligible patients, 97 participated in decision making using decision analysis. Among these 97, the decision analysis indicated that 59 (61%; 95% confidence interval 50% to 71%) would prefer anticoagulation treatment-considerably fewer than those who would be recommended treatment according to guidelines. There was marked disagreement between the decision analysis and guideline recommendations (kappa=0.25 or less). Of 38 patients whose decision analysis indicated a preference for anticoagulation, 17 (45%) were being prescribed warfarin; on the other hand, 28 (47%) of 59 patients were not being prescribed warfarin although the results of their decision analysis suggested they wanted to be. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of shared decision making, individualised decision analysis is valuable in a sizeable proportion of elderly patients with atrial fibrillation. Taking account of patients' preferences would lead to fewer prescriptions for warfarin than under published guideline recommendations. Decision analysis as a shared decision making tool should be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial.