Exploring gender differences in uptake of GP partnership roles: a qualitative mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The unadjusted gender pay gap in general practice is reported to be 33.5%. This reflects partly the differential rate at which women become partners, but evidence exploring gender differences in GPs' career progression is sparse. AIM: To explore factors affecting uptake of partnership roles, focusing particularly on gender differences. DESIGN AND SETTING: Convergent mixed-methods research design using data from UK GPs. METHOD: Secondary analysis of qualitative interviews and social media analysis of UK GPs' Twitter commentaries, which informed the conduct of asynchronous online focus groups. Findings were combined using methodological triangulation. RESULTS: The sample comprised 40 GP interviews, 232 GPs tweeting about GP partnership roles, and seven focus groups with 50 GPs. Factors at individual, organisational, and national levels influence partnership uptake and career decisions of both men and women GPs. Desire for work-family balance (particularly childcare responsibilities) presented the greatest barrier, for both men and women, as well as workload, responsibility, financial investment, and risk. Greater challenges were, however, reported by women, particularly regarding balancing work-family lives, as well as prohibitive working conditions (including maternity and sickness pay) and discriminatory practices perceived to favour men and full-time GPs. CONCLUSION: There are some long-standing gendered barriers that continue to affect the career decisions of women GPs. The relative attractiveness of salaried, locum, or private roles in general practice appears to discourage both men and women from partnerships presently. Promoting positive workplace cultures through strong role models, improved flexibility in roles, and skills training could potentially encourage greater uptake.

General practitioners' wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic: Novel methods with social media data.

BACKGROUND: It is difficult to engage busy healthcare professionals in research. Yet during the COVID-19 pandemic, gaining their perspectives has never been more important. OBJECTIVE: To explore social media data for insights into the wellbeing of UK General Practitioners (GPs) during the Covid-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used a combination of search approaches to identify 381 practising UK NHS GPs on Twitter. Using a two stage social media analysis, we firstly searched for key themes from 91,034 retrieved tweets (before and during the pandemic). Following this we used qualitative content analysis to provide in-depth insights from 7145 tweets related to wellbeing. RESULTS: Social media proved a useful tool to identify a cohort of UK GPs; following their tweets longitudinally to explore key themes and trends in issues related to GP wellbeing during the pandemic. These predominately related to support, resources and public perceptions and fluctuations were identified at key timepoints during the pandemic, all achieved without burdening busy GPs. CONCLUSION: Social media data can be searched to identify a cohort of GPs to explore their wellbeing and changes over time.

GP wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Doctors' organisations in the UK have reported worrying levels of work-related stress and burnout in the GP workforce for some time, and the COVID-19 pandemic has presented clear new challenges. AIM: To synthesise international evidence exploring the impact of COVID-19 on primary care doctors' mental health and wellbeing, and identify risk factors associated with their psychological wellbeing during this time. DESIGN AND SETTING: Mixed-methods systematic review. METHOD: Six bibliographic databases, Google Scholar, and MedRxiv were searched on 19 November 2020 and 3 June 2021 to identify studies of GP psychological wellbeing during the pandemic. Reference checking was also conducted. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of studies using standardised tools. Heterogeneity in outcomes, setting, and design prohibited statistical pooling; studies were combined using a convergent integrated thematic synthesis. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were included. Multiple sources of stress were identified including changed working practices; risk, exposure, and inadequate personal protective equipment (PPE); information overload; pandemic preparedness; and cohesion across sectors. Studies demonstrated an impact on psychological wellbeing, with some GPs experiencing stress, burnout, anxiety, depression, fear of COVID-19, lower job satisfaction, and physical symptoms. Studies reported gender and age differences: women GPs had poorer psychological outcomes across all domains, and older GPs reported greater stress and burnout. Use of outcome measures and reporting practice varied greatly. CONCLUSION: This review of international evidence demonstrates that the COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected GPs' wellbeing around the world. Further research could explore gender and age differences, identifying interventions targeted to these groups.

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

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

PROMISE: first-trimester progesterone therapy in women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriages - a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international multicentre trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Progesterone is essential to maintain a healthy pregnancy. Guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and a Cochrane review called for a definitive trial to test whether or not progesterone therapy in the first trimester could reduce the risk of miscarriage in women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriage (RM). The PROMISE trial was conducted to answer this question. A concurrent cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international multicentre study, with economic evaluation, conducted in hospital settings across the UK (36 sites) and in the Netherlands (nine sites). PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Women with unexplained RM (three or more first-trimester losses), aged between 18 and 39 years at randomisation, conceiving naturally and giving informed consent, received either micronised progesterone (Utrogestan(®), Besins Healthcare) at a dose of 400 mg (two vaginal capsules of 200 mg) or placebo vaginal capsules twice daily, administered vaginally from soon after a positive urinary pregnancy test (and no later than 6 weeks of gestation) until 12 completed weeks of gestation (or earlier if the pregnancy ended before 12 weeks). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Live birth beyond 24 completed weeks of gestation (primary outcome), clinical pregnancy at 6-8 weeks, ongoing pregnancy at 12 weeks, miscarriage, gestation at delivery, neonatal survival at 28 days of life, congenital abnormalities and resource use. METHODS: Participants were randomised after confirmation of pregnancy. Randomisation was performed online via a secure internet facility. Data were collected on four occasions of outcome assessment after randomisation, up to 28 days after birth. RESULTS: A total of 1568 participants were screened for eligibility. Of the 836 women randomised between 2010 and 2013, 404 received progesterone and 432 received placebo. The baseline data (age, body mass index, maternal ethnicity, smoking status and parity) of the participants were comparable in the two arms of the trial. The follow-up rate to primary outcome was 826 out of 836 (98.8%). The live birth rate in the progesterone group was 65.8% (262/398) and in the placebo group it was 63.3% (271/428), giving a relative risk of 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.15; p = 0.45). There was no evidence of a significant difference between the groups for any of the secondary outcomes. Economic analysis suggested a favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for decision-making but wide confidence intervals indicated a high level of uncertainty in the health benefits. Additional sensitivity analysis suggested the probability that progesterone would fall within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year as between 0.7145 and 0.7341. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that first-trimester progesterone therapy improves outcomes in women with a history of unexplained RM. LIMITATIONS: This study did not explore the effect of treatment with other progesterone preparations or treatment during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. FUTURE WORK: Future research could explore the efficacy of progesterone supplementation administered during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle in women attempting natural conception despite a history of RM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN92644181; EudraCT 2009-011208-42; Research Ethics Committee 09/H1208/44. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The cost-effectiveness of quality improvement projects: a conceptual framework, checklist and online tool for considering the costs and consequences of implementation-based quality improvement.

In resource constrained systems, decision makers should be concerned with the efficiency of implementing improvement techniques and technologies. Accordingly, they should consider both the costs and effectiveness of implementation as well as the cost-effectiveness of the innovation to be implemented. An approach to doing this effectively is encapsulated in the 'policy cost-effectiveness' approach. This paper outlines some of the theoretical and practical challenges to assessing policy cost-effectiveness (the cost-effectiveness of implementation projects). A checklist and associated (freely available) online application are also presented to help services develop more cost-effective implementation strategies.

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

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

The London Exercise And Pregnant smokers (LEAP) trial: a randomised controlled trial of physical activity for smoking cessation in pregnancy with an economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Smoking during pregnancy is the main preventable cause of poor birth outcomes. Improved methods are needed to help women to stop smoking during pregnancy. Pregnancy provides a compelling rationale for physical activity (PA) interventions as cessation medication is contraindicated or ineffective, and an effective PA intervention could be highly cost-effective. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a PA intervention plus standard behavioural support for smoking cessation relative to behavioural support alone for achieving smoking cessation at the end of pregnancy. DESIGN: Multicentre, two-group, pragmatic randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation with follow-up at the end of pregnancy and 6 months postnatally. Randomisation was stratified by centre and a computer-generated sequence was used to allocate participants using a 1 : 1 ratio. SETTING: 13 hospitals offering antenatal care in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Women between 10 and 24 weeks' gestation smoking five or more cigarettes a day before pregnancy and one or more during pregnancy. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to behavioural support for smoking cessation (control) or behavioural support plus a PA intervention consisting of supervised treadmill exercise plus PA consultations. Neither participants nor researchers were blinded to treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported, continuous smoking abstinence between a quit date and end of pregnancy, validated by expired carbon monoxide and/or salivary cotinine. Secondary outcomes were maternal weight, depression, birth outcomes, withdrawal symptoms and urges to smoke. The economic evaluation investigated the costs of the PA intervention compared with the control intervention. RESULTS: In total, 789 women were randomised (n = 394 PA, n = 395 control). Four were excluded post randomisation (two had been enrolled twice in sequential pregnancies and two were ineligible and randomised erroneously). The intention-to-treat analysis comprised 785 participants (n = 392 PA, n = 393 control). There was no significant difference in the rate of abstinence at the end of pregnancy between the PA group (7.7%) and the control group (6.4%) [odds ratio for PA group abstinence 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 2.10]. For the PA group compared with the control group, there was a 33% (95% CI 14% to 56%), 28% (95% CI 7% to 52%) and 36% (95% CI 12% to 65%) significantly greater increase in self-reported minutes of moderate- and vigorous-intensity PA from baseline to 1 week, 4 weeks and 6 weeks respectively. Accelerometer data showed that there was no significant difference in PA levels between the groups. There were no significant differences between the groups for change in maternal weight, depression, withdrawal symptoms or urges to smoke. Adverse events and birth outcomes were similar between the groups except for there being significantly more caesarean births in the control group than in the PA group (28.7% vs. 21.3%; p < 0.023). The PA intervention was less costly than the control intervention by £35 per participant. This was mainly attributable to increased health-care usage in the control group. However, there was considerable statistical uncertainty around this estimate. CONCLUSIONS: During pregnancy, offering an intervention combining supervised exercise and PA counselling does not add to the effectiveness of behavioural support for smoking cessation. Only 10% of participants had PA levels accessed by accelerometer and it is, therefore, unclear whether or not the lack of an effect on the primary outcome is the result of insufficient increases in PA. Research is needed to identify the smoking populations most suitable for PA interventions and methods for increasing PA adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48600346. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 84. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nicotine Patches for Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy: A Placebo Randomized Controlled Trial (SNAP).

INTRODUCTION: Smoking during pregnancy is the most important, preventable cause of adverse pregnancy outcomes including miscarriage, premature birth, and low birth weight with huge financial costs to the National Health Service. However, there are very few published economic evaluations of smoking cessation interventions in pregnancy and previous studies are predominantly U.S.-based and do not present incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). A number of studies have demonstrated cost-effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in the general population, but this has yet to be tested among pregnant smokers. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken alongside the smoking, nicotine, and pregnancy trial to compare NRT patches plus behavioral support to behavioral support alone, for pregnant women who smoked. RESULTS: At delivery, biochemically verified quit rates were slightly higher at 9.4% in the NRT group compared to 7.6% in the control group (odds ratio = 1.26, 95% CI = 0.82-1.96), at an increased cost of around £90 per participant. Higher costs in the NRT group were mainly attributable to the cost of NRT patches (mean = £46.07). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with NRT was £4,926 per quitter and a sensitivity analysis including only singleton births yielded an ICER of £4,156 per quitter. However, wide confidence intervals indicated a high level of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Without a specific willingness to pay threshold, and due to high levels of statistical uncertainty, it is hard to determine the cost-effectiveness of NRT in this population. Furthermore, future research should address compliance issues, as these may dilute any potential effects of NRT, thus reducing the cost-effectiveness.

The SNAP trial: a randomised placebo-controlled trial of nicotine replacement therapy in pregnancy--clinical effectiveness and safety until 2 years after delivery, with economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Smoking during pregnancy causes many adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is effective for cessation outside pregnancy but efficacy and safety in pregnancy are unknown. We hypothesised that NRT would increase smoking cessation in pregnancy without adversely affecting infants. OBJECTIVES: To compare (1) at delivery, the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for achieving biochemically validated smoking cessation of NRT patches with placebo patches in pregnancy and (2) in infants at 2 years of age, the effects of maternal NRT patch use with placebo patch use in pregnancy on behaviour, development and disability. DESIGN: Randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial and economic evaluation with follow-up at 4 weeks after randomisation, delivery and until infants were 2 years old. Randomisation was stratified by centre and a computer-generated sequence was used to allocate participants using a 1 : 1 ratio. Participants, site pharmacies and all study staff were blind to treatment allocation. SETTING: Seven antenatal hospitals in the Midlands and north-west England. PARTICIPANTS: Women between 12 and 24 weeks' gestation who smoked ≥ 10 cigarettes a day before and ≥ 5 during pregnancy, with an exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) reading of ≥ 8 parts per million (p.p.m.). INTERVENTIONS: NRT patches (15 mg per 16 hours) or matched placebo as an 8-week course issued in two equal batches. A second batch was dispensed at 4 weeks to those abstinent from smoking. PARTICIPANTS: self-reported, prolonged abstinence from smoking between a quit date and childbirth, validated at delivery by CO measurement and/or salivary cotinine (COT) (primary outcome). Infants, at 2 years: absence of impairment, defined as no disability or problems with behaviour and development. Economic: cost per 'quitter'. RESULTS: One thousand and fifty women enrolled (521 NRT, 529 placebo). There were 1010 live singleton births and 12 participants had live twins, while there were 14 fetal deaths and no birth data for 14 participants. Numbers of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes were similar in trial groups, except for a greater number of caesarean deliveries in the NRT group. Smoking: all participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses; those lost to follow-up (7% for primary outcome) were assumed to be smoking. At 1 month after randomisation, the validated cessation rate was higher in the NRT group {21.3% vs. 11.7%, odds ratio [OR], [95% confidence interval (CI)] for cessation with NRT, 2.05 [1.46 to 2.88]}. At delivery, there was no difference between groups' smoking cessation rates: 9.4% in the NRT and 7.6% in the placebo group [OR (95% CI), 1.26 (0.82 to 1.96)]. Infants: at 2 years, analyses were based on data from 888 out of 1010 (87.9%) singleton infants (including four postnatal infant deaths) [445/503 (88.5%) NRT, 443/507 (87.4%) placebo] and used multiple imputation. In the NRT group, 72.6% (323/445) had no impairment compared with 65.5% (290/443) in placebo (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.86). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for NRT use was £4156 per quitter (£4926 including twins), but there was substantial uncertainty around these estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Nicotine replacement therapy patches had no enduring, significant effect on smoking in pregnancy; however, 2-year-olds born to women who used NRT were more likely to have survived without any developmental impairment. Further studies should investigate the clinical effectiveness and safety of higher doses of NRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN07249128. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 54. See the NIHR Journals Library programme website for further project information.

Quality of life among hazardous and harmful drinkers: EQ-5D over a 1-year follow-up period.

PURPOSE: To investigate the ability of the EQ-5D to discriminate between levels of alcohol risk in a large sample of hazardous and harmful drinkers, and to explore the relationship between transitions between alcohol risk levels and changes in EQ-5D up to 12 months. METHODS: This is a web-based randomised controlled trial evaluating a novel intervention for hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption. EQ-5D scores were compared among groups of drinkers at baseline (low/medium/high risk according to self-reported past week alcohol consumption), and changes in EQ-5D scores were estimated as a function of changes in alcohol consumption level. RESULTS: Baseline EQ-5D scores were dominated by problems with anxiety/depression, which increased with alcohol risk level, whilst high-risk drinkers also experienced more problems with physical HRQoL dimensions. However, the tool demonstrated a considerable ceiling effect. At follow-up, despite considerable reductions in alcohol consumption across the sample, significant changes in aggregated EQ-5D index scores were only observed for high-risk drinkers at baseline who reduced their drinking, with small improvements (0.04-0.06) compared to those who did not reduce. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the three-option EQ-5D may not be an optimal primary end point for measuring clinical and cost-effectiveness in randomised controlled trials of interventions among hazardous and harmful alcohol users, although further testing of the sensitivity of the tool in these populations is needed.

Developing a complex intervention for diet and activity behaviour change in obese pregnant women (the UPBEAT trial); assessment of behavioural change and process evaluation in a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Complex interventions in obese pregnant women should be theoretically based, feasible and shown to demonstrate anticipated behavioural change prior to inception of large randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The aim was to determine if a) a complex intervention in obese pregnant women leads to anticipated changes in diet and physical activity behaviours, and b) to refine the intervention protocol through process evaluation of intervention fidelity. METHODS: We undertook a pilot RCT of a complex intervention in obese pregnant women, comparing routine antenatal care with an intervention to reduce dietary glycaemic load and saturated fat intake, and increase physical activity. Subjects included 183 obese pregnant women (mean BMI 36.3 kg/m2). RESULTS: Compared to women in the control arm, women in the intervention arm had a significant reduction in dietary glycaemic load (33 points, 95% CI -47 to -20), (p < 0.001) and saturated fat intake (-1.6% energy, 95% CI -2.8 to -0. 3) at 28 weeks' gestation. Objectively measured physical activity did not change. Physical discomfort and sustained barriers to physical activity were common at 28 weeks' gestation. Process evaluation identified barriers to recruitment, group attendance and compliance, leading to modification of intervention delivery. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot trial of a complex intervention in obese pregnant women suggests greater potential for change in dietary intake than for change in physical activity, and through process evaluation illustrates the considerable advantage of performing an exploratory trial of a complex intervention in obese pregnant women before undertaking a large RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN89971375.

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

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

Health-related quality of life in hospital inpatients with pressure ulceration: assessment using generic health-related quality of life measures.

The objective of this study was to determine the impact of pressure ulceration on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and to undertake a pilot study for a future larger study. The study comprised two parts. First, data from a large UK prospective cohort study were analyzed and the HRQoL of 218 people with pressure ulcers was compared with that of 2,289 people without ulcers using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire. After adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, patients with pressure ulceration had significantly lower scores for both the physical (coefficient=-3.12, p<0.001) and mental (coefficient=-1.50, p=0.04) component summary scores of the SF-36. Second, a small pilot study was conducted to explore use of other tools. HRQoL was assessed in six patients with and 16 patients without pressure ulcers using the SF-36, the EQ-5D and a pain visual analog scale. SF-36 scores indicated that patients with pressure ulcers had significantly poorer physical functioning (d=22.3, p=0.001), role limitations due to physical problems (d=12.9, p=0.02), and vitality (d=20.6, p=0.04) than those without. EQ-5D scores were also poorer for patients with pressure ulceration, for both the visual analog scale (d=19.2, p=0.02) and the index (d=0.29, p=0.08). Patients with pressure ulceration had more perceived pain than those without; however, this difference was of borderline significance (d=-23.9, p=0.06). Pressure ulceration therefore has an impact on HRQoL that is measurable and persists after adjusting for potential confounding.

Mothers without companionship during childbirth: an analysis within the Millennium Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Studies have highlighted the benefits of social support during labor but no studies focused on women who choose to be unaccompanied or who have no companion available at birth. Our goals were, first, to identify characteristics of women who are unaccompanied at birth and compare these to those who had support and, second, to establish whether or not being unaccompanied at birth is a risk marker for adverse maternal and infant health outcomes. METHODS: The sample comprised 16,610 natural mother-infant pairs, excluding women with planned cesarean sections in the Millennium Cohort Study. Multivariable regression models were used to examine, first, sociodemographic, cultural, socioeconomic, and pregnancy characteristics in relation to being unaccompanied and, second, being unaccompanied at birth in relation to labor and delivery outcomes, maternal health and health-related behaviors, parenting, and infant health and development. RESULTS: Mothers who were single (vs not single), multiparous (vs primiparous), of black or Pakistani ethnicity (vs white), from poor households (vs nonpoor), with low levels of education (vs high levels), and who did not attend antenatal classes (vs attenders) were at significantly higher risk of being unaccompanied at birth. Mothers unaccompanied at birth were more likely to have a preterm birth (vs term), an emergency cesarean section (vs spontaneous vaginal delivery) and spinal pain relief or a general anesthetic (vs no pain relief), a shorter labor, and lower satisfaction with life (vs high satisfaction) at 9 months postpartum. Their infants had significantly lower birthweight and were at higher risk of delayed gross motor development (vs normal development). CONCLUSIONS: Being unaccompanied at birth may be a useful marker of high-risk mothers and infants in need of additional support in the postpartum period and beyond.