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

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

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

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

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

Effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions delivered at home for urinary and faecal incontinence with homebound older people: systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Incontinence is a common, distressing condition, most prevalent in older people. There is an unmet need for effective interventions to support continence. This review focuses on non-pharmacological interventions to reduce incontinence among homebound older people. Aim: to identify interventions with potential to be delivered by care workers, nurses or family members in a person's home. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched until 15 September 2023 for randomised controlled trials reporting home-based interventions for incontinence for older people (≥65 years) living at home. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and papers against inclusion criteria, then assessed for the Risk of Bias (RoB2). A third reviewer resolved the discrepancies. Primary data were extracted and synthesised. RESULTS: A full-text review of 81 papers identified seven eligible papers (1996-2022, all USA), including n = 636 participants (561 women and 75 men). Two studies focusing on multicomponent behavioural interventions showed benefit, as did one study of transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation self-administered through electrode-embedded socks. Three, which included cognitively impaired people, reported improvement with toileting assistance programmes, but the effects were not all significant. Results were inconclusive from a study examining the effects of fluid intake adjustments. Interventions were delivered by nurses, three in collaboration with family caregivers. No faecal incontinence interventions met the criteria. CONCLUSION: There is scant evidence for continence supporting interventions delivered in older people's own homes. With an ageing population often reliant on family or social care workers well-placed to support continence promotion and policy drives for services to support older people remaining at home, this evidence gap needs addressing.

The impact of cutaneous neurofibromas on quality of life and mental health in neurofibromatosis type 1.

The skin manifestations of neurofibromatosis 1 significantly reduce health-related quality-of-life. However, data on the utility of existing surveys in capturing neurofibromatosis 1 skin treatment outcomes are lacking. This quantitative study examined the relationship between clinician-rated severity and visibility and patient-rated itch and quality-of-life (QoL) to (1) establish baseline levels of skin- and condition-specific-related QoL, itch, depression and anxiety; (2) identify patient concerns to inform the development and evaluation of skin interventions; and (3) compare the sensitivity of different QoL measures. Validated scales included Skindex-29, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Neurofibromatosis 1-adult quality-of-life (NF1-AdQOL) questionnaire, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). We recruited 100 participants (response rate: 95%). Of these, 42% reported itch and 23% had probable clinical anxiety. Our cohort had higher levels of anxiety and total HADS scores compared to a control population. Using multivariate regression analysis, increasing visibility significantly predicted poorer QoL using the Skindex-29, NF1-AdQOL, and DLQI (p < 0.05); and itch significantly predicted worse QoL in Skindex-29 and NF1-AdQOL (p < 0.05). The highest mean scoring questions in Skindex-29 and NF1-AdQOL concerned worry about worsening skin disease and embarrassment. The highest mean scoring questions in DLQI were regarding itch, pain, and embarrassment. Items asking specifically about cutaneous neurofibromas (cNF) scored higher than comparable skin-specific questions (t-test p value <0.05). In summary, this study provides insights into the factors contributing to impaired QoL, anxiety, and mood in NF1 patients with cutaneous neurofibromas. Key factors identified for use in cNF measures include visibility, itch, anxiety, embarrassment, fears of worsening skin disease, and cNF-specific questions.

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

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