Patient and relative experiences of the ReSPECT process in the community: an interview-based study.

BACKGROUND: The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) was launched in the UK in 2016. ReSPECT is designed to facilitate meaningful discussions between healthcare professionals, patients, and their relatives about preferences for treatment in future emergencies; however, no study has investigated patients' and relatives' experiences of ReSPECT in the community. OBJECTIVES: To explore how patients and relatives in community settings experience the ReSPECT process and engage with the completed form. METHODS: Patients who had a ReSPECT form were identified through general practice surgeries in three areas in England; either patients or their relatives (where patients lacked capacity) were recruited. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, focusing on the participants' understandings and experiences of the ReSPECT process and form. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen interviews took place (six with patients, four with relatives, three with patient and relative pairs). Four themes were developed: (1) ReSPECT records a patient's wishes, but is entangled in wider relationships; (2) healthcare professionals' framings of ReSPECT influence patients' and relatives' experiences; (3) patients and relatives perceive ReSPECT as a do-not-resuscitate or end-of-life form; (4) patients' and relatives' relationships with the ReSPECT form as a material object vary widely. Patients valued the opportunity to express their wishes and conceptualised ReSPECT as a process of caring for themselves and for their family members' emotional wellbeing. Participants who described their ReSPECT experiences positively said healthcare professionals clearly explained the ReSPECT process and form, allocated sufficient time for an open discussion of patients' preferences, and provided empathetic explanations of treatment recommendations. In cases where participants said healthcare professionals did not provide clear explanations or did not engage them in a conversation, experiences ranged from confusion about the form and how it would be used to lingering feelings of worry, upset, or being burdened with responsibility. CONCLUSIONS: When ReSPECT conversations involved an open discussion of patients' preferences, clear information about the ReSPECT process, and empathetic explanations of treatment recommendations, working with a healthcare professional to co-develop a record of treatment preferences and recommendations could be an empowering experience, providing patients and relatives with peace of mind.

Why are some ReSPECT conversations left incomplete? A qualitative case study analysis.

Background: As an emergency care and treatment planning process (ECTP), a key feature of the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) is the engagement of patients and/or their representatives in conversations about treatment options including, but not limited to, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). However, qualitative research suggests that some ReSPECT conversations lead to partial or no decision-making about treatment recommendations. This paper explores why some ReSPECT conversations are left incomplete. Methods: Drawing on observation and interview data collected in four National Health Service (NHS) hospital sites in England, this paper offers an in-depth exploration of six case studies in which ReSPECT conversations were incomplete. Using thematic analysis, we triangulate fieldnote data documenting these conversations with interview data in which the doctors who conducted these conversations shared their perceptions and reflected on their decision-making processes. Results: We identified two themes, both focused on 'mismatch': (1) Mismatch between the doctor's clinical priorities and the patient's/family's immediate needs; and (2) mismatch between the doctor's conversation scripts, which included patient autonomy, the feasibility of CPR, and what medicine can and should do to prolong a patient's life, and the patient's/family's understandings of these concepts. Conclusions: This case study analysis of six ReSPECT conversations found that mismatch between doctors' priorities and understandings and those of patients and/or their relatives led to incomplete ReSPECT conversations. Future research should explore methods to overcome these mismatches.

Assessing the quality of ReSPECT documentation using an accountability for reasonableness framework.

BACKGROUND: The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) form, which supports the ReSPECT process, is designed to prompt clinicians to discuss wider emergency treatment options with patients and to structure the documentation of decision-making for greater transparency. METHODS: Following an accountability for reasonableness framework (AFR), we analysed 141 completed ReSPECT forms (versions 1.0 and 2.0), collected from six National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England during the early adoption of ReSPECT. Structured through an evaluation tool developed for this study, the analysis assessed the extent to which the records reflected consistency, transparency, and ethical justification of decision-making. RESULTS: Recommendations relating to CPR were consistently recorded on all forms and were contextualised within other treatment recommendations in most forms. The level of detail provided about treatment recommendations varied widely and reasons for treatment recommendations were rarely documented. Patient capacity, patient priorities and preferences, and the involvement of patients/relatives in ReSPECT conversations were recorded in some, but not all, forms. Clinicians almost never documented their weighing of potential burdens and benefits of treatments on the ReSPECT forms. CONCLUSION: In most ReSPECT forms, CPR recommendations were captured alongside other treatment recommendations. However, ReSPECT form design and associated training should be modified to address inconsistencies in form completion. These modifications should emphasise the recording of patient values and preferences, assessment of patient capacity, and clinical reasoning processes, thereby putting patient/family involvement at the core of good clinical practice. Version 3.0 of ReSPECT responds to these issues.

General practitioners' experiences of emergency care and treatment planning in England: a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency Care and Treatment Plans are recommended for all primary care patients in the United Kingdom who are expected to experience deterioration of their health. The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) was developed to integrate resuscitation decisions with discussions about wider goals of care. It summarises treatment recommendations discussed and agreed between patients and their clinicians for a future emergency situation and was designed to meet the needs of different care settings. Our aim is to explore GPs' experiences of using ReSPECT and how it transfers across the primary care and secondary care interface. METHODS: We conducted five focus groups with GPs in areas being served by hospitals in England that have implemented ReSPECT. Participants were asked about their experience of ReSPECT, how they initiate ReSPECT-type conversations, and their experiences of ReSPECT-type recommendations being communicated across primary and secondary care. Focus groups were transcribed and analysed using Thematic Analysis. RESULTS: GPs conceptualise ReSPECT as an end of life planning document, which is best completed in primary care. As an end of life care document, completing ReSPECT is an emotional process and conversations are shaped by what a 'good death' is thought to be. ReSPECT recommendations are not always communicated or transferable across care settings. A focus on the patient's preferences around death, and GPs' lack of specialist knowledge, could be a barrier to completion of ReSPECT that is transferable to acute settings. CONCLUSION: Conceptualising ReSPECT as an end of life care document suggests a difference in how general practitioners understand ReSPECT from its designers. This impacts on the transferability of ReSPECT recommendations to the hospital setting.

Why, when and how do secondary-care clinicians have emergency care and treatment planning conversations? Qualitative findings from the ReSPECT Evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) is an emergency care and treatment planning (ECTP) process, developed to offer a patient-centred approach to deciding about and recording treatment recommendations. Conversations between clinicians and patients or their representatives are central to the ReSPECT process. This study aims to understand why, when, and how ReSPECT conversations unfold in practice. METHODS: ReSPECT conversations were observed in hospitals within six acute National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England; the clinicians who conducted these conversations were interviewed. Following observation-based thematic analysis, five ReSPECT conversation types were identified: resuscitation and escalation; confirmation of decision; bad news; palliative care; and clinical decision. Interview-based thematic analysis examined the reasons and prompts for each conversation type, and the level of detail and patient engagement in these different conversations. RESULTS: Whereas resuscitation and escalation conversations concerned possible futures, palliative care and bad news conversations responded to present-tense changes. Conversations were timed to respond to organisational, clinical, and patient/relative prompts. While bad news and palliative care conversations included detailed discussions of treatment options beyond CPR, this varied in other conversation types. ReSPECT conversations varied in doctors' engagement with patient/relative preferences, with only palliative care conversations consistently including an open-ended approach. CONCLUSIONS: While ReSPECT supports holistic, person-centred, anticipatory decision-making in some situations, a gap remains between the ReSPECT's aims and their implementation in practice. Promoting an understanding and valuing of the aims of ReSPECT among clinicians, supported by appropriate training and structural support, will enhance ReSPECT conversations.

How does the use of digital consulting change the meaning of being a patient and/or a health professional? Lessons from the Long-term Conditions Young People Networked Communication study.

BACKGROUND: While studies have examined the impact of digital communication technology on healthcare, there is little exploration of how new models of digital care change the roles and identities of the health professional and patient. The purpose of the current study is to generate multidisciplinary reflections and questions around the use of digital consulting and the way it changes the meaning of being a patient and/or a health professional. METHOD: We used a large pre-existing qualitative dataset from the Long-term Conditions Young People Networked Communication (LYNC) study which involved interviews with healthcare professionals and a group of 16-24 years patients with long-term physical and mental health conditions. We conducted a three-stage mixed methods analysis. First, using a small sample of interview data from the LYNC study, we identified three key themes to explore in the data and relevant academic literature. Second, in small groups we conducted secondary analysis of samples of patient and health professional LYNC interview data. Third, we ran a series of rapid evidence reviews. FINDINGS: We identified three key themes: workload/flow, impact of increased access to healthcare and vulnerabilities. Both health professionals and patients were 'on duty' in their role more often. Increased access to healthcare introduced more responsibilities to both patients and health professionals. Traditional concepts in medical ethics, confidentiality, empathy, empowerment/power, efficiency and mutual responsibilities are reframed in the context of digital consulting. CONCLUSIONS: Our collaboration identified conflicts and constraints in the construction of digital patients and digital clinicians. There is evidence that digital technologies change the nature of a medical consultation and with it the identities and the roles of clinicians and patients which, in turn, calls for a redefinition of traditional concepts of medical ethics. Overall, digital consulting has the potential to significantly reduce costs while maintaining or improving patient care and clinical outcomes. Timely study of digital engagement in the National Health Service is a matter of critical importance.

Mobile consulting (mConsulting) and its potential for providing access to quality healthcare for populations living in low-resource settings of low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: The poorest populations of the world lack access to quality healthcare. We defined the key components of consulting via mobile technology (mConsulting), explored whether mConsulting can fill gaps in access to quality healthcare for poor and spatially marginalised populations (specifically rural and slum populations) of low- and middle-income countries, and considered the implications of its take-up. METHODS: We utilised realist methodology. First, we undertook a scoping review of mobile health literature and searched for examples of mConsulting. Second, we formed our programme theories and identified potential benefits and hazards for deployment of mConsulting for poor and spatially marginalised populations. Finally, we tested our programme theories against existing frameworks and identified published evidence on how and why these benefits/hazards are likely to accrue. RESULTS: We identified the components of mConsulting, including their characteristics and range. We discuss the implications of mConsulting for poor and spatially marginalised populations in terms of competent care, user experience, cost, workforce, technology, and the wider health system. CONCLUSIONS: For the many dimensions of mConsulting, how it is structured and deployed will make a difference to the benefits and hazards of its use. There is a lack of evidence of the impact of mConsulting in populations that are poor and spatially marginalised, as most research on mConsulting has been undertaken where quality healthcare exists. We suggest that mConsulting could improve access to quality healthcare for these populations and, with attention to how it is deployed, potential hazards for the populations and wider health system could be mitigated.

Benefits and Costs of Digital Consulting in Clinics Serving Young People With Long-Term Conditions: Mixed-Methods Approach.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of digital health technologies in National Health Service (NHS), health professionals are starting to use email, text, and other digital methods to consult with their patients in a timely manner. There is lack of evidence regarding the economic impact of digital consulting in the United Kingdom (UK) NHS. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the direct costs associated with digital consulting as an adjunct to routine care at 18 clinics serving young people aged 16-24 years with long-term conditions. METHODS: This study uses both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 173 clinical team members on the impacts of digital consulting. A structured questionnaire was developed and used for 115 health professionals across 12 health conditions at 18 sites in the United Kingdom to collect data on time and other resources used for digital consulting. A follow-up semistructured interview was conducted with a single senior clinician at each site to clarify the mechanisms through which digital consulting use might lead to outcomes relevant to economic evaluation. We used the two-part model to see the association between the time spent on digital consulting and the job role of staff, type of clinic, and the average length of the working hours using digital consulting. RESULTS: When estimated using the two-part model, consultants spent less time on digital consulting compared with nurses (95.48 minutes; P<.001), physiotherapists (55.3 minutes; P<.001), and psychologists (31.67 minutes; P<.001). Part-time staff spent less time using digital consulting than full-time staff despite insignificant result (P=.15). Time spent on digital consulting differed across sites, and no clear pattern in using digital consulting was found. Health professionals qualitatively identified the following 4 potential economic impacts for the NHS: decreasing adverse events, improving patient well-being, decreasing wait lists, and staff workload. We did not find evidence to suggest that the clinical condition was associated with digital consulting use. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses and physiotherapists were the greatest users of digital consulting. Teams appear to use an efficient triage system with the most expensive members digitally consulting less than lower-paid team members. Staff report showed concerns regarding time spent digitally consulting, which implies that direct costs increase. There remain considerable gaps in evidence related to cost-effectiveness of digital consulting, but this study has highlighted important cost-related outcomes for assessment in future cost-effectiveness trials of digital consulting.

mHealth text and voice communication for monitoring people with chronic diseases in low-resource settings: a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Routine monitoring by patients and healthcare providers to manage chronic disease is vital, though this can be challenging in low-resourced health systems. Mobile health (mHealth) has been proposed as one way to improve management of chronic diseases. Past mHealth reviews have proposed the need for a greater understanding around how the theoretical constructs in mHealth interventions actually work. In response, we synthesised evidence from primary studies on monitoring of chronic diseases using two-way digital text or voice communication between a patient and health worker. We did this in order to understand the important considerations for the design of mHealth interventions. METHOD: Articles retrieved were systematically screened and analysed to elicit explanations of mHealth monitoring interventions. These explanations were consolidated into programme theory and compared with existing theory and frameworks. We identified variation in outcomes to understand how context moderates the outcome. RESULTS: Four articles were identified-monitoring of hypertension and HIV/AIDS from: Kenya, Pakistan, Honduras and Mexico and South Africa. Six components were found in all four interventions: reminders, patient observation of health state, motivational education/advice, provision of support communication, targeted actions and praise and encouragement. Intervention components were mapped to existing frameworks and theory. Variation in outcome identified in subgroup analysis suggests greater impact is achieved with certain patient groups, such as those with low literacy, those with stressful life events or those early in the disease trajectory. There was no other evidence in the included studies of the effect of context on the intervention and outcome. CONCLUSION: mHealth interventions for monitoring chronic disease in low-resource settings, based on existing frameworks and theory, can be effective. A match between what the intervention provides and the needs or social factors relevant to specific patient group increases the effect. It was not possible to understand the impact of context on intervention and outcome beyond these patient-level measures as no evidence was provided in the study reports.

Ethical implications of digital communication for the patient-clinician relationship: analysis of interviews with clinicians and young adults with long term conditions (the LYNC study).

BACKGROUND: Digital communication between a patient and their clinician offers the potential for improved patient care, particularly for young people with long term conditions who are at risk of service disengagement. However, its use raises a number of ethical questions which have not been explored in empirical studies. The objective of this study was to examine, from the patient and clinician perspective, the ethical implications of the use of digital clinical communication in the context of young people living with long-term conditions. METHODS: A total of 129 semi-structured interviews, 59 with young people and 70 with healthcare professionals, from 20 United Kingdom (UK)-based specialist clinics were conducted as part of the LYNC study. Transcripts from five sites (cancer, liver, renal, cystic fibrosis and mental health) were read by a core team to identify explicit and implicit ethical issues and develop descriptive ethical codes. Our subsequent thematic analysis was developed iteratively with reference to professional and ethical norms. RESULTS: Clinician participants saw digital clinical communication as potentially increasing patient empowerment and autonomy; improving trust between patient and healthcare professional; and reducing harm because of rapid access to clinical advice. However, they also described ethical challenges, including: difficulty with defining and maintaining boundaries of confidentiality; uncertainty regarding the level of consent required; and blurring of the limits of a clinician's duty of care when unlimited access is possible. Paradoxically, the use of digital clinical communication can create dependence rather than promote autonomy in some patients. Patient participants varied in their understanding of, and concern about, confidentiality in the context of digital communication. An overarching theme emerging from the data was a shifting of the boundaries of the patient-clinician relationship and the professional duty of care in the context of use of clinical digital communication. CONCLUSIONS: The ethical implications of clinical digital communication are complex and go beyond concerns about confidentiality and consent. Any development of this form of communication should consider its impact on the patient-clinician-relationship, and include appropriate safeguards to ensure that professional ethical obligations are adhered to.

Timely Digital Patient-Clinician Communication in Specialist Clinical Services for Young People: A Mixed-Methods Study (The LYNC Study).

BACKGROUND: Young people (aged 16-24 years) with long-term health conditions can disengage from health services, resulting in poor health outcomes, but clinicians in the UK National Health Service (NHS) are using digital communication to try to improve engagement. Evidence of effectiveness of this digital communication is equivocal. There are gaps in evidence as to how it might work, its cost, and ethical and safety issues. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to understand how the use of digital communication between young people with long-term conditions and their NHS specialist clinicians changes engagement of the young people with their health care; and to identify costs and necessary safeguards. METHODS: We conducted mixed-methods case studies of 20 NHS specialist clinical teams from across England and Wales and their practice providing care for 13 different long-term physical or mental health conditions. We observed 79 clinical team members and interviewed 165 young people aged 16-24 years with a long-term health condition recruited via case study clinical teams, 173 clinical team members, and 16 information governance specialists from study NHS Trusts. We conducted a thematic analysis of how digital communication works, and analyzed ethics, safety and governance, and annual direct costs. RESULTS: Young people and their clinical teams variously used mobile phone calls, text messages, email, and voice over Internet protocol. Length of clinician use of digital communication varied from 1 to 13 years in 17 case studies, and was being considered in 3. Digital communication enables timely access for young people to the right clinician at the time when it can make a difference to how they manage their health condition. This is valued as an addition to traditional clinic appointments and can engage those otherwise disengaged, particularly at times of change for young people. It can enhance patient autonomy, empowerment and activation. It challenges the nature and boundaries of therapeutic relationships but can improve trust. The clinical teams studied had not themselves formally evaluated the impact of their intervention. Staff time is the main cost driver, but offsetting savings are likely elsewhere in the health service. Risks include increased dependence on clinicians, inadvertent disclosure of confidential information, and communication failures, which are mostly mitigated by young people and clinicians using common-sense approaches. CONCLUSIONS: As NHS policy prompts more widespread use of digital communication to improve the health care experience, our findings suggest that benefit is most likely, and harms are mitigated, when digital communication is used with patients who already have a relationship of trust with the clinical team, and where there is identifiable need for patients to have flexible access, such as when transitioning between services, treatments, or lived context. Clinical teams need a proactive approach to ethics, governance, and patient safety.

Digital communication between clinician and patient and the impact on marginalised groups: a realist review in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, the NHS is embracing the use of digital communication technology for communication between clinicians and patients. Policymakers deem digital clinical communication as presenting a solution to the capacity issues currently faced by general practice. There is some concern that these technologies may exacerbate existing inequalities in accessing health care. It is not known what impact they may have on groups who are already marginalised in their ability to access general practice. AIM: To assess the potential impact of the availability of digital clinician-patient communication on marginalised groups' access to general practice in the UK. DESIGN AND SETTING: Realist review in general practice. METHOD: A four-step realist review process was used: to define the scope of the review; to search for and scrutinise evidence; to extract and synthesise evidence; and to develop a narrative, including hypotheses. RESULTS: Digital communication has the potential to overcome the following barriers for marginalised groups: practical access issues, previous negative experiences with healthcare service/staff, and stigmatising reactions from staff and other patients. It may reduce patient-related barriers by offering anonymity and offers advantages to patients who require an interpreter. It does not impact on inability to communicate with healthcare professionals or on a lack of candidacy. It is likely to work best in the context of a pre-existing clinician-patient relationship. CONCLUSION: Digital communication technology offers increased opportunities for marginalised groups to access health care. However, it cannot remove all barriers to care for these groups. It is likely that they will remain disadvantaged relative to other population groups after their introduction.

Is it possible to predict improved diabetes outcomes following diabetes self-management education: a mixed-methods longitudinal design.

OBJECTIVE: To predict the diabetes-related outcomes of people undertaking a type 2 Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) programme from their baseline data. DESIGN: A mixed-methods longitudinal experimental study. 6 practice nurses and 2 clinical academics undertook blind assessments of all baseline and process data to predict clinical, behavioural and psychological outcomes at 6 months post-DSME programme. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: -31 people with type 2 diabetes who had not previously undertaken DSME. INTERVENTION: All participants undertook the Diabetes Manual 1:1 self-directed learning 12-week DSME programme supported by practice nurses trained as Diabetes Manual facilitators. OUTCOME VARIABLES: Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), diabetes knowledge, physical activity, waist circumference, self-efficacy, diabetes distress, anxiety, depression, demographics, change talk and treatment satisfaction. These variables were chosen because they are known to influence self-management behaviour or to have been influenced by a DSME programme in empirical evidence. RESULTS: Baseline and 6-month follow-up data were available for 27 participants of which 13 (48%) were male, 22 (82%) white British, mean age 59 years and mean duration of type 2 diabetes 9.1 years. Significant reductions were found in HbA1c t(26)=2.35, p=0.03, and diabetes distress t(26)=2.30, p=0.03, and a significant increase in knowledge t(26)=-2.06, p=0.05 between baseline and 6 months. No significant changes were found in waist circumference, physical activity, anxiety, depression or self-efficacy. Accuracy of predictions varied little between clinical academics and practice nurses but greatly between outcome (0-100%). The median and mode accuracy of predicted outcome was 66.67%. Accuracy of prediction for the key outcome of HbA1c was 44.44%. Diabetes distress had the highest prediction accuracy (81.48%). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians in this small study were unable to identify individuals likely to achieve improvement in outcomes from DSME. DSME should be promoted to all patients with diabetes according to guidelines.

Improving health outcomes for young people with long term conditions: The role of digital communication in current and future patient-clinician communication for NHS providers of specialist clinical services for young people - LYNC study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Young people living with long term conditions are vulnerable to health service disengagement. This endangers their long term health. Studies report requests for digital forms of communication - email, text, social media - with their health care team. Digital clinical communication is troublesome for the UK NHS. AIM: In this article we aim to present the research protocol for evaluating the impacts and outcomes of digital clinical communications for young people living with long term conditions and provide critical analysis of their use, monitoring and evaluation by NHS providers (LYNC study: Long term conditions, Young people, Networked Communications). METHODS: The research involves: (a) patient and public involvement activities with 16-24 year olds with and without long term health conditions; (b) six literature reviews; (c) case studies - the main empirical part of the study - and (d) synthesis and a consensus meeting. Case studies use a mixed methods design. Interviews and non-participant observation of practitioners and patients communicating in up to 20 specialist clinical settings will be combined with data, aggregated at the case level (non-identifiable patient data) on a range of clinical outcomes meaningful within the case and across cases. We will describe the use of digital clinical communication from the perspective of patients, clinical staff, support staff and managers, interviewing up to 15 young people and 15 staff per case study. Outcome data includes emergency admissions, A&E attendance and DNA (did not attend) rates. Case studies will be analysed to understand impacts of digital clinical communication on patient health outcomes, health care costs and consumption, ethics and patient safety.

Evaluation of different recruitment and randomisation methods in a trial of general practitioner-led interventions to increase physical activity: a randomised controlled feasibility study with factorial design.

BACKGROUND: Interventions promoting physical activity by General Practitioners (GPs) lack a strong evidence base. Recruiting participants to trials in primary care is challenging. We investigated the feasibility of (i) delivering three interventions to promote physical activity in inactive participants and (ii) different methods of participant recruitment and randomised allocation. METHODS: We recruited general practices from Devon, Bristol and Coventry. We used a 2-by-2 factorial design for participant recruitment and randomisation. Recruitment strategies were either opportunistic (approaching patients attending their GP surgery) or systematic (selecting patients from practice lists and approaching them by letter). Randomisation strategies were either individual or by practice cluster. Feasibility outcomes included time taken to recruit the target number of participants within each practice. Participants were randomly allocated to one of three interventions: (i) written advice (control); (ii) brief GP advice (written advice plus GP advice on physical activity), and (iii) brief GP advice plus a pedometer to self-monitor physical activity during the trial. Participants allocated to written advice or brief advice each received a sealed pedometer to record their physical activity, and were instructed not to unseal the pedometer before the scheduled day of data collection. Participant level outcomes were reported descriptively and included the mean number of pedometer steps over a 7-day period, and European Quality of Life (EuroQoL)-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) scores, recorded at 12 weeks' follow-up. RESULTS: We recruited 24 practices (12 using each recruitment method; 18 randomising by cluster, 6 randomising by individual participant), encompassing 131 participants. Opportunistic recruitment was associated with less time to target recruitment compared with systematic (mean difference (days) -54.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) -103.6; -6.2) but with greater loss to follow up (28.8% versus. 6.9%; mean difference 21.9% (95% CI 9.6%; 34.1%)). There were differences in the socio-demographic characteristics of participants according to recruitment method. There was no clear pattern of change in participant level outcomes from baseline to 12 weeks across the three arms. CONCLUSIONS: Delivering and trialling GP-led interventions to promote physical activity is feasible, but trial design influences time to participant recruitment, participant withdrawal, and possibly, the socio-demographic characteristics of participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN73725618.

A qualitative exploration of whether lesbian and bisexual women are 'protected' from sociocultural pressure to be thin.

Heterosexual women in Western cultures are known to experience body image concerns, dieting and disordered eating as a result of intense social pressures to be thin. However, it is theorised that lesbian and bisexual women belong to a subculture that is 'protective' of such demands. Fifteen non-heterosexual women were interviewed about their experiences of social pressure. Thematic analysis of their accounts suggests that such theorising may be inaccurate, because these lesbian and bisexual women did not feel 'protected' from social pressures and experienced body dissatisfaction. While they might attempt to resist thin idealisation, resistance is not centred around their sexuality.

Tattooing, piercing, healthy behaviours and health value.

This study was designed to investigate whether people who engage more frequently in healthy behaviours, and attach a higher value to health, are likely to engage less frequently in tattooing and piercing. One hundred and eight participants with tattoos and/or piercings completed questionnaires including the Reported Health Behaviours Checklist and the Health Value Scale. There were no significant relationships between healthy behaviours, health value and numbers of tattoos or piercings. A significant proportion of pierced and tattooed participants had not considered possible health risks, and those that had were often unaware of potentially serious health problems. Results are discussed in terms of health guidelines for tattooing and piercing.