Reflecting on activities which support public involvement within an evaluation of public involvement reports from facilities funded by the national institute for health and care research: a co-produced commentary.

Although including public contributors as members of research teams is becoming common, there are few reflections on how they have been incorporated, and almost none of these reflections are co-produced with public contributors. This commentary, written by both academics and a public contributor, reflects on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) activities when undertaking a framework analysis of PPI sections of annual reports from the National Institute for Health and care Research (NIHR) funded research centres. The UK Standards for Public Involvement (inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning, communications, impact and governance) were used to structure our reflections. Key topics of reflection were: how difficult it is, in practice, to incorporate PPI into all aspects of the research cycle, especially when completing a commissioned research project on a short time-frame, and the complexities of incorporating PPI into qualitative analysis. Although useful when reflecting upon our own PPI practices, ways in which the UK Standards for Public Involvement could be improved were suggested. We hope that the co-produced recommendations can be used by other teams engaging with public contributors.

Although including public contributors as members of research teams is becoming common, there are few reflections on how they have been incorporated, and almost none of these reflections are co-produced with public contributors. This commentary, written by both academics and a public contributor, reflects on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) activities when undertaking an evaluation of PPI sections of annual reports from the National Institute for Health and care Research (NIHR) funded research centres. The UK Standards for Public Involvement (inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning, communications, impact and governance) were used to structure our reflections. Key topics of reflection were: how difficult it is, in practice, to incorporate PPI into all aspects of the research cycle, especially when completing a commissioned research project within a short time-frame, and the complexities of incorporating PPI into qualitative analysis. Although useful when reflecting upon our own PPI practices, ways in which the UK Standards for Public Involvement could be improved were suggested. We hope that the co-produced recommendations can be used by other teams engaging with public contributors.

Using Twitter (X) to mobilise knowledge for First Contact Physiotherapists: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Twitter (now X) is a virtual social network commonly used by healthcare professionals. Little is known about whether it helps healthcare professionals to share, mobilise and co-create knowledge, or reduce the time between research knowledge being created and used in clinical practice (the evidence-to-practice gap). Musculoskeletal First Contact Physiotherapists (FCPs) are primary care specialists who diagnose and treat people with musculoskeletal conditions without needing to see their General Practitioner (family physician) first. They often work as a sole FCP in practice, hence are an ideal healthcare professional group with whom to explore knowledge mobilisation using Twitter. OBJECTIVE: To explore how Twitter is, and can be used to mobilise knowledge, including research findings, to inform FCP clinical practice. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews of FCPs with experience of working in English primary care. FCPs were purposively sampled based on employment arrangements and Twitter use. Recruitment was via known FCP networks and Twitter, supplemented by snowball sampling. Online interviews used a topic guide exploring FCP's perceptions and experiences of accessing knowledge, via Twitter, for clinical practice. Data were analysed thematically and informed by the knowledge mobilisation mindlines model. Public contributors were involved throughout. RESULTS: Nineteen FCPs consented to interview (Twitter users n=14, female n=9). Three themes were identified: 1) How Twitter meets the needs of FCPs, 2) Twitter and a journey of knowledge to support clinical practice and 3) Factors impeding knowledge sharing on Twitter. FCPs described needs relating to isolated working practice, time demands and role uncertainty. Twitter provided rapid access to succinct knowledge, opportunity to network and peer reassurance regarding clinical cases, evidence and policy. FCPs took a journey of knowledge exchange on Twitter, including scrolling for knowledge, filtering for credibility and adapting knowledge for in-service training and clinical practice. Participants engaged best with images and infographics. FCPs described misinformation, bias, echo chambers, unprofessionalism, hostility, privacy concerns and blurred personal boundaries as factors impeding knowledge sharing on Twitter. Consequently, many did not feel confident to actively participate with Twitter. CONCLUSIONS: This study explores how Twitter is, and can be used to mobilise knowledge to inform FCP clinical practice. Twitter can meet knowledge needs of FCPs through rapid access to succinct knowledge, networking opportunities and professional reassurance. The journey of knowledge exchange from Twitter to clinical practice can be explained by considering the mindlines model, which describes how FCPs exchange knowledge in online and offline contexts. Findings demonstrate that Twitter can be a useful adjunct to FCP practice although several factors impeded knowledge sharing on the platform. We recommend social media training and enhanced governance guidance from professional bodies to support the use of Twitter for knowledge mobilisation.

Reviews for multimorbidity risk in people with inflammatory conditions: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: People with inflammatory rheumatological conditions (IRCs) are at high risk of developing other conditions including cardiovascular disease and mood disorders. AIM: To explore perspectives of people with IRCs and healthcare practitioners (HCPs) on the content and delivery of a review consultation aimed at identification and management of multiple long-term conditions. DESIGN & SETTING: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with people with IRCs and HCPs. METHOD: People with IRCs participated in individual semi-structured interviews by telephone or online platform. HCPs (including primary and secondary care clinicians) participated in online focus groups. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: 15 people with IRCs were interviewed; three focus groups with HCPs were conducted. Two main themes were identified: reflecting on the value of review consultations and what would a new review look like. Overall, people with IRCs and HCPs reflected that access to reviews is inequitable, leading to duplication of reviews and fragmentation in care. People with IRCs, at times, had difficulty conceptualising reviews, especially when discussing their future risk of conditions. People suggested that preparation before the healthcare review could align patient and HCP agendas as part of a flexible and person-centred discussion. CONCLUSION: Any review introduced for people with IRCs must move beyond a "tick-box" exercise. To gain maximum value from a review, preparation from both patient and HCP may be required alongside a person-centred approach whilst ensuring they are targeted at people most likely to benefit.

Bisphosphonate alternative regimens for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures: BLAST-OFF, a mixed-methods study.

Background: Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice. Objectives: 1. Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. 2. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. 3. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities. Methods: The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: • Stage 1A - we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. • Stage 1B - we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. • Stage 2 - we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates. Results: Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting. Conclusions: Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs. Future work: Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting. Limitations: Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Bisphosphonates are drug treatments commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is the most used and is taken by mouth, weekly at a specific time of the week, which can be challenging. Less than one in four people continue this treatment beyond 2 years. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which vary in frequency and how they are administered. The most acceptable and best value-for-money regimen is unclear. Our aim was to determine how effective alternative bisphosphonates are compared to alendronate at preventing fractures and whether reduction in fracture risk was achieved at a reasonable financial cost, but acceptable to patients. The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: Stage 1A: a review of the published evidence on patients' and doctors' views, experiences and preferences regarding different bisphosphonate treatment regimens, followed by interviews with patients and healthcare professionals. Stage 1B: an update of an existing study on how effective bisphosphonates are in preventing fragility fractures caused by osteoporosis and whether they are good value for money. Stage 2: identification of questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonate treatments. Taking bisphosphonate medication often involves quite a lot of effort by patients, particularly when taking alendronate tablets. A yearly infusion of zoledronate treatment was more acceptable, easier to engage with and the most effective treatment compared to alendronate. However, the cost of administering zoledronate in hospital made alendronate better value for money. Bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk of fracture, but 'continuing with treatment', particularly alendronate tablets, remains a challenge. A yearly infusion of zoledronate offers an acceptable and effective treatment, but further research is needed to support patients and healthcare professionals in making decisions about the various treatments, benefits and cost savings of administering zoledronate outside of hospital and in the community.

Daily Pain Severity but Not Vertebral Fractures Is Associated With Lower Physical Activity in Postmenopausal Women With Back Pain.

Back pain lifetime incidence is 60%-70%, while 12%-20% of older women have vertebral fractures (VFs), often with back pain. We aimed to provide objective evidence, currently lacking, regarding whether back pain and VFs affect physical activity (PA). We recruited 69 women with recent back pain (age 74.5 ± 5.4 years). Low- (0.5 < g < 1.0), medium- (1.0 ≤ g < 1.5), and high-impact (g ≥ 1.5) PA and walking time were measured (100 Hz for 7 days, hip-worn accelerometer). Linear mixed-effects models assessed associations between self-reported pain and PA, and group differences (VFs from spine radiographs/no-VF) in PA. Higher daily pain was associated with reduced low (ß = -0.12, 95% confidence interval, [-0.22, -0.03], p = .013) and medium-impact PA (ß = -0.11, 95% confidence interval, [-0.21, -0.01], p = .041), but not high-impact PA or walking time (p > .11). VFs were not associated with PA (all p > .2). Higher daily pain levels but not VFs were associated with reduced low- and medium-impact PA, which could increase sarcopenia and falls risk in older women with back pain.

An online clinical decision tool to screen for vertebral fragility fractures (Vfrac) in older women presenting with back pain in general practice: protocol for a feasibility study in preparation for a future cluster randomised controlled trial.

This feasibility study for a future definitive randomized trial assesses the use and acceptability of a new clinical decision tool to identify risk of a vertebral fracture and those who should be referred for spinal radiography in women aged 65 or over presenting to primary care with back pain. PURPOSE: Approximately 12% of older adults have vertebral fragility fractures, but currently fewer than one-third are diagnosed, potentially limiting access to bone protection treatment. Vfrac is a vertebral fracture screening tool which classifies individuals into high or low risk of having a vertebral fracture, allowing targeting of spinal radiographs to high-risk individuals. The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the use of an online version of Vfrac in primary care. METHODS: The study will run in six general practices, with three given the Vfrac tool for use on older women (> 65 years) consulting with back pain and three using standard clinical processes for managing such back pain. Anonymised data covering a 12-month period will be collected from all sites on consultations by older women with back pain. Focus groups will be undertaken with healthcare professionals and patients on whom the tool was used to understand the acceptability of Vfrac and identify factors that impact its use. These patients will be sent a paper version of the Vfrac questionnaire to self-complete at home. Outputs of the self-completion Vfrac (high versus low risk) will be compared with the face-to-face Vfrac (high versus low risk), and agreement assessed using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: This study will evaluate the use and acceptability of Vfrac within primary care and determine if data on resource use can be collected accurately and comprehensively. CONCLUSIONS: This article describes the protocol of the Vfrac feasibility study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18000119 (registered 01/03/2022) and ISRCTN12150779 (registered 10/01/2022).

Improving patients' experiences of diagnosis and treatment of vertebral fracture: co-production of knowledge sharing resources.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis involves changes to bones that makes them prone to fracture. The most common osteoporotic fracture is vertebral, in which one or more spinal vertebrae collapse. People with vertebral fracture are at high risk of further fractures, however around two-thirds remain undiagnosed. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends bone protection therapies to reduce this risk. This study aimed to co-produce a range of knowledge sharing resources, for healthcare professionals in primary care and patients, to improve access to timely diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: This study comprised three stages: 1. In-depth interviews with primary care healthcare professionals (n = 21) and patients with vertebral fractures (n = 24) to identify barriers and facilitators to diagnosis and treatment. 2. A taxonomy of barriers and facilitators to diagnosis were presented to three stakeholder groups (n = 18), who suggested ways of identifying, diagnosing and treating vertebral fractures. Fourteen recommendations were identified using the nominal group technique. 3. Two workshops were held with stakeholders to co-produce and refine the prototype knowledge sharing resources (n = 12). RESULTS: Stage 1: Factors included lack of patient information about symptoms and risk factors, prioritisation of other conditions and use of self-management. Healthcare professionals felt vertebral fractures were harder to identify in lower risk groups and mistook them for other conditions. Difficulties in communication between primary and secondary care meant that patients were not always informed of their diagnosis, or did not start treatment promptly. Stage 2: 14 recommendations to improve management of vertebral fractures were identified, including for primary care healthcare professionals (n = 9) and patients (n = 5). Stage 3: The need for allied health professionals in primary care to be informed about vertebral fractures was highlighted, along with ensuring that resources appealed to under-represented groups. Prototype resources were developed. Changes included help-seeking guidance and clear explanations of medical language. CONCLUSIONS: The study used robust qualitative methods to co-produce knowledge sharing resources to improve diagnosis. A co-production approach enabled a focus on areas stakeholders thought to be beneficial to timely and accurate diagnosis and treatment. Dissemination of these resources to a range of stakeholders provides potential for substantial reach and spread.

Optimising the implementation of evidence-based osteoarthritis guidelines in primary care: Development of a Knowledge Mobilisation Toolkit.

OBJECTIVE: Implementing clinical guidelines for osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care is complex. Whilst international guidelines detail what best practice for OA looks like, little is known about how this is best implemented. Limited resources are available to guideline developers, practitioners, researchers, or the public to facilitate implementation. Set in the context of a larger research project which sought to understand the factors that influence knowledge mobilisation (KM) in implementation for OA guidelines, this study reports the development of a toolkit to optimise KM for the implementation of evidence-based OA guidelines in primary care. DESIGN: Triangulation of three qualitative data sets was conducted, followed by a stakeholder consensus exercise. Public contributors were involved in dedicated meetings (n = 3) to inform the content, design, and KM plans for the toolkit. RESULTS: From data triangulation, 53 key findings were identified, which were refined into 30 draft recommendation statements, within six domains: approaches to KM; the knowledge mobiliser role; understanding context; implementation planning; the nature of the intervention; and appealing to a range of priorities. Stakeholder voting (n = 27) demonstrated consensus with the recommendations and informed the wording of the final toolkit. CONCLUSIONS: Factors that optimise KM for OA guideline implementation in primary care were identified. Empirical data, practice-based evidence, implementation practice, and stakeholder (including patient and public) engagement have informed a toolkit comprising several overarching principles of KM, which are suitable for use in primary care. Consideration of equitable access when implementing evidence-based OA care among diverse populations is recommended when using the toolkit. Further research is needed to evaluate the toolkit's utility and transferability.

Bone health assessment in adults with fragility fracture risk factors between 2002-2014: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Lifetime risk of fragility fractures is 50% in post-menopausal women and 20% in men aged >50 years. Identifying people at high risk facilitates early intervention and reduction of biopsychosocial morbidity associated with these fractures. AIM: To explore if bone health assessment (BHA) rates differ between women and men aged ≥50 years with fragility fracture risk factors. DESIGN & SETTING: A primary care-based cohort study in North Staffordshire, UK. METHOD: Patients were identified from the Consultations in Primary Care Archive (CiPCA) database between 2002 and 2014 with one or more fragility fracture risk factors (previous fractures, falls, and prolonged steroid use). Evaluation of BHA within 12 months of presentation of the first risk factor was carried out by searching for codes for fracture risk assessment tools (FRAX and QFracture), bone density measurement, specialist service referral, or if bone-protection medication was started. RESULTS: A total of 15 581 patients with risk factors were identified; men represented 40.4% of the cohort. The study found 1172 (7.5%) had BHA performed within 1 year of presentation, and 8.9% of women and 5.5% of men had BHAs, which was found with strong statistical evidence (χ2 = 59.88, P = 1 × 10-14). This relationship prevailed after adjusting for other covariates, such as comorbidity and number of consultations, with an odds ratio of 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.08 to 1.43). CONCLUSION: This study has shown that rates of BHA were generally low and even lower in men compared with women. Primary care clinicians should be alert to fragility fracture risk factors in both men and women to enable early assessment and intervention.

Patients' preferences for fracture risk communication: the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study.

The RICO study indicated that most patients would like to receive information regarding their fracture risk but that only a small majority have actually received it. Patients globally preferred a visual presentation of fracture risk and were interested in an online tool showing the risk. PURPOSE: The aim of the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study was to assess patients' preferences regarding fracture risk communication. METHODS: To assess patients' preferences for fracture risk communication, structured interviews with women with osteoporosis or who were at risk for fracture were conducted in 11 sites around the world, namely in Argentina, Belgium, Canada at Hamilton and with participants from the Osteoporosis Canada Canadian Osteoporosis Patient Network (COPN), Japan, Mexico, Spain, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA in California and Washington state. The interviews used to collect data were designed on the basis of a systematic review and a qualitative pilot study involving 26 participants at risk of fracture. RESULTS: A total of 332 women (mean age 67.5 ± 8.0 years, 48% with a history of fracture) were included in the study. Although the participants considered it important to receive information about their fracture risk (mean importance of 6.2 ± 1.4 on a 7-point Likert scale), only 56% (i.e. 185/332) had already received such information. Globally, participants preferred a visual presentation with a traffic-light type of coloured graph of their FRAX® fracture risk probability, compared to a verbal or written presentation. Almost all participants considered it important to discuss their fracture risk and the consequences of fractures with their healthcare professionals in addition to receiving information in a printed format or access to an online website showing their fracture risk. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant communication gap between healthcare professionals and patients when discussing osteoporosis fracture risk. The RICO study provides insight into preferred approaches to rectify this communication gap.

The cost-effectiveness of adding an ultrasound corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection to advice and education for hip osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence for the comparative cost-effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injection in people with hip osteoarthritis (OA) remains unclear. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of best current treatment (BCT) comprising advice and education plus a single ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection (USGI) of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide and 4 ml 1% lidocaine hydrochloride (BCT+US-T) versus BCT alone. METHODS: A trial-based cost-utility analysis of BCT+US-T compared with BCT was undertaken over 6 months. Patient-level cost data were obtained, and effectiveness was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), allowing the calculation of cost per QALY gained from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective. RESULTS: BCT+US-T was associated with lower mean NHS costs (BCT+US-T minus BCT: £-161.6, 95% CI: £-583.95 to £54.18) and small but significantly higher mean QALYs than BCT alone over 6 months (BCT+US-T minus BCT: 0.0487, 95% CI: 0.0091, 0.0886). In the base case, BCT+US-T was the most cost-effective and dominated BCT alone. Differences in total costs were driven by number of visits to NHS consultants, private physiotherapists, and chiropractors, and hip surgery, which were more common with BCT alone than BCT+US-T. CONCLUSION: Intra-articular corticosteroid injection plus BCT (BCT+US-T) for patients with hip OA results in lower costs and better outcomes, and is highly cost-effective, compared with BCT alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2014-003412-37 (August 8, 2015) and registered with Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN 50550256 (July 28, 2015). TRIAL PROTOCOL: Full details of the trial protocol can be found in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0#citeas. DOI: doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0.

Using the UK standards for public involvement to evaluate the public involvement sections of annual reports from NIHR managed research centres.

BACKGROUND: Within the United Kingdom (UK), the National Institute for Health and Care Research is the largest funder of health and social care research, and additionally funds research centres that support the development and delivery of research. Each year, award-holders of these research centres are required to write a report about their activities, including a summary of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) activities. This study aimed to evaluate the PPIE sections of annual reports to identify best practice and challenges; this could inform future delivery of PPIE activities. METHODS: A framework documentary analysis informed by the six UK Standards for Public Involvement ('Inclusive opportunities', 'Working together', 'Support and learning', 'Communications', 'Impact' and 'Governance') was conducted on 112 reports. A quality improvement framework ('Insights') was used to evaluate quality as one of: 'Welcoming', 'Listening', 'Learning' and 'Leading'. Recommendations from this review were co-developed with stakeholders and public contributors. RESULTS: Reports documented varying levels of quality in PPIE activities which spanned across all six UK Standards. Award-holders either intended to, or were actively working towards, increasing access and inclusivity of public involvement opportunities. Methods of working with public contributors were varied, including virtual and in-person meetings. Most award-holders offered PPIE support and learning opportunities for both public contributors and staff. Some award-holders invited public contributors to co-produce communication plans relating to study materials and research findings. The impact of public involvement was described in terms of benefits to public contributors themselves, and on an organisation and project level. Many award-holders reported inviting public contributors to share decision-making within and about governance structures. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation identified that most annual reports contained evidence of good quality PPIE practice with learning from public contributors. Using the UK Standards and Insights framework enabled exploration of the breadth and quality of PPIE activities. Recommendations include the need for a platform for centres to access and share PPIE best practice and for centres to collaborate with local and national partners to build relationships with the public through inclusive community engagement.

WHAT DID WE DO?: Within the United Kingdom (UK) the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) is the largest funder of health and social care research. The NIHR also funds research centres that support the delivery of research studies. Each year, award-holders of these research centres are required to write a report describing their activities. These reports include activities related to Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE). We aimed to evaluate the PPIE sections of these reports to identify best practice and challenges. This could, in turn, inform and aid researchers to enhance their PPIE approaches and improve how they work with the public in research. HOW DID WE DO IT?: We looked at 112 reports using the six UK Standards for Public Involvement (these include: 'Inclusive opportunities', 'Working together', 'Support and learning', 'Communications', 'Impact' and 'Governance'). We used a quality improvement framework named 'Insights' to categorise PPIE practice into one of four levels of increasing quality: 'Welcoming', 'Listening', 'Learning' and 'Leading'. WHAT ARE THE FINDINGS?: PPIE activities, of varying quality, covered all six UK Standards. A number of award-holders either intended, or were actively working towards, increasing access and inclusivity of public involvement opportunities. Methods of working with public contributors were varied. Most award-holders offered support and learning opportunities for both PPIE members and staff. Some award-holders invited PPIE members to co-produce communication plans relating to study materials and research findings. The impact of public involvement was described in terms of benefits to PPIE members themselves, and on a project and award-holder level. Many award-holders reported inviting public contributors to share decision-making within and about governance structures. WHAT'S THE BIGGER PICTURE?: This evaluation identified that the Insights framework was useful in determining the quality of PPIE activities relating to each UK Standard. Recommendations for improving the quality of future PPIE activities were co-developed with staff from different research centres, senior leaders within the NIHR, PPIE leads and public contributors.

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.

Experiences of living with hip osteoarthritis and of receiving advice, education and ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection in the hip injection trial. A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The Hip Injection Trial (HIT) compared the effectiveness of adding a single ultrasound-guided intra-articular injection of either corticosteroid and local anaesthetic or local anaesthetic alone to advice and education among people with hip osteoarthritis (OA). This nested qualitative study explored participants' experiences of living with hip OA and of the trial treatment they received. METHOD: Semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken with a purposeful sample of trial participants after a 2-month trial follow-up. Interviewers were blinded to which injection participants had received. Thematic analysis using constant comparison was undertaken prior to knowing the trial results. RESULTS: 34 trial participants were interviewed across all arms. OA causes pain, physical limitations, difficulties at work, lowered mood, and disrupted sleep. Those who received advice and education alone felt that they had not received 'treatment' and described little/no benefit. Participants in both injection groups described marked improvements in pain, physical function, and other aspects of life (e.g., sleep, confidence). The perceived magnitude of benefit appeared greater among those who received the corticosteroid injection; however, the length of benefit varied in both injection groups. There was uncertainty about the longer-term benefits of injection and repeated injections. CONCLUSION: Hip OA is highly burdensome. Participants perceived little/no benefit from advice and education alone but reported marked improvements when combined with either injection. However, the magnitude of benefit was greater among those who received corticosteroid. The varying duration of response to injection and uncertainty regarding longer-term benefits of injection and repeated injections suggests that these areas are important for future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2014-003412-37; ISRCTN50550256.

Rheumatology nurses' perceptions of undertaking a postgraduate education programme: A phenomenological study.

BACKGROUND: The expansion of the role of the rheumatology nurse specialist led to the instigation, in 1999, of the first Masters programme in rheumatology nursing, with the aim of supporting clinical advancement with evidence-based practice. This study explored the experience of rheumatology nurses undertaking postgraduate study at Masters level. OBJECTIVES: (1) To explore the perceptions and experiences of clinical nurse specialists undertaking a Masters programme in Rheumatology Nursing, including perceptions of impact. (2) To identify future educational needs. METHODS: Ten rheumatology nurses who had completed a Masters degree in rheumatology nursing participated in a semi-structured video link or telephone interview conducted between 17th March 2021-17th May 2021. Interpretive phenomenological analysis was undertaken by two researchers and two public contributors. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: (i) Increased confidence and the development of new clinical skills. (ii) The perceived impact on the organisation; (iii) Benefits of face-to-face learning; and (iv) Continuing evolution of the rheumatology nurse specialist role. Participants reported increased confidence in clinical skills and felt that their learning had benefited their employing organisation. However, lack of time and insufficient managerial support could impede the implementation of new skills. Learning examination techniques, engagement in learning and peer support were seen as advantages of face-to-face learning. Future educational needs focused on diagnostic and prescribing skills. CONCLUSIONS: Participant learners perceived that completing a face-to-face Masters in rheumatology increased confidence in delivering new clinical skills and fostered peer networks, whilst also benefiting their employing organisations. There is a need for organisational support to apply learning to the clinical setting.

Clinicians' views of prescribing oral and intravenous bisphosphonates for osteoporosis: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonate medications, including alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate administered orally and zoledronate, administered intravenously, are commonly prescribed for the treatment of osteoporosis based on evidence that, correctly taken, bisphosphonates can improve bone strength and lead to a reduction in the risk of fragility fractures. However, it is currently unclear how decisions to select between bisphosphonate regimens, including intravenous regimen, are made in practice and how clinicians support patients with different treatments. METHODS: This was an interpretivist qualitative study. 23 semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a sample of general practitioners (GPs), secondary care clinicians, specialist experts as well as those providing and leading novel treatments including participants from a community intravenous (IV) zoledronate service. Data analysis was undertaken through a process of iterative categorisation. RESULTS: The results report clinicians varying experiences of making treatment choices, as well as wider aspects of osteoporosis care. Secondary care and specialist clinicians conveyed some confidence in making treatment choices including on selecting IV treatment. This was aided by access to diagnostic testing and medication expertise. In contrast GPs reported a number of challenges in prescribing bisphosphonate medications for osteoporosis and uncertainty about treatment choice. Results also highlight how administering IV zoledronate was seen as an opportunity to engage in broader care practices. CONCLUSION: Approaches to making treatment decisions and supporting patients when prescribing bisphosphonates for osteoporosis vary in practice. This study points to the need to co-ordinate osteoporosis treatment and care across different care providers.

Osteoporosis and fracture as risk factors for self-harm and suicide: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Increase in presentations of self-harm to primary care, a risk factor of suicide, has led to a growing interest in identifying at-risk populations. AIM: To examine whether osteoporosis or fractures are risk factors for self-harm, suicidal ideation, and suicide. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a systematic review of observational studies in adults (>18 years) that had examined the role of osteoporosis and/or fractures in subsequent self-harm, suicidal ideation, and/or suicide. METHOD: Six databases were searched from inception to July 2019. Additional citation tracking of eligible studies was undertaken in November 2022. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment of full-text articles were performed independently by at least two authors. Where possible, meta-analysis was run on comparable risk estimates. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included: two examined the outcome of self-harm, three suicidal ideation, and 10 suicide. In approximately half of studies on osteoporosis, the risk of suicidal ideation and suicide remained significant. However, pooling of adjusted odds ratios from three studies indicated no association between osteoporosis and suicide (1.14, 95% confidence interval = 0.88 to 1.49). Nine studies examined the risk of a mixture of fracture types across different outcomes, limiting comparisons. However, all studies examining vertebral fracture (n = 3) reported a significant adjusted negative association for self-harm and suicide. CONCLUSION: Patients with vertebral fractures, a risk potential factor for suicide, may benefit from clinical case finding for mood disorders with personalised primary care management. However, because of the limited number and quality of studies and mixed findings, further examination of these associations is warranted.

Applying the consolidated framework for implementation research to evaluate the community rapid intervention service.

BACKGROUND: Developed in 2019, the Community Rapid Intervention Service (CRIS) is a community intervention service aiming to prevent hospital admissions. CRIS provides a response within two hours to patients with sub-acute medical needs in their usual place of residence. This evaluation aimed to identify challenges and facilitators to implementation of the service, with a view to informing future service development, optimising patient care and disseminating learning to other areas looking to implement similar services. METHODS: This study used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as an evaluation framework. We conducted semi-structured interviews with local healthcare system leaders, clinicians that worked within the CRIS, and clinicians who interfaced with the CRIS. The CFIR was used to guide data collection and analysis. Two Community of Practice (CoP) meetings were held to gather stakeholders' perspectives of the evaluation. RESULTS: Three key themes were identified from the analysis of 13 interviews: contextual factors influencing implementation, service identity and navigating complexity. Contextual factors such the influence of the Covid 19 pandemic upon health services and the expansion of the CRIS were discussed by participants. The adaptability of the service was deemed both a facilitator and challenge of implementation. Ways to build-on and improve the existing CRIS model were suggested. CONCLUSION: This evaluation has shown that the CRIS may need to be redefined with clarity provided as to how the service interfaces with other urgent and planned care offered in acute, primary, community and social services. Structuring the evaluation around the CFIR was helpful in identifying facilitators and challenges that influenced the implementation of the CRIS.

Exploring the treatment burden of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug monitoring in people with rheumatoid arthritis.

Objectives: People with RA taking DMARDs require safety monitoring to identify potential side effects. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of patients and family members on DMARD monitoring and how the associated treatment burden could be minimized to optimize concordance and safety. Methods: Thirteen adults with RA on DMARDs and three family members participated in semi-structured telephone interviews between July 2021 and January 2022. Data were analysed using a framework method. Findings were discussed with a group of stakeholders to develop implications for practice. Results: Two main themes were identified: (i) making sense of drug monitoring; and (ii) work involved in drug monitoring. Participants perceived DMARDs as necessary to reduce symptoms, with drug monitoring providing an opportunity for a holistic assessment of wellbeing. Participants expressed a preference for face-to-face consultations, which allowed them to share their concerns, rather than remote, often transactional, care. The limited availability of convenient appointment times, travel requirements and parking increased the work involved for patients and family members. Conclusion: Drug monitoring was accepted as a necessity of DMARD treatment, but increased the work for people with RA related to organizing and attending appointments. The potential for treatment burden needs to be assessed proactively by clinicians when a DMARD is commenced. Where identified, strategies for minimizing the treatment burden can form part of a shared management plan, including the offer of regular contact with health professionals, with an emphasis on person-centred care.