Integrated palliative care in oncology: a protocol for a realist synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Emerging evidence suggests improved quality of life, reduced symptom burden and lower health services costs when integrated palliative care and cancer care are implemented. Integrated palliative care aims to achieve care continuity by integrating organisational, administrative and clinical services involved in patient care networks. However, integrated palliative care for cancer is not common practice. This project, therefore, aims to understand how integrated palliative care and cancer care works in different healthcare settings (inpatient/outpatient), and for which groups of people (at what stage of the cancer journey), so we can develop guidance for optimal delivery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a realist synthesis to develop a programme theory of how integrated palliative care in cancer works, for whom and in what contexts to achieve improved symptom management and quality of life for patients and their families.This realist synthesis will follow the five stages outlined by Pawson: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) article selection, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence and drawing conclusions. We will work closely with our expert stakeholder group, which includes health and social care professionals providing palliative care and oncology; management and policy groups and members of the public and patients. We will adhere to RAMESES quality standards for undertaking a realist synthesis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for this project is not required.The realist synthesis will develop a programme theory that provides clarity on the optimal delivery of palliative care for adults with cancer. We will use the programme theory to coproduce guidance and user-friendly outputs, working with stakeholders to inform delivery of best practice. Findings will inform further research in integrated palliative care and cancer. Stakeholder engagement will assist in the dissemination of our findings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023389791.

Applying clinical decision aids for the assessment and management of febrile infants presenting to emergency care in the UK and Ireland: Febrile Infant Diagnostic Assessment and Outcome (FIDO) Study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Febrile infants 90 days and younger are at risk of invasive bacterial infections (bacteraemia and meningitis) and urinary tract infections. Together this is previously termed serious bacterial infection with an incidence of approximately 10-20%. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance advocates a cautious approach with most infants requiring septic screening, parenteral broad-spectrum antibiotics and hospital admission. Internationally, variations exist in the approach to febrile infants, with European and North American guidance advocating a tailored approach based on clinical features and biomarker testing. None of the available international clinical decision aids (CDAs) has been validated in the UK and Irish cohorts. The aim of the Febrile Infant Diagnostic Assessment and Outcome (FIDO) Study is to prospectively validate a range of CDAs in a UK and Irish population including CDAs that use procalcitonin testing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The FIDO Study is a prospective multicentre mixed-methods cohort study conducted in UK and Irish hospitals. All infants aged 90 days and younger presenting with fever or history of fever (≥38°C) are eligible for inclusion. Infants will receive standard emergency clinical care without delay. Clinical data and blood samples will be collected, and consent will be obtained at the earliest appropriate opportunity using research without prior consent methodology. The performance and cost-effectiveness of CDAs will be assessed. An embedded qualitative study will explore clinician and caregiver views on different approaches to care and perceptions of risk. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was reviewed and approved by the Office for Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland-Health and Social Care Research Ethics Committee B, Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care Scotland, and Children's Health Ireland Research and Ethics Committee Ireland. The results of this study will be presented at academic conferences and in peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05259683.

Preferences for a third-trimester ultrasound scan in a low-risk obstetric population: a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: Establish maternal preferences for a third-trimester ultrasound scan in a healthy, low-risk pregnant population. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study incorporating a discrete choice experiment. SETTING: A large, urban maternity hospital in Northern Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and forty-six women in their second trimester of pregnancy. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was designed to elicit preferences for four attributes of a third-trimester ultrasound scan: health-care professional conducting the scan, detection rate for abnormal foetal growth, provision of non-medical information, cost. Additional data collected included age, marital status, socio-economic status, obstetric history, pregnancy-specific stress levels, perceived health and whether pregnancy was planned. Analysis was undertaken using a mixed logit model with interaction effects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women's preferences for, and trade-offs between, the attributes of a hypothetical scan and indirect willingness-to-pay estimates. RESULTS: Women had significant positive preference for higher rate of detection, lower cost and provision of non-medical information, with no significant value placed on scan operator. Interaction effects revealed subgroups that valued the scan most: women experiencing their first pregnancy, women reporting higher levels of stress, an adverse obstetric history and older women. CONCLUSIONS: Women were able to trade on aspects of care and place relative importance on clinical, non-clinical outcomes and processes of service delivery, thus highlighting the potential of using health utilities in the development of services from a clinical, economic and social perspective. Specifically, maternal preferences exhibited provide valuable information for designing a randomized trial of effectiveness and insight for clinical and policy decision makers to inform woman-centred care.

Associations between maternal characteristics and pregnancy-related stress among low-risk mothers: an observational cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy is viewed as a major life event and, while the majority of healthy, low-risk women adapt well to pregnancy, there are those whose levels of stress are heightened by the experience. OBJECTIVES: To determine the level of pregnancy-related stress experienced by a group of healthy, low-risk pregnant women and to relate the level of stress with a number of maternal characteristics. DESIGN: An observational cross-sectional study. SETTING: A large, urban maternity centre in Northern Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Of the 306 pregnant women who were invited to participate, 278 provided informed consent and were administered one self-complete questionnaire. Due to the withdrawal criteria, 15 questionnaires were removed from the analysis, resulting in a final sample of 263 healthy, low-risk pregnant women. METHODS: Levels of stress were measured using a self-report measure designed to assess specific worries and concerns relating to pregnancy. Maternal characteristics collected included age, marital status, social status, parity, obstetric history, perceived health status and 'wantedness' for the pregnancy. Regression analysis was undertaken using an ordinary linear regression model. RESULTS: The mean prenatal distress score in the sample was 15.1 (SD=7.4; range 0-46). The regression model showed that women who had had previous pregnancies, with or without complications, had significantly lower mean prenatal distress scores than primiparous women (p<0.01). Women reporting poorer physical health had higher mean prenatal distress scores than those who reported at least average health, while women aged 16-20 experienced a mean increase in the reported prenatal distress score (p<0.05) in comparison to the reference group of 36 years and over. CONCLUSIONS: This study brings to light the prevalence of pregnancy-related stress within a sample representative of healthy, low-risk women. Current antenatal care is ill-equipped to identify women suffering from high levels of stress; yet a growing body of research evidence links stress with adverse pregnancy outcomes. This study emphasises that healthy, low-risk women experience a range of pregnancy-related stress and identification of stress levels, either through the use of a simple stress measurement tool or through the associated factors identified within this research study, provides valuable data on maternal well-being.