Understanding the role of peace of mind in childhood vaccination: A qualitative study with members of the general public.

BACKGROUND: Recent debates on the introduction of new childhood vaccines in the UK have suggested that 'peace of mind' (PoM) might influence decision making. The aim of this study is to ascertain the importance of 'PoM' in individuals' decision making. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted in the UK. Participants were 22 females and 2 males, aged 18-74 years, with a selection of non-parents, parents, guardians and foster carers. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic framework approach and conceptualised using the Health Belief Model, which provided an overview of participants' perceptions and behaviours about childhood vaccinations. RESULTS: Vaccine associated PoM was associated with individuals' perceptions of disease severity, with individuals feeling more reassurance after obtaining vaccinations against diseases that they considered to be severe compared to relatively mild diseases. Conversely, concerns about vaccination side-effects reduced participants PoM, but the duration of this effect varied between individuals. Other factors, such as social pressure and the emotional anxiety related to children's feelings, or physical reactions, to vaccinations also negatively impacted on participants' vaccine associated PoM. CONCLUSION: Vaccine associated PoM was a consideration for some participants seeking vaccinations but was only a minor motivating factor for these individuals. These differences stemmed from whether participants received PoM from the uptake of a vaccination because they perceived some intrinsic benefit from it or, conversely, they considered vaccinations as a routine health intervention. Overall, vaccine related PoM varied between participants in magnitude and fluctuated over time, even in the same individuals.

An analysis of the complementarity of ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3 L in an adult population of patients with knee pain.

BACKGROUND: The ICECAP measures potentially offer a broader assessment of quality of life and well-being, in comparison to measures routinely used in economic evaluation, such as the EQ-5D-3 L. This broader assessment may allow measurement of the full effects of an intervention or treatment. Previous research has indicated that the ICECAP-O (for older people) and EQ-5D-3 L measure provide complementary information. This paper aims to determine similar information for the ICECAP-A (for the entire adult population) in terms of whether the measure is a substitute or complement to the EQ-5D-3 L. METHODS: Data from the BEEP trial - a multi-centre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial - were used. Spearman rank correlations and exploratory factor analytic methods were used to assess whether ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3 L are measuring the same, or different, constructs. RESULTS: A correlation of 0.49 (p < 0.01) was found between the ICECAP-A tariff score and the EQ-5D-3 L index. Using the pooled items of the EQ-5D-3 L and the ICECAP-A a two factor solution was optimal, with the majority of EQ-5D-3 L items loading onto one factor and the majority of ICECAP-A items onto another. CONCLUSION: The results presented in this paper indicate that ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3 L are measuring two different constructs and provide largely different, complementary information. Results showed a similarity to results presented by Davis et al. using the ICECAP-O. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 93634563.

A longitudinal assessment of the responsiveness of the ICECAP-A in a randomised controlled trial of a knee pain intervention.

PURPOSE: The ICECAP-A is a simple measure of capability well-being for use with the adult population. The descriptive system is made up of five key attributes: Stability, Attachment, Autonomy, Achievement and Enjoyment. Studies have begun to assess the psychometric properties of the measure, including the construct and content validity and feasibility for use. This is the first study to use longitudinal data to assess the responsiveness of the measure. METHODS: This responsiveness study was completed alongside a randomised controlled trial comparing three physiotherapy-led exercise interventions for older adults with knee pain attributable to osteoarthritis. Anchor-based methodologies were used to explore the relationship between change over time in ICECAP-A score (the target measure) and change over time in another measure (the anchor). Analyses were completed using the non-value-weighted and value-weighted ICECAP-A scores. The EQ-5D-3L was used as a comparator measure to contextualise change in the ICECAP-A. Effect sizes, standardised response means and t tests were used to quantify responsiveness. RESULTS: Small changes in the ICECAP-A scores were seen in response to underlying changes in patients' health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression. Non-weighted scores were slightly more responsive than value-weighted scores. ICECAP-A change was of comparable size to change in the EQ-5D-3L reference measure. CONCLUSION: This first analysis of the responsiveness using longitudinal data provides some positive evidence for the responsiveness of the ICECAP-A measure. There is a need for further research in those with low health and capability, and experiencing larger underlying changes in quality of life.

Patient preferences for clinical follow-up after primary treatment for soft tissue sarcoma: a cross-sectional survey and discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Patients treated for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) require long-term follow-up to detect recurrent or metastatic disease, yet marked differences exist in clinical approaches to the length of follow-up, frequency of consultations and investigations undertaken at follow-up visits. There has been no published work assessing patient expectations or the acceptability of post-treatment follow-up strategies. This study aimed to assess the patient acceptability of different follow-up strategies following curative surgery for soft tissue sarcoma and to investigate the hypothetical levels of recurrence risk at which different follow-up regimes were acceptable. METHODS: Patients were recruited from the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital in Birmingham. The study used a cross-sectional survey incorporating a best-worst scaling discrete choice experiment to assess patient preferences regarding different aspects of follow-up. RESULTS: 132 patients participated (47% response). The nature of investigations undertaken during follow-up was the most important aspect of post-surgical care. Patients typically preferred appointments routinely consisting of clinical examination and chest X-ray, and for follow-up to remain in secondary care rather than general practice. CONCLUSION: Clear protocols for STS patient follow-up can improve consistency and equity of care. In determining the optimum follow-up plan for STS patients from the patient perspective, this study provides valuable information that should be considered alongside the clinical effectiveness of follow-up strategies to maximise patient outcomes and use NHS resources appropriately.