The effectiveness of corticosteroid injection versus night splints for carpal tunnel syndrome: 24-month follow-up of a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: This follow-up study of the INSTinCTS (INjection vs SplinTing in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome) trial compared the effects of corticosteroid injection (CSI) and night splinting (NS) for the initial management of mild-to-moderate CTS on symptoms, resource use and carpal tunnel surgery, over 24 months. METHODS: Adults with mild-to-moderate CTS were randomized 1:1 to a local corticosteroid injection or a night splint worn for 6 weeks. Outcomes at 12 and 24 months included the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ), hand/wrist pain intensity numeric rating scale (NRS), the number of patients referred for and undergoing CTS surgery, and healthcare utilization. A cost-utility analysis was conducted. RESULTS: One hundred and sixteen participants received a CSI and 118 a NS. The response rate at 24 months was 73% in the CSI arm and 71% in the NS arm. By 24 months, a greater proportion of the CSI group had been referred for (28% vs 20%) and undergone (22% vs 16%) CTS surgery compared with the NS group. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in BCTQ score or pain NRS at 12 or 24 months. CSI was more costly [mean difference £68.59 (95% CI: -120.84, 291.24)] with fewer quality-adjusted life-years than NS over 24 months [mean difference -0.022 (95% CI: -0.093, 0.045)]. CONCLUSION: Over 24 months, surgical intervention rates were low in both groups, but less frequent in the NS group. While there were no differences in the clinical effectiveness of CSI and NS, initial treatment with CSI may not be cost-effective in the long-term compared with NS.

Predicting pain and function outcomes in people consulting with shoulder pain: the PANDA-S clinical cohort and qualitative study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: People presenting with shoulder pain considered to be of musculoskeletal origin is common in primary care but diagnosing the cause of the pain is contentious, leading to uncertainty in management. To inform optimal primary care for patients with shoulder pain, the study aims to (1) to investigate the short-term and long-term outcomes (overall prognosis) of shoulder pain, (2) estimate costs of care, (3) develop a prognostic model for predicting individuals' level and risk of pain and disability at 6 months and (4) investigate experiences and opinions of patients and healthcare professionals regarding diagnosis, prognosis and management of shoulder pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Prognostic And Diagnostic Assessment of the Shoulder (PANDA-S) study is a longitudinal clinical cohort with linked qualitative study. At least 400 people presenting to general practice and physiotherapy services in the UK will be recruited. Participants will complete questionnaires at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. Short-term data will be collected weekly between baseline and 12 weeks via Short Message Serevice (SMS) text or software application. Participants will be offered clinical (physiotherapist) and ultrasound (sonographer) assessments at baseline. Qualitative interviews with ≈15 dyads of patients and their healthcare professional (general practitioner or physiotherapist).Short-term and long-term trajectories of Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (using SPADI) will be described, using latent class growth analysis. Health economic analysis will estimate direct costs of care and indirect costs related to work absence and productivity losses. Multivariable regression analysis will be used to develop a prognostic model predicting future levels of pain and disability at 6 months using penalisation methods to adjust for overfitting. The added predictive value of prespecified physical examination tests and ultrasound findings will be examined. For the qualitative interviews an inductive, exploratory framework will be adopted using thematic analysis to investigate decision making, perspectives of patients and clinicians on the importance of diagnostic and prognostic information when negotiating treatment and referral options. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The PANDA-S study has ethical approval from Yorkshire and The Humber-Sheffield Research Ethics Committee, UK (18/YH/0346, IRAS Number: 242750). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, social and mainstream media, professional conferences, and the patient and public involvement and engagement group supporting this study, and through newsletters, leaflets and posters in participating sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN46948079.

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in a doctoral research project exploring self-harm in older adults.

BACKGROUND: The contribution of involving patients and public in health research is widely reported, particularly within mental health research. Less is written about such contributions to doctoral research. The research focus of this doctoral research, self-harm in older adults, was put forward by a Patient Public Involvement Engagement (PPIE) group, who contributed to its development. AIMS: Critically reflect on the process, potential impact and identify challenges and opportunities in involving robust PPIE in a doctoral study. METHODS: Three PPIE members contributed to a systematic review (SR) and a qualitative study through a series of four workshops to meet the aims of the study. PPIE contributed to developing the SR review questions, protocol, data analysis and dissemination of findings. For the qualitative study, they helped develop research questions, protocol, public-facing documentation, recruitment strategies and data analysis. Involvement followed the GRIPP2-SF reporting checklist. RESULTS: PPIE enhanced methodological rigour, data analysis, interpretation and dissemination of findings. Challenges included lack of ethical guidance, time-related pressures and ensuring support for PPIE members. These were successfully managed through ongoing dialogue and regular communication. CONCLUSIONS: PPIE can enhance the quality and depth of doctoral research, as lived experiences shared by PPIE members add to research's components. Exposing early-career researchers to PPIE can build research cultures sensitive to PPIE's potential contribution and develop the expertise needed to avoid tokenistic involvement. Capturing lay perspectives is essential in mental health research to ensure research findings are accessible and that findings inform clinical practice. However, clear guidance on the ethical dimensions to PPIE is needed.

The extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in primary care research: a mixed methods study.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: In the UK, more patients go to primary care than other parts of the health service. Therefore it is important for research into primary care to include the insights and views of people who receive these services. To explore the extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in primary care research, we examined documents of 200 projects and surveyed 191 researchers.We found that about half of studies included PPI to develop research ideas and during the study itself. Common activities included designing study materials, advising on methods, and managing the research. Some studies did not undertake the PPI activities initially planned and funded for. PPI varied by study design, health condition and study population. We found pockets of good practice: having a PPI budget, supporting PPI contributors, and PPI informing recruitment issues. However, good practice was lacking in other areas. Few projects offered PPI contributors training, used PPI to develop information for participants about study progress and included PPI to advise on publishing findings.Researchers reported beneficial impacts of PPI. Most impact was reported when the approach to PPI included more indicators of good practice. The main cost of PPI for researchers was their time. Many reported difficulties providing information about PPI.In partnership with PPI contributors, we have used these findings to develop:a new Cost and Consequences Framework for PPI highlighting financial and non-financial costs, benefits and harms of PPIFifteen co-produced recommendations to improve the practice and delivery of PPI. ABSTRACT: Background: To improve the lives of patients in primary care requires the involvement of service users in primary care research. We aimed to explore the extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in primary care research.Methods: We extracted information about PPI from grant applications, reports and an electronic survey of researchers of studies funded by the NIHR School for Primary Care Research (SPCR). We applied recognised quality indicators to assess the quality of PPI and assessed its impact on research.Results: We examined 200 grant applications and reports of 181 projects. PPI was evident in the development of 47 (24%) grant applications. 113 (57%) grant applications included plans for PPI during the study, mostly in study design, oversight, and dissemination. PPI during projects was reported for 83 (46%) projects, including designing study materials and managing the research. We identified inconsistencies between planned and reported PPI. PPI varied by study design, health condition and study population.Of 46 (24%) of 191 questionnaires completed, 15 reported PPI activity. Several projects showed best practice according to guidelines, in terms of having a PPI budget, supporting PPI contributors, and PPI informing recruitment issues. However few projects offered PPI contributors training, used PPI to develop information for participants about study progress, and had PPI in advising on dissemination.Beneficial impacts of PPI in designing studies and writing participant information was frequently reported. Less impact was reported on developing funding applications, managing or carrying out the research. The main cost of PPI for researchers was their time. Many researchers found it difficult to provide information about PPI activities.Our findings informed:a new Cost and Consequences Framework for PPI in primary care research highlighting financial and non-financial costs, plus the benefits and harms of PPIFifteen co-produced recommendations to improve PPI in research and within the SPCR.Conclusions: The extent, quality and impact of PPI in primary care research is inconsistent across research design and topics. Pockets of good practice were identified making a positive impact on research. The new Cost and Consequences Framework may help others assess the impact of PPI.

Process and impact of patient involvement in a systematic review of shared decision making in primary care consultations.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in systematic reviews remains uncommon, despite the policy imperative for patient involvement in research. The aim of this study was to investigate the process and impact of collaborating with members of a patient Research User Group (RUG) on a systematic review about shared decision making around prescribing analgesia in primary care consultations. METHODS: Five members of an established patient RUG collaborated with researchers undertaking a systematic review with narrative synthesis, through workshops held at three time-points. These addressed the following: designing the protocol, interpreting the results and planning dissemination. Support from a RUG coordinator and user support worker facilitated collaboration throughout the review process. Researchers reflected on how PPIE modified the review at each time-point. RESULTS: RUG members identified factors important in shared decision making around analgesic prescribing additional to those initially proposed by the research team. Search terms and specific outcomes of interest were amended to reflect these additional factors. Thirty of the 39 patient-identified factors were absent in the published literature. The categories of factors identified were used as a framework for the narrative synthesis and for reporting results. RUG members prioritized options for disseminating the results. CONCLUSION: PPIE collaboration throughout the systematic review impacted on the scope of the review, highlighting gaps in the literature that were important to patients. Impact on interpretation and dissemination of findings ensured the review directly reflected patient priorities. Challenges and strategies to facilitate PPIE involvement in systematic reviews and suggestions for future researchers are highlighted.

Translation of clinical problems in osteoarthritis into pathophysiological research goals.

Osteoarthritis (OA) accounts for more disability among the elderly than any other disease and is associated with an increased mortality rate. The prevalence in Europe will rise in the future since this continent has a strongly ageing population and an obesity epidemic; obesity and age both being major risk factors for OA. No adequate therapeutic options, besides joint replacement, are available, although they are greatly needed and should be acquired by adequate research investments. However, the perspective on OA from a researcher's point of view is not always aligned with the perspective of a patient with OA. Researchers base their views on OA mainly on abnormalities in structure and function while patients consider OA as a collection of symptoms. In this viewpoint paper, we discuss the possibility of translating the most important clinical problems into pathophysiological research goals to facilitate the translation from bench to bedside and vice versa. This viewpoint is the outcome of a dialogue within the 'European League Against Rheumatism study group on OA' and People with Arthritis/Rheumatism across Europe (PARE) representatives.

Patient-reported quality indicators for osteoarthritis: a patient and public generated self-report measure for primary care.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: People with osteoarthritis desire high quality care, support and information. However, the quality of care for people with OA in general practice is not routinely collected. Quality Indicators can be used to benefit patients by measuring whether minimum standards of quality care are being met from a patient perspective. The aim of this study was to describe how a Research User Group (RUG) worked alongside researchers to co-produce a set of self-reported quality indicators for people with osteoarthritis when visiting their general practitioner or practice nurse (primary care). These were required in the MOSAICS study, which developed and evaluated a new model of supported self-management of OA to implement the NICE quality standards for OA. This article describes the public involvement in the MOSAICS study. This was 1) the co-development by RUG members and researchers of an Osteoarthritis Quality Indicators United Kingdom (OA QI (UK)) questionnaire for use in primary care, and 2) the comparison of the OA QI (UK) with a similar questionnaire developed in Norway. This study shows how important and effective a research user group can be in working with researchers in developing quality care indicators for osteoarthritis for use in a research study and, potentially, routine use in primary care. The questionnaire is intended to benefit patients by enabling the assessment of the quality of primary care for osteoarthritis from a patient's perspective. The OA QI (UK) has been used to examine differences in the quality of osteoarthritis care in four European countries. ABSTRACT: Background People with osteoarthritis (OA) desire high quality care, support and information about OA. However, the quality of care for people with OA in general practice is not routinely collected. Quality Indicators (QI) can be used to benefit patients by measuring whether minimum standards of quality care (e.g. NICE quality standards) are being met from a patient perspective. A Research User Group (RUG) worked with researchers to co-produce a set of self-report, patient-generated QIs for OA. The QIs were intended for use in the MOSAICS study, which developed and evaluated a new model of supported self-management of OA to implement the NICE guidelines. We report on 1) the co-development of the OA QI (UK) questionnaire for primary care; and 2) the comparison of the content of the OA QI (UK) questionnaire with a parallel questionnaire developed in Norway for the Musculoskeletal Pain in Ullensaker (MUST) study. Methods Researchers were invited to OA RUG meetings. Firstly, RUG members were asked to consider factors important to patients consulting their general practitioner (GP) for OA and then each person rated their five most important. RUG members then discussed these in relation to a systematic review of OA QIs in order to form a list of OA QIs from a patient perspective. RUG members suggested wording and response options for a draft OA QI (UK) questionnaire to assess the QIs. Finally RUG members commented on draft and final versions of the questionnaire and how it compared with a translated Norwegian OA-QI questionnaire. Results RUG members (5 males, 5 females; aged 52-80 years) attended up to four meetings. RUG members ranked 20 factors considered most important to patients consulting their GP for joint pain. Following discussion, a list of eleven patient-reported QIs for OA consultations were formed. RUG members then suggested the wording and response options of 16 draft items - four QIs were split into two or more questionnaire items to avoid multiple dimensions of care quality within a single item. On comparison of this to the Norwegian OA-QI questionnaire, RUG members commented that both questionnaires contained seven similar QIs. The RUG members and researchers agreed to adopt the Norwegian OA-QI wording for four of these items. RUG members also recommended adopting an additional seven items from the Norwegian OA-QI with some minor word changes to improve their suitability for patients in the UK. One other item from the draft OA QI (UK) questionnaire was retained and eight items were excluded, resulting in a 15-item final version. Conclusions This study describes the development of patient-reported quality indicators for OA primary care derived by members of a RUG group, working in partnership with the research team throughout the study. The OA QI (UK) supports the NICE quality standards for OA and they have been successfully used to assess the quality of OA consultations in primary care in the MOSAICS study. The OA QI (UK) has the potential for routine use in primary care to assess the quality of OA care provided to patients. Ongoing research using both the UK and Norwegian OA-QI questionnaires is assessing the self-reported quality of OA care in different European populations.