Patient and primary care practitioners' perspectives on consultations for fibromyalgia: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia presents a challenge to both the patients experiencing symptoms and the staff aiming to treat them. This qualitative review aimed to synthesise how patients and practitioners experience primary care consultations, develop a rounded picture of how they perceive each other, the challenges to primary care consultation and how they might be tackled. METHODS: CINAHL, Embase, CENTRAL and Medline were searched from inception to November 2021. Qualitative studies were included if they explored the perspectives and experiences of either fibromyalgia patients or primary care practitioners. Quantitative data, studies not published in English, not set in primary care or that did not distinguish the type of patient or clinician were excluded. Included studies were analysed using thematic synthesis and their quality assessed. RESULTS: In total, 30 studies met the inclusion criteria. Thematic synthesis identified three overarching themes: (1) life turned upside down - exploring the chaos experienced by patients as they seek help; (2) negative cycle - highlighting how patient and practitioner factors can create a detrimental cycle; and (3) breaking the cycle - validating patient-doctor relationships underpinned by clear communication can help break the negative cycle. CONCLUSIONS: Fibromyalgia patients experience uncertainty and chaos that can clash with the attitudes of GPs and the help they can feasibly provide. Difficult consultations in which neither the GP nor patient are satisfied can easily occur. Promoting supportive, reciprocal and open patient-doctor relationships is essential. Future research is required to further explore GP attitudes and to develop an intervention that could improve consultations, patient outcomes and GP satisfaction.

Collaborative evaluation of a pilot involvement opportunity: Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Voice of Experience College.

BACKGROUND: Involving consumers in systematic reviews can make them more valuable and help achieve goals around transparency. Systematic reviews are technically complex and training can be needed to enable consumers to engage with them fully. The Cochrane Common Mental Disorders group sought to engage people with lived experience of mental health problems in the Voice of Experience College, three workshops introducing them to systematic review methods and to opportunities to contribute as Cochrane consumers. We aimed to collectively evaluate the College from the perspective of both facilitators and consumers, to critically reflect on the experience, and to identify how the College could be sustained and spread to other review groups. METHODS: This study was a longitudinal qualitative and collaborative evaluation, structured around normalisation process theory. Both facilitators and consumers were involved in not only providing their perspectives but also reflecting on these together to identify key learning points. RESULTS: The workshops were positively evaluated as being engaging and supportive, largely due to the relational skills of the facilitators, and their willingness to engage in joint or two-way learning. The College suffered from a lack of clarity over the role of consumers after the College itself, with a need for greater communication to check assumptions and clarify expectations. This was not achieved due to pandemic disruptions, which nevertheless demonstrated that resources for involvement were not prioritised as core business during this period. CONCLUSIONS: Soft skills around communication and support are crucial to effective consumer engagement. Sustaining involvement requires sustained communication and opportunities to reflect together on opportunities and challenges. This requires committed resources to ensure involvement activity is prioritised. This is critical as negative experiences later in the involvement journey can undermine originally positive experiences if contributors are unclear as to what their involvement can lead to. Open discussions about this are necessary to avoid conflicting assumptions. The spread of the approach to other review groups could be achieved by flexibly adapting to group-specific resources and settings, but maintaining a core focus on collaborative relationships as the key mechanism of engagement. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Public contributors were collaborators throughout the evaluation process and have co-authored the paper.

Enclosing a pen in a postal questionnaire follow-up to increase response rate: a study within a trial.

Background: Poor response rates to follow-up questionnaires can adversely affect the progress of a randomised controlled trial and the validity of its results. This embedded 'study within a trial' aimed to investigate the impact of including a pen with the postal 3-month questionnaire completed by the trial participants on the response rates to this questionnaire. Methods: This study was a two-armed randomised controlled trial nested in the Gentle Years Yoga (GYY) trial. Participants in the intervention group of the GYY trial were allocated 1:1 using simple randomisation to either receive a pen (intervention) or no pen with their 3-month questionnaire (control). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants sent a 3-month questionnaire who returned it. Secondary outcomes were time taken to return the questionnaire, proportion of participants sent a reminder to return the questionnaire, and completeness of the questionnaire. Binary outcomes were analysed using logistic regression, time to return by Cox Proportional Hazards regression and number of items completed by linear regression. Results: There were 111 participants randomised to the pen group and 118 to the no pen group who were sent a 3-month questionnaire. There was no evidence of a difference in return rates between the two groups (pen 107 (96.4%), no pen 117 (99.2%); OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.19, p=0.20). Furthermore, there was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in terms of time to return the questionnaire (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.18, p=0.47), the proportion of participants sent a reminder (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53, p=0.60) nor the number of items completed (mean difference 0.51, 95% CI -0.04 to 1.06, p=0.07). Conclusion: The inclusion of a pen with the postal 3-month follow-up questionnaire did not have a statistically significant effect on response rate.

Early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes after stented and stentless aortic valve replacement: results from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Stentless aortic bioprostheses were shown to be hemodynamically superior to earlier generations of stented bioprostheses. Modern stented valve designs have improved hemodynamics. A prospective randomized controlled trial was undertaken to compare stentless versus modern stented valves. Our aim was to determine any differences in early postoperative clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. METHODS: Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (n = 161) undergoing aortic valve replacement were randomized intraoperatively to receive either the C-E Perimount (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) pericardial stented bioprosthesis (n = 81) or the Prima Plus (Edwards Lifesciences) (porcine stentless bioprosthesis (n = 80). Transthoracic echocardiograms were performed at one week and eight weeks postoperatively to assess left ventricular mass (LVM) and transvalvular gradients (TVG). RESULTS: There were no differences between the two groups in baseline characteristics. Cardiopulmonary bypass and ischemic times were longer in the stentless group. Despite similar native aortic annular diameters, the mean size of the prosthesis used in the stentless group was 2.1 mm (SD = 2.8) larger (p < 0.001). Early (30-day) mortality (stentless 3.7% vs stented 2.5%; p = 0.68) and morbidity was similar between groups. Eight weeks postoperatively, LVM (stentless 199 +/- 70 vs stented 204 +/- 66 grams; p = 0.32) and TVG decreased in both groups (mean systolic gradient; stentless 10 +/- 3 vs stented 10 +/- 4 mm Hg; p = 0.54) but there was no significant difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite longer ischemic times in the stentless group, early postoperative outcomes were similar. Both stented and stentless aortic valve replacement offers excellent hemodynamics and can be achieved with low perioperative mortality.

Are stentless valves superior to modern stented valves? A prospective randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: It is presumed that stentless aortic bioprostheses are hemodynamically superior to stented bioprostheses. A prospective randomized controlled trial was undertaken to compare stentless versus modern stented valves. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (n=161) undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) were randomized intraoperatively to receive either the C-E Perimount stented bioprosthesis (n=81) or the Prima Plus stentless bioprosthesis (n =80). We assessed left ventricular mass (LVM) regression with transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Transvalvular gradients were measured postoperatively by Doppler echocardiography to compare hemodynamic performance. There was no difference between groups with regard to age, symptom status, need for concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery, or baseline LVM. LVM regressed in both groups but with no significant difference between groups at 1 year. In a subset of 50 patients, MRI was also used to assess LVM regression, and again there was no significant difference between groups at 1 year. Hemodynamic performance of the 2 valves was similar with no difference in mean and peak systolic transvalvular gradients 1 year after surgery. In patients with reduced ventricular function (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <60%), there was a significantly greater improvement in LVEF from baseline to 1 year in stentless valve recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Both stented and stentless bioprostheses are associated with excellent clinical and hemodynamic outcomes 1 year after AVR. Comparable hemodynamics and LVM regression can be achieved using a second-generation stented pericardial bioprosthesis. In patients with ventricular impairment, stentless bioprostheses may allow for greater improvement in left ventricular function postoperatively.