OBJECTIVES: A decision not to attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the event of cardiorespiratory arrest requires a discussion between the doctor and the patient and/or their relatives. We aimed to determine how many older patients admitted to acute medical wards had a pre-existing 'do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation' (DNACPR) decision, how many had one recorded on the ward and how many of those who died had a DNACPR decision in place. METHODS: A prospective cohort study, using data from medical records, of 481 consecutive patients aged \u226565 years admitted to the six acute medical wards of the John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford. RESULTS: 105/481 (22%) had a DNACPR decision at ward admission, 30 of which had been made in the emergency unit. A further 45 decisions were recorded on the ward, mostly after discussion with relatives. Of the 37 patients who died, 36 had a DNACPR decision. For the 20 deceased patients whose DNACPR decision was recorded during their admission, the median time from documentation to death was 4\u2009days with 7/20 (35%) recorded the day before death. CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with multimorbidity need the opportunity to discuss the role of CPR earlier in their care and preferably before acute hospital admission.
\n \n\n \n \nHealth professionals are increasingly called to become partners in planetary health. Using patient\u2013planetary health (P\u2013PH) co-benefit prescribing framing, we did a mixed methods systematic review to identify barriers and facilitators to adopting P\u2013PH co-benefit prescribing by physicians and mapped these onto the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behaviour (COM-B) model and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We searched electronic databases from inception until October, 2022, and did a content analysis of the included articles (n=12). Relevant categories were matched to items in the COM-B model and TDF. Nine barriers and eight facilitators were identified. Barriers included an absence of, or little, knowledge of how to change practice and time to implement change; facilitators included having policy statements and guidelines from respected associations. More diverse study designs that include health professionals, patients, and health-care system stakeholders are needed to ensure a more holistic understanding of the individual, system, and policy levers involved in implementing clinical work informed by planetary health.
\n \n\n \n \nBeing taller is associated with enhanced longevity, and higher education and earnings. We reanalysed 1472 population-based studies, with measurement of height on more than 18.6 million participants to estimate mean height for people born between 1896 and 1996 in 200 countries. The largest gain in adult height over the past century has occurred in South Korean women and Iranian men, who became 20.2 cm (95% credible interval 17.5-22.7) and 16.5 cm (13.3-19.7) taller, respectively. In contrast, there was little change in adult height in some sub-Saharan African countries and in South Asia over the century of analysis. The tallest people over these 100 years are men born in the Netherlands in the last quarter of 20th century, whose average heights surpassed 182.5 cm, and the shortest were women born in Guatemala in 1896 (140.3 cm; 135.8-144.8). The height differential between the tallest and shortest populations was 19-20 cm a century ago, and has remained the same for women and increased for men a century later despite substantial changes in the ranking of countries.
\n \n\n \n \nIntroduction: Despite having high unmet health need, people with severe and multiple disadvantage (SMD, including combinations of homelessness, substance misuse, poor mental health and domestic violence and abuse) have poor access to general practice. This realist review will examine the existing evidence on interventions or aspects of routine care in general practice that are likely to increase or decrease access to general practice for people with SMD. Methods and analysis:\u00a0The aim of this review is to identify how these interventions or aspects of routine care increase or decrease access to general practice for people with SMD, in which contexts and for which patients. This review will involve a process comprising five sequential phases: (1) identifying established theories, (2) conducting an extensive search for proof, (3) selecting appropriate articles, (4) gathering and organising relevant data, and (5) utilising a realist analytical approach to synthesise evidence and make conclusions. Local implementation documents, in addition to published research studies, will be incorporated to enrich the analysis. We will collaborate with a stakeholder group consisting of people with lived experience of SMD and those who support them to advise us throughout. Ethics and dissemination:\u00a0Ethical approval is not required. Our findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and lay summaries and will be used to develop a complex intervention for improving access to general practice for and with people with severe and multiple disadvantage.
\n \n\n \n \nReliable tools to inform outpatient management of childhood pneumonia in resource-limited settings are needed. We investigated the value added by biomarkers of the host infection response to the performance of the Liverpool quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (LqSOFA), for triage of children presenting with pneumonia to a primary care clinic in a refugee camp on the Thailand-Myanmar border. 900 consecutive presentations of children aged\u2009\u2264\u200924\u00a0months meeting WHO pneumonia criteria were included. The primary outcome was receipt of supplemental oxygen. We compared discrimination of a clinical risk score (LqSOFA) to markers of endothelial injury (Ang-1, Ang-2, sFlt-1), immune activation (CHI3L1, IP-10, IL-1ra, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, sTNFR-1, sTREM-1), and inflammation (CRP, PCT), and quantified the net benefit of including biomarkers alongside LqSOFA. We evaluated the differential contribution of LqSOFA and host biomarkers to the diagnosis and prognosis of pneumonia severity. 49/900 (5.4%) presentations met the primary outcome. Discrimination of LqSOFA and Ang-2, the best performing biomarker, were comparable (AUC 0.82 [95% CI 0.76-0.88] and 0.81 [95% CI 0.74-0.87] respectively). Combining Ang-2 with LqSOFA improved discrimination (AUC 0.91; 95% CI 0.87-0.94; p\u2009
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: Many patients are currently unable to access psychological treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and it is unclear which types of therapist-assisted internet-based treatments work best. We aimed to investigate whether a novel internet-delivered cognitive therapy for PTSD (iCT-PTSD), which implements all procedures of a first-line, trauma-focused intervention recommended by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for PTSD, is superior to internet-delivered stress management therapy for PTSD (iStress-PTSD), a comprehensive cognitive behavioural treatment programme focusing on a wide range of coping skills. Methods: We did a single-blind, randomised controlled trial in three locations in the UK. Participants (\u226518 years) were recruited from UK National Health Service (NHS) Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services or by self-referral and met DSM-5 criteria for PTSD to single or multiple events. Participants were randomly allocated by a computer programme (3:3:1) to iCT-PTSD, iStress-PTSD, or a 3-month waiting list with usual NHS care, after which patients who still met PTSD criteria were randomly allocated (1:1) to iCT-PTSD or iStress-PTSD. Randomisation was stratified by location, duration of PTSD (<18 months or \u226518 months), and severity of PTSD symptoms (high vs low). iCT-PTSD and iStress-PTSD were delivered online with therapist support by messages and short weekly phone calls over the first 12 weeks (weekly treatment phase), and three phone calls over the next 3 months (booster phase). The primary outcome was the severity of PTSD symptoms at 13 weeks after random assignment, measured by self-report on the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), and analysed by intention-to-treat. Safety was assessed in all participants who started treatment. Process analyses investigated acceptability and compliance with treatment, and candidate moderators and mediators of outcome. The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN16806208. Findings: Of the 217 participants, 158 (73%) self-reported as female, 57 (26%) as male, and two (1%) as other; 170 (78%) were White British, 20 (9%) were other White, six (3%) were Asian, ten (5%) were Black, eight (4%) had a mixed ethnic background, and three (1%) had other ethnic backgrounds. Mean age was 36\u00b736 years (SD 12\u00b711; range 18\u201371 years). 52 (24%) participants met self-reported criteria for ICD-11 complex PTSD. Fewer than 10% of participants dropped out of each treatment group. iCT-PTSD was superior to iStress-PTSD in reducing PTSD symptoms, showing an adjusted difference on the PCL-5 of \u20134\u00b792 (95% CI \u20138\u00b792 to \u20130\u00b792; p=0\u00b7016; standardised effect size d=0\u00b738 [0\u00b707 to 0\u00b769]) for immediate allocations and \u20135\u00b782 (\u20139\u00b759 to \u20132\u00b704; p=0\u00b70027; d=0\u00b744 [0\u00b715 to 0\u00b772]) for all treatment allocations. Both treatments were superior to the waiting list for PCL-5 at 13 weeks (d=1\u00b767 [1\u00b723 to 2\u00b710] for iCT-PTSD and 1\u00b729 [0\u00b785 to 1\u00b772] for iStress-PTSD). The advantages in outcome for iCT-PTSD were greater for participants with high dissociation or complex PTSD symptoms, and mediation analyses showed both treatments worked by changing negative meanings of the trauma, unhelpful coping, and flashback memories. No serious adverse events were reported. Interpretation: Trauma-focused iCT-PTSD is effective and acceptable to patients with PTSD, and superior to a non-trauma-focused cognitive behavioural stress management therapy, suggesting that iCT-PTSD is an effective way of delivering the contents of CT-PTSD, one of the NICE-recommended first-line treatments for PTSD, while reducing therapist time compared with face-to-face therapy. Funding: Wellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.
\n \n\n \n \nThe sources of bias in medication adherence research have not been comprehensively explored. We aimed to identify biases expected to affect adherence research and to develop a framework for mapping these onto the phases of adherence (initiation, implementation, and discontinuation). A literature search was conducted, key papers were reviewed and a Catalogue of Bias was consulted. The specific biases related to adherence measurement and metrics were mapped onto the phases of adherence using a tabular matrix. Twenty-three biases were identified, of which 11 were specifically relevant to adherence measures and metrics. The mapping framework showed differences in the numbers and types of biases associated with each measure and metric while highlighting those common to many adherence study designs (e.g. unacceptability bias, apprehension bias). The framework will inform the design of adherence studies and the development of risk of bias tools for adherence research.
\n \n\n \n \nOBJECTIVE: To understand: if professionals, citizens and patients can locate UK healthcare professionals' statements of declarations of interests, and what citizens understand by these. DESIGN: The study sample included two groups of participants in three phases. First, healthcare professionals working in the public domain (health professional participants, HPP) were invited to participate. Their conflicts and declarations of interest were searched for in publicly available data, which the HPP checked and confirmed as the 'gold standard'. In the second phase, laypeople, other healthcare professionals and healthcare students were invited to complete three online tasks. The first task was a questionnaire about their own demographics. The second task was questions about doctors' conflicts of interest in clinical vignette scenarios. The third task was a request for each participant to locate and describe the declarations of interest of one of the named healthcare professionals identified in the first phase, randomly assigned. At the end of this task, all lay participants were asked to indicate willingness to be interviewed at a later date. In the third phase, each lay respondent who was willing to be contacted was invited to a qualitative interview to obtain their views on the conflicts and declaration of interest they found and their meaning. SETTING: Online, based in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 13 public-facing health professionals, 379 participants (healthcare professionals, students and laypeople), 21 lay interviewees. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Participants' level of trust in professionals with variable conflicts of interest, as expressed in vignettes, (2) participants' ability to locate the declarations of interest of a given well-known healthcare professional and (3) laypeoples' understanding of healthcare professionals declarations and conflicts of interest. RESULTS: In the first phase, 13 health professionals (HPP) participated and agreed on a 'gold standard' of their declarations. In the second phase, 379 citizens, patients, other healthcare professionals and students participated. Not all completed all aspects of the research. 85% of participants thought that knowing about professional declarations was definitely or probably important, but 76.8% were not confident they had found all relevant information after searching. As conflicts of interest increased in the vignettes, participants trusted doctors less. Least trust was associated with doctors who had not disclosed their conflicts of interest. 297 participants agreed to search for the HPP 'gold standard' declaration of interest, and 169 reported some data. Of those reporting any findings, 61 (36%) located a relevant link to some information deemed fit for purpose, and 5 (3%) participants found all the information contained in the 'gold standard'. In the third phase, qualitative interviews with 21 participants highlighted the importance of transparency but raised serious concerns about how useful declarations were in their current format, and whether they could improve patient care. Unintended consequences, such as the burden for patients and professionals to use declarations were identified, with participants additionally expressing concerns about professional bias and a lack of insight over conflicts. Suggestions for improvements included better regulation and organisation, but also second opinions and independent advice where conflicts of interest were suspected. CONCLUSION: Declarations of interest are important and conflicts of interest concern patients and professionals, particularly in regard to trust in decision-making. If declarations, as currently made, are intended to improve transparency, they do not achieve this, due to difficulties in locating and interpreting them. Unintended consequences may arise if transparency alone is assumed to provide management of conflicts. Increased trust resulting from transparency may be misplaced, given the evidence on the hazards associated with conflicts of interest. Clarity about the purposes of transparency is required. Future policies may be more successful if focused on reducing the potential for negative impacts of conflicts of interest, rather than relying on individuals to locate declarations and interpret them. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol was pre-registered at https://osf.io/e7gtq.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: The purpose of this study is to develop a theory-driven understanding of the barriers and facilitators underpinning physicians\u2019 attitudes and capabilities to implementing SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care (POC) testing into primary care practices. Methods: We used a secondary qualitative analysis approach to re-analyse data from a qualitative, interview study of 22 primary care physicians from 21 primary care practices across three regions in England. We followed the three-step method based on the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify the barriers to implementing SARS-CoV-2 POC testing and identified strategies to address these challenges. Results: Several factors underpinned primary care physicians\u2019 attitudes and capabilities to implement SARS-CoV-2 POC testing into practice. First, limited knowledge of the SARS-CoV-2 POC testing landscape and a demanding workload affected physicians\u2019 willingness to use the tests. Second, there was scepticism about the insufficient evidence pertaining to the clinical efficacy and utility of POC tests, which affected physicians\u2019 confidence in the accuracy of tests. Third, physicians would adopt POC tests if they were prescribed and recommended by authorities. Fourth, physicians required professional education and training to increase their confidence in using POC tests but also suggested that healthcare assistants should administer the tests. Fifth, physicians expressed concerns about their limited workload capacity and that extra resources are needed to accommodate any anticipated changes. Sixth, information sharing across practices shaped perceptions of POC tests and the quality of information influenced physician perceptions. Seventh, financial incentives could motivate physicians and were also needed to cover the associated costs of testing. Eighth, physicians were worried that society will view primary care as an alternative to community testing centres, which would change perceptions around their professional identity. Ninth, physicians\u2019 perception of assurance/risk influenced their willingness to use POC testing if it could help identify infectious individuals, but they were also concerned about the risk of occupational exposure and potentially losing staff members who would need to self-isolate. Conclusions: Improving primary care physicians\u2019 knowledgebase of SARS-CoV-2 POC tests, introducing policies to embed testing into practice, and providing resources to meet the anticipated demands of testing are critical to implementing testing into practice.
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND: Social prescribing link workers are being employed in primary care through the Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme. AIM: To understand and explain how the link worker role is being implemented and sustained in primary care. METHOD: As part of a realist evaluation, we observed link workers in practices in different parts of England and interviewed patients and professionals. Data have been coded and are being developed into statements that explain how context interacts with mechanisms leading to intended and unintended outcomes. RESULTS: Our first work package (WP) involved data collection from seven sites in England. For this WP, we interviewed 61 patients and 94 professionals (link workers, GPs, and members of the voluntary-community sector). 'Boundaries' is a key concept within the data. It can describe whether and how link workers draw limits around their role. This can affect the breadth of their work, as they attempt to gain credibility and acceptance within a practice. Boundaries can shape how far link workers feel they belong rather than having to fit into a practice. This may shape their ability to support patients with their psychosocial needs. CONCLUSION: Dominance of a medical model approach to service delivery may not be conducive to uncovering and supporting people with their non-medical problems, or to promoting a wider understanding of health. Tensions between fitting into a setting dominated by medical discourse and practices, compared to feeling they belong, is something that link workers can encounter when providing social prescribing services in primary care.
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND: Sleep disturbance (SD) is common among people living with dementia (PLwD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). It has a significant impact on the wellbeing of PLwD and caregivers, and makes care at home more difficult. Within primary care, assessment and management of SD for this population is complex and challenging. AIM: To identify what works, how, and for whom, in the assessment and management of SD for PLwD or MCI in primary care. METHOD: We conducted a realist review to develop explanations of causal relationships, using context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs). An initial programme theory was iteratively tested and refined, using data from relevant literature and stakeholder feedback. The study followed RAMESES reporting quality. RESULTS: In total, 71 papers from OECD countries were included for analysis, generating 19 CMOCs. Low awareness of SD and assessment methods resulted in underdiagnosis in primary care. Assessment and treatment of PLwD/MCI were, respectively, more challenging when people were unable to accurately report concerns or implement interventions independently. Sedative medication was commonly used to manage SD, often driven by low confidence in nonpharmacological strategies. Long-term medication use was common despite guidelines indicating limited efficacy, which was driven by perceived pressures to prescribe or concerns of relapse. In nursing homes, environments and routines could exacerbate SD. CONCLUSION: Increasing awareness, knowledge, and confidence in diagnosis and assessment of SD is needed. Primary care-specific assessment tools may help. Long-term medication use is the default option in absence of pragmatic and effective non-pharmacological interventions that can be easily incorporated into routine general practice.
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Point-of-care lateral flow device antigen testing has been used extensively to identify individuals with active SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of two point-of-care tests (POCTs) for SARS-CoV-2 in routine community care. METHODS: Adults and children with symptoms consistent with suspected current COVID-19 infection were prospectively recruited from 19 UK general practices and two COVID-19 testing centres between October 2020 and October 2021. Participants were tested by trained healthcare workers using at least one of two index POCTs (Roche-branded SD Biosensor Standard\u2122 Q SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test and/or BD Veritor\u2122 System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2). The reference standard was laboratory triplex reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-PCR) using a combined nasal/oropharyngeal swab. Diagnostic accuracy parameters were estimated, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), overall, in relation to RT-PCR cycle threshold and in pre-specified subgroups. RESULTS: Of 663 participants included in the primary analysis, 39.2% (260/663, 95% CI 35.5% to 43.0%) had a positive RT-PCR result. The SD Biosensor POCT had sensitivity 84.0% (178/212, 78.3% to 88.6%) and specificity 98.5% (328/333, 96.5% to 99.5%), and the BD Veritor POCT had sensitivity 76.5% (127/166, 69.3% to 82.7%) and specificity 98.8% (249/252, 96.6% to 99.8%) compared with RT-PCR. Sensitivity of both devices dropped substantially at cycle thresholds \u226530 and in participants more than 7 days after onset of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Both POCTs assessed exceed the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency target product profile's minimum acceptable specificity of 95%. Confidence intervals for both tests include the minimum acceptable sensitivity of 80%. In symptomatic patients, negative results on these two POCTs do not preclude the possibility of infection. Tests should not be expected to reliably detect disease more than a week after symptom onset, when viral load may be reduced. REGISTRATION: ISRCTN142269.
\n \n\n \n \nThe pediatric population receives the majority of vaccines globally, yet there is a paucity of studies on the transcriptional response induced by immunization in this special population. In this study, we performed a systems-level analysis of immune responses to the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine adjuvanted with MF-59 in children (15\u201324 months old) and in young, healthy adults. We analyzed transcriptional responses elicited by vaccination in peripheral blood, as well as cellular and antibody responses following primary and booster vaccinations. Our analysis revealed that primary vaccination induced a persistent transcriptional signature of innate immunity; booster vaccination induced a transcriptional signature of an enhanced memory-like innate response, which was consistent with enhanced activation of myeloid cells assessed by flow cytometry. Furthermore, we identified a transcriptional signature of type 1 interferon response post-booster vaccination and at baseline that was correlated with the local reactogenicity to vaccination and defined an early signature that correlated with the hemagglutinin antibody titers. These results highlight an adaptive behavior of the innate immune system in evoking a memory-like response to secondary vaccination and define molecular correlates of reactogenicity and immunogenicity in infants.
\n \n\n \n \n