Young people's perspectives on the adoption of preventive measures for HIV/AIDS, malaria and family planning in South-West Uganda: focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the possibility of preventing many cases of HIV, malaria and unplanned pregnancy, protective measures are often not taken by those at risk in Uganda. The study aim was to explore young people's perspectives on the reasons why this is so. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with 100 secondary school and college students in Kanungu, Uganda in 2011. Three parallel groups considered HIV, malaria and family planning, and common messages were then explored jointly in a workshop based on the RE-AIM framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance). RESULTS: Participants identified various reasons why preventive action was not always taken. They worried about the effectiveness and side effects of several key interventions: condoms, antiretroviral treatment, various contraceptives and impregnated mosquito nets. Cost, rural isolation and the quality and availability of health services also limited the extent to which people were able to follow health advice. Although there was respect for policy supporting abstinence and fidelity, it was seen as hard to follow and offering inadequate protection when gender imbalance put pressure on women to have sex. CONCLUSIONS: There is an opportunity to improve the uptake of preventive measures by tackling the misconceptions and fears that participants reported with clear, evidence-based messages. This should be done in a way that encourages more open communication about reproductive health between men and women, that reaches out to isolated communities, that draws on both voluntary and government services and enlists young people so that they can shape their future.RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are

Impact of community based peer support in type 2 diabetes: a cluster randomised controlled trial of individual and/or group approaches

Background: Diabetes peer support, where one person with diabetes helps guide and support others, has been proposed as a way to improve diabetes management. We have tested whether different diabetes peer support strategies can improve metabolic and/or psychological outcomes.<p></p> Methods: People with type 2 diabetes (n=1,299) were invited to participate as either ‘peer’ or ‘peer support facilitator’ (PSF) in a 2x2 factorial pragmatic randomised cluster controlled trial across rural communities (130 clusters) in England. Peer support was delivered over 8-12 months by trained PSFs, supported by monthly meetings with a diabetes educator. Primary end point was HbA1c. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, diabetes distress, blood pressure, waist, total cholesterol and weight. Outcome assessors and investigators were masked to arm allocation. Main factors were 1:1 or group intervention. Analysis was by intention-to-treat adjusting for baseline.<p></p> Results: The 4 arms were well matched (Group n=330, 1:1 n=325, combined n=322, control n=322); 1035 (79·7%) completed the mid-point postal questionnaire and 1064 (81·9%) had a final HbA1c. A limitation was that although 92.6% PSFs and peers were in telephone contact, only 61.4% of intervention participants attended a face to face session.<p></p> Mean baseline HbA1c was 57 mmol/mol (7·4%), with no significant change across arms. Systolic blood pressure was reduced by -2·3mm Hg (-4·0 to -0·6) among those allocated group peer-support and -3·0mm Hg (-5·0 to -1·1) among those who attended group peer-support at least once. There was no impact on other outcomes by intention to treat or significant differences between arms in self-reported adherence or medication.<p></p> Conclusions: Group diabetes peer support over 8-12 months was associated with a small improvement in blood pressure but no other benefits. Long term benefits should be investigated

Honoring Professor James M. McGoldrick, Jr.

Tribute to Pepperdine Caruso School of Law Professor James M. McGoldrick, Jr

How do people with diabetes describe their experiences in primary care? Evidence from 85,760 patients with self-reported diabetes from the English General Practice Patient Survey.

OBJECTIVE: Developing primary care is an important current health policy goal in the U.S. and England. Information on patients' experience can help to improve the care of people with diabetes. We describe the experiences of people with diabetes in primary care and examine how these experiences vary with increasing comorbidity. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using data from 906,578 responders to the 2012 General Practice Patient Survey (England), including 85,760 with self-reported diabetes, we used logistic regressions controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status to analyze patient experience using seven items covering three domains of primary care: access, continuity, and communication. RESULTS: People with diabetes were significantly more likely to report better experience on six out of seven primary care items than people without diabetes after adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (adjusted differences 0.88-3.20%; odds ratios [ORs] 1.07-1.18; P < 0.001). Those with diabetes and additional comorbid long-term conditions were more likely to report worse experiences, particularly for access to primary care appointments (patients with diabetes alone compared with patients without diabetes: OR 1.22 [95% CI 1.17-1.28] and patients with diabetes plus three or more conditions compared with patients without diabetes: OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.83-0.91]). CONCLUSIONS: People with diabetes in England report primary care experiences that are at least as good as those without diabetes for most domains of care. However, improvements in primary care are needed for diabetes patients with comorbid long-term conditions, including better access to appointments and improved communication.Diabetes UKThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the American Diabetes Association via http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc14-109

Trials within trials? Researcher, funder and ethical perspectives on the practicality and acceptability of nesting trials of recruitment methods in existing primary care trials

Background: Trials frequently encounter difficulties in recruitment, but evidence on effective recruitment methods in primary care is sparse. A robust test of recruitment methods involves comparing alternative methods using a randomized trial, 'nested' in an ongoing 'host' trial. There are potential scientific, logistical and ethical obstacles to such studies. Methods: Telephone interviews were undertaken with four groups of stakeholders (funders, principal investigators, trial managers and ethics committee chairs) to explore their views on the practicality and acceptability of undertaking nested trials of recruitment methods. These semi-structured interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. Results: Twenty people were interviewed. Respondents were familiar with recruitment difficulties in primary care and recognised the case for 'nested' studies to build an evidence base on effective recruitment strategies. However, enthusiasm for this global aim was tempered by the challenges of implementation. Challenges for host studies included increasing complexity and management burden; compatibility between the host and nested study; and the impact of the nested study on trial design and relationships with collaborators. For nested recruitment studies, there were concerns that host study investigators might have strong preferences, limiting the nested study investigators' control over their research, and also concerns about sample size which might limit statistical power. Nested studies needed to be compatible with the main trial and should be planned from the outset. Good communication and adequate resources were seen as important. Conclusions: Although research on recruitment was welcomed in principle, the issue of which study had control of key decisions emerged as critical. To address this concern, it appeared important to align the interests of both host and nested studies and to reduce the burden of hosting a recruitment trial. These findings should prove useful in devising a programme of research involving nested studies of recruitment interventions

Systematic techniques for assisting recruitment to trials (START): study protocol for embedded, randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials play a central role in evidence-based practice, but recruitment of participants, and retention of them once in the trial, is challenging. Moreover, there is a dearth of evidence that research teams can use to inform the development of their recruitment and retention strategies. As with other healthcare initiatives, the fairest test of the effectiveness of a recruitment strategy is a trial comparing alternatives, which for recruitment would mean embedding a recruitment trial within an ongoing host trial. Systematic reviews indicate that such studies are rare. Embedded trials are largely delivered in an ad hoc way, with interventions almost always developed in isolation and tested in the context of a single host trial, limiting their ability to contribute to a body of evidence with regard to a single recruitment intervention and to researchers working in different contexts. METHODS/DESIGN: The Systematic Techniques for Assisting Recruitment to Trials (START) program is funded by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council (MRC) Methodology Research Programme to support the routine adoption of embedded trials to test standardized recruitment interventions across ongoing host trials. To achieve this aim, the program involves three interrelated work packages: (1) methodology - to develop guidelines for the design, analysis and reporting of embedded recruitment studies; (2) interventions - to develop effective and useful recruitment interventions; and (3) implementation - to recruit host trials and test interventions through embedded studies. DISCUSSION: Successful completion of the START program will provide a model for a platform for the wider trials community to use to evaluate recruitment interventions or, potentially, other types of intervention linked to trial conduct. It will also increase the evidence base for two types of recruitment intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The START protocol covers the methodology for embedded trials. Each embedded trial is registered separately or as a substudy of the host trial

Pressure and judgement within a dichotomous landscape of infant feeding: A grounded theory study to explore why breastfeeding women do not access peer support provision

Lack of support is reported as a key reason for early breastfeeding cessation. While breastfeeding peer support (BPS) interventions are a recommended tool to increase breastfeeding rates, intervention studies identify that engagement with BPS is problematic. Due to a paucity of research in this area, this study explores why breastfeeding women do not access BPS in South-West England. Utilising Charmaz’s (2006) constructionist grounded theory approach, twenty-four semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 33 participants (13 women, six health professionals and 14 peer supporters). Analysis involved open coding, constant comparisons and focussed coding. One core category and three main themes explicating non-access were identified. The core category concerns women’s experiences of pressure and judgment around their feeding decisions within a dichotomous landscape of infant feeding language and support. Theme one, ‘place and space of support’, describes the contrast between a perceived pressure to breastfeed, and a lack of adequate and appropriate support. Theme two, ‘one way or no way’, outlines the rules based approach to breastfeeding adopted by some health professionals, and how women avoided BPS due to anticipating a similar approach. Theme three, ‘it must be me’ concerns how a lack of embodied insights could lead to ‘breastfeeding failure’ identities. A background of dichotomised language, pressure, and moral judgement, combined with the organisation of postnatal care and the model of breastfeeding adopted by health professionals, may prevent women’s access to BPS. A socio-cultural model of breastfeeding support providing clear messages regarding the value and purpose of BPS should be adopted

An explanatory randomised controlled trial of a nurse-led, consultation-based intervention to support patients with adherence to taking glucose lowering medication for type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Failure to take medication reduces the effectiveness of treatment leading to increased morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the efficacy of a consultation-based intervention to support objectively-assessed adherence to oral glucose lowering medication (OGLM) compared to usual care among people with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This was a parallel group randomised trial in adult patients with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c ≥ 7.5% (58 mmol/mol), prescribed at least one OGLM. Participants were allocated to a clinic nurse delivered, innovative consultation-based intervention to strengthen patient motivation to take OGLM regularly and support medicine taking through action-plans, or to usual care. The primary outcome was the percentage of days on which the prescribed dose of medication was taken, measured objectively over 12 weeks with an electronic medication-monitoring device (TrackCap, Aardex, Switzerland). The primary analysis was intention-to-treat. RESULTS: 211 patients were randomised between July 1, 2006 and November 30, 2008 in 13 British general practices (primary care clinics). Primary outcome data were available for 194 participants (91.9%). Mean (sd) percentage of adherent days was 77.4% (26.3) in the intervention group and 69.0% (30.8) in standard care (mean difference between groups 8.4%, 95% confidence interval 0.2% to 16.7%, p = 0.044). There was no significant adverse impact on functional status or treatment satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: This well-specified, theory based intervention delivered in a single session of 30 min in primary care increased objectively measured medication adherence, with no adverse effect on treatment satisfaction. These findings justify a definitive trial of this approach to improving medication adherence over a longer period of time, with clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes to inform clinical practice.RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are