Adele Higginbottom

Self-reported quality care for knee osteoarthritis: comparisons across Denmark, Norway, Portugal and the UK.

Objectives To assess and compare patient perceived quality of osteoarthritis (OA) management in primary healthcare in Denmark, Norway, Portugal and the UK. Methods Participants consulting with clinical signs and symptoms of knee OA were identified in 30 general practices and invited to complete a cross-sectional survey including quality indicators (QI) for OA care. A QI was considered as eligible if the participant had checked ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, and as achieved if the participant had checked ‘Yes’ to the indicator. The median percentage (with IQR and range) of eligible QIs achieved by country was determined and compared in negative binominal regression analysis. Achievement of individual QIs by country was determined and compared using logistic regression analyses. Results A total of 354 participants self-reported QI achievement. The median percentage of eligible QIs achieved (checked ‘Yes’) was 48% (IQR 28%, 64%; range 0–100%) for the total sample with relatively similar medians across three of four countries. Achievement rates on individual QIs showed a large variation ranging from 11% (referral to services for losing weight) to 67% (information about the importance of exercise) with significant differences in achievement rates between the countries. Conclusions The results indicated a potential for improvement in OA care in all four countries, but for somewhat different aspects of OA care. By exploring these differences and comparing healthcare services, ideas may be generated on how the quality might be improved across nations. Larger studies are needed to confirm and further explore the findings.

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

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.

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 researchers 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.

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

Plain English summaryIn 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.AbstractBackground: 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.