Kerry Bell

Screening in the community to reduce fractures in older women (SCOOP): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Despite effective assessment methods and medications targeting osteoporosis and related fractures, screening for fracture risk is not currently advocated in the UK. We tested whether a community-based screening intervention could reduce fractures in older women. METHODS We did a two-arm randomised controlled trial in women aged 70-85 years to compare a screening programme using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) with usual management. Women were recruited from 100 general practitioner (GP) practices in seven regions of the UK: Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Norwich, Sheffield, Southampton, and York. We excluded women who were currently on prescription anti-osteoporotic drugs and any individuals deemed to be unsuitable to enter a research study (eg, known dementia, terminally ill, or recently bereaved). The primary outcome was the proportion of individuals who had one or more osteoporosis-related fractures over a 5-year period. In the screening group, treatment was recommended in women identified to be at high risk of hip fracture, according to the FRAX 10-year hip fracture probability. Prespecified secondary outcomes were the proportions of participants who had at least one hip fracture, any clinical fracture, or mortality; and the effect of screening on anxiety and health-related quality of life. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN 55814835. FINDINGS 12 483 eligible women were identified and participated in the trial, and 6233 women randomly assigned to the screening group between April 15, 2008, and July 2, 2009. Treatment was recommended in 898 (14%) of 6233 women. Use of osteoporosis medication was higher at the end of year 1 in the screening group compared with controls (15% vs 4%), with uptake particularly high (78% at 6 months) in the screening high-risk subgroup. Screening did not reduce the primary outcome of incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·85-1·03, p=0·178), nor the overall incidence of all clinical fractures (0·94, 0·86-1·03, p=0·183), but screening reduced the incidence of hip fractures (0·72, 0·59-0·89, p=0·002). There was no evidence of differences in mortality, anxiety levels, or quality of life. INTERPRETATION Systematic, community-based screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK is feasible, and could be effective in reducing hip fractures. FUNDING Arthritis Research UK and Medical Research Council.

Gypsy, Roma and Traveller access to and engagement with health services: a systematic review

Background Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people represent the most disadvantaged minority groups in Europe, having the poorest health outcomes. This systematic review addressed the question of how Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people access healthcare and what are the best ways to enhance their engagement with health services. Methods Searches were conducted in 21 electronic databases complemented by a focussed Google search. Studies were included if they had sufficient focus on Gypsy, Roma or Traveller populations; reported data pertinent to healthcare service use or engagement and were published in English from 2000 to 2015. Study findings were analyzed thematically and a narrative synthesis reported. Results Ninety-nine studies from 32 countries were included, covering a range of health services. Nearly one-half of the presented findings related to primary healthcare services. Reported barriers to health service usage related to organisation of health systems, discrimination, culture and language, health literacy, service-user attributes and economic barriers. Promising engagement strategies included specialist roles, outreach services, dedicated services, raising health awareness, handheld records, training for staff and collaborative working. Conclusion This review provides evidence that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller populations across Europe struggle to exercise their right to healthcare on account of multiple barriers; and related to other determinants of disadvantage such as low literacy levels and experiences of discrimination. Some promising strategies to overcome barriers were reported but the evidence is weak; therefore, rigorous evaluations of interventions to improve access to and engagement with health services for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people are needed.

EVerT2—needling versus non-surgical debridement for the treatment of verrucae: study protocol for a single-centre randomised controlled trial

Introduction Verrucae are extremely common, and are experienced by most people at some time during their lives. Although most verrucae will spontaneously disappear without treatment, many patients seek treatment, often because they have persisted for many years, are unsightly or painful or prevent them from doing sports or other activities. There are many different treatments available; including the Falknors needling procedure. To date, there has only been one small trial evaluating the clinical effectiveness of this treatment and no health economic analysis has been undertaken. The Effective Verruca Treatments (EVerT2) trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the needling procedure for the treatment of verrucae. Methods and analysis This single-centre randomised controlled trial will recruit 58 participants (aged 18 years and over with a plantar verruca) from Salford Podiatry Clinic patient lists and the surrounding area. If the participant presents with multiple verrucae, an ‘index’ verruca (largest and thickest lesion) will be identified and patients will be randomised 1:1 to the intervention group to receive the needling treatment or the control group to have the callus overlying the verruca debrided. The primary outcome is complete clearance of the index verruca at 12 weeks after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include clearance and recurrence of the treated verruca, clearance of all verrucae, number of verrucae remaining, change in size of the index verruca, pain, and participant satisfaction. A cost-effectiveness analysis of the needling versus callus debridement will be carried out from the perspective of health services over a time horizon of 12 weeks. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been obtained from the University of Salford, Department of Health Sciences Ethical Approval Committee (HSCR15/24) and the University of York, Department of Health Sciences Research Governance Committee (HSRGC/2014/98/B). Findings will be disseminated through publication and conference presentations. Trial registration number ISRCTN16429440.

Community engagement to enhance trust between Gypsy/Travellers, and maternity, early years’ and child dental health services: protocol for a multi-method exploratory study

AbstractBackgroundGypsy/Travellers have poor health and experience discrimination alongside structural and cultural barriers when accessing health services and consequently may mistrust those services. Our study aims to investigate which approaches to community engagement are most likely to be effective at enhancing trust between Gypsy/Travellers and mainstream health services.MethodsThis multi-method 30-month study, commenced in June 2015, and comprises four stages.1.Three related reviews: a) systematic review of Gypsy/Travellers’ access to health services; b) systematic review of reviews of how trust has been conceptualised within healthcare; c) realist synthesis of community engagement approaches to enhance trust and increase Gypsy/Travellers’ participation in health services. The reviews will consider any economic literature;2.Online consultation with health and social care practitioners, and civil society organisations on existing engagement activities, including perceptions of barriers and good practice;3.Four in-depth case studies of different Gypsy/Traveller communities, focusing on maternity, early years and child dental health services. The case studies include the views of 32–48 mothers of pre-school children, 32–40 healthcare providers and 8–12 informants from third sector organisations.4.Two stakeholder workshops exploring whether policy options are realistic, sustainable and replicable. Case study data will be analysed thematically informed by the evaluative framework derived from the realist synthesis in stage one.The main outputs will be: a) an evaluative framework of Gypsy/Travellers’ engagement with health services; b) recommendations for policy and practice; c) evidence on which to base future implementation strategies including estimation of costs.DiscussionOur novel multi-method study seeks to provide recommendations for policy and practice that have potential to improve uptake and delivery of health services, and to reduce lifetime health inequalities for Gypsy/Travellers. The findings may have wider resonance for other marginalised populations. Strengths and limitations of the study are discussed.Trial registrationProspero registration for literature reviews: CRD42015021955 and CRD42015021950 UKCRN reference: 20036

Randomised controlled feasibility trial of the Active Communication Education programme plus hearing aid provision versus hearing aid provision alone (ACE to HEAR): a study protocol

Introduction Up to 30% of hearing aids fitted to new adult clients are reported to be of low benefit and used intermittently or not at all. Evidence suggests that additional interventions paired with service-delivery redesign may help improve hearing aid use and benefit. The range of interventions available is limited. In particular, the efficacy of interventions like the Active Communication Education (ACE) programme that focus on improving communication success with hearing-impaired people and significant others, has not previously been assessed. We propose that improved communication outcomes associated with the ACE intervention, lead to an increased perception of hearing aid value and more realistic expectations associated with hearing aid use and ownership, which are reported to be key barriers and facilitators for successful hearing aid use. This study will assess the feasibility of delivering ACE and undertaking a definitive randomised controlled trial to evaluate whether ACE would be a cost-effective and acceptable way of increasing quality of life through improving communication and hearing aid use in a public health service such as the National Health Service. Methods and analysis This will be a randomised controlled, open feasibility trial with embedded economic and process evaluations delivered in audiology departments in two UK cities. We aim to recruit 84 patients (and up to 84 significant others) aged 18 years and over, who report moderate or less than moderate benefit from their new hearing aid. The feasibility of a large-scale study and the acceptability of the ACE intervention will be measured by recruitment rates, treatment retention, follow-up rates and qualitative interviews. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval granted by South East Coast-Surrey Research Ethics Committee (16/LO/2012). Dissemination of results will be via peer-reviewed research publications both online and in print, conference presentations, posters, patient forums and Trust bulletins. Trial registration number ISRCTN28090877.

Scoop pen sub-study-a ‘trial within a trial’ of enclosing a pen in questionnaire mailings to increase response rate

Results Of the 3,789 participants sent a 60-month questionnaire in the pen group, 3,500 (92.4%) returned it compared with 3,462/3,793 (91.3%) in the control group (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.37, p=0.08). There was evidence of a reduction of the number of reminders required (p=0.02) and the time taken to respond (p=0.01) in the pen group. Some difference was found in the completeness of the primary outcome (p=0.05). The pooled OR of response rates from the meta-analysis was 1.21 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.39, p=0.01).

The use of hospital episode statistics (HES) records alongside clinical trials

Economic evaluation alongside trials is often based on data collected through self-reported questionnaires. Consequently, there are consistent problems with incomplete (missing) data irrespective of how well data collection methods are designed. Missing data poses a significant problem when conducting economic analyses of clinical trials, potentially leading to incorrect conclusions being drawn concerning an interventions’ cost-effectiveness.