Lisa McDermott

Psychosocial consequences of developmental prosopagnosia: a problem of recognition.

OBJECTIVEnTo provide the first systematic in-depth description of the consequences of developmental prosopagnosia (DP; face blindness) for psychosocial functioning and occupational disability, in order to determine what kind of professional intervention may be needed.nnnMETHODSnSemi-structured telephone interviews were carried out with 25 people whose self-reports of face recognition problems were confirmed by impaired scores on the Cambridge Face Recognition Test. Thematic analysis was used to inductively identify and understand common psychosocial consequences of DP.nnnRESULTSnAll participants described recurrent and sometimes traumatic social interaction difficulties caused by recognition problems, such as failing to recognize close friends, work colleagues, and family members. These problems often led to chronic anxiety about offending others and feelings of embarrassment, guilt, and failure. Most participants described some degree of fear and avoidance of social situations in which face recognition was important, including family and social gatherings, and meetings at work. Long-term consequences could include dependence on others, a restricted social circle, more limited employment opportunities, and loss of self-confidence.nnnCONCLUSIONnThe potential for negative psychosocial consequences and occupational disability posed by DP is as great as that posed by conditions which are currently afforded professional recognition and support, such as stuttering and dyslexia. Wider recognition of the problems prosopagnosia can cause could reduce anxiety about social interaction difficulties by making it easier to explain and justify recognition problems to other people, including employers. Greater professional awareness could facilitate detection and referral of those requiring support with coping with social interactions.

Delayed antibiotic prescribing strategies for respiratory tract infections in primary care: pragmatic, factorial, randomised controlled trial

Objective To estimate the effectiveness of different strategies involving delayed antibiotic prescription for acute respiratory tract infections. Design Open, pragmatic, parallel group, factorial, randomised controlled trial. Setting Primary care in the United Kingdom. Patients 889 patients aged 3 years and over with acute respiratory tract infection, recruited between 3 March 2010 and 28 March 2012 by 53 health professionals in 25 practices. Interventions Patients judged not to need immediate antibiotics were randomised to undergo four strategies of delayed prescription: recontact for a prescription, post-dated prescription, collection of the prescription, and be given the prescription (patient led). During the trial, a strategy of no antibiotic prescription was added as another randomised comparison. Analysis was intention to treat. Main outcome measures Mean symptom severity (0-6 scale) at days 2-4 (primary outcome), antibiotic use, and patients’ beliefs in the effectiveness of antibiotic use. Secondary analysis included comparison with immediate use of antibiotics. Results Mean symptom severity had minimal differences between the strategies involving no prescription and delayed prescription (recontact, post-date, collection, patient led; 1.62, 1.60, 1.82, 1.68, 1.75, respectively; likelihood ratio test χ2 2.61, P=0.625). Duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse also did not differ between no prescription and delayed prescription strategies combined (median 3 days v 4 days; 4.29, P=0.368). There were modest and non-significant differences in patients very satisfied with the consultation between the randomised groups (79%, 74%, 80%, 88%, 89%, respectively; likelihood ratio test χ2 2.38, P=0.667), belief in antibiotics (71%, 74%, 73%, 72%, 66%; 1.62, P=0.805), or antibiotic use (26%, 37%, 37%, 33%, 39%; 4.96, P=0.292). By contrast, most patients given immediate antibiotics used antibiotics (97%) and strongly believed in them (93%), but with no benefit for symptom severity (score 1.76) or duration (median 4 days). Conclusion Strategies of no prescription or delayed antibiotic prescription result in fewer than 40% of patients using antibiotics, and are associated with less strong beliefs in antibiotics, and similar symptomatic outcomes to immediate prescription. If clear advice is given to patients, there is probably little to choose between the different strategies of delayed prescription. Trial registration ISRCTN38551726.

Developing a computer delivered, theory based intervention for guideline implementation in general practice

BackgroundNon-adherence to clinical guidelines has been identified as a consistent finding in general practice. The purpose of this study was to develop theory-informed, computer-delivered interventions to promote the implementation of guidelines in general practice. Specifically, our aim was to develop computer-delivered prompts to promote guideline adherence for antibiotic prescribing in respiratory tract infections (RTIs), and adherence to recommendations for secondary stroke prevention.MethodsA qualitative design was used involving 33 face-to-face interviews with general practitioners (GPs). The prompts used in the interventions were initially developed using aspects of social cognitive theory, drawing on nationally recommended standards for clinical content. The prompts were then presented to GPs during interviews, and iteratively modified and refined based on interview feedback. Inductive thematic analysis was employed to identify responses to the prompts and factors involved in the decision to use them.ResultsGPs reported being more likely to use the prompts if they were perceived as offering support and choice, but less likely to use them if they were perceived as being a method of enforcement. Attitudes towards using the prompts were also related to anticipated patient outcomes, individual prescriber differences, accessibility and presentation of prompts and acceptability of guidelines. Comments on the prompts were largely positive after modifying them based on participant feedback.ConclusionsAcceptability and satisfaction with computer-delivered prompts to follow guidelines may be increased by working with practitioners to ensure that the prompts will be perceived as valuable tools that can support GPs practice.

Cluster randomised trial in the General Practice Research Database: 1. Electronic decision support to reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care (eCRT study)

BackgroundThe purpose of this research is to develop and evaluate methods for conducting cluster randomised trials in a primary care database that contains electronic patient records for large numbers of family practices. Cluster randomised trials are trials in which the units allocated represent groups of individuals, in this case family practices and their registered patients. Cluster randomised trials often suffer from the limitation that they include too few clusters, leading to problems of insufficient power and only imprecise estimation of the intraclass correlation coefficient, a key design parameter. This difficulty might be overcome by utilising databases that already hold electronic patient records for large numbers of practices. The protocol describes one application: a study of antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infection; a second protocol outlines an intervention in a less frequent chronic condition of public health importance, stroke.Methods/DesignThe objective of the study is to implement a cluster randomised trial to test the effectiveness of an electronic record-based intervention at achieving a reduction in antibiotic prescribing at consultations for respiratory illness in patients aged 18 and 59 years old in intervention family practices as compared with controls. Family practices will be recruited from the practices that presently contribute data to the UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD). Following randomisation, electronic prompts will be installed remotely at intervention practices to promote adherence with evidence-based standards of medical practice. The intervention was developed through qualitative research at non-intervention practices. Data for outcome assessment will be obtained from anonymised electronic patient records that are routinely collected into GPRD. This protocol outlines the proposed study designs, data sources, sample size requirements, analysis methods and dissemination plans. Ethical issues are also discussed.DiscussionResults from this study will provide methodological evidence concerning the use of electronic patient records and databases for implementing cluster randomised trials in primary care. The study will also provide substantive findings in respect of electronic record-based interventions to reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care.Trial RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN 47558792.

Ibuprofen, paracetamol, and steam for patients with respiratory tract infections in primary care: pragmatic randomised factorial trial

Objective To assess strategies for advice on analgesia and steam inhalation for respiratory tract infections. Design Open pragmatic parallel group factorial randomised controlled trial. Setting Primary care in United Kingdom. Participants Patients aged ≥3 with acute respiratory tract infections. Intervention 889 patients were randomised with computer generated random numbers in pre-prepared sealed numbered envelopes to components of advice or comparator advice: advice on analgesia (take paracetamol, ibuprofen, or both), dosing of analgesia (take as required v regularly), and steam inhalation (no inhalation v steam inhalation). Outcomes Primary: mean symptom severity on days 2-4; symptoms rated 0 (no problem) to 7 (as bad as it can be). Secondary: temperature, antibiotic use, reconsultations. Results Neither advice on dosing nor on steam inhalation was significantly associated with changes in outcomes. Compared with paracetamol, symptom severity was little different with ibuprofen (adjusted difference 0.04, 95% confidence interval −0.11 to 0.19) or the combination of ibuprofen and paracetamol (0.11, −0.04 to 0.26). There was no evidence for selective benefit with ibuprofen among most subgroups defined before analysis (presence of otalgia; previous duration of symptoms; temperature >37.5°C; severe symptoms), but there was evidence of reduced symptoms severity benefit in the subgroup with chest infections (ibuprofen −0.40, −0.78 to −0.01; combination −0.47; −0.84 to −0.10), equivalent to almost one in two symptoms rated as a slight rather than a moderately bad problem. Children might also benefit from treatment with ibuprofen (ibuprofen: −0.47, −0.76 to −0.18; combination: −0.04, −0.31 to 0.23). Reconsultations with new/unresolved symptoms or complications were documented in 12% of those advised to take paracetamol, 20% of those advised to take ibuprofen (adjusted risk ratio 1.67, 1.12 to 2.38), and 17% of those advised to take the combination (1.49, 0.98 to 2.18). Mild thermal injury with steam was documented for four patients (2%) who returned full diaries, but no reconsultations with scalding were documented. Conclusion Overall advice to use steam inhalation, or ibuprofen rather than paracetamol, does not help control symptoms in patients with acute respiratory tract infections and must be balanced against the possible progression of symptoms during the next month for a minority of patients. Advice to use ibuprofen might help short term control of symptoms in those with chest infections and in children. Trial registration ISRCTN 38551726.

Electronic Health Records for Intervention Research: A Cluster Randomized Trial to Reduce Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care (eCRT Study)

PURPOSE This study aimed to implement a point-of-care cluster randomized trial using electronic health records. We evaluated the effectiveness of electronically delivered decision support tools at reducing antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections in primary care. METHODS Family practices from England and Scotland participating in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) were included in the trial; 53 family practices were allocated to intervention and 51 practices were allocated to usual care. Patients aged 18 to 59 years consulting for respiratory tract infections were eligible. The intervention was through remotely installed, computer-delivered decision support tools accessed during the consultations. Control practices provided usual care. The primary outcome was the proportion of consultations for respiratory tract infections with an antibiotic prescribed based on electronic health records. Family practice-specific proportions were included in a cluster-level analysis. RESULTS Data were analyzed for 603,409 patients: 317,717 at intervention practices and 285,692 at control practices. Use of the intervention was less than anticipated, varying among practices. There was a reduction in proportion of consultations with antibiotics prescribed of 1.85% (95% CI, 0.10%–3.59%, P = .038) and in the rate of antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (9.69%; 95% CI, 0.75%–18.63%, fewer prescriptions per 1,000 patient-years, P = .034). There were no adverse events. CONCLUSIONS Cluster randomized trials may be implemented efficiently in large samples from routine care settings by using primary care electronic health records. Future studies should develop and test multicomponent methods for remotely delivered intervention.

PRImary care Streptococcal Management (PRISM) study: In vitro study, diagnostic cohorts and a pragmatic adaptive randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative study and cost-effectiveness study

BACKGROUNDnAntibiotics are still prescribed to most patients attending primary care with acute sore throat, despite evidence that there is modest benefit overall from antibiotics. Targeting antibiotics using either clinical scoring methods or rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) could help. However, there is debate about which groups of streptococci are important (particularly Lancefield groups C and G), and uncertainty about the variables that most clearly predict the presence of streptococci.nnnOBJECTIVEnThis study aimed to compare clinical scores or RADTs with delayed antibiotic prescribing.nnnDESIGNnThe study comprised a RADT in vitro study; two diagnostic cohorts to develop streptococcal scores (score 1; score 2); and, finally, an open pragmatic randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative and cost-effectiveness studies.nnnSETTINGnThe setting was UK primary care general practices.nnnPARTICIPANTSnParticipants were patients aged ≥u20093 years with acute sore throat.nnnINTERVENTIONSnAn internet program randomised patients to targeted antibiotic use according to (1) delayed antibiotics (control group), (2) clinical score or (3) RADT used according to clinical score.nnnMAIN OUTCOME MEASURESnThe main outcome measures were self-reported antibiotic use and symptom duration and severity on seven-point Likert scales (primary outcome: mean sore throat/difficulty swallowing score in the first 2-4 days).nnnRESULTSnThe IMI TestPack Plus Strep A (Inverness Medical, Bedford, UK) was sensitive, specific and easy to use. Lancefield group A/C/G streptococci were found in 40% of cohort 2 and 34% of cohort 1. A five-point score predicting the presence of A/C/G streptococci [FeverPAIN: Fever; Purulence; Attend rapidly (≤u20093 days); severe Inflammation; and No cough or coryza] had moderate predictive value (bootstrapped estimates of area under receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.73 cohort 1, 0.71 cohort 2) and identified a substantial number of participants at low risk of streptococcal infection. In total, 38% of cohort 1 and 36% of cohort 2 scored ≤u20091 for FeverPAIN, associated with streptococcal percentages of 13% and 18%, respectively. In an adaptive trial design, the preliminary score (score 1; nu2009=u20091129) was replaced by FeverPAIN (nu2009=u2009631). For score 1, there were no significant differences between groups. For FeverPAIN, symptom severity was documented in 80% of patients, and was lower in the clinical score group than in the delayed prescribing group (-0.33; 95% confidence interval -0.64 to -0.02; pu2009=u20090.039; equivalent to one in three rating sore throat a slight rather than moderately bad problem), and a similar reduction was observed for the RADT group (-0.30; -0.61 to 0.00; pu2009=u20090.053). Moderately bad or worse symptoms resolved significantly faster (30%) in the clinical score group (hazard ratio 1.30; 1.03 to 1.63) but not the RADT group (1.11; 0.88 to 1.40). In the delayed group, 75/164 (46%) used antibiotics, and 29% fewer used antibiotics in the clinical score group (risk ratio 0.71; 0.50 to 0.95; pu2009=u20090.018) and 27% fewer in the RADT group (0.73; 0.52 to 0.98; pu2009=u20090.033). No significant differences in complications or reconsultations were found. The clinical score group dominated both other groups for both the cost/quality-adjusted life-years and cost/change in symptom severity analyses, being both less costly and more effective, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated the clinical score to be the most likely to be cost-effective from an NHS perspective. Patients were positive about RADTs. Health professionals concerns about test validity, the time the test took and medicalising self-limiting illness lessened after using the tests. For both RADTs and clinical scores, there were tensions with established clinical experience.nnnCONCLUSIONSnTargeting antibiotics using a clinical score (FeverPAIN) efficiently improves symptoms and reduces antibiotic use. RADTs used in combination with FeverPAIN provide no clear advantages over FeverPAIN alone, and RADTs are unlikely to be incorporated into practice until health professionals concerns are met and they have experience of using them. Clinical scores also face barriers related to clinicians perceptions of their utility in the face of experience. This study has demonstrated the limitation of using one data set to develop a clinical score. FeverPAIN, derived from two data sets, appears to be valid and its use improves outcomes, but diagnostic studies to confirm the validity of FeverPAIN in other data sets and settings are needed. Experienced clinicians need to identify barriers to the use of clinical scoring methods. Implementation studies that address perceived barriers in the use of FeverPAIN are needed.nnnTRIAL REGISTRATIONnCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN32027234.nnnSOURCE OF FUNDINGnThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A qualitative study of GP, NP and patient views about the use of rapid streptococcal antigen detection tests (RADTs) in primary care: "swamped with sore throats?"

Objective To explore patient and healthcare professionals’ (HCP) views of clinical scores and rapid streptococcal antigen detection tests (RADTs) for acute sore throat. Design Qualitative semistructured interview study. Setting UK primary care. Participants General practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and patients from general practices across Hampshire, Oxfordshire and the West Midlands who were participating in the Primary Care Streptococcal Management (PRISM) study. Method Semistructured, face-to-face and phone interviews were conducted with GPs, NPs and patients from general practices across Hampshire, Oxfordshire and the West Midlands. Results 51 participants took part in the study. Of these, 42 were HCPs (29 GPs and 13 NPs) and 9 were patients. HCPs could see a positive role for RADTs in terms of reassurance, as an educational tool for patients, and for aiding inexperienced practitioners, but also had major concerns about RADT use in clinical practice. Particular concerns included the validity of the tests (the role of other bacteria, and carrier states), the tension and possible disconnect with clinical assessment and intuition, the issues of time and resource use and the potential for medicalisation of self-limiting illness. In contrast, however, experience of using RADTs over time seemed to make some participants more positive about using the tests. Moreover, patients were much more positive about the place of RADTs in providing reassurance and in limiting their antibiotic use. Conclusions It is unlikely that RADTs will have a (comfortable) place in clinical practice in the near future until health professionals’ concerns are met, and they have direct experience of using them. The routine use of clinical scoring systems for acute upper respiratory illness also face important barriers related to clinicians’ perceptions of their utility in the face of clinician experience and intuition.

Cluster randomized trial in the general practice research database: 2. Secondary prevention after first stroke (eCRT study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThe purpose of this research is to develop and evaluate methods for conducting pragmatic cluster randomized trials in a primary care electronic database. The proposal describes one application, in a less frequent chronic condition of public health importance, secondary prevention of stroke. A related protocol in antibiotic prescribing was reported previously.Methods/DesignThe study aims to implement a cluster randomized trial (CRT) using the electronic patient records of the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) as a sampling frame and data source. The specific objective of the trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of a computer-delivered intervention at enhancing the delivery of stroke secondary prevention in primary care. GPRD family practices will be allocated to the intervention or usual care. The intervention promotes the use of electronic prompts to support adherence with the recommendations of the UK Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party and NICE guidelines for the secondary prevention of stroke in primary care. Primary outcome measure will be the difference in systolic blood pressure between intervention and control trial arms at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be differences in serum cholesterol, prescribing of antihypertensive drugs, statins, and antiplatelet therapy. The intervention will continue for 12 months. Information on the utilization of the decision-support tools will also be analyzed.DiscussionThe CRT will investigate the effectiveness of using a computer-delivered intervention to reduce the risk of stroke recurrence following a first stroke event. The study will provide methodological guidance on the implementation of CRTs in electronic databases in primary care.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN35701810

Primary care randomised controlled trial of a tailored interactive website for the self-management of respiratory infections (Internet Doctor)

Objective To assess an internet-delivered intervention providing advice to manage respiratory tract infections (RTIs). Design Open pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial. Setting Primary care in UK. Participants Adults (aged ≥18) registered with general practitioners, recruited by postal invitation. Intervention Patients were randomised with computer-generated random numbers to access the intervention website (intervention) or not (control). The intervention tailored advice about the diagnosis, natural history, symptom management (particularly paracetamol/ibuprofen use) and when to seek further help. Outcomes Primary: National Health Service (NHS) contacts for those reporting RTIs from monthly online questionnaires for 20u2005weeks. Secondary: hospitalisations; symptom duration/severity. Results 3044 participants were recruited. 852 in the intervention group and 920 in the control group reported 1 or more RTIs, among whom there was a modest increase in NHS direct contacts in the intervention group (intervention 37/1574 (2.4%) versus control 20/1661 (1.2%); multivariate risk ratio (RR) 2.25 (95% CI 1.00 to 5.07, p=0.048)). Conversely, reduced contact with doctors occurred (239/1574 (15.2%) vs 304/1664 (18.3%); RR 0.71, 0.52 to 0.98, p=0.037). Reduction in contacts occurred despite slightly longer illness duration (11.3u2005days vs 10.7u2005days, respectively; multivariate estimate 0.60u2005days longer (−0.15 to 1.36, p=0.118) and more days of illness rated moderately bad or worse illness (0.52u2005days; 0.06 to 0.97, p=0.026). The estimate of slower symptom resolution in the intervention group was attenuated when controlling for whether individuals had used web pages which advocated ibuprofen use (length of illness 0.22u2005days, −0.51 to 0.95, p=0.551; moderately bad or worse symptoms 0.36u2005days, −0.08 to 0.80, p=0.105). There was no evidence of increased hospitalisations (risk ratio 0.25; 0.05 to 1.12; p=0.069). Conclusions An internet-delivered intervention for the self-management of RTIs modifies help-seeking behaviour, and does not result in more hospital admissions due to delayed help seeking. Advising the use of ibuprofen may not be helpful. Trial registration number ISRCTN91518452.