Rebecca Normansell

Efficacy and effectiveness of screen and treat policies in prevention of type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of screening tests and interventions

Objectives To assess diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for pre-diabetes and efficacy of interventions (lifestyle or metformin) in preventing onset of type 2 diabetes in people with pre-diabetes. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources and method Medline, PreMedline, and Embase. Study protocols and seminal papers were citation-tracked in Google Scholar to identify definitive trials and additional publications. Data on study design, methods, and findings were extracted onto Excel spreadsheets; a 20% sample was checked by a second researcher. Data extracted for screening tests included diagnostic accuracy and population prevalence. Two meta-analyses were performed, one summarising accuracy of screening tests (with the oral glucose tolerance test as the standard) for identification of pre-diabetes, and the other assessing relative risk of progression to type 2 diabetes after either lifestyle intervention or treatment with metformin. Eligibility criteria Empirical studies evaluating accuracy of tests for identification of pre-diabetes. Interventions (randomised trials and interventional studies) with a control group in people identified through screening. No language restrictions. Results 2874 titles were scanned and 148 papers (covering 138 studies) reviewed in full. The final analysis included 49 studies of screening tests (five of which were prevalence studies) and 50 intervention trials. HbA1c had a mean sensitivity of 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.58) and specificity of 0.79 (0.73 to 0.84), for identification of pre-diabetes, though different studies used different cut-off values. Fasting plasma glucose had a mean sensitivity of 0.25 (0.19 to 0.32) and specificity of 0.94 (0.92 to 0.96). Different measures of glycaemic abnormality identified different subpopulations (for example, 47%of people with abnormal HbA1c had no other glycaemic abnormality). Lifestyle interventions were associated with a 36% (28% to 43%) reduction in relative risk of type 2 diabetes over six months to six years, attenuating to 20% (8% to 31%) at follow-up in the period after the trails. Conclusions HbA1c is neither sensitive nor specific for detecting pre-diabetes; fasting glucose is specific but not sensitive. Interventions in people classified through screening as having pre-diabetes have some efficacy in preventing or delaying onset of type 2 diabetes in trial populations. As screening is inaccurate, many people will receives an incorrect diagnosis and be referred on for interventions while others will be falsely reassured and not offered the intervention. These findings suggest that “screen and treat” policies alone are unlikely to have substantial impact on the worsening epidemic of type 2 diabetes. Registration PROSPERO (No CRD42016042920).

Numbers are not the whole story: a qualitative exploration of barriers and facilitators to increased physical activity in a primary care based walking intervention

BackgroundThe majority of mid-life and older adults in the UK are not achieving recommended physical activity levels and inactivity is associated with many health problems. Walking is a safe, appropriate exercise. The PACE-UP trial sought to increase walking through the structured use of a pedometer and handbook, with and without support from a practice nurse trained in behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Understanding barriers and facilitators to engagement with a primary care based physical activity intervention is essential for future trials and programmes.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured telephone interviews using a topic guide with purposive samples of participants who did and did not increase their walking from both intervention groups. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded independently by researchers prior to performing a thematic analysis. Responsiveness to the specific BCTs used was also analysed.ResultsForty-three trial participants were interviewed in early 2014. Almost all felt they had benefitted, irrespective of their change in step-count, and that primary care was an appropriate setting.Important facilitators included a desire for a healthy lifestyle, improved physical health, enjoyment of walking in the local environment, having a flexible routine allowing for an increase in walking, appropriate self and external monitoring and support from others.Important barriers included physical health problems, an inflexible routine, work and other commitments, the weather and a mistrust of the monitoring equipment.BCTs that were reported to have the most impact included: providing information about behaviour-health link; prompting self-monitoring and review of goals and outcomes; providing feedback; providing specific information about how to increase walking; planning social support/change; and relapse prevention. Rewards were unhelpful.ConclusionsDespite our expectation that there would be a difference between the experiences of those who did and did not objectively increase their walking, we found that most participants considered themselves to have succeeded in the trial and benefitted from taking part. Barriers and facilitators were similar across demographic groups and trial outcomes. Findings indicated several BCTs on which PA trial and programme planners could focus efforts with the expectation of greatest impact as well as strong support for primary care as an appropriate venue.Trial registrationISRCTN98538934.

Exploring non-participation in primary care physical activity interventions: PACE-UP trial interview findings.

BackgroundTrials in primary care to increase physical activity (PA) typically experience poor recruitment rates and may not recruit those with lower PA levels and who are most in need of the intervention. Despite the well-publicised benefits of physical activity, the majority of adults in the UK remain inactive and, therefore, at greater risk of many health problems. Our aim was to investigate the reasons for non-participation in the PACE-UP trial, which is a primary care pedometer-based walking intervention. This is important for successful recruitment and retention in future PA trials and programmes.MethodWe conducted semi-structured audio-recorded telephone interviews with 30 participants, aged 45–75 years, purposively sampled from those declining participation in the PACE-UP trial. Recruitment continued until data saturation and a demographically balanced sample was achieved. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded and subjected to thematic analysis.ResultsInterviewees supported walking as suitable exercise for most people in this age group, recognised the importance of this type of research and general practice as an appropriate setting. Key reasons for declining were: the perception of being already ‘too active’; existing medical conditions; work; travel and other commitments. Less frequently cited reasons included reluctance to be randomised, the intervention’s duration, wearing a pedometer, perceived inappropriateness of trial literature and a preference for a different kind of PA or for a group activity.ConclusionsWhilst most interviewees perceived themselves to be sufficiently active, an important minority did not participate due to existing medical conditions and other commitments. Recruitment to future PA trials might be improved by tailoring activity to compensate for medical problems, and adapting PA interventions to fit around work and travel commitments. Ensuring that patient-targeted literature is succinct and inclusive and that equipment is user-friendly are also important. Primary care is seen as an appropriate setting for PA trials and programmes.Trial registrationISRCTN98538934.

“It’s not just about walking.....it’s the practice nurse that makes it work”: a qualitative exploration of the views of practice nurses delivering complex physical activity interventions in primary care

BackgroundPhysical activity (PA) is important for physical and mental health in adults and older adults. Interventions incorporating theory-based behaviour change techniques (BCTs) can be useful in helping people to increase their PA levels and can be delivered by practice nurses in primary care. We undertook two primary care based complex walking interventions among adults and older adults. Both interventions were underpinned by BCTs and delivered by practice nurses and we sought their views and experiences of delivering over 1400 complex PA consultations.MethodsSemi structured interviews with two practice nurse groups (n = 4 and n = 5) and two individual interviews (total n = 11) were conducted by independent facilitators; audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsFive key themes emerged as enablers and/or barriers to delivering the intervention: preparation and training; initial and ongoing support; adherence to the protocol; the use of materials and equipment; and engagement of participants. The themes were organised into a framework of ‘pre-trial’ and ‘delivery of the intervention’. Two additional ‘post-trial’ themes were identified; changed practice and the future feasibility of the intervention. Nurses believed that taking part in the trial, especially the BCT training, enhanced the quality and delivery of advice and support they provided within routine consultations, although the lack of time available routinely makes this challenging.ConclusionDelivering an effective behaviour change intervention in primary care requires adequate training and support for practice nurses both initially and throughout the trial as well as adequate consultation time. Enhanced skills from participating in such trials can lead to long-term changes, including more patient-centred consulting.Trial registrationPACE-Lift ISRCTN 42122561, PACE-UP ISRCTN 98538934.

Exploring access and attitudes to regular sexually transmitted infection screening: the views of young, multi‐ethnic, inner‐city, female students

Low uptake of sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing by young people is a major public health problem worldwide. The aims of this qualitative, community‐based study were to explore access and attitudes to STI screening in high risk, young, ethnically diverse female students.

Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews

Dear Sirs, We read with interest the paper by Ho et al,1 which used the AMSTAR tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). As staff at the Cochrane Airways Group with the responsibility of producing high-quality SRs for airway conditions, including COPD, we are always happy to hear how we could improve. However, there are some methodological issues within the study. The abstract states that the methodological quality of the reviews was disappointing and emphasises the more negative findings, neglecting the positive results (e.g., a priori design in 67% SRs, comprehensive literature search in 97% and scientific quality assessed and documented in 85%). The authors did not complete the AMSTAR ratings in duplicate; yet, duplicate data extraction is a mark of a good SR. Our experience with this tool is that the discussion between two or more people helps reach a fair judgement.2 It would have been helpful to see the AMSTAR ratings per review so that the work could be replicated and evaluated. We noted the lack of discussion about the choice to limit the study to SRs that include a meta-analysis. Choosing not to perform a meta-analysis when there is a lot of heterogeneity between studies is a valid decision. The authors highlighted that non-English databases were searched infrequently. This is not an AMSTAR criterion; have the authors suggested that this be incorporated in any update of the tool? Cochrane does not require that non-English language databases be searched and this is usually done only when we expect that this will yield additional relevant trials. We agree that multilingual SR teams are advantageous and we would be grateful if people who wish to translate the trial reports for inclusion in Cochrane reviews contact us. We take the authors’ point about being clearer about reviewers’ support, and making a statement about publication bias in the results section as well as the methods section when there are too few studies to permit a funnel plot. As highlighted in the paper, the quality of SRs has improved significantly in recent years through the development of methods and improved implementation.3,4 It would have been helpful to highlight this important point in the conclusions and abstract.

Which sexually active young female students are most at risk of pelvic inflammatory disease? A prospective study.

Objective To identify risk factors for pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in female students. Methods We performed a prospective study set in 11 universities and 9 further education colleges in London. In 2004–2006, 2529 sexually experienced, multiethnic, female students, mean age 20.8 years, provided self-taken vaginal samples and completed questionnaires at recruitment to the Prevention of Pelvic Infection chlamydia screening trial. After 12 months, they were followed up by questionnaire backed by medical record search and assessed for PID by blinded genitourinary medicine physicians. Results Of 2004 (79%) participants who reported numbers of sexual partners during follow-up, 32 (1.6%, 95% CI 1.1% to 2.2%) were diagnosed with PID. The strongest predictor of PID was baseline Chlamydia trachomatis (relative risk (RR) 5.7, 95% CI 2.6 to 15.6). After adjustment for baseline C. trachomatis, significant predictors of PID were ≥2 sexual partners or a new sexual partner during follow-up (RR 4.0, 95% CI 1.8 to 8.5; RR 2.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 6.3), age <20 years (RR 3.3, 95% CI 1.5 to 7.0), recruitment from a further education college rather than a university (RR 2.6, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.3) and history at baseline of vaginal discharge (RR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2 to 5.8) or pelvic pain (RR 4.1, 95% CI 2.0 to 8.3) in the previous six months. Bacterial vaginosis and Mycoplasma genitalium infection were no longer significantly associated with PID after adjustment for baseline C. trachomatis. Conclusions Multiple or new partners in the last 12 months, age <20 years and attending a further education college rather than a university were risk factors for PID after adjustment for baseline C. trachomatis infection. Sexual health education and screening programmes could be targeted at these high-risk groups. Trial registration number (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00115388).

Oral versus inhaled antibiotics for non‐cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To determine the comparative efficacy and safety of oral versus inhaled antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis.

“Asthma can take over your life but having the right support makes that easier to deal with.” Informing research priorities by exploring the barriers and facilitators to asthma control: a qualitative analysis of survey data

BackgroundInvolving patients and the public in research prioritisation is important. Cochrane Airways works with authors to produce systematic reviews of evidence related to chronic airways disease. Cochrane Airways has undertaken activities to identify research priorities, including workshops with stakeholders and consultation with experts. We present the findings of an online survey, designed to align our work with the priorities of people affected by asthma.MethodsWe promoted a survey comprising open-ended questions via social media to people affected by asthma. We compiled the free-text responses and conducted an exploratory thematic analysis to identify important barriers and facilitators to asthma control. We triangulated findings with other research prioritisation activities to produce new review questions.ResultsWe received 57 survey responses. Eight main themes emerged, most encompassing both facilitators and barriers: attitudes and knowledge; financial costs; environmental factors and triggers; healthcare systems; lifestyle factors; medication; self-care; and support. Barriers were more frequently mentioned than facilitators and many related to healthcare systems.ConclusionsThese findings offer valuable insights into the challenges faced by individuals affected by asthma in the UK, and possibly further afield. We developed a list of priority reviews based on what was said by people in this survey and at a workshop. This demonstrates the real impact that people affected by asthma have on the research agenda of Cochrane Airways. Over the next 2–3 years we will produce reviews that address some of these questions hopefully leading to health benefits.

Chlamydia testing: where are we now? Recruiting high-risk women to a pilot STI screening trial

In their topical editorial, Jain and Ison state that ‘testing (for chlamydia) is a crucial part of any effective control strategy’.1 In January 2013 we conducted a pilot study of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoea testing in female students at Lambeth Further Education College, London to assess recruitment to a possible prevention of pelvic infection-2 screening trial.2 Two female general practitioners approached consecutive female students in the common room and asked them to help with a womens health study. We explained that only women aged …