Siân Williams

National guidelines for smoking cessation in primary care: a literature review and evidence analysis

National guidelines for smoking cessation in primary care can be effective in improving clinical practice. This study assessed which parties are involved in the development of such guidelines worldwide, which national guidelines address primary care, what recommendations are made for primary care settings, and how these recommendations correlate with each other and with current evidence. We identified national guidelines using an online resource. Only the most recent version of a guideline was included. If an English version was not available, we requested a translation or summary of the recommendations from the authors. Two researchers independently extracted data on funding sources, development methodologies, involved parties, and recommendations made within the guidelines. These recommendations were categorised using the pile-sort method. Each recommendation was cross-checked with the latest evidence and was awarded an evidence-rating. We identified 43 guidelines from 39 countries and after exclusion, we analysed 26 guidelines (22 targeting general population, 4 targeted subpopulations). Twelve categories of recommendations for primary care were identified. There was almost universal agreement regarding the need to identify smokers, advice them to quit and offer behavioural and pharmacological quit smoking support. Discrepancies were greatest for specific recommendations regarding behavioural and pharmacological support, which are likely to be due to different interpretations of evidence and/or differences in contextual health environments. Based on these findings, we developed a universal checklist of guideline recommendations as a practice tool for primary care professionals and future guideline developers.Smoking cessation support in primary care: universal guidelines soughtAn international team call for a universal guideline for primary-care practitioners who help patients to stop smoking. Although many nations have such guidelines, no studies have examined whether these guidelines are consistent with the current evidence. Marjolein Verbiest at the National Institute for Health Innovation, The University of Auckland, New Zealand, and co-workers of the International Primary Care Respiratory Group and the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training reviewed, evaluated and compared 26 national guidelines. Almost all guidelines place importance on identifying smokers, advising them to quit and providing behavioural and medication-based support. However, there were discrepancies in the support offered, which could be due to different interpretations of evidence, costs of medication and cultural differences. The authors offer a checklist for primary care that can inform future universal guidelines suitable for primary care.

Barriers to the provision of smoking cessation assistance: a qualitative study among Romanian family physicians

Background:Smoking cessation is the most effective intervention to prevent and slow down the progression of several respiratory and other diseases and improve patient outcomes. Romania has legislation and a national tobacco control programme in line with the World Health Organization Framework for Tobacco Control. However, few smokers are advised to quit by their family physicians (FPs).Aim:To identify and explore the perceived barriers that prevent Romanian FPs from engaging in smoking cessation with patients.Methods:A qualitative study was undertaken. A total of 41 FPs were recruited purposively from Bucharest and rural areas within 600 km of the city. Ten FPs took part in a focus group and 31 participated in semistructured interviews. Analysis was descriptive, inductive and themed, according to the barriers experienced.Results:Five main barriers were identified: limited perceived role for FPs; lack of time during consultations; past experience and presence of disincentives; patients’ inability to afford medication; and lack of training in smoking cessation skills. Overarching these specific barriers were key themes of a medical and societal hierarchy, which undermined the FP role, stretched resources and constrained care.Conclusions:Many of the barriers described by the Romanian FPs reflected universally recognised challenges to the provision of smoking cessation advice. The context of a relatively hierarchical health-care system and limitations of time and resources exacerbated many of the problems and created new barriers that will need to be addressed if Romania is to achieve the aims of its National Programme Against Tobacco Consumption.

FRESH AIR: An implementation research project funded through Horizon 2020 exploring the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of chronic respiratory diseases in low-resource settings

This protocol describes FRESH AIR, an implementation science project exploring how to improve the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of chronic lung diseases in contexts with limited healthcare resources. It consists of inter-related studies that take place in four countries that are part of the International Primary Care Respiratory Group’s (IPCRG) global network: Uganda, the Kyrgyz Republic, Vietnam and Greece. The project has been funded by the European Commission Horizon 2020 research programme and runs from October 2015 until September 2018.

Fostering the exchange of real world data across different countries to answer primary care research questions: an UNLOCK study from the IPCRG

There is growing awareness amongst healthcare planners, providers and researchers of the need to make better use of routinely collected health data by translating it into actionable information that improves efficiency of healthcare and patient outcomes. There is also increased acceptance of the importance of real world research that recruits patients representative of primary care populations and evaluates interventions realistically delivered by primary care professionals. The UNLOCK Group is an international collaboration of primary care researchers and practitioners from 15 countries. It has coordinated and shared datasets of diagnostic and prognostic variables for COPD and asthma to answer research questions meaningful to professionals working in primary care over a 6-year period. Over this time the UNLOCK Group has undertaken several studies using data from unselected primary care populations from diverse contexts to evaluate the burden of disease, multiple morbidities, treatment and follow-up. However, practical and structural constraints have hampered the UNLOCK Group’s ability to translate research ideas into studies. This study explored the constraints, challenges and successes experienced by the UNLOCK Group and its participants’ learning as researchers and primary care practitioners collaborating to answer primary care research questions. The study identified lessons for future studies and collaborations that require data sharing across borders. It also explored specific challenges to fostering the exchange of primary care data in comparison to other datasets such as public health, prescribing or hospital data and mechanisms that may be used to overcome these.Primary care research: Using big data in chronic lung disease studiesEffective management of international primary care data sharing shows great potential to inform clinical practice for multiple diseases. The International Primary Care Research Group (IPCRG) was established in 2000 to progress sharing of big data between countries and support associated research projects. Liza Cragg of IPCRG in the UK and co-workers, reported on progress and limitations faced by one research group, UNLOCK, who are investigating the long-term impacts of chronic lung diseases. Cragg’s team interviewed UNLOCK members and analyzed results of individual research studies undertaken between 2010 and 2016. Constraints highlighted by researchers included inconsistencies across datasets, ethical concerns about data use, difficulties organizing international working groups and the voluntary nature of IPRCG work. Progress was slower than anticipated but several successful studies highlighted the potential for primary care data sharing to provide valuable insights.

From research to evidence-informed decision making: a systematic approach

Abstract Background Knowledge creation forms an integral part of the knowledge-to-action framework aimed at bridging the gap between research and evidence-informed decision making. Although principles of science communication, data visualisation and user-centred design largely impact the effectiveness of communication, their role in knowledge creation is still limited. Hence, this article aims to provide researchers a systematic approach on how knowledge creation can be put into practice. Methods A systematic two-phased approach towards knowledge creation was formulated and executed. First, during a preparation phase the purpose and audience of the knowledge were defined. Subsequently, a developmental phase facilitated how the content is ‘said’ (language) and communicated (channel). This developmental phase proceeded via two pathways: a translational cycle and design cycle, during which core translational and design components were incorporated. The entire approach was demonstrated by a case study. Results The case study demonstrated how the phases in this systematic approach can be operationalised. It furthermore illustrated how created knowledge can be delivered. Conclusion The proposed approach offers researchers a systematic, practical and easy-to-implement tool to facilitate effective knowledge creation towards decision-makers in healthcare. Through the integration of core components of knowledge creation evidence-informed decision making will ultimately be optimized.

Implementation of ‘matrix support’ (collaborative care) to reduce asthma and COPD referrals and improve primary care management in Brazil: a pilot observational study

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are leading causes of hospitalisation and death in the city of Sao Bernardo do Campo. The municipality had difficulties in sustaining a pulmonology specialist team. Local policy has strengthened the knowledge of the primary care teams to improve the management of these diseases. Our aim is to pilot the implementation of an educational intervention based on collaborative care focused on reducing respiratory-related referrals. We implemented ‘matrix support’: a Brazilian collaborative educational intervention promoting specialist training and support for primary care physicians in three health territories with the highest number of referrals. Clinicians and nurses from primary care attended an 8-h workshop. The backlog of respiratory referrals was prioritised, where Asthma and COPD represented 70% of referral reasons. Initially, pulmonologists held joint consultations with physicians and nurses; as confidence grew, these were replaced by round-table note-based case discussions. The primary outcome was the number of asthma and COPD referrals. Almost all primary healthcare professionals in the three areas (132 of 157–87%) were trained; 360 patients were discussed, including 220 joint consultations. The number of respiratory referrals dropped from 290 (the year before matrix support) to 134 (the year after) (P<0.05). Referrals for asthma/COPD decreased from 13.4 to 5.4 cases per month (P=0.09) and for other lung diseases from 10.8 to 5.3 cases per month (P<0.05). Knowledge scores showed a significant improvement (P<0.001). Matrix-support collaborative care was well-accepted by primary care professionals associated with improved knowledge and reduced respiratory referrals. The initiative attracted specialists to the region overcoming historical recruitment problems.

We must join forces in the battle against COPD

The recently published American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) statement on research questions in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [1] is an excellent and extensive document. It will, without doubt, contribute to better understanding of COPD and hopefully direct research to important unmet needs. Our only disappointment is that the authors did not include significant representation from primary care or public health: disappointing because globally most people with COPD are diagnosed and managed in the community by primary care clinicians, and many of the unmet individual and population research needs can only be defined and answered by professionals working in these settings. Specialists and primary care physicians must join forces in the battle against COPD! http://ow.ly/Q8A3L