Developing the specifications of an open angle glaucoma screening intervention in the United Kingdom: a Delphi approach.

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Glaucoma is a leading cause of blindness. Early detection is advocated but there is insufficient evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to inform health policy on population screening. Primarily, there is no agreed screening intervention. For a screening programme, agreement is required on the screening tests to be used, either individually or in combination, the person to deliver the test and the location where testing should take place. This study aimed to use ophthalmologists (who were experienced glaucoma subspecialists), optometrists, ophthalmic nurses and patients to develop a reduced set of potential screening tests and testing arrangements that could then be explored in depth in a further study of their feasibility for evaluation in a glaucoma screening RCT.
METHODS:
A two-round Delphi survey involving 38 participants was conducted. Materials were developed from a prior evidence synthesis. For round one, after some initial priming questions in four domains, specialists were asked to nominate three screening interventions, the intervention being a combination of the four domains; target population, (age and higher risk groups), site, screening test and test operator (provider). More than 250 screening interventions were identified. For round two, responses were condensed into 72 interventions and each was rated by participants on a 0-10 scale in terms of feasibility.
RESULTS:
Using a cut-off of a median rating of feasibility of =5.5 as evidence of agreement of intervention feasibility, six interventions were identified from round 2. These were initiating screening at age 50, with a combination of two or three screening tests (varying combinations of tonometry/measures of visual function/optic nerve damage) organized in a community setting with an ophthalmic trained technical assistant delivering the tests. An alternative intervention was a 'glaucoma risk score' ascertained by questionnaire. The advisory panel recommended that further exploration of the feasibility of screening higher risk populations and detailed specification of the screening tests was required.
CONCLUSIONS:
With systematic use of expert opinions, a shortlist of potential screening interventions was identified. Views of users, service providers and cost-effectiveness modeling are now required to identify a feasible intervention to evaluate in a future glaucoma screening trial.

Expert opinion on the cough hypersensitivity syndrome in respiratory medicine

In 2011, a European Respiratory Society Task Force embarked on a process to determine the position and clinical relevance of the cough hypersensitivity syndrome, a disorder characterised by troublesome coughing often triggered by low levels of thermal, mechanical or chemical exposure, in the management of patients with chronic cough. A 21-component questionnaire was developed by an iterative process supported by a literature review. 44 key opinion leaders in respiratory medicine were selected and interviewed as to their opinions. There was a high degree of unanimity in the responses obtained, with all opinion leaders supporting the concept of cough hypersensitivity as a clinically useful paradigm. The classic stratification of cough into asthmatic, rhinitic and reflux-related phenotypes was supported. Significant disparity of opinion was seen in the response to two questions concerning the therapy of chronic cough. First, the role of acid suppression in reflux cough was questioned. Secondly, the opinion leaders were split as to whether a trial of oral steroids was indicated to establish a diagnosis of eosinophilic cough. The cough hypersensitivity syndrome was clearly endorsed by the opinion leaders as a valid and useful concept. They considered that support of patients with chronic cough was inadequate and the Task Force recommends that further work is urgently required in this neglected area.

Fast and frugal models of clinical judgement in novice and expert physicians

Our objective was to study whether “compensatory” models provide better descriptions of clinical judgment than fast and frugal models, according to expertise and experience. Fifty practitioners appraised 60 vignettes describing a child with an exacerbation of asthma and rated their propensities to admit the child. Linear logistic (LL) models of their judgments were compared with a matching heuristic (MH) model that searched available cues in order of importance for a critical value indicating an admission decision. There was a small difference between the 2 models in the proportion of patients allocated correctly (admit or not-admit decisions), 91.2% and 87.8%, respectively. The proportion allocated correctly by the LL model was lower for consultants than juniors, whereas the MH model performed equally well for both. In this vignette study, neither model provided any better description of judgments made by consultants or by pediatricians compared to other grades and specialties.

Belief, Knowledge and Expertise. The emergence of the lay expert in medical sociology

The paper has three main aims. First, to trace – through the pages of the Journal – the changing ways in which lay understandings of health and illness have been represented during the 1979-2002 period. Second, to say something about the limits of lay knowledge (and particularly lay expertise) in matters of health and medicine. Third, to call for a re-assessment of what lay people can offer to a democratised and customer sensitive system of health care and to attempt to draw a boundary around the domain of expertise. In following through on those aims, the author calls upon data derived from three current projects. These latter concern the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease in people with Down’s syndrome; the development of an outcome measure for people who have suffered a traumatic brain injury; and a study of why older people might reject annual influenza vaccinations. Key words: Lay health beliefs, lay expertise, Alzheimer’s, Traumatic Brain Injury, Vaccinations

Using the opinions of coronary heart disease patients in designing a health education booklet for use in general practice consultations.

Objective This study explored how coronary heart disease (CHD) patients’ views would inform the design of an information booklet aimed at providing patients and practitioners with a resource to help influence positively patients’ health behaviour outcomes. Methods Opinions of patients (N=23) with CHD about their information needs, particularly lifestyle advice, were explored using a qualitative approach in four general practices. This information was used in designing a booklet for a pilot study intervention aimed at promoting healthy lifestyle behaviours and medication adherence among people with CHD. Subsequent focus groups explored patients’ (N=17) opinions about the booklet’s ‘fitness for purpose’; semi-structured interviews with practitioners (N=10) examined their views on the booklet’s usefulness. Results In initial focus groups patients identified gaps in their information provision regarding coping with stress, available local community support and medication purpose. A booklet, prepared on the basis of previous literature, was modified to address these gaps. Pilot study patients were satisfied with the re-designed booklet and practitioners reported that its use in consultations enabled change implementation and facilitated patients’ understanding of connections between lifestyle and health outcomes. Conclusion Acknowledging the opinions of CHD patients in producing health information booklets which emphasised a patient centred approach supported practitioner-patient partnerships for choosing healthy lifestyle choices.