Barriers and facilitators to cooking from 'scratch' using basic or raw ingredients: A qualitative interview study

Background: Previous research has highlighted an ambiguity in understanding cooking related terminology and a number of barriers and facilitators to home meal preparation. However, meals prepared in the home still include convenience products (typically high in sugars, fats and sodium) which can have negative effects on health. Therefore, this study aimed to qualitatively explore: (1) how individuals define cooking from ‘scratch’, and (2) their barriers and facilitators to cooking with basic ingredients.
Methods: 27 semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants (aged 18-58 years) living on the island of Ireland, eliciting definitions of ‘cooking from scratch’ and exploring the reasons participants cook in a particular way. The interviews were professionally transcribed verbatim and Nvivo 10 was used for an inductive thematic analysis.
Results: Our results highlighted that although cooking from ‘scratch’ lacks a single definition, participants viewed it as optimal cooking. Barriers to cooking with raw ingredients included: 1) time pressures; (2) desire to save money; (3) desire for effortless meals; (4) family food preferences; and (5) effect of kitchen disasters. Facilitators included: 1) desire to eat for health and well-being; (2) creative inspiration; (3) ability to plan and prepare meals ahead of time; and (4) greater self-efficacy in one’s cooking ability.
Conclusions: Our findings contribute to understanding how individuals define cooking from ‘scratch’, and barriers and facilitators to cooking with raw ingredients. Interventions should focus on practical sessions to increase cooking self-efficacy; highlight the importance of planning ahead and teach methods such as batch cooking and freezing to facilitate cooking from scratch.

“There’s a Catch-22”. The complexities of pain management for people with advanced dementia nearing the end of life: a qualitative exploration of physicians’ perspectives

Background: Pain management is a cornerstone of palliative care. The clinical issues encountered by physicians when managing pain in patients dying with advanced dementia, and how these may impact on prescribing and treatment, are unknown. Aim: To explore physicians’ experiences of pain management for patients nearing the end of life, the impact of these on prescribing and treatment approaches, and the methods employed to overcome these challenges. Design: Qualitative, semi-structured interview study exploring: barriers to and facilitators of pain management, prescribing and treatment decisions, and training needs. Thematic analysis was used to elicit key themes. Settings/Participants: Twenty-three physicians, responsible for treating patients with advanced dementia approaching the end of life, were recruited from primary care (n=9), psychiatry (n=7) and hospice care (n=7). Results: Six themes emerged: diagnosing pain, complex prescribing and treatment approaches, side-effects and adverse events, route of administration, importance of sharing knowledge and training needs. Knowledge exchange was often practised through liaison with physicians from other specialties. Cross-specialty mentoring, and the creation of knowledge networks were believed to improve pain management in this patient population. Conclusions: Pain management in end-stage dementia is complex, requiring cross-population of knowledge between palliative care specialists and non-specialists, in addition to collateral information provided by other health professionals and patients’ families. Regular, cost- and time-effective mentoring and ongoing professional development are perceived to be essential in empowering physicians to meet clinical challenges in this area.

Patient perspectives of a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm in a case control study

Background: Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) including the classic entities; polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and primary myelofibrosis are rare diseases with unknown aetiology. The MOSAICC study, is an exploratory case–control study in which information was collected through telephone questionnaires and medical records. Methods: As part of the study, 106 patients with MPN were asked about their perceived diagnosis and replies correlated with their haematologist’s diagnosis. For the first time, a patient perspective on their MPN diagnosis and classification was obtained. Logistic regression analyses were utilised to evaluate the role of variables in whether or not a patient reported their diagnosis during interview with co-adjustment for these variables. Chi square tests were used to investigate the association between MPN subtype and patient reported categorisation of MPN. Results: Overall, 77.4 % of patients reported a diagnosis of MPN. Of those, 39.6 % recognised MPN as a ‘blood condition’,23.6 % recognised MPN as a ‘cancer’ and 13.2 % acknowledged MPN as an ‘other medical condition’. There was minimal overlap between the categories. Patients with PV were more likely than those with ET to report their disease as a ‘blood condition’. ET patients were significantly more likely than PV patients not to report their condition at all.Patients from a single centre were more likely to report their diagnosis as MPN while age, educational status, and WHO re-classification had no effect. Conclusions: The discrepancy between concepts of MPN in patients could result from differing patient interest in their condition, varying information conveyed by treating hematologists, concealment due to denial or financial concerns. Explanations for the differences in patient perception of the nature of their disease, requires further, larger scale investigation.