Gender comparisons in non-acute cardiac symptom recognition and subsequent help-seeking decisions: a mixed methods study protocol

Introduction: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is one of the leading causes of death in both men and women worldwide. Despite the common misconception that CHD is a ‘man's disease’, it is now well accepted that women endure worse clinical outcomes than men following CHD-related events. A number of studies have explored whether or not gender differences exist in patients presenting with CHD, and specifically whether women delay seeking help for cardiac conditions. UK and overseas studies on help-seeking for emergency cardiac events are contradictory, yet suggest that women often delay help-seeking. In addition, no studies have looked at presumed cardiac symptoms outside an emergency situation. Given the lack of understanding in this area, an explorative qualitative study on the gender differences in help-seeking for a non-emergency cardiac events is needed. Methods and analysis: A purposive sample of 20–30 participants of different ethnic backgrounds and ages attending a rapid access chest pain clinic will be recruited to achieve saturation. Semistructured interviews focusing on help-seeking decision-making for apparent cardiac symptoms will be undertaken. Interview data will be analysed thematically using qualitative software (NVivo) to understand any similarities and differences between the way men and women construct help-seeking. Findings will also be used to inform the preliminary development of a cardiac help-seeking intentions questionnaire. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approvals were sought and granted. Namely, the University of Westminster (sponsor) and St Georges NHS Trust REC, and the Trust Research and Development Office granted approval to host the study on the Queen Mary's Roehampton site. The study is low risk, with interviews being conducted on hospital premises during working hours. Investigators will disseminate findings via presentations and publications. Participants will receive a written summary of the key findings.

Graded Exercise Therapy Guided Self-Help Trial for Patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (GETSET): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial and Interview Study

Background: Chronic fatigue syndrome, also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME), is characterized by chronic disabling fatigue and other symptoms, which are not explained by an alternative diagnosis. Previous trials have suggested that graded exercise therapy (GET) is an effective and safe treatment. GET itself is therapist-intensive with limited availability. Objective: While guided self-help based on cognitive behavior therapy appears helpful to patients, Guided graded Exercise Self-help (GES) is yet to be tested. Methods: This pragmatic randomized controlled trial is set within 2 specialist CFS/ME services in the South of England. Adults attending secondary care clinics with National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)-defined CFS/ME (N=218) will be randomly allocated to specialist medical care (SMC) or SMC plus GES while on a waiting list for therapist-delivered rehabilitation. GES will consist of a structured booklet describing a 6-step graded exercise program, supported by up to 4 face-to-face/telephone/Skype™ consultations with a GES-trained physiotherapist (no more than 90 minutes in total) over 8 weeks. The primary outcomes at 12-weeks after randomization will be physical function (SF-36 physical functioning subscale) and fatigue (Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire). Secondary outcomes will include healthcare costs, adverse outcomes, and self-rated global impression change scores. We will follow up all participants until 1 year after randomization. We will also undertake qualitative interviews of a sample of participants who received GES, looking at perceptions and experiences of those who improved and worsened. Results: The project was funded in 2011 and enrolment was completed in December 2014, with follow-up completed in March 2016. Data analysis is currently underway and the first results are expected to be submitted soon. Conclusions: This study will indicate whether adding GES to SMC will benefit patients who often spend many months waiting for rehabilitative therapy with little or no improvement being made during that time. The study will indicate whether this type of guided self-management is cost-effective and safe. If this trial shows GES to be acceptable, safe, and comparatively effective, the GES booklet could be made available on the Internet as a practitioner and therapist resource for clinics to recommend, with the caveat that patients also be supported with guidance from a trained physiotherapist. The pragmatic approach in this trial means that GES findings will be generalizable to usual National Health Service (NHS) practice.