A systematic review of interventions aimed at increasing physical activity in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain-protocol

Background: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is highly prevalent, affecting around one in five people across Europe. Osteoarthritis, low back pain, neck pain and other musculoskeletal disorders are leading causes of disability
worldwide and the most common source of chronic pain. Exercise and/or physical activity interventions have the potential to address not only the pain and disability associated with chronic pain but also the increased risk of morbidity and mortality seen in this population. Although exercise and/or physical activity is widely recommended, there is currently a paucity of research that offers an evidence base upon which the development or optimisation of interventions can be based. This systematic review will investigate the components of interventions associated with changes in physical activity levels in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Methods/Design: This systematic review will be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidance. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of interventions aimed at increasing physical activity in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain will be included. Articles will be identified through a comprehensive search of the following databases: CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED. Two review authors will independently screen articles retrieved from the search for eligibility, extract relevant data on methodological issues and code interventions according to the behaviour change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques. As complex healthcare interventions can be modified by a wide variety of factors, data will be summarised statistically when the data are available, are sufficiently similar and are of sufficient quality. A narrative synthesis will be completed if there is insufficient data to permit a formal meta-analysis.

Discussion: This review will be of value to clinicians working in chronic pain services and to researchers involved in designing and evaluating interventions.

The TORCH (towards a revolution in COPD health) survival study protocol

Only long-term home oxygen therapy has been shown in randomised controlled trials to increase survival in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There have been no trials assessing the effect of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting bronchodilators, alone or in combination, on mortality in patients with COPD, despite their known benefit in reducing symptoms and exacerbations. The "TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health" (TORCH) survival study is aiming to determine the impact of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (SFC) combination and the individual components on the survival of COPD patients. TORCH is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study. Approximately 6,200 patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomly assigned to b.i.d. treatment with either SFC (50/500 microg), fluticasone propionate (500 microg), salmeterol (50 microg) or placebo for 3 yrs. The primary end-point is all-cause mortality; secondary end-points are COPD morbidity relating to rate of exacerbations and health status, using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire. Other end-points include other mortality and exacerbation end-points, requirement for long-term oxygen therapy, and clinic lung function. Safety end-points include adverse events, with additional information on bone fractures. The first patient was recruited in September 2000 and results should be available in 2006. This paper describes the "TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health" study and explains the rationale behind it.

Estimating the incidence, prevalence and true cost of asthma in the UK: Secondary analysis of national stand-alone and linked databases in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales-a study protocol

Introduction Asthma is now one of the most common long-term conditions in the UK. It is therefore important to develop a comprehensive appreciation of the healthcare and societal costs in order to inform decisions on care provision and planning. We plan to build on our earlier estimates of national prevalence and costs from asthma by filling the data gaps previously identified in relation to healthcare and broadening the field of enquiry to include societal costs. This work will provide the first UK-wide estimates of the costs of asthma. In the context of asthma for the UK and its member countries (ie, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales), we seek to: (1) produce a detailed overview of estimates of incidence, prevalence and healthcare utilisation; (2) estimate health and societal costs; (3) identify any remaining information gaps and explore the feasibility of filling these and (4) provide insights into future research that has the potential to inform changes in policy leading to the provision of more cost-effective care.

Methods and analysis Secondary analyses of data from national health surveys, primary care, prescribing, emergency care, hospital, mortality and administrative data sources will be undertaken to estimate prevalence, healthcare utilisation and outcomes from asthma. Data linkages and economic modelling will be undertaken in an attempt to populate data gaps and estimate costs. Separate prevalence and cost estimates will be calculated for each of the UK-member countries and these will then be aggregated to generate UK-wide estimates.

Ethics and dissemination Approvals have been obtained from the NHS Scotland Information Services Division's Privacy Advisory Committee, the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Collaboration Review System, the NHS South-East Scotland Research Ethics Service and The University of Edinburgh's Centre for Population Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee. We will produce a report for Asthma-UK, submit papers to peer-reviewed journals and construct an interactive map.

An efficacy and mechanism evaluation study of Levosimendan for the Prevention of Acute oRgan Dysfunction in Sepsis (LeoPARDS): Protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Organ dysfunction consequent to infection (‘severe sepsis’) is the leading cause of admission to an intensive care unit (ICU). In both animal models and early clinical studies the calcium channel sensitizer levosimendan has been demonstrated to have potentially beneficial effects on organ function. The aims of the Levosimendan for the Prevention of Acute oRgan Dysfunction in Sepsis (LeoPARDS) trial are to identify whether a 24-hour infusion of levosimendan will improve organ dysfunction in adults who have septic shock and to establish the safety profile of levosimendan in this group of patients.

This is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial. Adults fulfilling the criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome due to infection, and requiring vasopressor therapy, will be eligible for inclusion in the trial. Within 24 hours of meeting these inclusion criteria, patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio stratified by the ICU to receive either levosimendan (0.05 to 0.2 μg.kg^-1.min^-1 or placebo for 24 hours in addition to standard care. The primary outcome measure is the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score while in the ICU. Secondary outcomes include: central venous oxygen saturations and cardiac output; incidence and severity of renal failure using the Acute Kidney Injury Network criteria; duration of renal replacement therapy; serum bilirubin; time to liberation from mechanical ventilation; 28-day, hospital, 3 and 6 month survival; ICU and hospital length-of-stay; and days free from catecholamine therapy. Blood and urine samples will be collected on the day of inclusion, at 24 hours, and on days 4 and 6 post-inclusion for investigation of the mechanisms by which levosimendan might improve organ function. Eighty patients will have additional blood samples taken to measure levels of levosimendan and its active metabolites OR-1896 and OR-1855. A total of 516 patients will be recruited from approximately 25 ICUs in the United Kingdom.

This trial will test the efficacy of levosimendan to reduce acute organ dysfunction in adult patients who have septic shock and evaluate its biological mechanisms of action.

Positioning Clinical Nurse Specialists and Nurse Practitioners as Change Champions to Implement a Pain Protocol in Long-Term Care

Pain management for older adults in long-term care (LTC) has been recognized as a problem internationally. The purpose of this study was to explore the role of a clinical nurse specialist (CNS) and nurse practitioner (NP) as change champions during the implementation of an evidence-based pain protocol in LTC. In this exploratory, multiple-case design study, we collected data from two LTC homes in Ontario, Canada. Three data sources were used: participant observation of an NP and a CNS for 18 hours each over a 3-week period; CNS and NP diaries recording strategies, barriers, and facilitators to the implementation process; and interviews with members of the interdisciplinary team to explore perceptions about the NP and CNS role in implementing the pain protocol. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. The NP and CNS used a variety of effective strategies to promote pain management changes in practice including educational outreach with team members, reminders to nursing staff to highlight the pain protocol and educate about practice changes, chart audits and feedback to the nursing staff, interdisciplinary working group meetings, ad hoc meetings with nursing staff, and resident assessment using advanced skills. The CNS and NP are ideal champions to implement pain management protocols and likely other quality improvement initiatives.

Research Protocol: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Functional Family Therapy: An Early Intervention Foundation (EIF) Partnership between Croydon Council and Queen's University Belfast

The paper presents a protocol for ‘A Randomized Controlled Trial of Functional Family Therapy (FFT): An Early Intervention Foundation (EIF) Partnership between Croydon Council and Queen's University Belfast’. The protocol describes a trial that uses FFT as an alternative intervention to current use of the youth justice system and local authority care with the aim of reducing crime/recidivism in young people referred to Croydon Council. The trial will take place over a period of 36 months and will involve up to 154 families. Croydon Council will employ a team of five Functional Family Therapists who will work with families to promote effective outcomes. The Centre for Effective Education at Queen’s University Belfast will act as independent evaluators of outcomes for families and young people. The work is supported from the United Kingdom Economic & Social Research Council/Early Intervention Foundation Grant Number ES/M006921/1.

A critical ethnography of communication processes involving the management of oral chemotherapeutic agents by patients with a primary diagnosis of colorectal cancer: study protocol

Aim
To describe the protocol used to examine the processes of communication between health professionals, patients and informal carers during the management of oral chemotherapeutic medicines to identify factors that promote or inhibit medicine concordance.

Background
Ideally communication practices about oral medicines should incorporate shared decision-making, two-way dialogue and an equality of role between practitioner and patient. While there is evidence that healthcare professionals are adopting these concordant elements in general practice there are still some patients who have a passive role during consultations. Considering oral chemotherapeutic medications, there is a paucity of research about communication practices which is surprising given the high risk of toxicity associated with chemotherapy.

Design
A critical ethnographic design will be used, incorporating non-participant observations, individual semi-structured and focus-group interviews as several collecting methods.

Methods
Observations will be carried out on the interactions between healthcare professionals (physicians, nurses and pharmacists) and patients in the outpatient departments where prescriptions are explained and supplied and on follow-up consultations where treatment regimens are monitored. Interviews will be conducted with patients and their informal carers. Focus-groups will be carried out with healthcare professionals at the conclusion of the study. These several will be analysed using thematic analysis. This research is funded by the Department for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland (Awarded February 2012).

Discussion
Dissemination of these findings will contribute to the understanding of issues involved when communicating with people about oral chemotherapy. It is anticipated that findings will inform education, practice and policy.

A rapid HPLC protocol for detection of polyols and trehalose

A procedure was developed to extract polyols and trehalose (protectants against stress) from fungal conidia. Conidia were sonicated (120 s) and immersed in a boiling water bath (5.5 min) to optimize extraction of polyols and trehalose, respectively. A rapid method was developed to separate and detect low-molecular-weight polyols and trehalose using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). An ion exchange column designed for standard carbohydrate analysis was used in preference to one designed for sugar alcohol separation. This resulted in rapid elution (less than 5 min), without sacrificing peak resolution. The use of a pulsed electrochemical detector (gold electrode) resulted in limits of reliable quantification as low as 1.6 μg ml-1 for polyols and 2.8 μg ml-1 for trehalose. This is very sensitive and rapid method by which these protectants can be analysed. It avoids polyol derivatization that characterizes analysis by gas chromatography and the long run times (up to 45 min) that typify HPLC analysis using sugar alcohol columns.

Effects of a demand-led evidence briefing service on the uptake and use of research evidence by commissioners of health services: protocol for a controlled before and after study

Background: Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are mandated to use research evidence effectively to ensure optimum use of resources by the National Health Service (NHS), both in accelerating innovation and in stopping the use of less effective practices and models of service delivery. We intend to evaluate whether access to a demand-led evidence service improves uptake and use of research evidence by NHS commissioners compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives. 

Methods/design: This is a controlled before and after study involving CCGs in the North of England. Participating CCGs will receive one of three interventions to support the use of research evidence in their decision-making:1) consulting plus responsive push of tailored evidence; 2) consulting plus an unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence; or 3) standard service unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence. Our primary outcome will be changed at 12 months from baseline of a CCGs ability to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making. Secondary outcomes will measure individual clinical leads and managers’ intentions to use research evidence in decision making. Documentary evidence of the use of the outputs of the service will be sought. A process evaluation will evaluate the nature and success of the interactions both within the sites and between commissioners and researchers delivering the service. 

Discussion: The proposed research will generate new knowledge of direct relevance and value to the NHS. The findings will help to clarify which elements of the service are of value in promoting the use of research evidence.Those involved in NHS commissioning will be able to use the results to inform how best to build the infrastructure they need to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making and to fulfil their statutory duties under the Health and Social Care Act.