On the Problems of Mixing RCTs with Qualitative Research: The Case of the MRC Framework for the Evaluation of Complex Healthcare Interventions

In the perceived hierarchy of research designs, the results from randomized controlled trials are considered to provide the highest level of evidence. Indeed these trials have been upheld as the gold standard in research. The benefits and limitations of the randomized controlled trial as a method of evaluating the effectiveness of healthcare interventions are presented. The article then examines the different levels of complexity within healthcare interventions and the problems this poses in determining effectiveness. In an effort to provide a solution to this problem, the Medical Research Council produced a framework to assist investigators to develop and evaluate complex healthcare interventions. The framework is described with reference to an example of implementing and evaluating protocols for weaning patients in the intensive care unit. The framework is critiqued on the basis that it involves an ambiguous or contradictory ontology, which fails to articulate the relationship between the positivism of randomized controlled trials with the relativism of qualitative approaches. It is concluded that the use of realist strategies in combination with randomized controlled trials provides the most coherent solution to this quandary

Attitudes of qualified versus student mental health nurses towards an individual diagnosed with schizophrenia

Aims: This paper is the report of a study which sought to compare the attitudes held by student and qualified mental health nurses towards individuals with schizophrenia in the Republic of Ireland. Background: Media portrayals of individuals with schizophrenia often include images of aggression and violence. With global initiatives aimed at reducing the stigma and exclusion associated with mental illness, the attitudes of those who care for people with schizophrenia are of particular interest. Methods: A survey was administered to 66 student mental health nurses, and 121 qualified mental health nurses. Participants completed the community attitudes to mental illness scale (CAMI) and the social interaction scale (SIS) in 2009. Multivariate analysis of variance was used to test for the effects of qualification, work setting, years of experience and education on the measures. Results: A statistically significant difference was found between community mental health nurses and those employed in an inpatient setting on the social restrictiveness and community mental health ideology subscales of the CAMI and on the SIS. Findings also showed a statistically significant difference between nurses in the 10-14 years of experience group and the 5-9 years of experience group on the SIS. Conclusions: Mental health nurses employed in an inpatient setting are often confronted with patients who have challenging behavioural presentations which may explain their socially restrictive attitudes. However, nurses must be alerted to the fact that such negative attitudes may adversely affect the therapeutic relationship and ultimately lead to stigmatisation and its negative consequences.

Counselling and Mental Health Nursing: The Interface

In this piece, the authors suggest that the long term misinterpretation of the subtle and unique differences between the concepts of “counselling” and “nursing” has fuelled an uncertainty within mental health as to the true nature and essence of the role / scope of professional practice of the mental health nurse, which has important implications for practitioners, educators and patients alike.

Mental Health nurses' attitudes towards personality disorder

The importance of the impact of nurses views towards personality disorder and their place in acute mental health environments are surveyed.A total of 49 registrants were surveyed all with at least one years experience and all on part one of the active register. Overall 66% of respondents did not feel that patients with a personality disorder should be treated in an acute inpatient setting, with only 36% reporting feeling confident in their abilities when working with this patient group. Almost all respondents 98% called for more training which the authors feel is a positive reflection on the profession.

Healthcare professional experiences and attitudes on unlicensed/off-label paediatric prescribing and paediatric clinical trials.

Objectives: To investigate the knowledge and views of a range of healthcare professionals (consultant paediatricians, general practitioners (GPs), community pharmacists and paediatric nurses) regarding the use of unlicensed/off-label medicines in children and the participation of children in clinical trials.

Methods: A regional study in which a survey instrument with 39 items was issued to 500 randomly selected GPs, all community pharmacists (n?=?512), 50 hospital consultants and 150 paediatric nurses in Northern Ireland.

Results: Approximately half (46.5%) of the 1,212 healthcare professionals approached responded to the questionnaire. The majority of respondents indicated their familiarity with the term unlicensed (82.9%) or off-label (58.6%) prescribing with the most frequently quoted reason for such prescribing being younger age (33.6%). Apart from community pharmacists, most respondents reported having gained their knowledge through personal experience. Even though a large percentage of respondents expressed concerns about the safety (77.8%) or efficacy (87.9%) of unlicensed/off-label prescribing in children, only 30.7% reported informing parents/guardians of these concerns on the use of such medicines in children. In addition, only 56% of respondents believed that unlicensed/off-label medicines should undergo clinical trials in children. Overall, 28.4% of respondents (20.1% of GPs, 41.4% of community pharmacists, 27.7% of paediatric nurses and 94% of consultant paediatricians) indicated their willingness to be actively involved in, and recruit their patients for paediatric clinical research.

Conclusion: The use of unlicensed and off-label medicines remains a major issue in paediatric medicine. Until such times as more licensed medicines are available for children, clear guidance should be developed to allow consistency in practice across the spectrum of healthcare professionals who are involved with such medicines in their routine practice.

Statins for the prevention of dementia

Background: This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001. At that stage there was insufficient evidence to recommend statins for the prevention of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The scope of this review has been expanded to include all forms of dementia.
Objectives: To assess the effects of statins in the prevention of dementia.
Search strategy: The Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS were searched on 10 October 2007 using the terms statin*, lovastatin*, pravastatin*, simvastatin*, fluvastatin*, atorvastatin* and rosuvastatin*. The CDCIG Register contains records from many healthcare databases, SIGLE, LILACS as well as many trials databases and is updated regularly.
Selection criteria: Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trials of statins in people at risk of AD and dementia.
Data collection and analysis: Two independent reviewers extracted and assessed data independently and agreement was reached after discussion. Adverse effects were noted.
Main results: Two trials were identified with 26,340 participants; HPS 2002 and PROSPER 2002. Age range was 40-82 years across the two studies, PROSPER 2002 included 5804 patients aged 70-82 years and HPS included 20,536 patients with 5806 at least 70 years old at study entry. Mean total cholesterol 5.9 mmol/l, LDL cholesterol 3.4 mmol/l at study entry with mean reduction in LDL cholesterol of 1.0mmol/l in simvastatin treated patients compared to placebo in HPS 2002. Mean total cholesterol 5.7 mmol/l, LDL cholesterol 3.8 mmol/l at study entry with mean reduction in LDL cholesterol of 1.02 mmol/l in pravastatin treated patients compared to placebo in PROSPER 2002. Mean follow-up 3.2 years in PROSPER, 5 years in HPS 2002. Cognition was measured at different times and with different scales so could not be combined in a meta-analysis. There was no difference in incidence of dementia in HPS 2002 (31 cases in simvastatin group, 31 cases in placebo group) nor in performance on the modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status at final follow-up (23.7% simvastatin group cognitively impaired vs 24.2% in placebo group). There was no difference in cognition between groups either in relation to age at study entry or previous history of cerebrovascular disease. Cognitive function declined at the same rate in both treatment groups in PROSPER 2002, there was no significant difference between pravastatin treated and placebo groups in performance on letter digit codes, picture word learning test, Stroop and Mini Mental State Examination. There was no evidence that statins were detrimental to cognition.
Authors' conclusions : There is good evidence from RCTs that statins given in late life to individuals at risk of vascular disease have no effect in preventing AD or dementia. Biologically it seems feasible that statins could prevent dementia due to their role in cholesterol reduction and initial evidence from observational studies was very promising. Indication bias may have been a factor in these studies however and the evidence from subsequent RCTs has been negative.