Validation of an improved area-based method of calculating general practice-level deprivation

Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: the TRIUMPH cluster RCT

Background

Conservative therapies are recommended as initial treatment for male lower urinary tract symptoms. However, there is a lack of evidence on effectiveness and uncertainty regarding approaches to delivery.

Objective

The objective was to determine whether or not a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for lower urinary tract symptoms to usual care.

Design

This was a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial.

Setting

The trial was set in 30 NHS general practice sites in England.

Participants

Participants were adult men (aged ≥ 18 years) with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms.

Interventions

Sites were randomised 1 : 1 to deliver the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions trial intervention or usual care to all participants. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions intervention comprised a standardised advice booklet developed for the trial from the British Association of Urological Surgeons' patient information sheets, with patient and expert input. Patients were directed to relevant sections by general practice or research nurses/healthcare assistants following urinary symptom assessment, providing the manualised element. The healthcare professional provided follow-up contacts over 12 weeks to support adherence to the intervention.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was the validated patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score 12 months post consent. Rather than the minimal clinically important difference of 3.0 points for overall International Prostate Symptom Score, the sample size aimed to detect a difference of 2.0 points, owing to the recognised clinical impact of individual symptoms.

Results

A total of 1077 men consented to the study: 524 in sites randomised to the intervention arm (n = 17) and 553 in sites randomised to the control arm (n = 13). A difference in mean International Prostate Symptom Score at 12 months was found (adjusted mean difference of -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95 points), with a lower score in the intervention arm, indicating less severe symptoms. Secondary outcomes of patient-reported urinary symptoms, quality of life specific to lower urinary tract symptoms and perception of lower urinary tract symptoms all showed evidence of a difference between the arms favouring the intervention. No difference was seen between the arms in the proportion of urology referrals or adverse events. In qualitative interviews, participants welcomed the intervention, describing positive effects on their symptoms, as well as on their understanding of conservative care and their attitude towards the experience of lower urinary tract symptoms. The interviews highlighted that structured, in-depth self-management is insufficiently embedded within general practitioner consultations. From an NHS perspective, mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years were similar between trial arms. The intervention arm had slightly lower mean costs (adjusted mean difference of -£29.99, 95% confidence interval -£109.84 to £22.63) than the usual-care arm, and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (adjusted mean difference of 0.001, 95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.014).

Conclusions

The intervention showed a small, sustained benefit for men's lower urinary tract symptoms and quality of life across a range of outcome measures in a UK primary care setting. Qualitative data showed that men highly valued the intervention. Intervention costs were marginally lower than usual-care costs. Limitations of the study included that trial participants were unmasked, with limited diversity in ethnicity and deprivation level. Additional research is needed to assess the applicability of the intervention for a more ethnically diverse population..

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN11669964.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/90/03) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men in primary care using a conservative intervention: cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a standardised and manualised care intervention in men in primary care could achieve superior improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care.

DESIGN

Cluster randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

30 National Health Service general practice sites in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Sites were randomised 1:1 to the intervention and control arms. 1077 men (≥18 years) with bothersome LUTS recruited between June 2018 and August 2019: 524 were assigned to the intervention arm (n=17 sites) and 553 were assigned to the usual care arm (n=13 sites).

INTERVENTION

Standardised information booklet developed with patient and expert input, providing guidance on conservative and lifestyle interventions for LUTS in men. After assessment of urinary symptoms (manualised element), general practice nurses and healthcare assistants or research nurses directed participants to relevant sections of the manual and provided contact over 12 weeks to assist with adherence.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was patient reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) measured 12 months after participants had consented to take part in the study. The target reduction of 2.0 points on which the study was powered reflects the minimal clinically important difference where baseline IPSS is <20. Secondary outcomes were patient reported quality of life, urinary symptoms and perception of LUTS, hospital referrals, and adverse events. The primary intention-to-treat analysis included 887 participants (82% of those recruited) and used a mixed effects multilevel linear regression model adjusted for site level variables used in the randomisation and baseline scores.

RESULTS

Participants in the intervention arm had a lower mean IPSS at 12 months (adjusted mean difference -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95) indicating less severe urinary symptoms than those in the usual care arm. LUTS specific quality of life, incontinence, and perception of LUTS also improved more in the intervention arm than usual care arm at 12 months. The proportion of urology referrals (intervention 7.3%, usual care 7.9%) and adverse events (intervention seven events, usual care eight events) were comparable between the arms.

CONCLUSIONS

A standardised and manualised intervention in primary care showed a sustained reduction in LUTS in men at 12 months. The mean difference of -1.81 points (95% confidence interval -0.95 to -2.66) on the IPSS was less than the predefined target reduction of 2.0 points.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11669964.

Does domiciliary welfare rights advice improve health-related quality of life in independent-living, socio-economically disadvantaged people aged ≥60 years? Randomised controlled trial, economic and process evaluations in the North East of England

BACKGROUND

There are major socio-economic gradients in health that could be influenced by increasing personal resources. Welfare rights advice can enhance resources but has not been rigorously evaluated for health-related impacts.

METHODS

Randomised, wait-list controlled trial with individual allocation, stratified by general practice, of welfare rights advice and assistance with benefit entitlements, delivered in participants' homes by trained advisors. Control was usual care. Participants were volunteers sampled from among all those aged ≥60 years registered with general practices in socio-economically deprived areas of north east England. Outcomes at 24 months were: CASP-19 score (primary), a measure of health-related quality of life; changes in income, social and physical function, and cost-effectiveness (secondary). Intention to treat analysis compared outcomes using multiple regression, with adjustment for stratification and key covariates. Qualitative interviews with purposive samples from both trial arms were thematically analysed.

FINDINGS

Of 3912 individuals approached, 755 consented and were randomised (381 Intervention, 374 Control). Results refer to outcomes at 24 months, with data available on 562 (74.4%) participants. Intervention was received as intended by 335 (88%), with 84 (22%) awarded additional benefit entitlements; 46 did not receive any welfare rights advice, and none of these were awarded additional benefits. Mean CASP-19 scores were 42.9 (Intervention) and 42.4 (Control) (adjusted mean difference 0.3 [95%CI -0.8, 1.5]). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes except Intervention participants reported receiving more care at home at 24m (53.7 (Intervention) vs 42.0 (Control) hours/week (adjusted mean difference 26.3 [95%CIs 0.8, 56.1]). Exploratory analyses did not support an intervention effect and economic evaluation suggested the intervention was unlikely to be cost-effective. Qualitative data from 50 interviews suggested there were improvements in quality of life among those receiving additional benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no effects on health outcomes; fewer participants than anticipated received additional benefit entitlements, and participants were more affluent than expected. Our findings do not support delivery of domiciliary welfare rights advice to achieve the health outcomes assessed in this population. However, better intervention targeting may reveal worthwhile health impacts.

Randomised controlled trial with economic and process evaluations of domiciliary welfare rights advice for socioeconomically disadvantaged older people recruited via primary health care (the Do-Well study)

Background

Welfare rights advice services are effective at maximising previously unclaimed welfare benefits, but their impact on health has not been evaluated.

Objective

To establish the acceptability, cost-effectiveness and effect on health of a domiciliary welfare rights advice service targeting older people, compared with usual practice.

Design

A pragmatic, individually randomised, parallel-group, single-blinded, wait-list controlled trial, with economic and process evaluations. Data were collected by interview at baseline and 24 months, and by self-completion questionnaire at 12 months. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with purposive samples of 50 trial participants and 17 professionals to explore the intervention’s acceptability and its perceived impacts.

Setting

Participants’ homes in North East England, UK.

Participants

A total of 755 volunteers aged ≥ 60 years, living in their own homes, fluent in English and not terminally ill, recruited from the registers of 17 general practices with an Index of Multiple Deprivation within the most deprived two-fifths of the distribution for England, and with no previous access to welfare rights advice services.

Interventions

Welfare rights advice, comprising face-to-face consultations, active assistance with benefit claims and follow-up as required until no longer needed, delivered in participants’ own homes by a qualified welfare rights advisor. Control group participants received usual care until the 24-month follow-up, after which they received the intervention.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQoL), assessed using the CASP-19 (Control, Autonomy, Self-realisation and Pleasure) score. The secondary outcomes included general health status, health behaviours, independence and hours per week of care, mortality and changes in financial status.

Results

A total of 755 out of 3912 (19%) general practice patients agreed to participate and were randomised (intervention,n = 381; control,n = 374). In the intervention group, 335 participants (88%) received the intervention. A total of 605 (80%) participants completed the 12-month follow-up and 562 (75%) completed the 24-month follow-up. Only 84 (22%) intervention group participants were awarded additional benefits. There was no significant difference in CASP-19 score between the intervention and control groups at 24 months [adjusted mean difference 0.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.8 to 1.5], but a significant increase in hours of home care per week in the intervention group (adjusted difference 26.3 hours/week, 95% CI 0.8 to 56.1 hours/week). Exploratory analyses found a weak positive correlation between CASP-19 score and the amount of time since receipt of the benefit (0.39, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.58). The qualitative data suggest that the intervention was acceptable and that receipt of additional benefits was perceived by participants and professionals as having had a positive impact on health and quality of life. The mean cost was £44 per participant, the incremental mean health gain was 0.009 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% CI –0.038 to 0.055 QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £1914 per QALY gained.

Conclusions

The trial did not provide sufficient evidence to support domiciliary welfare rights advice as a means of promoting health among older people, but it yielded qualitative findings that suggest important impacts on HRQoL. The intervention needs to be better targeted to those most likely to benefit.

Future work

Further follow-up of the trial could identify whether or not outcomes diverge among intervention and control groups over time. Research is needed to better understand how to target welfare rights advice to those most in need.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37380518.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full inPublic Health Research; Vol. 7, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The authors also received a grant of £28,000 from the North East Strategic Health Authority in 2012 to cover the costs of intervention delivery and training as well as other non-research costs of the study.

Responsiveness of primary care services: development of a patient-report measure – qualitative study and initial quantitative pilot testing

Background

Primary care service providers do not always respond to the needs of diverse groups of patients, and so certain patients groups are disadvantaged. General practitioner (GP) practices are increasingly encouraged to be more responsive to patients’ needs in order to address inequalities.

Objectives

(1) Explore the meaning of responsiveness in primary care. (2) Develop a patient-report questionnaire for use as a measure of patient experience of responsiveness by a range of primary care organisations (PCOs). (3) Investigate methods of population mapping available to GP practices.

Design setting

PCOs, including GP practices, walk-in centres and community pharmacies.

Participants

Patients and staff from 12 PCOs in the East Midlands in the development stage, and 15 PCOs across three different regions of England in stage 3.

Interventions

To investigate what responsiveness means, we conducted a literature review and interviews with patients and staff in 12 PCOs. We developed, tested and piloted the use of a questionnaire. We explored approaches for GP practices to understand the diversity of their populations.

Main outcome measures

(1) Definition of primary care responsiveness. (2) Three patient-report questionnaires to provide an assessment of patient experience of GP, pharmacy and walk-in centre responsiveness. (3) Insight into challenges in collecting diversity data in primary care.

Results

The literature covers three overlapping themes of service quality, inequalities and patient involvement. We suggest that responsiveness is achieved through alignment between service delivery and patient needs, involving strategies to improve responsive service delivery, and efforts to manage patient expectations. We identified three components of responsive service delivery: proactive population orientation, reactive population orientation and individual patient orientation. PCOs tend to utilise reactive strategies rather than proactive approaches. Questionnaire development involved efforts to include patients who are ‘seldom heard’. The questionnaire was checked for validity and consistency and is available in three versions (GP, pharmacy, and walk-in centre), and in Easy Read format. We found the questionnaires to be acceptable to patients, and to have content validity. We produced some preliminary evidence of reliability and construct validity. Measuring and improving responsiveness requires PCOs to understand the characteristics of their patient population, but we identified significant barriers and challenges to this.

Conclusions

Responsiveness is a complex concept. It involves alignment between service delivery and the needs of diverse patient groups. Reactive and proactive strategies at individual and population level are required, but PCOs mainly rely on reactive approaches. Being responsive means giving good care equally to all, and some groups may require extra support. What this extra support is will differ in different patient populations, and so knowledge of the practice population is essential. Practices need to be motivated to collect and use diversity data. Future work needed includes further evaluation of the patient-report questionnaires, including Easy Read versions, to provide further evidence of their quality and acceptability; research into how to facilitative the use of patient experience data in primary care; and implementation of strategies to improve responsiveness, and evaluation of effectiveness.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Service Delivery and Organisation programme.

The Do-Well study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial, economic and qualitative process evaluations of domiciliary welfare rights advice for socio-economically disadvantaged older people recruited via primary health care

Background

Older people in poor health are more likely to need extra money, aids and adaptations to allow them to remain independent and cope with ill health, yet in the UK many do not claim the welfare benefits to which they are entitled. Welfare rights advice interventions lead to greater welfare income, but have not been rigorously evaluated for health benefits. This study will evaluate the effects on health and well-being of a domiciliary welfare rights advice service provided by local government or voluntary organisations in North East England for independent living, socio-economically disadvantaged older people (aged ≥60 yrs), recruited from general (primary care) practices.

Methods/Design

The study is a pragmatic, individually randomised, single blinded, wait-list controlled trial of welfare rights advice versus usual care, with embedded economic and qualitative process evaluations. The qualitative study will examine whether the intervention is delivered as intended; explore responses to the intervention and examine reasons for the trial findings; and explore the potential for translation of the intervention into routine policy and practice. The primary outcome is the effect on health-related quality of life, measured using the CASP 19 questionnaire. Volunteer men and women aged ≥60 years (1/household) will be identified from general practice patient registers. Patients in nursing homes or hospitals at the time of recruitment will be excluded. General practice populations will be recruited from disadvantaged areas of North East England, including urban, rural and semi-rural areas, with no previous access to targeted welfare rights advice services delivered to primary care patients. A minimum of 750 participants will be randomised to intervention and control arms in a 1:1 ratio.

Discussion

Achieving a trial design that is both ethical and acceptable to potential participants, required methodological compromises. The choice of follow-up length required a trade-off between sufficient time to demonstrate health impact and the need to allow the control group access to the intervention as early as possible. The study will have implications for fundamental understanding of social inequalities and how to tackle them, and provides a model for similar evaluations of health-orientated social interventions. If the health benefits of this intervention are proven, targeted welfare rights advice services should be extended to ensure widespread provision for older people and other vulnerable groups.

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN Number

ISRCTN37380518

Emergency respiratory admissions: influence of practice, population and hospital factors

OBJECTIVE

To determine the influence of population, hospital and general practice characteristics on practice admission rates for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in England.

METHODS

Cross sectional study using Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), routine population data and primary care data. Admissions for all general practices in England during 2005-06, adjusted for age and sex composition of practice population. Univariable analysis of population, practice and hospital care provision variables, including prevalence and quality data. Significant factors included in multiple regression Poisson model.

RESULTS

Admissions from 8169 practices were included. Risk of admission for each condition increased with deprivation, prevalence and smoking. Admission rates were higher in urban than rural practices. Hospital bed availability and distance to the nearest emergency department were also significantly associated with risk of admission. The associations with practice factors including practice size and quality markers varied across conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Practice population, geographic and hospital supply factors are consistently associated with asthma and COPD admissions. Higher smoking rates among such patients in a practice are associated with higher admission rates. There is little evidence from this study that other modifiable general practice factors are important in influencing admission rates.

Is individual educational level related to end-of-life care use? Results from a nationwide retrospective cohort study in Belgium

BACKGROUND

Educational level has repeatedly been identified as an important determinant of access to health care, but little is known about its influence on end-of-life care use.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the relationship between individual educational attainment and end-of-life care use and to assess the importance of individual educational attainment in explaining differential end-of-life care use.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study via a nationwide sentinel network of general practitioners (GPs; SENTI-MELC Study) provided data on end-of-life care utilization. Multilevel analysis was used to model the association between educational level and health care use, adjusting for individual and contextual confounders based upon Andersen's behavioral model of health services use.

SUBJECTS

A Belgian nationwide representative sample of people who died not suddenly in 2005-2007.

RESULTS

In comparison to their less educated counterparts, higher educated people equally often had a palliative treatment goal but more often used multidisciplinary palliative care services (odds ratios [OR] for lower secondary education 1.28 [1.04-1.59] and for higher [secondary] education: 1.31 [1.02-1.68]), moved between care settings more frequently (OR: 1.68 [1.13-2.48] for lower secondary education and 1.51 [0.93-2.48] for higher [secondary] education) and had more contacts with the GP in the final 3 months of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Less well-educated people appear to be disadvantaged in terms of access to specialist palliative care services, and GP contacts at the end of life, suggesting a need for empowerment of less well-educated terminally ill people regarding specialist palliative and general end-of-life care use.