ORCID Profile
0000-0002-5239-0173
Current Organisation
University of Leeds
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research
Date: 06-2022
DOI: 10.3310/KODQ0769
Abstract: Joint replacement surgery has revolutionised the management of degenerative joint disease. Increasing demand for surgery and post-surgical reviews has overwhelmed orthopaedic services and, consequently, many centres have reduced or stopped follow-up. Such disinvestment is without an evidence base and raises questions regarding the consequences to patients. To produce evidence- and consensus-based recommendations as to how, when and on whom follow-up should be conducted. Our research question was ‘Is it safe to disinvest in mid- to late-term follow-up of hip and knee replacement?’. The study comprised three complementary evidence synthesis work packages to inform a final consensus process. Work package 1 was a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness literature. Work package 2 used routine national data sets (i.e. the Clinical Practice Research Datalink–Hospital Episode Statistics, Hospital Episode Statistics–National Joint Registry–patient-reported outcome measures) to identify pre, peri and postoperative predictors of mid- to late-term revision, and prospective data from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery. Work package 3 used a Markov model to simulate the survival, health-related quality of life and NHS costs of patients following hip or knee replacement surgery. Finally, evidence from work packages 1–3 informed a face-to-face consensus panel, which involved 32 stakeholders. Our overarching statements are as follows: (1) these recommendations apply to post primary hip and knee replacement follow-up (2) the 10-year time point in these recommendations is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond 10 years and (3) in these recommendations, the term ‘complex cases’ refers to in idual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk of replacement failure. Our recommendations are as follows: for Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel 10A* (ODEP-10A*) minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from 1 to 10 years post non-complex hip and knee replacement provided that there is rapid access to orthopaedic review (2) for ODEP-10A* minimum implants in complex cases or non-ODEP-10A* minimum implants, periodic follow-up post hip and knee replacement may be required from 1 to 10 years (3) at 10 years post hip and knee replacement, clinical and radiographic evaluation is recommended and (4) after 10 years post hip and knee replacement, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the 10-year assessment (note that ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required) [Stone M, Smith L, Kingsbury S, Czoski-Murray C, Judge A, Pinedo-Villanueva R, et al . Evidence-based follow-up recommendations following primary hip and knee arthroplasty (UK SAFE). Orthop Proc 2020 102 – B :13. 0.1302/1358-992X.2020.5.013 ]. The current absence of data beyond 10 years restricted the evidence base. For ODEP-10A* prostheses, the UK SAFE programme demonstrated that it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up in the 1- to 10-year period after non-complex hip and knee replacement. At 10 years, clinical and radiographic review is recommended. Complex cases, implants not meeting the 10A* criteria and follow-up after revision surgery are not covered by this recommendation. The evidence base for follow-up after 10 years requires further evaluation. Further work should establish the most clinically effective and cost-effective model of delivering a rapid access service and evaluate alternative models for follow-up services, such as virtual clinics. Finally, the needs and outcomes of patients who are symptomatic but do not have appropriate follow-up should be investigated. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017053017. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research Vol. 10, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research
Date: 08-2014
DOI: 10.3310/HTA18510
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-05-2007
DOI: 10.1111/J.1600-0447.2007.01027.X
Abstract: China's biomedical research activity is increasing and this literature is becoming more accessible online. Our aim was to survey all randomized control schizophrenia trials (RCTs) in one Chinese bibliographic database. Chinese Academic Journals was electronically searched for RCTs and all relevant citations were also sought on PubMed to ascertain global accessibility. The search identified 3275 records, of which 982 were RCTs relevant to schizophrenia. A total of 71% (699) could be found by using English phrases. All the main body of text of the 982 papers was in Mandarin. On average, these trials involved about 100 people, with interventions and outcome measures familiar to schizophrenia trialists worldwide. Four of the 982 records (<1%) were identified on PubMed. Those undertaking systematic reviews should search the Chinese literature for relevant material. Failing to do this will leave the results of systematic reviews prone to random error or bias, or both.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 07-2022
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2022-061771
Abstract: Unprofessional behaviours encompass many behaviours including bullying, harassment and microaggressions. These behaviours between healthcare staff are problematic they affect people’s ability to work, to feel psychologically safe at work and speak up and to deliver safe care to patients. Almost a fifth of UK National Health Service staff experience unprofessional behaviours in the workplace, with higher incidence in acute care settings and for staff from minority backgrounds. Existing analyses have investigated the effectiveness of strategies to reduce these behaviours. We seek to go beyond these, to understand the range and causes of such behaviours, their negative effects and how mitigation strategies may work, in which contexts and for whom. This study uses a realist review methodology with stakeholder input comprising a number of iterative steps: (1) formulating initial programme theories drawing on informal literature searches and literature already known to the study team, (2) performing systematic and purposive searches for grey and peer-reviewed literature on Embase, CINAHL and MEDLINE databases as well as Google and Google Scholar, (3) selecting appropriate documents while considering rigour and relevance, (4) extracting data, (5) and synthesising and (6) refining the programme theories by testing the theories against the newly identified literature. Ethical review is not required as this study is a secondary research. An impact strategy has been developed which includes working closely with key stakeholders throughout the project. Step 7 of our project will develop pragmatic resources for managers and professionals, tailoring contextually-sensitive strategies to reduce unprofessional behaviours, identifying what works for which groups. We will be guided by the ‘Evidence Integration Triangle’ to implement the best strategies to reduce unprofessional behaviours in given contexts. Dissemination will occur through presentation at conferences, innovative methods (cartoons, videos, animations and/or interactive performances) and peer-reviewed journals. CRD42021255490.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 02-2021
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2020-044293
Abstract: Ensuring universal availability and accessibility of medicines and supplies is critical for national health systems to equitably address population health needs. In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), this is a recognised priority with multiple medicines pricing policies enacted. However, medicine prices have remained high, continue to rise and constrain their accessibility. In this systematic review, we aim to identify and analyse experiences of implementation of medicines pricing policies in SSA. Our ambition is for this evidence to contribute to improved implementation of medicines pricing policies in SSA. We will search: Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Global Health, Embase, Cairn.Info International Edition, Erudit and African Index Medicus, the grey literature and reference from related publications. The searches will be limited to literature published from the year 2000 onwards that is, since the start of the Millennium Development Goals. Published peer-reviewed studies of implementation of medicines pricing policies in SSA will be eligible for inclusion. Broader policy analyses and documented experiences of implementation of other health policies will be excluded. The team will collaboratively screen titles and abstracts, then two reviewers will independently screen full texts, extract data and assess quality of the included studies. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Data will be extracted on approaches used for policy implementation, actors involved, evidence used in decision making and key contextual influences on policy implementation. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise the data. Reporting will be informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guideline. No ethics approvals are required for systematic reviews. Results will be disseminated through academic publications, policy briefs and presentations to national policymakers in Ghana and mode widely across countries in SSA. CRD42020178166.
Publisher: British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery
Date: 03-02-2023
DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.42.BJO-2022-0149.R1
Abstract: To review the evidence and reach consensus on recommendations for follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty. A programme of work was conducted, including: a systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature analysis of routine national datasets to identify pre-, peri-, and postoperative predictors of mid-to-late term revision prospective data analyses from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery qualitative interviews with NHS managers and orthopaedic surgeons and health economic modelling. Finally, a consensus meeting considered all the work and agreed the final recommendations and research areas. The UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE) recommendations apply to post-primary hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up. The ten-year time point is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years. The term 'complex cases' refers to in idual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for arthroplasty failure. For Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from one to years post-non-complex hip and knee arthroplasty provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. For ODEP 10A* minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP 10A* minimum implants, periodic follow-up post-hip and knee arthroplasty may be required from one to ten years. At ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, clinical and radiological evaluation is recommended. After ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the ten-year assessment ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required. Complex cases, implants not meeting the ODEP 10A* criteria, and follow-up after revision surgery are not covered by this recommendation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023 (2):72–78.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 06-2021
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2020-046992
Abstract: Health systems responsiveness is a key objective of any health system, yet it is the least studied of all objectives particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. Research on health systems responsiveness highlights its multiple elements, for ex le, dignity and confidentiality. Little is known, however, about underlying theories of health systems responsiveness, and the mechanisms through which responsiveness works. This realist synthesis contributes to bridging these two knowledge gaps. In this realist synthesis, we will use a four-step process, comprising: mapping of theoretical bases, formulation of programme theories, theory refinement and testing of programme theories using literature and empirical data from Ghana and Vietnam. We will include theoretical and conceptual pieces, reviews, empirical studies and grey literature, alongside the primary data. We will explore responsiveness as entailing external and internal interactions within health systems. The search strategy will be purposive and iterative, with continuous screening and refinement of theories. Data extraction will be combined with quality appraisal, using appropriate tools. Each fragment of evidence will be appraised as it is being extracted, for its relevance to the emerging programme theories and methodological rigour. The extracted data pertaining to contexts, mechanisms and outcomes will be synthesised to identify patterns and contradictions. Results will be reported using narrative explanations, following established guidance on realist syntheses. Ethics approvals for the wider RESPONSE (Improving health systems responsiveness to neglected health needs of vulnerable groups in Ghana and Vietnam) study, of which this review is one part, were obtained from the ethics committees of the following institutions: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (ref: 22981), University of Leeds, School of Medicine (ref: MREC19-051), Ghana Health Service (ref: GHS-ERC 012/03/20) and Hanoi University of Public Health (ref: 020-149/DD-YTCC). We will disseminate results through academic papers, conference presentations and stakeholder workshops in Ghana and Vietnam. CRD42020200353. Full record: www.crd.york.ac.uk rospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020200353 .
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 14-04-2014
DOI: 10.1111/J.2047-6310.2014.220.X
Abstract: Consensus is lacking in determining appropriate outcome measures for assessment of childhood obesity treatments. Inconsistency in the use and reporting of such measures impedes comparisons between treatments and limits consideration of effectiveness. This study aimed to produce a framework of recommended outcome measures: the Childhood obesity treatment evaluation Outcomes Review (CoOR) framework. A systematic review including two searches was conducted to identify (1) existing trial outcome measures and (2) manuscripts describing development/evaluation of outcome measures. Outcomes included anthropometry, diet, eating behaviours, physical activity, sedentary time/behaviour, fitness, physiology, environment, psychological well-being and health-related quality of life. Eligible measures were appraised by the internal team using a system developed from international guidelines, followed by appraisal from national external expert collaborators. A total of 25,486 papers were identified through both searches. Eligible search 1 trial papers cited 417 additional papers linked to outcome measures, of which 56 were eligible. A further 297 outcome development/evaluation papers met eligibility criteria from search 2. Combined, these described 191 outcome measures. After internal and external appraisal, 52 measures across 10 outcomes were recommended for inclusion in the CoOR framework. Application of the CoOR framework will ensure greater consistency in choosing robust outcome measures that are appropriate to population characteristics.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 31-10-2023
Publisher: International Global Health Society
Date: 12-2019
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 07-2020
Abstract: The care home sector relies on nurses and care workers to deliver care to residents living with frailty and complex needs. However, attracting, recruiting and retaining staff is one of the biggest challenges facing this sector. There is evidence available that describes factors that influence staff decisions to join and/or remain in the care home workforce, for ex le, in idual rewards (such as feeling valued at work or training opportunities), relationships with colleagues and residents, supportive management or working arrangements (including flexible hours). However, it is less clear how different strategies are informed by evidence to improve recruitment and retention. Care homes are heterogeneous in terms of their size, staffing levels and mix, staff age groups, geographical location and working conditions. What matters to different members of the care home workforce will vary across nurses and care workers of different ages and levels of qualification or experience. Recognising this ersity is key: understanding how to attract, recruit and retain staff needs to discriminate and offer solutions that address this ersity. This important area of practice does not lend itself to a ‘one-approach-fits-all’ solution. This commentary provides a brief overview of known workforce challenges for the care home sector and argues for studies that use empirical evidence to test different theories of what might work for different staff, how and why, and in different circumstances.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 09-2021
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 06-2019
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2019-031351
Abstract: Hip and knee arthroplasties have revolutionised the management of degenerative joint diseases and, due to an ageing population, are becoming increasingly common. Follow-up of joint prostheses is to identify problems in symptomatic or asymptomatic patients due to infection, osteolysis, bone loss or potential periprosthetic fracture, enabling timely intervention to prevent catastrophic failure at a later date. Early revision is usually more straight-forward surgically and less traumatic for the patient. However, routine long-term follow-up is costly and requires considerable clinical time. Therefore, some centres in the UK have curtailed this aspect of primary hip and knee arthroplasty services, doing so without an evidence base that such disinvestment is clinically or cost-effective. Given the timeline from joint replacement to revision, conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine potential consequences of disinvestment in hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up is not feasible. Furthermore, the low revision rates of modern prostheses, less than 10% at 10 years, would necessitate thousands of patients to adequately power such a study. The huge variation in follow-up practice across the UK also limits the generalisability of an RCT. This study will therefore use a mixed-methods approach to examine the requirements for arthroplasty follow-up and produce evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations as to how, when and on whom follow-up should be conducted. Four interconnected work packages will be completed: (1) a systematic literature review (2a) analysis of routinely collected National Health Service data from five national data sets to understand when and which patients present for revision surgery (2b) prospective data regarding how patients currently present for revision surgery (3) economic modelling to simulate long-term costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with different follow-up care models and (4) a Delphi-consensus process, involving all stakeholders, to develop a policy document which includes a stratification algorithm to determine appropriate follow-up care for an in idual patient. Favourable ethical opinion has been obtained for WP2a (RO-HES) (220520) and WP2B (220316) from the National Research Ethics Committee. Following advice from the Confidentiality Advisory Group (17/CAG/0122), data controllers for the data sets used in WP2a (RO-HES) – NHS Digital and The Phoenix Partnership – confirmed that Section 251 support was not required as no identifiable data was flowing into or out of these parties. Application for approval of WP2a (RO-HES) from the Independent Group Advising on the Release of Data (IGARD) at NHS Digital is in progress (DARS-NIC-147997). Section 251 support (17/CAG/0030) and NHS Digital approval (DARS-NIC-172121-G0Z1H-v0.11) have been obtained for WP2a (NJR-HES-PROMS). ISAC (11_050MnA2R2) approval has been obtained for WP2a (CPRD-HES).
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Start Date: 2021
End Date: 2022
Funder: NIHR Evaluation Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre
View Funded Activity