Search

Objective: The General Medical Council (GMC) of the UK has identified the need to support doctors through education in safety and quality improvement (QI) methods. This study reports findings from the GMC annual survey of 2018 from urology trainees regarding the state of QI training and their training needs. Material and methods: We designed a set of four questions to assess how QI methods are being taught nationally, and inserted them in the 2018 annual GMC trainee survey for urology. This is a cross-sectional study assessing the current state of QI training and mentoring received by trainees, and their self-assessed ability and confidence in completing a QI project as part of training requirements. Data were statistically analysed in Stata 15 stratified by Local Education Training Boards (LETBs)/Deanery and by specialty trainee level (ST3–7). Results: In total, 270 responses were received from urology trainees. Data showed significant variation across the country. Responses from ST3–7 trainees ranged from 5–20% on completing more than three QI projects, while 7–58% replied that they had done none. Across all ST grades, 40% of trainees stated they had not undertaken QI, whereas 0–27% reported they had not received any mentoring on QI to date. There was significant variation across training regions too: 11–74% of trainees answered that they have received training in QI methods, and 58–100% responded that they were confident in undertaking QI projects. Across all LETBs, 1–3% responded that they uploaded projects on national websites for dissemination; finally, a range of 0–18% stated they had completed more than three projects. Conclusion: This is the first national snapshot of QI training for the entire urology specialty in the UK. The study demonstrates wide variation in QI training and activity undertaken by trainees, and shows a lack of systematic implementation of QI education across training regions. Level of evidence: 2c [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To review the evidence on the effect of brief interventions (BIs) for alcohol among adults with risky alcohol consumption and comorbid mental health conditions. Methods A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before May 2016 was undertaken and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. The findings were combined in a narrative synthesis. The risk of bias was assessed for included trials. Results Seventeen RCTs were included in the review and narrative synthesis: 11 in common mental health problems, and 6 in severe mental illness. There was considerable heterogeneity in study populations, BI delivery mode and intensity, outcome measures and risk of bias. Where BI was compared with a minimally active control, BI was associated with a significant reduction in alcohol consumption in four out of nine RCTs in common mental disorders and two out of five RCTs in severe mental illness. Where BI was compared with active comparator groups (such as motivational interviewing or cognitive behavioural therapy), findings were also mixed. Differences in the findings may be partly due to differences in study design, such as the intensity of BI and possibly the risk of bias. Conclusions Overall, the evidence is mixed regarding the effects of alcohol BI in participants with comorbid mental health conditions. Future well-designed research is required to answer this question more definitively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To review the evidence on the effect of brief interventions (BIs) for alcohol among adults with risky alcohol consumption and comorbid mental health conditions. Methods: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before May 2016 was undertaken and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. The findings were combined in a narrative synthesis. The risk of bias was assessed for included trials. Results: Seventeen RCTs were included in the review and narrative synthesis: 11 in common mental health problems, and 6 in severe mental illness. There was considerable heterogeneity in study populations, BI delivery mode and intensity, outcome measures and risk of bias. Where BI was compared with a minimally active control, BI was associated with a significant reduction in alcohol consumption in four out of nine RCTs in common mental disorders and two out of five RCTs in severe mental illness. Where BI was compared with active comparator groups (such as motivational interviewing or cognitive behavioural therapy), findings were also mixed. Differences in the findings may be partly due to differences in study design, such as the intensity of BI and possibly the risk of bias. Conclusions: Overall, the evidence is mixed regarding the effects of alcohol BI in participants with comorbid mental health conditions. Future well-designed research is required to answer this question more definitively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this review is to provide an overview of knowledge and knowledge gaps in the field of computer-based alcohol interventions by (1) collating evidence on the effectiveness of computer-based alcohol interventions in different populations and (2) exploring the impact of four specified moderators of effectiveness: therapeutic orientation, length of intervention, guidance and trial engagement. Methods: A review of systematic reviews of randomized trials reporting on effectiveness of computer-based alcohol interventions published between 2005 and 2015. Results: Fourteen reviews met the inclusion criteria. Across the included reviews, it was generally reported that computer-based alcohol interventions were effective in reducing alcohol consumption, with mostly small effect sizes. There were indications that longer, multisession interventions are more effective than shorter or single session interventions. Evidence on the association between therapeutic orientation of an intervention, guidance or trial engagement and reductions in alcohol consumption is limited, as the number of reviews addressing these themes is low. None of the included reviews addressed the association between therapeutic orientation, length of intervention or guidance and trial engagement. Conclusions: This review of systematic reviews highlights the mostly positive evidence supporting computer-based alcohol interventions as well as reveals a number of knowledge gaps that could guide future research in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The practical and methodological challenges inherent in online behaviour change studies are both novel and complex. We relate our experiences of estimating and managing information technology (IT) research and intervention costs in an ongoing internet trial in the hope that others will find this information useful. Findings: Actual IT costs were approximately twice those that had been originally estimated by external contractors. These original estimates for IT costs allowed little scope for the identification of new needs, which was intrinsic to the iterative nature of the research enterprise. Conclusions: Making greater provision for the uncertain nature of these costs in future studies is a key practical lesson for the planning of future online behaviour change studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Excessive alcohol consumption is a significant public health problem throughout the world. Although there are a range of effective interventions to help heavy drinkers reduce their alcohol consumption, these have little proven population-level impact. Researchers internationally are looking at the potential of Internet interventions in this area. Methods/Design In a two-arm randomised controlled trial, an on-line psychologically enhanced interactive computer-based intervention is compared with a flat, text-based information web-site. Recruitment, consent, randomisation and data collection are all on-line. The primary outcome is total past-week alcohol consumption; secondary outcomes include hazardous or harmful drinking, dependence, harm caused by alcohol, and mental health. A health economic analysis is included. Discussion This trial will provide information on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an on-line intervention to help heavy drinkers drink less. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTN31070347

Introduction: Mental health problems are the most significant cause of disability and have high annual economic costs; hence, they are a priority for the government, service providers and policymakers. Consisting of largely coastal and rural communities, the populations of Norfolk and Suffolk, UK, have elevated burdens of mental health problems, areas with high levels of deprivation and an increasing migrant population. However, these communities are underserved by research and areas with the greatest mental health needs are not represented or engaged in research. This National Institute of Health and Care Research-funded project aims to bring together key stakeholders to conduct extensive scoping work to identify mental health needs and priorities as a basis for conducting larger research to address the identified priorities over the next 5 years., Methods and Analysis: This 12-month mixed-methods research-priority-setting project consists of five phases. It is being conducted in Norfolk and Suffolk counties in the East of England, UK. Underpinned by Delphi methodology, it will adopt the James Lind Alliance approach to identify priorities for mental health research for the populations of Norfolk and Suffolk. The project will use multiple methods, including mapping and identification of stakeholders, online questionnaires, face-to-face focus groups and interviews, and consensus meetings with experts and mental health stakeholders. Key evidence-informed priorities will be collaboratively ranked and documented, and a final top 10 research priorities will be identified to inform future research, policy and service provision., Ethics and Dissemination: This study was approved by the University of East Anglia's Faculty of Medicine and Health Research Ethics Committee (reference: ETH2324-2542), Norwich, UK. Research findings will be disseminated through workshops with stakeholders and collaborators and via peer-reviewed scientific publications, presentations at academic societies, blogs and social media., Competing Interests: Competing interests: On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there are no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ Group.)

Background: People diagnosed with a serious mental illness have worse physical health and lower life expectancy than the general population. Integration of mental and physical health services is seen as one service development that could better support this. This protocol describes the evaluation of the provision of a Virtual Physical Health Clinic (VPHC) and Consultant Connect (CC) services to one UK-based mental health Trust., Methods: Prospective, formative, pragmatic evaluation using both quantitative and qualitative techniques and driven by implementation science theoretical frameworks. The VPHC and CC are described along with the methodology being used to rapidly evaluate their implementation, effectiveness and potential economic impact in order to inform future roll out. We will assess the implementation process through quantitative data on uptake and reach and through self-reported data to be collected from interviews and the use of validated implementation outcome assessment measures. We will assess implementation strategies using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies as a framework. We will assess the health economic impact of both services using established health economic methods including cost comparison scenarios and health service utilisation analyses., Discussion: Supporting the physical health management of people in psychiatric inpatient units is important in improving the physical health of this population. Integration of mental and physical health can help this to happen effectively. This initiative provides one of the first service evaluation protocols of its kind to be reported in the UK at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic.