HRB Open Research

Journal Information
EISSN : 25154826
Current Publisher: F1000 Research, Ltd. (10.12688)
Total articles ≅ 74
Archived in

Latest articles in this journal

Published: 10 October 2019
HRB Open Research; doi:10.12688/hrbopenres

Emma Nicholson, Therese McDonnell, Moayed Hamza, Michael Barrett, Christopher Brunsdon, Gerard Bury, Martin Charlton, Claire Collins, Conor Deasy, Aoife De Brun, et al.
Published: 30 September 2019
HRB Open Research, Volume 2; doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.12897.2

Abstract:There is a plethora of factors that dictate where parents and families choose to seek unscheduled healthcare for their child; and the complexity of these decisions can present a challenge for policy makers and healthcare planners as these behaviours can have a significant impact on resources in the health system. The systematic review will seek to identify the factors that influence parents’ and families’ preferences and decision making when seeking unscheduled paediatric healthcare. Five databases will be searched for published studies (CINAHL, PubMed, SCOPUS, PsycInfo, EconLit) and grey literature will also be searched. Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be applied and articles assessed for quality. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise the evidence that emerges from the review. By collating the factors that influence decision-making and attendance at these services, the review can inform future health policies and strategies seeking to expand primary care to support the provision of accessible and responsive care. The systematic review will also inform the design of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) which will seek to determine parental and family preferences for unscheduled paediatric healthcare. Policies that seek to expand primary care and reduce hospital admissions from emergency departments need to be cognisant of the nuanced and complex factors that govern patients’ behaviour.
Kate Devenney, Niamh Murphy, Ronan Ryan, Clíona Grant, John Kennedy, Rustom P. Manecksha, Orla Sheils, Margaret M. McNeely, Juliette Hussey, Grainne Sheill
Published: 30 September 2019
HRB Open Research, Volume 2; doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.12925.1

Abstract:Introduction: As both the number of cancer survivors and the length of survival time are increasing, long-term health issues related to cancer and its treatment are becoming more prevalent. Research suggests that exercise can mitigate several negative health consequences in cancer survivors and improve physical function and quality of life. Multi-modal exercise interventions have been proposed as a cornerstone for survivorship care. However, studies evaluating exercise programmes within the Irish population are lacking. Purpose: To evaluate the introduction, implementation and acceptability of a multi-modal exercise rehabilitation programme for deconditioned cancer survivors in a real-world, standard practice setting. Methods and analysis: In this single-arm prospective feasibility study, cancer survivors (n=40) will undergo a 10-week multi-modal exercise programme. The study population will comprise of cancer survivors attending outpatient services in an Irish national cancer centre. Participants will be aged 18 or older and have completed treatment with curative intent. Feasibility will be evaluated in terms of recruitment, adherence and compliance to the programme. Secondary outcomes will examine physical function and quality of life measures. In addition, the acceptability of the programme will be assessed through patient feedback. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval through the St. James’s Hospital and Tallaght University Hospital Research and Ethics Committee is currently pending. The study results will be used to optimise the intervention content and may serve as the foundation for a larger definitive trial. Results will be disseminated through peer-review journals, congresses and relevant clinical groups. Trial registration: NCT04026659 (19/07/19)
James Rooney, Deirdre Murray, Anna Campion, Hannah Moloney, Rachel Tattersall, Mark Doherty, Michaela Hammond, Mark Heverin, Russell McLaughlin, Orla Hardiman
Published: 26 September 2019
HRB Open Research, Volume 2; doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.12940.1

Abstract:Introduction: The C9orf72 hexanucleotide repeat expansion is causal in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and has a negative effect on prognosis. The C9orf72 repeat expansion has been associated with an accelerated deterioration of respiratory function and survival in a cohort of 372 Portuguese patients. Methods: Cases presenting to the Irish ALS clinic with both longitudinal occluded sniff nasal inspiratory pressure (SNIP) and C9orf72 testing were including in the study. Clinical variables and survival characteristics of these patients were collected. Joint longitudinal and time to event models were constructed to explore the longitudinal characteristics of the cohort by C9orf72 status. Results: In total, 630 cases were included, of which 58 (9.2%) carried the C9orf72 repeat expansion. Plots of the longitudinal trend after joint modelling revealed that those carrying the expansion had worse respiratory function throughout the course of their disease than those without. The ALS Functional Rating Scale-revised (ALSFRS-R) respiratory sub-score did not distinguish C9orf72 normal from expanded cases. Furthermore, modelling by site of onset and gender sub-groups revealed that this difference was greatest in male spinal onset cases. Joint models further indicated that occluded SNIP values were of prognostic importance. Conclusions: Our results confirm findings from Portugal that the C9orf72 repeat expansion is associated with accelerated respiratory function decline. Analysis via joint models indicate that respiratory function is of prognostic importance and may explain previous observations of poorer prognosis in male spinal onset patients carrying the C9orf72 expansion.
Saoirse McCrann, Ian Flitcroft, Niall C. Strang, Kathryn J. Saunders, Nicola S. Logan, Samantha Szeyee Lee, David A. Mackey, John S. Butler, James Loughman
Published: 25 September 2019
HRB Open Research, Volume 2; doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.12914.2

Abstract:Background: The Myopia Outcome Study of Atropine in Children (MOSAIC) aims to explore the efficacy, safety, acceptability and mechanisms of action of 0.01% unpreserved atropine for myopia control in a European population. Methods: MOSAIC is an investigator-led, double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial (RCT) investigating the efficacy, safety and mechanisms of action of 0.01% atropine for managing progression of myopia. During Phase 1 of the trial, 250 children aged 6-16 years with progressive myopia instil eye drops once nightly in both eyes from randomisation to month 24. From month 24 to 36 participants are re-randomised in Phase 2 of the trial, into continued 0.01% atropine, and washout, at 1:1 ratio for those participants initially randomised to the intervention arm (n=167), during which any potential rebound effects on cessation of treatment will be monitored. All participants initially assigned to the placebo (n=83) crossover to the intervention arm of the study for Phase 2, and from month 24 to 36, instil 0.01% atropine eye drops in both eyes once nightly. Further treatment and monitoring beyond 36 months is planned (Phase 3) and will be designed dependent on the outcomes of Phase 1. Results: The primary outcome measure is cycloplegic spherical equivalent refractive error progression at 24 months. Secondary outcome measures include axial length change as well as the rebound, safety and acceptability profile of 0.01% atropine. Additional analyses will include the mechanisms of action of 0.01% atropine for myopia control. Conclusions: The generalisability of results from previous clinical trials investigating atropine for myopia control is limited by the predominantly Asian ethnicity of previous study populations. MOSAIC is the first RCT to explore the efficacy, safety and mechanisms of action of unpreserved 0.01% atropine in a predominantly White population.
Bridget Kiely, Aisling Croke, Eamon O'shea, Deirdre Connolly, Susan M. Smith
Published: 2 September 2019
HRB Open Research, Volume 2; doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.12936.1

Abstract:Introduction: The use of link workers for social prescribing and health and social care coordination is increasing, but there is insufficient data to demonstrate their effectiveness or for whom they work best. Multimorbidity is increasing in prevalence and affects those living in deprived areas ten years earlier than affluent areas. This systematic review aims to examine the evidence for the effectiveness and costs of link workers in improving health outcomes. We will also look for evidence for the use of link workers specifically for people living with multimorbidity and in deprived areas. Methods: Databases of published and grey literature will be searched for randomised and non-randomised controlled trials examining use of link workers based in primary care for community dwelling adults compared to usual care. Primary outcomes will be health related quality of life and mental health. Data on costs will be extracted. Studies will be selected for inclusion by title and abstract review by two reviewers. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) flow diagram will document the selection process. A standardised form will be used to extract data. Data quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomised controlled trials, a narrative synthesis will be completed and the GRADE assessment tool used to comment on evidence quality. A meta-analysis of effect size of primary outcomes and subgroup analysis for multimorbidity and social deprivation will be performed if there are sufficient comparable data. Conclusion: This systematic review will give an important overview of the evidence for the use of link workers providing social prescribing and health and social care coordination in primary care. This will help inform intervention development and guide policy makers on whether these interventions are cost effective and which groups stand to benefit most. Prospero registration: CRD42019134737 (04/07/2019)
Julie Broderick, Alice Waugh, Mark Mc Govern, Lucy Alpine, Sinead Kiernan, Niamh Murphy, Sofia Hodalova, Sorcha Feehan, Clíona Ní Cheallaigh
Published: 2 September 2019
HRB Open Research, Volume 2; doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.12939.1

Abstract:Socially marginalised groups suffer vastly poorer health outcomes compared to the general population. Inclusion health seeks to directly address the health inequities experienced by groups such as homeless people and refugees. Despite the unique healthcare needs experienced by these vulnerable groups, inclusion health features very little in health education curricula. This letter has been written by a group of clinicians, academics, clinical education specialists and students with a common interest in inclusion health. In the absence of established guidance on how best to incorporate the broad topic of inclusion health in undergraduate education, we have developed a two-pronged approach within physiotherapy. We are writing to highlight the following initiatives; firstly, the provision of a dedicated undergraduate clinical placement devoted to the area of inclusion health. Secondly, we have also initiated a step-wise process of introducing the topic of inclusion health into the formal undergraduate curriculum. This letter demonstrates the need to implement strategies to incorporate inclusion health into the curriculum and the approaches described are applicable to diverse health professions and settings.
Karen Kyne, Caroline McCarthy, Bridget Kiely, Susan M. Smith, Barbara Clyne, SPPiRE Study team
Published: 23 August 2019
HRB Open Research, Volume 2; doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.12920.1

Abstract:Background: Multimorbidity (the presence of two or more chronic conditions) is associated with poorer health outcomes, particularly for patients with significant polypharmacy (≥15 medications), due to the higher risk of adverse events and drug interactions. The SPPiRE study will assess the effectiveness of a complex intervention to support general practitioners (GPs) to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing and consider deprescribing in older people with multimorbidity and significant polypharmacy. The aim of the SPPiRE process evaluation is to understand how and why the intervention is effective or ineffective and to explore the potential for system wide implementation of the intervention using the Medical Research Council general themes of context, implementation and mechanism of impact. Methods: The SPPiRE study is a clustered randomised controlled trial (RCT), aiming to recruit 55 general practices and 400 patients (≥65 years) on ≥15 medications throughout the Republic of Ireland. This mixed-methods process evaluation of the SPPiRE study will integrate both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data will be collected on use of the intervention elements and from GP questionnaires. Qualitative data will be collected from semi-structured telephone interviews with all intervention GPs and a purposeful sample of patients from intervention practices. The topic guide will explore barriers and facilitators to participation and implementation of the intervention. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Interviews will be transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data will be then be integrated. Discussion: The SPPiRE cluster RCT will provide evidence regarding the effectiveness and practicability of delivering a structured medication review in reducing polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing for patients with multimorbidity. This process evaluation will provide information on how the intervention was implemented, how it was or was not effective and the potential for a system wide implementation. Trial registration: ISRCTN 12752680, registration: 20/10/2016
Francesco Fattori, Deirdre O'donnell, Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín, Thilo Kroll
Published: 16 August 2019
HRB Open Research, Volume 2; doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.12932.1

Abstract:Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a dialogical relationship where the physician and the patient define the problem, discuss the available options according to the patient’s values and preferences, and co-construct the treatment plan. Undertaking SDM in a clinical setting with patients who have limited, impaired or fluctuating cognitive capacity may prove challenging. Supported (defined “Assisted” in the Irish context) decision-making describes how people with impaired or fluctuating capacity remain in control of their healthcare-related choices through mechanisms which build and maximise capacity. Supported and assisted decision-making (ADM) within healthcare settings is theoretically and practically novel. Therefore, there is a knowledge gap about the validity of psychometric instruments used to assess ADM and its components within clinical settings. This systematic review aims to identify and characterise instruments currently used to assess shared, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients with limited, impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals. Methods: A systematic review and narrative synthesis will be performed using a search strategy involving the following databases (PubMed, Cinahl, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and PsycINFO). Quantitative studies published in the last decade and describing psychometric instruments measuring SDM, supported decision-making and ADM with people having limited or fluctuating capacity will be considered eligible for inclusion. Title and abstract screening will be followed by full-text eligibility screening, data extraction, synthesis and analysis. This review will be structured and reported according to the PRISMA checklist. The COSMIN Risk of bias checklist will be used to assess the quality of the instruments. Discussion: The results will inform and be useful to HCPs and policymakers interested in having updated knowledge of the available instruments to assess SDM, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients who have impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018105360; registered on 10/08/2018.
Aileen McCabe, Maria Brenner, Philip Larkin, Sinéad Nic An Fhailí, Brenda Gannon, Ronan O'sullivan, Abel Wakai
Published: 13 August 2019
HRB Open Research, Volume 2; doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.12912.1

Abstract:Background: Good-quality data is required for valid and reliable key performance indicators. Little is known of the facilitators and barriers of capturing the required data for emergency department key performance indicators. This study aimed to explore and understand how current emergency department data collection systems relevant to emergency department key performance indicators are integrated into routine service delivery, and to identify the resources required to capture these data elements. Methods: Following pilot testing, we conducted two focus groups with a multi-disciplinary panel of 14 emergency department stakeholders drawn from urban and rural emergency departments, respectively. Focus groups were analyzed using Attride–Stirling’s framework for thematic network analysis. Results: The global theme “Understanding facilitators and barriers for emergency department data collection systems” emerged from three organizing themes: “understanding current emergency department data collection systems”; “achieving the ideal emergency department data capture system for the implementation of emergency department key performance indicators”; and “emergency department data capture systems for performance monitoring purposes within the wider context”. Conclusion: The pathways to improving emergency department data capture systems for emergency department key performance indicators include upgrading emergency department information systems and investment in hardware technology and data managers. Educating stakeholders outside the emergency department regarding the importance of emergency department key performance indicators as hospital-wide performance indicators underpins the successful implementation of valid and reliable emergency department key performance indicators.