Entity

Time filter

Source Type


Baranidharan G.,Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust | Baranidharan G.,University of Leeds | Briggs M.,Institute of Health and Wellbeing | Briggs M.,Leeds Beckett University
Surgery (United Kingdom) | Year: 2014

Adequate pain control is vital in perioperative care. Pain affects respiratory and cardiovascular function with knock-on effects on many other organs and systems. Surgery is also recognized as one of the most frequent causes of chronic pain with surgical approach and level of pain experienced being modifiable risk factors for the development of chronic post-surgical pain. Local anaesthetic can be used to facilitate pain relief either by local infiltration or nerve blocks, increased mobility and a better perioperative and postoperative experience for the patients. There are two pharmacological types, esters and amides, that have different uses. Commonly used blocks are brachial plexus block, Bier's block, femoral nerve block, spinal block and epidurals. These can be used alone or in combination with a general anaesthetic. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Source


Norrie J.,University of Aberdeen | Davidson K.,Institute of Health and Wellbeing | Tata P.,Adult Psychology Services | Gumley A.,Institute of Health and Wellbeing
Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice | Year: 2013

Objectives We investigated the treatment effects reported from a high-quality randomized controlled trial of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for 106 people with borderline personality disorder attending community-based clinics in the UK National Health Service - the BOSCOT trial. Specifically, we examined whether the amount of therapy and therapist competence had an impact on our primary outcome, the number of suicidal acts, using instrumental variables regression modelling. Design Randomized controlled trial. Participants from across three sites (London, Glasgow, and Ayrshire/Arran) were randomized equally to CBT for personality disorders (CBTpd) plus Treatment as Usual or to Treatment as Usual. Treatment as Usual varied between sites and individuals, but was consistent with routine treatment in the UK National Health Service at the time. CBTpd comprised an average 16 sessions (range 0-35) over 12 months. Method We used instrumental variable regression modelling to estimate the impact of quantity and quality of therapy received (recording activities and behaviours that took place after randomization) on number of suicidal acts and inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. Results A total of 101 participants provided full outcome data at 2 years post randomization. The previously reported intention-to-treat (ITT) results showed on average a reduction of 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.15-1.67) suicidal acts over 2 years for those randomized to CBT. By incorporating the influence of quantity of therapy and therapist competence, we show that this estimate of the effect of CBTpd could be approximately two to three times greater for those receiving the right amount of therapy from a competent therapist. Conclusions Trials should routinely control for and collect data on both quantity of therapy and therapist competence, which can be used, via instrumental variable regression modelling, to estimate treatment effects for optimal delivery of therapy. Such estimates complement rather than replace the ITT results, which are properly the principal analysis results from such trials. Practitioner points Assessing the impact of the quantity and quality of therapy (competence of therapists) is complex. More competent therapists, trained in CBTpd, may significantly reduce the number of suicidal act in patients with borderline personality disorder. © 2013 The British Psychological Society. Source


Gale C.R.,Center for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology | Gale C.R.,University of Edinburgh | Gale C.R.,MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit | Batty G.D.,Center for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology | And 11 more authors.
Psychosomatic Medicine | Year: 2015

To examine the relation between reaction time in adolescence and subsequent symptoms of anxiety and depression and investigate the mediating role of sociodemographic measures, health behaviors, and allostatic load. Methods Participants were 705 members of the West of Scotland Twenty-07 Study. Choice reaction time was measured at age 16. At age 36 years, anxiety and depression were assessed with the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and measurements were made of blood pressure, pulse rate, waist-to-hip ratio, and total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, C-reactive protein, albumin, and glycosolated hemoglobin from which allostatic load was calculated. Results In unadjusted models, longer choice reaction time at age 16 years was positively associated with symptoms of anxiety and depression at age 36 years: for a standard deviation increment in choice reaction time, regression coefficients (95% confidence intervals) for logged GHQ score, and square-root-transformed HADS anxiety and depression scores were 0.048 (0.016-0.080), 0.064 (0.009-0.118), and 0.097 (0.032-0.163) respectively. Adjustment for sex, parental social class, GHQ score at age 16 years, health behaviors at age 36 years and allostatic load had little attenuating effect on the association between reaction time and GHQ score, but weakened those between reaction time and the HADS subscales. Part of the effect of reaction time on depression was mediated through allostatic load; this mediating role was of borderline significance after adjustment. Conclusions Adolescents with slower processing speed may be at increased risk for anxiety and depression. Cumulative allostatic load may partially mediate the relation between processing speed and depression. © 2015 by the American Psychosomatic Society. Source


Porter D.,University of Glasgow | van Melckebeke J.,University of Glasgow | Dale J.,Wishaw General Hospital | Messow C.M.,Institute of Health and Wellbeing | And 12 more authors.
The Lancet | Year: 2016

Background: Tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibition and B-cell depletion are highly effective treatments for active rheumatoid arthritis, but so far no randomised controlled trials have directly compared their safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness. This study was done to test the hypothesis that using rituximab would be clinically non-inferior and cheaper compared with TNF inhibitor treatment in biological-treatment naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: This open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial enrolled patients with active, seropositive rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) from 35 rheumatology departments in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to the rituximab or TNF inhibitor groups with minimisation to account for methotrexate intolerance using a web-based randomisation system. Patients were given intravenous rituximab 1 g on days 1 and 15, and after 26 weeks if they responded to treatment but had persistent disease activity (28 joint count disease activity score [DAS28-ESR] >3·2; rituximab group) or a TNF inhibitor-adalimumab (40 mg subcutaneously every other week) or etanercept (50 mg per week subcutaneously) according to the patient's and rheumatologist's choice (TNF inhibitor group). Patients could switch treatment in the case of drug-related toxic effects or absence or loss of response. The primary outcome measure was the change in DAS28-ESR between 0 and 12 months in the per-protocol population of patients who were assigned to treatment and remained in follow-up to 1 year. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. We also assessed the cost-effectiveness of each strategy. The non-inferiority margin was specified as 0·6 DAS28-ESR units. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01021735. Findings: Between April 6, 2009, and Nov 11, 2013, 295 patients were randomly assigned and given either rituximab (n=144) or TNF inhibitor (n=151) treatment. After 12 months, the change in DAS28-ESR for patients assigned to rituximab was -2·6 (SD 1·4) and TNF inhibitor was -2·4 (SD 1·5), with a difference within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0·19 (95% CI -0·51 to 0·13; p=0·24). The health-related costs associated with the rituximab strategy were lower than the TNF inhibitor strategy (£9405 vs £11 523 per patient, p<0·0001). 137 (95%) of 144 patients in the rituximab group and 143 (95%) of 151 patients in the TNF inhibitor group had adverse events. 37 serious adverse events occurred in patients receiving rituximab compared with 26 in patients receiving TNF inhibitors, of which 27 were deemed to be possibly, probably, or definitely related to the treatment (15 vs 12, p=0·5462). One patient in each group died during the study. Interpretation: Initial treatment with rituximab is non-inferior to initial TNF inhibitor treatment in patients seropositive for rheumatoid arthritis and naive to treatment with biologicals, and is cost saving over 12 months. Funding: Arthritis Research UK, Roche. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. Source


MacKenzie M.,University of Glasgow | Reid M.,Institute of Health and Wellbeing | Turner F.,Institute of Health and Wellbeing | Wang Y.,Institute of Health and Wellbeing | And 4 more authors.
Journal of Social Policy | Year: 2012

The concept of systematic inequalities in social and health outcomes has come to form part of contemporary policy discourse. This rhetoric is deployed even in the face of policy decisions widely viewed as iniquitous. Moreover, there is a widespread view, expressed across the political spectrum, that those in more deprived circumstances are less likely than their more affluent counterparts to be in receipt of optimal public services. Such individuals and communities are variously described as excluded, disadvantaged, underserved or hard to reach. Across countries and policy domains the term 'hard to reach' is used to refer to those deemed not to be in optimal receipt of public sector services which are intended to increase some aspect of material, social or physical wellbeing. It is increasingly used in health policy documents which aim to address health inequalities. However, it is an ill-defined and contested term. The purpose of this paper is two-fold. First, it offers a critical commentary on the concept of hard-to-reachness and asks: who are viewed as hard to reach and why? Second, using a case-study of a Scottish health improvement programme that explicitly aims to reach and engage the 'hard to reach' in preventive approaches to cardiovascular disease, it tests the policy and practice implications of the concept. It finds that a lack of conceptual clarity leads to ambiguous policy and practice and argues for possible theoretical refinements. © 2012 Cambridge University Press. Source

Discover hidden collaborations