ObjectivesThe aim of this paper is to explore the culture of antibiotic prescribing and consumption in the community for urinary tract infections (UTI) from the perspective of the general practitioners (GPs) and community member.DesignIndepth interviews were conducted with GPs, and focus groups were held with community members.SettingGeneral practice and community setting.Participants15 GPs practising in rural and urban locations in Ireland participated in the indepth interviews. 6 focus groups (n=42) with participants who had direct or indirect experiences with UTI were also undertaken.ResultsThe decision to prescribe or consume an antibiotic for a UTI is a set of complex processes including need recognition, information search and evaluation processes governed by the relationship and interactions between the GP and the patient. Different GP and patient decision-making profiles emerged emphasising the diversity and variety of general practice in real-life settings. The GP findings showed a requirement for more microbiological information on antibiotic resistance patterns to inform prescribing decisions. Focus group participants wanted a conversation with the GP about their illness and the treatment options available.ConclusionsCollectively, this research identified the consultation as a priority intervention environment for stimulating change in relation to antibiotics. This paper demonstrates how qualitative research can identify the interacting processes which are instrumental to the decision to prescribe or consume an antibiotic for a suspected UTI. Qualitative research empowers researchers to investigate the what, how and why of interventions in real-life setting. Qualitative research can play a critical and instrumental role in designing behavioural change strategies with high impact on practice. The results of this research were used to design a complex intervention informed by social marketing.Trial registration numberNCT01913860; Pre-results.

Interpretation: A complex intervention, including audit reports and reminders, improved the quality of prescribing for urinary tract infection in Irish general practice. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01913860 AbstractSee also page 94 and www.cmaj.ca/lookup

No abstract

Multiple patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are currently being used in multiple sclerosis (MS) but their application is inconsistent and guidance on the appropriateness of each tool is lacking. The objective of our study was to identify MS-specific PROs and systematically to assess the development process and the reliability and validity of various instruments. A systematic literature search was conducted on multiple data sources, including MEDLINE, Embase (using the Ovid platform) and Google Scholar, from 1996 to March 2015. Search terms included combinations of MS, PROs and quality of life. Randomized controlled trials or observational studies conducted on patients with MS and published in English were included. In addition, the PROQOLID database was explored. The MS-specific PROs were systematically assessed using the Evaluating the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes tool. In total, 8094 articles were screened and 405 PROs were identified from 1102 relevant articles. PROs were classified into MS-specific (n = 82) and non-MS-specific (n = 323). The results for the eight PROs that are most commonly used in MS clinical trials are presented here. For these eight PROs, the overall summary scores ranged between 50.1 and 68.7. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 had the best overall mean score (68.7), followed by the Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life (67.0). This is the first study to provide a standardized assessment of all PROs for MS. There is a lack of data on content validity for PROs used in MS research, which indicates the need for a robust instrument in MS developed according to the US Food and Drug Administration guidelines.

There was high variability in reported sIBM prevalence estimates and the quality of the studies conducted. Existing evidence suggests an increase of prevalence estimates over time, which may be explained by growing disease awareness, improvements in diagnostic criteria and study methodologies. Further high quality studies are needed to understand if prevalence varies across geographies or ethnicities.