Westwater-Wood j , Ian Wellwood k on behalf of the James Lind Alliance (JLA) Physiotherapy Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) Steering Group

No abstract

Objective: To explore respiratory physiotherapists’ views and experiences of using goal-setting with people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in rehabilitation settings. Participants: A total of 17 respiratory physiotherapists with ⩾12 months current or previous experience of working with patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a non-acute setting. Participants were diverse in relation to age (25–49 years), sex (13 women), experience (Agenda for Change bands 6–8) and geographic location. Method: Data were collected via face-to-face qualitative in-depth interviews (40–70 minutes) using a semi-structured interview guide. Interview locations were selected by participants (included participants’ homes, public places and University). Interviews followed an interview guide, were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data Analysis: Data were analysed using thematic analysis; constant comparison was made within and between accounts, and negative case analysis was used. Results: Three themes emerged through the process of analysis: (1) ‘Explaining goal-setting’; (2) ‘Working with goals’; and (3) ‘Influences on collaborative goal-setting’. Goal-setting practices among respiratory physiotherapists varied considerably. Collaborative goal-setting was described as challenging and was sometimes driven by service need rather than patient values. Lack of training in collaborative goal-setting at both undergraduate and postgraduate level was also seen as an issue. Conclusion: Respiratory physiotherapists reflected uncertainties around the use of goal-setting in their practice, and conflict between patients’ goals and organisational demands. This work highlights a need for wider discussion to clarify the purpose and implementation of goal-setting in respiratory rehabilitation.

‘Finding the missing millions’ with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease became part of the Department of Health strategy for England in 2010. Targeted case-finding within primary care is one potential pro-active strategy, but currently little is known about the views of healthcare professionals on this approach. In this study, 36 healthcare professionals (12 GPs, 14 nurses, and 10 practice managers) from 34 UK practices participated in semi-structured telephone interviews about targeted case-finding. Interviews followed an interview guide, were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed using ‘Framework Approach’. Most of those interviewed practiced opportunistic case-finding. The main perceived barriers to wider case-finding programmes were the resource implications associated with running such programmes and identifying more chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Financial incentives, support from specialist clinicians, and comprehensive guidance were viewed as facilitators. While targeted case-finding is conceptually accepted by primary care staff, scepticism surrounding (1) the value of identifying those with mild disease and (2) the availability of effective targeted case-finding methods, may lead some to favour an opportunistic approach. Key concerns were a lack of unequivocal evidence for the relative benefits vs. disadvantages of diagnosing patients earlier, and resource constraints in an already over-burdened system. Barriers to practical implementation of case-finding studies may be addressed with financial, human and educational resources, such as additional staff to undertake searches and perform spirometry tests, and practical and educational support from specialist teams.

AimTo explore the views of non-morbidly obese people (BMI 30–40 kg/m2) with type 2 diabetes regarding: (a) the acceptability of bariatric surgery (BS) as a treatment for type 2 diabetes, and (b) willingness to participate in randomised controlled trials comparing BS versus non-surgical intervention.BackgroundDespite weight management being a key therapeutic goal in type 2 diabetes, achieving and sustaining weight loss is problematic. BS is an effective treatment for people with morbid obesity and type 2 diabetes; it is less certain whether non-morbidly obese patients (BMI 30–39.9 kg/m2) with type 2 diabetes benefit from this treatment and whether this approach would be cost-effective. Before evaluating this issue by randomised trials, it is important to understand whether BS and such research are acceptable to this population.MethodsNon-morbidly obese people with type 2 diabetes were purposively sampled from primary care and invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Interviews explored participants’ thoughts surrounding their diabetes and weight, the acceptability of BS and the willingness to participate in BS research. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis.