Communicating and understanding pain: Limitations of pain scales for patients with sickle cell disorder and other painful conditions.

Pain communication in healthcare is challenging. We examine use of pain scales to communicate pain severity via a case study of people with sickle cell disorder (SCD). We show how pain communication involves complex social interactions between patients, healthcare professionals and significant others - none of which are included in pain ratings. Failure to account for relational aspects of pain may cause problems for any patient. For SCD, mutual distrust shapes pain communication, further complicating clinical assessments. Moreover, SCD pain is particularly severe, making ratings hard to interpret compared with ratings from non-SCD patients, potentially exacerbating problems in managing pain relief.

Working together to co-produce better health: The experience of the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Northwest London.

OBJECTIVES: To improve the provision of health care, academics can be asked to collaborate with clinicians, and clinicians with patients. Generating good evidence on health care practice depends on these collaborations working well. Yet such relationships are not the norm. We examine how social science research and health care improvement practice were linked through a programme designed to broker collaborations between clinicians, academics, and patients to improve health care - the UK National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Northwest London. We discuss the successes and challenges of the collaboration and make suggestions on how to develop synergistic relationships that facilitate co-production of social science knowledge and its translation into practice. METHODS: A qualitative approach was used, including ethnographic elements and critical, reflexive dialogue between members of the two collaborating teams. RESULTS: Key challenges and remedies were connected with the risks associated with new ways of working. These risks included differing ideas between collaborators about the purpose, value, and expectations of research, and institutional opposition. Dialogue between collaborators did not mean absence of tensions or clashes. Risk-taking was unpopular - institutions, funders, and partners did not always support it, despite simultaneously demanding 'innovation' in producing research that influenced practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our path was made smoother because we had funding to support the creation of a 'potential space' to experiment with different ways of working. Other factors that can enhance collaboration include a shared commitment to dialogical practice, a recognition of the legitimacy of different partners' knowledge, a long timeframe to identify and resolve problems, the maintenance of an enabling environment for collaboration, a willingness to work iteratively and reflexively, and a shared end goal.

Does the evidence support global promotion of the calendar-based Standard Days Method® of contraception?

OBJECTIVES: To scrutinise claims about the effectiveness of the Standard Days Method® (SDM). The SDM is a calendar method with similarities to the rhythm method that has now been reclassified and is marketed as a modern contraceptive method. As promoted, it requires users to avoid unprotected intercourse on days 8-19 of the menstrual cycle. It is used in at least 100 countries. SDM has been researched, developed, and is marketed by the Institute of Reproductive Health (IRH) at Georgetown University, USA, and a for-profit company Cycle Technologies. SDM proponents say it is a major advance on traditional periodic abstinence, claiming that it is 95% effective when used correctly - rivalling pills and condoms. The effectiveness claim is repeated in recent documents from the World Health Organization. STUDY DESIGN: Evaluation of evidence obtained via literature review of published and unpublished reports. RESULTS: Claims made for SDM effectiveness appear to rely on a single efficacy study where "correct use" of SDM was defined as total abstinence from intercourse in cycle days 8-19. It may therefore be misleading to apply a 95% effectiveness figure from the study to SDM as promoted, where abstinence is not required. Moreover, "typical use" effectiveness figures, cited as 88%, are based on an unrepresentative sample of women using SDM in ways likely to vary from how SDM is used in practice. CONCLUSION: Existing evidence does not support claims that the effectiveness of SDM as promoted is comparable to the best short-acting modern contraceptive methods. SDM is promoted in ways that may mislead users, by quoting overestimates of effectiveness and providing efficacy comparisons only with selected methods of contraception. Users should be provided with full and accurate information to make contraceptive choices. IMPLICATIONS: Use, delivery and promotion of SDM should be reevaluated. Meanwhile, SDM should only be offered to family planning clients as an adaptation of traditional periodic abstinence methods, requiring total abstinence in fertile days - reflecting "correct use" in the efficacy study - to achieve high effectiveness. Delivery of any form of SDM should include presentation of the full range of other contraceptive methods, including the most effective options.