Urbanisation and asthma in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review of the urban-rural differences in asthma prevalence.

BACKGROUND: Urbanisation has been associated with temporal and geographical differences in asthma prevalence in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, little is known of the mechanisms by which urbanisation and asthma are associated, perhaps explained by the methodological approaches used to assess the urbanisation-asthma relationship. OBJECTIVE: This review evaluated how epidemiological studies have assessed the relationship between asthma and urbanisation in LMICs, and explored urban/rural differences in asthma prevalence. METHODS: Asthma studies comparing urban/rural areas, comparing cities and examining intraurban variation were assessed for eligibility. Included publications were evaluated for methodological quality and pooled OR were calculated to indicate the risk of asthma in urban over rural areas. RESULTS: Seventy articles were included in our analysis. Sixty-three compared asthma prevalence between urban and rural areas, five compared asthma prevalence between cities and two examined intraurban variation in asthma prevalence. Urban residence was associated with a higher prevalence of asthma, regardless of asthma definition: current-wheeze OR:1.46 (95% CI:1.22 to 1.74), doctor diagnosis OR:1.89 (95% CI:1.47 to 2.41), wheeze-ever OR:1.44 (95% CI:1.15 to 1.81), self-reported asthma OR:1.77 (95% CI:1.33 to 2.35), asthma questionnaire OR:1.52 (95% CI:1.06 to 2.16) and exercise challenge OR:1.96 (95% CI:1.32 to 2.91). CONCLUSIONS: Most evidence for the relationship between urbanisation and asthma in LMICs comes from studies comparing urban and rural areas. These studies tend to show a greater prevalence of asthma in urban compared to rural populations. However, these studies have been unable to identify which specific characteristics of the urbanisation process may be responsible. An approach to understand how different dimensions of urbanisation, using contextual household and individual indicators, is needed for a better understanding of how urbanisation affects asthma. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017064470.

Prophylactic antibiotic therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

BACKGROUND: There has been renewal of interest in the use of prophylactic antibiotics to reduce the frequency of exacerbations and improve quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not regular (continuous, intermittent or pulsed) treatment of COPD patients with prophylactic antibiotics reduces exacerbations or affects quality of life. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register and bibliographies of relevant studies. The latest literature search was performed on 27 July 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared prophylactic antibiotics with placebo in patients with COPD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard Cochrane methods. Two independent review authors selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by involving a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies involving 3932 participants in this review. We identified two further studies meeting inclusion criteria but both were terminated early without providing results. All studies were published between 2001 and 2015. Nine studies were of continuous macrolide antibiotics, two studies were of intermittent antibiotic prophylaxis (three times per week) and two were of pulsed antibiotic regimens (e.g. five days every eight weeks). The final study included one continuous, one intermittent and one pulsed arm. The antibiotics investigated were azithromycin, erythromycin, clarithromycin, doxycyline, roxithromycin and moxifloxacin. The study duration varied from three months to 36 months and all used intention-to-treat analysis. Most of the pooled results were of moderate quality. The risk of bias of the included studies was generally low.The studies recruited participants with a mean age between 65 and 72 years and mostly at least moderate-severity COPD. Five studies only included participants with frequent exacerbations and two studies recruited participants requiring systemic steroids or antibiotics or both, or who were at the end stage of their disease and required oxygen. One study recruited participants with pulmonary hypertension secondary to COPD and a further study was specifically designed to asses whether eradication of Chlamydia pneumoniae reduced exacerbation rates.The co-primary outcomes for this review were the number of exacerbations and quality of life.With use of prophylactic antibiotics, the number of participants experiencing one or more exacerbations was reduced (odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.78; participants = 2716; studies = 8; moderate-quality evidence). This represented a reduction from 61% of participants in the control group compared to 47% in the treatment group (95% CI 39% to 55%). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome with prophylactic antibiotics given for three to 12 months to prevent one person from experiencing an exacerbation (NNTB) was 8 (95% CI 5 to 17). The test for subgroup difference suggested that continuous and intermittent antibiotics may be more effective than pulsed antibiotics (P = 0.02, I² = 73.3%).The frequency of exacerbations per patient per year was also reduced with prophylactic antibiotic treatment (rate ratio 0.67; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; participants = 1384; studies = 5; moderate-quality evidence). Although we were unable to pool the result, six of the seven studies reporting time to first exacerbation identified an increase (i.e. benefit) with antibiotics, which was reported as statistically significant in four studies.There was a statistically significant improvement in quality of life as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) with prophylactic antibiotic treatment, but this was smaller than the four unit improvement that is regarded as being clinically significant (mean difference (MD) -1.94, 95% CI -3.13 to -0.75; participants = 2237; studies = 7, high-quality evidence).Prophylactic antibiotics showed no significant effect on the secondary outcomes of frequency of hospital admissions, change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), serious adverse events or all-cause mortality (moderate-quality evidence). There was some evidence of benefit in exercise tolerance, but this was driven by a single study of lower methodological quality.The adverse events that were recorded varied among the studies depending on the antibiotics used. Azithromycin was associated with significant hearing loss in the treatment group, which was in many cases reversible or partially reversible. The moxifloxacin pulsed study reported a significantly higher number of adverse events in the treatment arm due to the marked increase in gastrointestinal adverse events (P < 0.001). Some adverse events that led to drug discontinuation, such as development of long QTc or tinnitus, were not significantly more frequent in the treatment group than the placebo group but pose important considerations in clinical practice.The development of antibiotic resistance in the community is of major concern. Six studies reported on this, but we were unable to combine results. One study found newly colonised participants to have higher rates of antibiotic resistance. Participants colonised with moxifloxacin-sensitive pseudomonas at initiation of therapy rapidly became resistant with the quinolone treatment. A further study with three active treatment arms found an increase in the degree of antibiotic resistance of isolates in all three arms after 13 weeks treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Use of continuous and intermittent prophylactic antibiotics results in a clinically significant benefit in reducing exacerbations in COPD patients. All studies of continuous and intermittent antibiotics used macrolides, hence the noted benefit applies only to the use of macrolide antibiotics prescribed at least three times per week. The impact of pulsed antibiotics remains uncertain and requires further research.The studies in this review included mostly participants who were frequent exacerbators with at least moderate-severity COPD. There were also older individuals with a mean age over 65 years. The results of these studies apply only to the group of participants who were studied in these studies and may not be generalisable to other groups.Because of concerns about antibiotic resistance and specific adverse effects, consideration of prophylactic antibiotic use should be mindful of the balance between benefits to individual patients and the potential harms to society created by antibiotic overuse. Monitoring of significant side effects including hearing loss, tinnitus, and long QTc in the community in this elderly patient group may require extra health resources.

A pedometer-based walking intervention in 45- to 75-year-olds, with and without practice nurse support: the PACE-UP three-arm cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend walking to increase moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) for health benefits. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of a pedometer-based walking intervention in inactive adults, delivered postally or through dedicated practice nurse physical activity (PA) consultations. DESIGN: Parallel three-arm trial, cluster randomised by household. SETTING: Seven London-based general practices. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 11,015 people without PA contraindications, aged 45-75 years, randomly selected from practices, were invited. A total of 6399 people were non-responders, and 548 people self-reporting achieving PA guidelines were excluded. A total of 1023 people from 922 households were randomised to usual care (n = 338), postal intervention (n = 339) or nurse support (n = 346). The recruitment rate was 10% (1023/10,467). A total of 956 participants (93%) provided outcome data. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention groups received pedometers, 12-week walking programmes advising participants to gradually add '3000 steps in 30 minutes' most days weekly and PA diaries. The nurse group was offered three dedicated PA consultations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary and main secondary outcomes were changes from baseline to 12 months in average daily step counts and time in MVPA (in ≥ 10-minute bouts), respectively, from 7-day accelerometry. Individual resource-use data informed the within-trial economic evaluation and the Markov model for simulating long-term cost-effectiveness. Qualitative evaluations assessed nurse and participant views. A 3-year follow-up was conducted. RESULTS: Baseline average daily step count was 7479 [standard deviation (SD) 2671], average minutes per week in MVPA bouts was 94 minutes (SD 102 minutes) for those randomised. PA increased significantly at 12 months in both intervention groups compared with the control group, with no difference between interventions; additional steps per day were 642 steps [95% confidence interval (CI) 329 to 955 steps] for the postal group and 677 steps (95% CI 365 to 989 steps) for nurse support, and additional MVPA in bouts (minutes per week) was 33 minutes per week (95% CI 17 to 49 minutes per week) for the postal group and 35 minutes per week (95% CI 19 to 51 minutes per week) for nurse support. Intervention groups showed no increase in adverse events. Incremental cost per step was 19p and £3.61 per minute in a ≥ 10-minute MVPA bout for nurse support, whereas the postal group took more steps and cost less than the control group. The postal group had a 50% chance of being cost-effective at a £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) threshold within 1 year and had both lower costs [-£11M (95% CI -£12M to -£10M) per 100,000 population] and more QALYs [759 QALYs gained (95% CI 400 to 1247 QALYs)] than the nurse support and control groups in the long term. Participants and nurses found the interventions acceptable and enjoyable. Three-year follow-up data showed persistent intervention effects (nurse support plus postal vs. control) on steps per day [648 steps (95% CI 272 to 1024 steps)] and MVPA bouts [26 minutes per week (95% CI 8 to 44 minutes per week)]. LIMITATIONS: The 10% recruitment level, with lower levels in Asian and socioeconomically deprived participants, limits the generalisability of the findings. Assessors were unmasked to the group. CONCLUSIONS: A primary care pedometer-based walking intervention in 45- to 75-year-olds increased 12-month step counts by around one-tenth, and time in MVPA bouts by around one-third, with similar effects for the nurse support and postal groups, and persistent 3-year effects. The postal intervention provides cost-effective, long-term quality-of-life benefits. A primary care pedometer intervention delivered by post could help address the public health physical inactivity challenge. FUTURE WORK: Exploring different recruitment strategies to increase uptake. Integrating the Pedometer And Consultation Evaluation-UP (PACE-UP) trial with evolving PA monitoring technologies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98538934. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Antibiotics for exacerbations of asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic respiratory condition that affects over 300 million adults and children worldwide. It is characterised by wheeze, cough, chest tightness, and shortness of breath. Symptoms typically are intermittent and may worsen over a short time, leading to an exacerbation. Asthma exacerbations can be serious, leading to hospitalisation or even death in rare cases. Exacerbations may be treated by increasing an individual's usual medication and providing additional medication, such as oral steroids. Although antibiotics are sometimes included in the treatment regimen, bacterial infections are thought to be responsible for only a minority of exacerbations, and current guidance states that antibiotics should be reserved for cases in which clear signs, symptoms, or laboratory test results are suggestive of bacterial infection. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of antibiotics in the treatment of asthma exacerbations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains records compiled from multiple electronic and handsearched resources. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted the most recent search in October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies comparing antibiotic therapy for asthma exacerbations in adults or children versus placebo or usual care not involving an antibiotic. We allowed studies including any type of antibiotic, any dose, and any duration, providing the aim was to treat the exacerbation. We included parallel studies of any duration conducted in any setting and planned to include cluster trials. We excluded cross-over trials. We included studies reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only, and unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors screened the search results for eligible studies. We extracted outcome data, assessed risk of bias in duplicate, and resolved discrepancies by involving another review author. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs), and continuous data as mean differences (MDs), all with a fixed-effect model. We described skewed data narratively. We graded the results and presented evidence in 'Summary of findings' tables for each comparison. Primary outcomes were intensive care unit/high dependence unit (ICU/HDU) admission, duration of symptoms/exacerbations, and all adverse events. Seconday outcomes were mortality, length of hospital admission, relapse after index presentation, and peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR). MAIN RESULTS: Six studies met our inclusion criteria and included a total of 681 adults and children with exacerbations of asthma. Mean age in the three studies in adults ranged from 36.2 to 41.2 years. The three studies in children applied varied inclusion criteria, ranging from one to 18 years of age. Five studies explicitly excluded participants with obvious signs and symptoms of bacterial infection (i.e. those clearly meeting current guidance to receive antibiotics). Four studies investigated macrolide antibiotics, and two studies investigated penicillin (amoxicillin and ampicillin) antibiotics; both studies using penicillin were conducted over 35 years ago. Five studies compared antibiotics versus placebo, and one was open-label. Study follow-up ranged from one to twelve weeks. Trials were of varied methodological quality, and we were able to perform only limited meta-analysis.None of the included trials reported ICU/HDU admission, although one participant in the placebo group of a study including children with status asthmaticus experienced a respiratory arrest and was ventilated. Four studies reported asthma symptoms, but we were able to combine results for only two macrolide studies of 416 participants; the MD in diary card symptom score was -0.34 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.60 to -0.08), with lower scores (on a 7 point scale) denoting improved symptoms. Two macrolide studies reported symptom-free days. One study of 255 adults authors reported the percentage of symptom-free days at 10 days as 16% in the antibiotic group and 8% in the placebo group. In a further study of 40 children study authors reported significantly more symptom-free days at all time points in the antibiotic group compared with the usual care group. The same study reported the duration in days of the index asthma exacerbation, again favouring the antibiotic group. One study of a penicillin including 69 participants reported asthma symptoms at hospital discharge; the between-group difference for both studies was reported as non-significant.We combined data for serious adverse events from three studies involving 502 participants, but events were rare; the three trials reported only 10 events: five in the antibiotic group and five in the placebo group. We combined data for all adverse events (AEs) from three studies, but the effect estimate is imprecise (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.43). No deaths were reported in any of the included studies.Two studies investigating penicillins reported admission duration; neither study reported a between-group difference. In one study (263 participants) of macrolides, two participants in each arm were reported as experiencing a relapse, defined as a further exacerbation, by the six-week time points. We combined PEFR endpoint results at 10 days for two macrolide studies; the result favoured antibiotics over placebo (MD 23.42 L/min, 95% CI 5.23 to 41.60). One study in children reported the maximum peak flow recorded during the follow-up period, favouring the clarithromycin group, but the confidence interval includes no difference (MD 38.80, 95% CI -11.19 to 88.79).Grading of outcomes ranged from moderate to very low quality, with quality of outcomes downgraded for suspicion of publication bias, indirectness, imprecision, and poor methodological quality of studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found limited evidence that antibiotics given at the time of an asthma exacerbation may improve symptoms and PEFR at follow-up compared with standard care or placebo. However, findings were inconsistent across the six heterogeneous studies included, two of the studies were conducted over 30 years ago and most of the participants included in this review were recruited from emergency departments, limiting the applicability of findings to this population. Therefore we have limited confidence in the results. We found insufficient evidence about several patient-important outcomes (e.g. hospital admission) to form conclusions. We were unable to rule out a difference between groups in terms of all adverse events, but serious adverse events were rare.

Oral versus inhaled antibiotics for bronchiectasis.

BACKGROUND: Bronchiectasis is a chronic inflammatory disease characterised by a recurrent cycle of respiratory bacterial infections associated with cough, sputum production and impaired quality of life. Antibiotics are the main therapeutic option for managing bronchiectasis exacerbations. Evidence suggests that inhaled antibiotics may be associated with more effective eradication of infective organisms and a lower risk of developing antibiotic resistance when compared with orally administered antibiotics. However, it is currently unclear whether antibiotics are more effective when administered orally or by inhalation. OBJECTIVES: To determine the comparative efficacy and safety of oral versus inhaled antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies through searches of the Cochrane Airways Group's Specialised Register (CAGR), which is maintained by the Information Specialist for the group. The Register contains trial reports identified through systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycINFO, and handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO trials portal. We searched all databases in March 2018 and imposed no restrictions on language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include studies which compared oral antibiotics with inhaled antibiotics. We would have considered short-term use (less than four weeks) for treating acute exacerbations separately from longer-term use as a prophylactic (4 weeks or more). We would have considered both intraclass and interclass comparisons. We planned to exclude studies if the participants received continuous or high-dose antibiotics immediately before the start of the trial, or if they have received a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis (CF), sarcoidosis, active allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis or active non-tuberculous Mycobacterial infection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied study inclusion criteria to the searches and we planned for two authors to independently extract data, assess risk of bias and assess overall quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We also planned to obtain missing data from the authors where possible and to report results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 313 unique records through database searches and a further 21 records from trial registers. We excluded 307 on the basis of title and abstract alone and a further 27 after examining full-text reports. No studies were identified for inclusion in the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence indicating whether orally administered antibiotics are more beneficial compared to inhaled antibiotics. The recent ERS bronchiectasis guidelines provide a practical approach to the use of long-term antibiotics. New research is needed comparing inhaled versus oral antibiotic therapies for bronchiectasis patients with a history of frequent exacerbations, to establish which approach is the most effective in terms of exacerbation prevention, quality of life, treatment burden, and antibiotic resistance.

Inhaled magnesium sulfate in the treatment of acute asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma exacerbations can be frequent and range in severity from mild to life-threatening. The use of magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) is one of numerous treatment options available during acute exacerbations. While the efficacy of intravenous MgSO4 has been demonstrated, the role of inhaled MgSO4 is less clear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of inhaled MgSO4 administered in acute asthma. SPECIFIC AIMS: to quantify the effects of inhaled MgSO4 I) in addition to combination treatment with inhaled ß2-agonist and ipratropium bromide; ii) in addition to inhaled ß2-agonist; and iii) in comparison to inhaled ß2-agonist. SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials and online trials registries in September 2017. We supplemented these with searches of the reference lists of published studies and by contact with trialists. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs including adults or children with acute asthma were eligible for inclusion in the review. We included studies if patients were treated with nebulised MgSO4 alone or in combination with ß2-agonist or ipratropium bromide or both, and were compared with the same co-intervention alone or inactive control. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial selection, data extraction and risk of bias. We made efforts to collect missing data from authors. We present results, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pulmonary function, clinical severity scores and vital signs; and risk ratios (RRs) for hospital admission. We used risk differences (RDs) to analyse adverse events because events were rare. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five trials (43 references) of varying methodological quality were eligible; they included 2907 randomised patients (2777 patients completed). Nine of the 25 included studies involved adults; four included adult and paediatric patients; eight studies enrolled paediatric patients; and in the remaining four studies the age of participants was not stated. The design, definitions, intervention and outcomes were different in all 25 studies; this heterogeneity made direct comparisons difficult. The quality of the evidence presented ranged from high to very low, with most outcomes graded as low or very low. This was largely due to concerns about the methodological quality of the included studies and imprecision in the pooled effect estimates. Inhaled magnesium sulfate in addition to inhaled ß2-agonist and ipratropiumWe included seven studies in this comparison. Although some individual studies reported improvement in lung function indices favouring the intervention group, results were inconsistent overall and the largest study reporting this outcome found no between-group difference at 60 minutes (MD -0.3 % predicted peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), 95% CI -2.71% to 2.11%). Admissions to hospital at initial presentation may be reduced by the addition of inhaled magnesium sulfate (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.00; participants = 1308; studies = 4; I² = 52%) but no difference was detected for re-admissions or escalation of care to ITU/HDU. Serious adverse events during admission were rare. There was no difference between groups for all adverse events during admission (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; participants = 1197; studies = 2). Inhaled magnesium sulfate in addition to inhaled ß2-agonistWe included 13 studies in this comparison. Although some individual studies reported improvement in lung function indices favouring the intervention group, none of the pooled results showed a conclusive benefit as measured by FEV1 or PEFR. Pooled results for hospital admission showed a point estimate that favoured the combination of MgSO4 and ß2-agonist, but the confidence interval includes the possibility of admissions increasing in the intervention group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.15; participants = 375; studies = 6; I² = 0%). There were no serious adverse events reported by any of the included studies and no between-group difference for all adverse events (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.03; participants = 694; studies = 5). Inhaled magnesium sulfate versus inhaled ß2-agonistWe included four studies in this comparison. The evidence for the efficacy of ß2-agonists in acute asthma is well-established and therefore this could be considered a historical comparison. Two studies reported a benefit of ß2-agonist over MgSO4 alone for PEFR and two studies reported no difference; we did not pool these results. Admissions to hospital were only reported by one small study and events were rare, leading to an uncertain result. No serious adverse events were reported in any of the studies in this comparison; one small study reported mild to moderate adverse events but the result is imprecise. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with nebulised MgSO4 may result in modest additional benefits for lung function and hospital admission when added to inhaled ß2-agonists and ipratropium bromide, but our confidence in the evidence is low and there remains substantial uncertainty. The recent large, well-designed trials have generally not demonstrated clinically important benefits. Nebulised MgSO4 does not appear to be associated with an increase in serious adverse events. Individual studies suggest that those with more severe attacks and attacks of shorter duration may experience a greater benefit but further research into subgroups is warranted.Despite including 24 trials in this review update we were unable to pool data for all outcomes of interest and this has limited the strength of the conclusions reached. A core outcomes set for studies in acute asthma is needed. This is particularly important in paediatric studies where measuring lung function at the time of an exacerbation may not be possible. Placebo-controlled trials in patients not responding to standard maximal treatment, including inhaled ß2-agonists and ipratropium bromide and systemic steroids, may help establish if nebulised MgSO4 has a role in acute asthma. However, the accumulating evidence suggests that a substantial benefit may be unlikely.

Shared decision-making for people with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects the airways and is common in both adults and children. It is characterised by symptoms including wheeze, shortness of breath, chest tightness, and cough. People with asthma may be helped to manage their condition through shared decision-making (SDM). SDM involves at least two participants (the medical practitioner and the patient) and mutual sharing of information, including the patient's values and preferences, to build consensus about favoured treatment that culminates in an agreed action. Effective self-management is particularly important for people with asthma, and SDM may improve clinical outcomes and quality of life by educating patients and empowering them to be actively involved in their own health. OBJECTIVES: To assess benefits and potential harms of shared decision-making for adults and children with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains studies identified in several sources including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched clinical trials registries and checked the reference lists of included studies. We conducted the most recent searches on 29 November 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of individual or cluster parallel randomised controlled design conducted to compare an SDM intervention for adults and children with asthma versus a control intervention. We included studies available as full-text reports, those published as abstracts only, and unpublished data, and we placed no restrictions on place, date, or language of publication. We included interventions targeting healthcare professionals or patients, their families or care-givers, or both. We included studies that compared the intervention versus usual care or a minimal control intervention, and those that compared an SDM intervention against another active intervention. We excluded studies of interventions that involved multiple components other than the SDM intervention unless the control group also received these interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened searches, extracted data from included studies, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were asthma-related quality of life, patient/parent satisfaction, and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes included exacerbations of asthma, asthma control, acceptability/feasibility from the perspective of healthcare professionals, and all adverse events. We graded and presented evidence in a 'Summary of findings' table.We were unable to pool any of the extracted outcome data owing to clinical and methodological heterogeneity but presented findings in forest plots when possible. We narratively described skewed data. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies that compared SDM versus control and included a total of 1342 participants. Three studies recruited children with asthma and their care-givers, and one recruited adults with asthma. Three studies took place in the United States, and one in the Netherlands. Trial duration was between 6 and 24 months. One trial delivered the SDM intervention to the medical practitioner, and three trials delivered the SDM intervention directly to the participant. Two paediatric studies involved use of an online portal, followed by face-to-face consultations. One study delivered an SDM intervention or a clinical decision-making intervention through a mixture of face-to-face consultations and telephone calls. The final study randomised paediatric general practice physicians to receive a seminar programme promoting application of SDM principles. All trials were open-label, although one study, which delivered the intervention to physicians, stated that participants were unaware of their physicians' involvement in the trial. We had concerns about selection and attrition bias and selective reporting, and we noted that one study substantially under-recruited participants. The four included studies used different approaches to measure fidelity/intervention adherence and to report study findings.One study involving adults with poorly controlled asthma reported improved quality of life (QOL) for the SDM group compared with the control group, using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) for assessment (mean difference (MD) 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 2.91), but two other trials did not identify a benefit. Patient/parent satisfaction with the performance of paediatricians was greater in the SDM group in one trial involving children. Medication adherence was better in the SDM group in two studies - one involving adults and one involving children (all medication adherence: MD 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.31; mean number of controlled medication prescriptions over 26 weeks: 1.1 in the SDM group (n = 26) and 0.7 in the control group (n = 27)). In one study, asthma-related visit rates were lower in the SDM group than in the usual care group (1.0/y vs 1.4/y; P = 0.016), but two other studies did not report a difference in exacerbations nor in prescriptions for short courses of oral steroids. Finally, one study described better odds of reporting no asthma problems in the SDM group than in the usual care group (odds ratio (OR) 1.90, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.87), although two other studies reporting asthma control did not identify a benefit with SDM. We found no information about acceptability of the intervention to the healthcare professional and no information on adverse events. Overall, our confidence in study results ranged from very low to moderate, and we downgraded outcomes owing to risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Substantial differences between the four included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that we cannot provide meaningful overall conclusions. Individual studies demonstrated some benefits of SDM over control, in terms of quality of life; patient and parent satisfaction; adherence to prescribed medication; reduction in asthma-related healthcare visits; and improved asthma control. Our confidence in the findings of these individual studies ranges from moderate to very low, and it is important to note that studies did not measure or report adverse events.Future trials should be adequately powered and of sufficient duration to detect differences in patient-important outcomes such as exacerbations and hospitalisations. Use of core asthma outcomes and validated scales when possible would facilitate future meta-analysis. Studies conducted in lower-income settings and including an economic evaluation would be of interest. Investigators should systematically record adverse events, even if none are anticipated. Studies identified to date have not included adolescents; future trials should consider their inclusion. Measuring and reporting of intervention fidelity is also recommended.

'You started something then I continued by myself': a qualitative study of physical activity maintenance.

BACKGROUND: Most mid-life and older adults are not achieving recommended physical activity (PA) targets and effective interventions are needed to increase and maintain PA long-term for health benefits. The Pedometer And Consultation Evaluation (PACE-UP) trial, a three-armed primary care pedometer-based walking intervention in those aged 45-75 years, demonstrated increased PA levels at 12 months. A three-year follow-up was conducted to evaluate long-term PA maintenance, including a qualitative component. Aim To examine facilitators and barriers to PA maintenance in mid-life and older adults previously involved in a PA trial. METHOD: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 60 PACE-UP participants across all study arms. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded independently by researchers, prior to thematic analysis. Findings Two-thirds of participants felt since the PACE-UP trial they had an awareness of PA, with the pedometer reported as 'kick-starting' regular activity, and then helped them to maintain regular activity. PA facilitators included: maintaining good health, self-motivation, social support and good weather. Lack of time was the most frequently cited barrier. Other barriers were often the inverse of the facilitators; for example, poor health and bad weather. Participants described the type of 'top-up' intervention they would find beneficial to aid PA maintenance (eg, text messages, online resources and walking groups). CONCLUSION: A challenge for future PA interventions is to transform barriers into facilitators; for example, educating trial participants about the value of PA for many chronic health conditions to change this from inhibiting to promoting PA. Participants provided ideas for encouraging PA maintenance which could be incorporated into future interventions.

Interventions to improve adherence to inhaled steroids for asthma.

BACKGROUND: Despite its proven efficacy in improving symptoms and reducing exacerbations, many patients with asthma are not fully adherent to their steroid inhaler. Suboptimal adherence leads to poorer clinical outcomes and increased health service utilisation, and has been identified as a contributing factor to a third of asthma deaths in the UK. Reasons for non-adherence vary, and a variety of interventions have been proposed to help people improve treatment adherence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of interventions intended to improve adherence to inhaled corticosteroids among people with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains studies identified through multiple electronic searches and handsearches of other sources. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted the most recent searches on 18 November 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel and cluster randomised controlled trials of any duration conducted in any setting. We included studies reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only and unpublished data. We included trials of adults and children with asthma and a current prescription for an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) (as monotherapy or in combination with a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA)). Eligible trials compared an intervention primarily aimed at improving adherence to ICS versus usual care or an alternative intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the searches, extracted study characteristics and outcome data from included studies and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were adherence to ICS, exacerbations requiring at least oral corticosteroids and asthma control. We graded results and presented evidence in 'Summary of findings' tables for each comparison.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios, and continuous data as mean differences or standardised mean differences, all using a random-effects model. We described skewed data narratively. We made no a priori assumptions about how trials would be categorised but conducted meta-analyses only if treatments, participants and the underlying clinical question were similar enough for pooling to make sense. MAIN RESULTS: We included 39 parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults and children with asthma, 28 of which (n = 16,303) contributed data to at least one meta-analysis. Follow-up ranged from two months to two years (median six months), and trials were conducted mainly in high-income countries. Most studies reported some measure of adherence to ICS and a variety of other outcomes such as quality of life and asthma control. Studies generally were at low or unclear risk of selection bias and at high risk of biases associated with blinding. We considered around half the studies to be at high risk for attrition bias and selective outcome reporting.We classified studies into four comparisons: adherence education versus control (20 studies); electronic trackers or reminders versus control (11 studies); simplified drug regimens versus usual drug regimens (four studies); and school-based directly observed therapy (three studies). Two studies are described separately.All pooled results for adherence education, electronic trackers or reminders and simplified regimens showed better adherence than controls. Analyses limited to studies using objective measures revealed that adherence education showed a benefit of 20 percentage points over control (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.52 to 32.74; five studies; low-quality evidence); electronic trackers or reminders led to better adherence of 19 percentage points (95% CI 14.47 to 25.26; six studies; moderate-quality evidence); and simplified regimens led to better adherence of 4 percentage points (95% CI 1.88 to 6.16; three studies; moderate-quality evidence). Our confidence in the evidence was reduced by risk of bias and inconsistency.Improvements in adherence were not consistently translated into observable benefit for clinical outcomes in our pooled analyses. None of the intervention types showed clear benefit for our primary clinical outcomes - exacerbations requiring an oral corticosteroid (OCS) (evidence of very low to low quality) and asthma control (evidence of low to moderate quality); nor for our secondary outcomes - unscheduled visits (evidence of very low to moderate quality) and quality of life (evidence of low to moderate quality). However, some individual studies reported observed benefits for OCS and use of healthcare services. Most school or work absence data were skewed and were difficult to interpret (evidence of low quality, when graded), and most studies did not specifically measure or report adverse events.Studies investigating the possible benefit of administering ICS at school did not measure adherence, exacerbations requiring OCS, asthma control or adverse events. One study showed fewer unscheduled visits, and another found no differences; data could not be combined. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pooled results suggest that a variety of interventions can improve adherence. The clinical relevance of this improvement, highlighted by uncertain and inconsistent impact on clinical outcomes such as quality of life and asthma control, is less clear. We have low to moderate confidence in these findings owing to concerns about risk of bias and inconsistency. Future studies would benefit from predefining an evidence-based 'cut-off' for acceptable adherence and using objective adherence measures and validated tools and questionnaires. When possible, covert monitoring and some form of blinding or active control may help disentangle effects of the intervention from effects of inclusion in an adherence trial.

Interventions to improve inhaler technique for people with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common chronic disease worldwide. Inhalers are often prescribed to help control asthma symptoms, improve quality of life and reduce the risk of exacerbations or flare-ups. However, evidence suggests that many people with asthma do not use their inhaler correctly. It is therefore important to evaluate whether interventions aimed specifically at improving technique are effective and safe, and whether use of these interventions translates into improved clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of interventions to improve inhaler technique on clinical outcomes and safety in adults and children with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains records compiled from multiple electronic and handsearched resources. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted the most recent search on 23 November 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies comparing a group of adults or children with asthma receiving an inhaler technique intervention versus a group receiving a control or alternative intervention. We included parallel and cluster-randomised trials of any duration conducted in any setting, and planned to include only the first phase of any cross-over trials identified. We included studies reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only and unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the search results for eligible studies. We extracted outcome data, assessed risk of bias in duplicate and resolved discrepancies by involving another review author. We grouped studies making similar comparisons by consensus (e.g. all those comparing enhanced inhaler technique education vs usual care) and conducted meta-analyses only if treatments, participants and the underlying clinical question were similar enough for pooling to make sense. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios, and continuous data as mean differences or standardised mean differences, all with random-effects models. We described skewed data narratively. We graded the results and presented evidence in 'Summary of findings' tables for each comparison. Primary outcomes were inhaler technique, asthma control and exacerbations requiring at least oral corticosteroids (OCS). MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 29 parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2210), although not all reported relevant or useable data. All participants had asthma, and follow-up ranged from 2 to 26 weeks. Most studies were at low or unclear risk of selection and attrition biases and at high risk for biases associated with blinding. We considered most of the evidence to be of low quality owing to these biases and to imprecision in the estimates of effect.We classified studies into three comparisons: enhanced face-to-face training session(s), multi-media-delivered inhaler training (e.g. DVD, computer app or game) and technique feedback devices. Differences between interventions, populations and outcome measures limited quantitative analyses, particularly for exacerbations, adverse events, unscheduled visits to a healthcare provider and absenteeism from work or school.Enhanced inhaler technique education and multi-media training improved technique in most studies immediately after the intervention and at follow-up, although the variety of checklists used meant that this was difficult to assess reliably. For both adults and children, how and when inhaler technique was assessed appeared to affect whether inhaler technique improved and by how much.Analyses of the numbers of people who demonstrated correct or 'good enough' technique were generally more useful than checklist scores. Adult studies of enhanced education showed benefit when this metric was used at 2 to 26 weeks' follow-up (odds ratio (OR) 5.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.83 to 13.65; 258 participants; three studies; 31 per 100 with correct technique in the control group compared with 69 (95% CI 45 to 86) in the education group; moderate-quality evidence). A similar result was seen in studies looking at feedback devices at four weeks' follow-up (OR 4.80, 95% CI 1.87 to 12.33; 97 participants; one study; 51 per 100 with correct technique in the control group compared with 83 (95% CI 66 to 93) in the feedback group; low-quality evidence). However, the benefit of multi-media training for adults even immediately after the intervention was uncertain (OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 5.50; 164 participants; two studies; I² = 49%; 30 per 100 in the control group with correct technique compared with 47 (95% CI 26 to 70) in the multi-media group; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence tended to be less clear for children, usually because results were based on fewer and smaller studies.Some studies did not report exacerbations in a way that allowed meta-analysis; others provided inconclusive results. Inhaler technique interventions provided some benefit for asthma control and quality of life but generally did not lead to consistent or important clinical benefits for adults or children. Confidence intervals included no difference or did not reach a threshold that could be considered clinically important. Responder analyses sometimes showed improvement among more people in the intervention groups, even though the mean difference between groups was small. We found no evidence about harms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although interventions to improve inhaler technique may work in some circumstances, the variety of interventions and measurement methods used hampered our ability to perform meta-analyses and led to low to moderate confidence in our findings. Most included studies did not report important improvement in clinical outcomes. Guidelines consistently recommend that clinicians check regularly the inhaler technique of their patients; what is not clear is how clinicians can most effectively intervene if they find a patient's technique to be inadequate, and whether such interventions will have a discernible impact on clinical outcomes.

Efficacy and effectiveness of screen and treat policies in prevention of type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of screening tests and interventions.

OBJECTIVES:  To assess diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for pre-diabetes and efficacy of interventions (lifestyle or metformin) in preventing onset of type 2 diabetes in people with pre-diabetes. DESIGN:  Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES AND METHOD:  Medline, PreMedline, and Embase. Study protocols and seminal papers were citation-tracked in Google Scholar to identify definitive trials and additional publications. Data on study design, methods, and findings were extracted onto Excel spreadsheets; a 20% sample was checked by a second researcher. Data extracted for screening tests included diagnostic accuracy and population prevalence. Two meta-analyses were performed, one summarising accuracy of screening tests (with the oral glucose tolerance test as the standard) for identification of pre-diabetes, and the other assessing relative risk of progression to type 2 diabetes after either lifestyle intervention or treatment with metformin. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:  Empirical studies evaluating accuracy of tests for identification of pre-diabetes. Interventions (randomised trials and interventional studies) with a control group in people identified through screening. No language restrictions. RESULTS:  2874 titles were scanned and 148 papers (covering 138 studies) reviewed in full. The final analysis included 49 studies of screening tests (five of which were prevalence studies) and 50 intervention trials. HbA1c had a mean sensitivity of 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.58) and specificity of 0.79 (0.73 to 0.84), for identification of pre-diabetes, though different studies used different cut-off values. Fasting plasma glucose had a mean sensitivity of 0.25 (0.19 to 0.32) and specificity of 0.94 (0.92 to 0.96). Different measures of glycaemic abnormality identified different subpopulations (for example, 47% : of people with abnormal HbA1c had no other glycaemic abnormality). Lifestyle interventions were associated with a 36% (28% to 43%) reduction in relative risk of type 2 diabetes over six months to six years, attenuating to 20% (8% to 31%) at follow-up in the period after the trails. CONCLUSIONS:  HbA1c is neither sensitive nor specific for detecting pre-diabetes; fasting glucose is specific but not sensitive. Interventions in people classified through screening as having pre-diabetes have some efficacy in preventing or delaying onset of type 2 diabetes in trial populations. As screening is inaccurate, many people will receives an incorrect diagnosis and be referred on for interventions while others will be falsely reassured and not offered the intervention. These findings suggest that "screen and treat" policies alone are unlikely to have substantial impact on the worsening epidemic of type 2 diabetes. REGISTRATION:  PROSPERO (No CRD42016042920).

Different oral corticosteroid regimens for acute asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common long-term breathing condition that affects approximately 300 million people worldwide. People with asthma may experience short-term worsening of their asthma symptoms; these episodes are often known as 'exacerbations', 'flare-ups', 'attacks' or 'acute asthma'. Oral steroids, which have a potent anti-inflammatory effect, are recommended for all but the most mild asthma exacerbations; they should be initiated promptly. The most often prescribed oral steroids are prednisolone and dexamethasone, but current guidelines on dosing vary between countries, and often among different guideline producers within the same country. Despite their proven efficacy, use of steroids needs to be balanced against their potential to cause important adverse events. Evidence is somewhat limited regarding optimal dosing of oral steroids for asthma exacerbations to maximise recovery while minimising potential side effects, which is the topic of this review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of any dose or duration of oral steroids versus any other dose or duration of oral steroids for adults and children with an asthma exacerbation. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov), the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/) and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles. This search was up to date as of April 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated one dose or duration of oral steroid versus any other dose or duration, for management of asthma exacerbations. We included studies involving both adults and children with asthma of any severity, in which investigators analysed adults and children separately. We allowed any other co-intervention in the management of an asthma exacerbation, provided it was not part of the randomised treatment. We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only and unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data and assessed risk of bias; all data were cross-checked for accuracy. We resolved disagreements by discussion with the third review author or with an external advisor.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs). We used a random-effects model, and we carried out a fixed-effect analysis if we detected statistical heterogeneity. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 studies that randomised a total of 2438 participants - both adults and children - and performed comparisons of interest. Included studies assessed higher versus lower doses of prednisolone (n = 4); longer versus shorter courses of prednisolone (n = 3) or dexamethasone (n = 1); tapered versus non-tapered courses of prednisolone (n = 4); and prednisolone versus dexamethasone (n = 6). Follow-up duration ranged from seven days to six months. The smallest study randomised just 15 participants, and the largest 638 (median 93). The varied interventions and outcomes reported limited the number of meaningful meta-analyses that we could perform.For two of our primary outcomes - hospital admission and serious adverse events - events were too infrequent to permit conclusions about the superiority of one treatment over the other, or their equivalence. Researchers in the included studies reported asthma symptoms in different ways and rarely used validated scales, again limiting our conclusions. Secondary outcome meta-analysis was similarly hampered by heterogeneity among interventions and outcome measures used. Overall, we found no convincing evidence of differences in outcomes between a higher dose or longer course and a lower dose or shorter course of prednisolone or dexamethasone, or between prednisolone and dexamethasone.Included studies were generally of reasonable methodological quality. Review authors assessed most outcomes in the review as having low or very low quality, meaning we are not confident in the effect estimates. The predominant reason for downgrading was imprecision, but indirectness and risk of bias also reduced our confidence in some estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is not strong enough to reveal whether shorter or lower-dose regimens are generally less effective than longer or higher-dose regimens, or indeed that the latter are associated with more adverse events. Any changes recommended for current practice should be supported by data from larger, well-designed trials. Varied study design and outcome measures limited the number of meta-analyses that we could perform. Greater emphasis on palatability and on whether some regimens might be easier to adhere to than others could better inform clinical decisions for individual patients.

Exploring non-participation in primary care physical activity interventions: PACE-UP trial interview findings.

BACKGROUND: Trials in primary care to increase physical activity (PA) typically experience poor recruitment rates and may not recruit those with lower PA levels and who are most in need of the intervention. Despite the well-publicised benefits of physical activity, the majority of adults in the UK remain inactive and, therefore, at greater risk of many health problems. Our aim was to investigate the reasons for non-participation in the PACE-UP trial, which is a primary care pedometer-based walking intervention. This is important for successful recruitment and retention in future PA trials and programmes. METHOD: We conducted semi-structured audio-recorded telephone interviews with 30 participants, aged 45-75 years, purposively sampled from those declining participation in the PACE-UP trial. Recruitment continued until data saturation and a demographically balanced sample was achieved. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded and subjected to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Interviewees supported walking as suitable exercise for most people in this age group, recognised the importance of this type of research and general practice as an appropriate setting. Key reasons for declining were: the perception of being already 'too active'; existing medical conditions; work; travel and other commitments. Less frequently cited reasons included reluctance to be randomised, the intervention's duration, wearing a pedometer, perceived inappropriateness of trial literature and a preference for a different kind of PA or for a group activity. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst most interviewees perceived themselves to be sufficiently active, an important minority did not participate due to existing medical conditions and other commitments. Recruitment to future PA trials might be improved by tailoring activity to compensate for medical problems, and adapting PA interventions to fit around work and travel commitments. Ensuring that patient-targeted literature is succinct and inclusive and that equipment is user-friendly are also important. Primary care is seen as an appropriate setting for PA trials and programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN98538934 .

Exploring access and attitudes to regular sexually transmitted infection screening: the views of young, multi-ethnic, inner-city, female students.

BACKGROUND: Low uptake of sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing by young people is a major public health problem worldwide. The aims of this qualitative, community-based study were to explore access and attitudes to STI screening in high risk, young, ethnically diverse female students. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted at an inner-London further education college with 17 women aged 16-25 years. RESULTS: The women wanted convenient, regular STI testing and perceived this as responsible behaviour. However, they doubted the maturity of their peers who were unlikely to view themselves as candidates for testing, and feared the perceived stigma associated with testing. This was reflected in their preference for confidential testing. Despite attending their general practice for non-sexual health matters, most did not consider this option for STI testing. However, the long wait in specialist clinics was an important barrier. Many younger participants would not want postal STI sample kits sent to their homes. We found dissatisfaction with sexual health education. CONCLUSIONS: STI screening for underserved groups such as young sexually active ethnically diverse female college students needs to be confidential, convenient, easily accessed and offered in ways that allow them to consider themselves as candidates for such screening without fear of social stigma. Family doctors should be aware that young women often do not perceive primary care to be an option for accessing STI screening, and could consider ways of advertising these services. Policymakers and commissioners should be aware that clinic waiting times and lack of education remain barriers to testing.

Which sexually active young female students are most at risk of pelvic inflammatory disease? A prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors for pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in female students. METHODS: We performed a prospective study set in 11 universities and 9 further education colleges in London. In 2004-2006, 2529 sexually experienced, multiethnic, female students, mean age 20.8 years, provided self-taken vaginal samples and completed questionnaires at recruitment to the Prevention of Pelvic Infection chlamydia screening trial. After 12 months, they were followed up by questionnaire backed by medical record search and assessed for PID by blinded genitourinary medicine physicians. RESULTS: Of 2004 (79%) participants who reported numbers of sexual partners during follow-up, 32 (1.6%, 95% CI 1.1% to 2.2%) were diagnosed with PID. The strongest predictor of PID was baseline Chlamydia trachomatis (relative risk (RR) 5.7, 95% CI 2.6 to 15.6). After adjustment for baseline C. trachomatis, significant predictors of PID were ≥2 sexual partners or a new sexual partner during follow-up (RR 4.0, 95% CI 1.8 to 8.5; RR 2.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 6.3), age <20 years (RR 3.3, 95% CI 1.5 to 7.0), recruitment from a further education college rather than a university (RR 2.6, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.3) and history at baseline of vaginal discharge (RR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2 to 5.8) or pelvic pain (RR 4.1, 95% CI 2.0 to 8.3) in the previous six months. Bacterial vaginosis and Mycoplasma genitalium infection were no longer significantly associated with PID after adjustment for baseline C. trachomatis. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple or new partners in the last 12 months, age <20 years and attending a further education college rather than a university were risk factors for PID after adjustment for baseline C. trachomatis infection. Sexual health education and screening programmes could be targeted at these high-risk groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00115388).

"It's not just about walking.....it's the practice nurse that makes it work": a qualitative exploration of the views of practice nurses delivering complex physical activity interventions in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) is important for physical and mental health in adults and older adults. Interventions incorporating theory-based behaviour change techniques (BCTs) can be useful in helping people to increase their PA levels and can be delivered by practice nurses in primary care. We undertook two primary care based complex walking interventions among adults and older adults. Both interventions were underpinned by BCTs and delivered by practice nurses and we sought their views and experiences of delivering over 1400 complex PA consultations. METHODS: Semi structured interviews with two practice nurse groups (n = 4 and n = 5) and two individual interviews (total n = 11) were conducted by independent facilitators; audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Five key themes emerged as enablers and/or barriers to delivering the intervention: preparation and training; initial and ongoing support; adherence to the protocol; the use of materials and equipment; and engagement of participants. The themes were organised into a framework of 'pre-trial' and 'delivery of the intervention'. Two additional 'post-trial' themes were identified; changed practice and the future feasibility of the intervention. Nurses believed that taking part in the trial, especially the BCT training, enhanced the quality and delivery of advice and support they provided within routine consultations, although the lack of time available routinely makes this challenging. CONCLUSION: Delivering an effective behaviour change intervention in primary care requires adequate training and support for practice nurses both initially and throughout the trial as well as adequate consultation time. Enhanced skills from participating in such trials can lead to long-term changes, including more patient-centred consulting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PACE-Lift ISRCTN 42122561 , PACE-UP ISRCTN 98538934 .