For some time now councils with social services responsibilities (CSSRs) have been required to conduct surveys of user’s experience of social services. These have taken place nationally in three-yearly cycles. In 2002/03 the survey was for older people, in 2003/04 it was for younger adults with physical and sensory impairments, and in 2004/05 it was for children. 2005/06 marked the beginning of the second wave of the cycle. The mandate for conducting surveys of user’s experiences and satisfaction with services was first given in the white paper Modern Local Government: in Touch with the People (Department for the Environment, Trade and the Regions, 1998). In 2002 the Office of National Statistics (ONS) and SPRU developed a set of questionnaires for this purpose (Qureshi and Rowlands, 2004). Subsequent national surveys have drawn on this work to identify a set of compulsory questions for each round. User experience surveys (UESs) are regarded as an important part of the overall performance framework for social care and, providing councils with information about how they might improve services locally. Local authorities are required to submit their results to government bodies so that the relative performance of the CSSRs can be judged. This report is composed of five sections. The aims and objectives of the report are outlined in the second section and the method used to gather the data is outlined in section 3. In section 4 we report on the findings from the fieldwork and draw some conclusions and recommendations for the national survey in section 5. The topic guides for the focus groups and interviews are included in the appendices along with a brief discussion of the findings from the focus groups and a copy of the final extended questionnaire.

Younger Adults' Understanding of Questions for a Service User Experience Survey. Funded/commissioned by: The Health and Social Care Information Centre

Fecal microbiota transplantation to treat Parkinson's disease with constipation: A case report.

Intensity of Renal Support in Critically Ill Patients with Acute Kidney Injury

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 3. Patient selection challenges and consequences

Randomized clinical trials often serve the purpose of assessing the efficacy and safety of a compound. By combining real-world evidence and randomization, pragmatic randomized clinical trials (PrCTs) can be used to inform treatment effectiveness and healthcare decisions. PrCTs, referring to studies where several pragmatic elements are used (eligibility, endpoints, follow-up, etc.), pose unique challenges (Loudon et al. in BMJ 350:h2147, 2015). From a literature review, we propose a definition of PrCT and discuss strategies to overcome some PrCT challenges. Use of alternative data collection approaches may lead to uncertainties, and absence of blinding could potentially lead to non-random missing data at study endpoints such that randomization is no longer protected by an intent to treat. Therefore, more complex randomization strategies may be needed to minimize bias. Additional data sources could be used to synthesize information and create a more accurate endpoint definition, which may require tools such as natural language processing. The statistician must become familiar with the challenges and strengths of PrCTs, ranging from design to analysis to interpretation, in order to transform data into evidence (Califf in Clin Trials 13:471–477, 2016).

/pdf/pragmatic-randomized-clinical-trials-best-practices-and-rqkrxd4efz.pdf

Pragmatic randomized clinical trials: best practices and statistical guidance

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 2. Setting, sites, and investigator selection

Challenges in pragmatic trials: selection and inclusion of usual care sites.

Chronic constipation (CC) remains a common gastrointestinal (GI) disorder that conveys a substantial healthcare burden. Expert guidelines recommend increasing fiber intake, yet the clinical evidence to support this needs strengthening for specific fibers. The aim was to evaluate changes in intestinal transit time and GI symptoms in CC patients who consumed polydextrose. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 128 adults with CC received 8 g or 12 g polydextrose, or placebo, daily for 4 weeks. Transit time, as primary outcome, was assessed by radiopaque marker distribution after 2-weeks intervention. Bowel habits, GI symptoms and quality of life (QOL) were assessed by questionnaire, including the Patient-Assessment of Constipation (PAC) Symptoms (SYM), and PAC-QOL. Following 2-weeks intervention, no reduction was seen in transit time in any group and following 2- or 4-weeks intervention, no improvements were seen in stool frequency or consistency in any group. After 2-weeks intervention with 8 g/day polydextrose an improvement was seen in the PAC-SYM rectal score (p = 0.041). After 4-weeks intervention both rectal (p = 0.049) and stool (p = 0.029) scores improved while improvement in the QOL satisfaction score did not reach significance (p = 0.071). Overall, the results suggest that 2-weeks consumption of 8 or 12 g/day polydextrose does not significantly improve physiological measures of gut function in CC adults. Longer term consumption may improve clinical measures, but further studies will be required to substantiate this.

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/10/7/920/pdf/1

Catherine Enters-Weijnen

Papers

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 2. Setting, sites, and investigator selection

Challenges in pragmatic trials: selection and inclusion of usual care sites.

Short-Term Daily Intake of Polydextrose Fiber Does Not Shorten Intestinal Transit Time in Constipated Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial