PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J Mant

Publications and source records attributed to J Mant.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2002

Comparison of estimates and calculations of risk of coronary heart disease by doctors and nurses using different calculation tools in general practice: cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of using different risk calculation tools on how general practitioners and practice nurses evaluate the risk of coronary heart disease with clinical data routinely available in patients' records. DESIGN: Subjective estimates of the risk of coronary heart disease and results of four different methods of calculation of risk were compared with each other and a reference standard that had been calculated with the Framingham equation; calculations were based on a sample of patients' records, randomly selected from groups at risk of coronary heart disease. SETTING: General practices in central England. PARTICIPANTS: 18 general practitioners and 18 practice nurses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement of results of risk estimation and risk calculation with reference calculation; agreement of general practitioners with practice nurses; sensitivity and specificity of the different methods of risk calculation to detect patients at high or low risk of coronary heart disease. RESULTS: Only a minority of patients' records contained all of the risk factors required for the formal calculation of the risk of coronary heart disease (concentrations of high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol were present in only 21%). Agreement of risk calculations with the reference standard was moderate (kappa=0.33-0.65 for practice nurses and 0.33 to 0.65 for general practitioners, depending on calculation tool), showing a trend for underestimation of risk. Moderate agreement was seen between the risks calculated by general practitioners and practice nurses for the same patients (kappa=0.47 to 0.58). The British charts gave the most sensitive results for risk of coronary heart disease (practice nurses 79%, general practitioners 80%), and it also gave the most specific results for practice nurses (100%), whereas the Sheffield table was the most specific method for general practitioners (89%). CONCLUSIONS: Routine calculation of the risk of coronary heart disease in primary care is hampered by poor availability of data on risk factors. General practitioners and practice nurses are able to evaluate the risk of coronary heart disease with only moderate accuracy. Data about risk factors need to be collected systematically, to allow the use of the most appropriate calculation tools.

Community Health Nursing↗
PubMed2002

Using case-control studies for prescribing research.

In this review, the principles of design, analysis and interpretation of case-control studies are illustrated by considering the evidence from case-control studies that link hormone replacement therapy to venous thromboembolism.

Case-Control Studies↗
PubMed2001

Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of health care.

This paper reviews the relative strengths and weaknesses of outcome and process measures as performance indicators in health care. Differences in outcome may be due to case mix, how the data were collected, chance, or quality of care. Health care is only one determinant of health and other factors have important effects on health outcomes, such as nutrition, environment, lifestyle and poverty. The advantages of process measures are that they are more sensitive to differences in the quality of care and they are direct measures of quality. However, outcome measures are of greater intrinsic interest and can reflect all aspects of care, including those that are otherwise difficult to measure such as technical expertise and operator skill. Outcome indicators can be improved if efforts are made to standardize data collection and case mix adjustment systems are developed and validated. It is argued that this is worth doing only where it is likely that variations in health care might lead to significant variations in health outcome and where the occurrence of the outcome is sufficiently common that the outcome indicator will have the power to detect real differences in quality. If these conditions are not met, then alternative strategies such as process measurement and risk management techniques may be more effective at protecting the public from poor quality care.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2000

Family support for stroke: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Attention is currently focused on family care of stroke survivors, but the effectiveness of support services is unclear. We did a single-blind, randomised, controlled trial to assess the impact of family support on stroke patients and their carers. METHODS: Patients with acute stroke admitted to hospitals in Oxford, UK, were assigned family support or normal care within 6 weeks of stroke. After 6 months, we assessed, for carers, knowledge about stroke, Frenchay activities index, general health questionnaire-28 scores, caregiver strain index, Dartmouth co-op charts, short form 36 (SF-36), and satisfaction scores, and, for patients, knowledge about stroke and use of services, Barthel index, Rivermead mobility index, Frenchay activities index, London handicap scale, hospital anxiety and depression scales, Dartmouth co-op charts, and satisfaction. FINDINGS: 323 patients and 267 carers were followed up. Carers in the intervention group had significantly better Frenchay activities indices (p=0.03), SF-36 scores (energy p=0.02, mental health p=0.004, pain p=0.03, physical function p=0.025, and general health perception p=0.02), quality of life on the Dartmouth co-op chart (p=0.01), and satisfaction with understanding of stroke (82 vs 71%, p=0.04) than those in the control group. Patients' knowledge about stroke, disability, handicap, quality of life, and satisfaction with services and understanding of stroke did not differ between groups. Fewer patients in the intervention group than in the control group saw a physiotherapist after discharge (44 vs 56%, p=0.04), but use of other services was similar. INTERPRETATION: Family support significantly increased social activities and improved quality of life for carers, with no significant effects on patients.

Aged↗
PubMed2000

The accuracy of general practitioner records of smoking and alcohol use: comparison with patient questionnaires.

BACKGROUND: General practitioner (GP) records are increasingly being used as sources of information on potential confounders such as smoking use and alcohol intake in epidemiological studies. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of GP records on smoking use and alcohol intake compared with data from patient questionnaires. METHODS: Patients registered with 42 practices in Oxfordshire that agreed to take part in a post-marketing surveillance study of omeprazole were sent a postal questionnaire that included questions about alcohol and tobacco use. Two years later, data on these aspects of lifestyle were abstracted from the GP records. RESULTS: A total of 892 patients agreed to take part in the study; 804 (90 per cent) completed the postal questionnaire, and the records of 856 (96 per cent) were reviewed. Information on smoking and alcohol use was present in 74 per cent and 63 per cent of GP records, respectively. Agreement between the two data sources was moderate for both smoking (kappa = 0.50) and alcohol use (kappa = 0.52). With regard to smoking, the main discrepancy between the two data sources was that 46 per cent (94/206) of patients who reported themselves as exsmokers were recorded as being never smokers in the GP record. With regard to alcohol, there were no systematic differences between the two data sources. CONCLUSION: Data from GP records on smoking status and alcohol use are incomplete and subject to some misclassification. This is a source of potential failed adjustment for confounding, which should be considered in epidemiological studies that make use of these records.

Alcohol Drinking↗
PubMed2000

The London handicap scale: a re-evaluation of its validity using standard scoring and simple summation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of the London handicap scale (LHS) using a simple unweighted scoring system compared with traditional weighted scoring METHODS: 323 patients admitted to hospital with acute stroke were followed up by interview 6 months after their stroke as part of a trial looking at the impact of a family support organiser. Outcome measures included the six item LHS, the Dartmouth COOP charts, the Frenchay activities index, the Barthel index, and the hospital anxiety and depression scale. Patients' handicap score was calculated both using the standard procedure (with weighting) for the LHS, and using a simple summation procedure without weighting (U-LHS). Construct validity of both LHS and U-LHS was assessed by testing their correlations with the other outcome measures. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha for the LHS was 0.83. The U-LHS was highly correlated with the LHS (r=0.98). Correlation of U-LHS with the other outcome measures gave very similar results to correlation of LHS with these measures. CONCLUSION: Simple summation scoring of the LHS does not lead to any change in the measurement properties of the instrument compared with standard weighted scoring. Unweighted scores are easier to calculate and interpret, so it is recommended that these are used.

Disability Evaluation↗
PubMed2000

Inter-rater reliability of the Frenchay activities index in patients with stroke and their careers.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the inter-rater reliability of the interview-administered version of the Frenchay Activities Index (FAI). DESIGN: Comparison of FAI score on the same person when administered by two raters (mean time between interviews 15.2 days). SUBJECTS: Fifty-nine Oxfordshire residents who either had had a stroke (n = 35) or were the main carer (n = 24). RESULTS: The 95% limits of agreement for the FAI totals were -9.9 to +8.4. The kappa statistic for nine of the 15 items showed a good level of agreement between the two research interviews (0.64-0.80). The other six items showed fair or moderate strength of agreement (0.26-0.52). Three items showed significant differences between the two raters p < 0.05 (Wilcoxon's sign paired rank sum test). The mean difference between the total scores was -0.76 (95% confidence interval from -1.98 to 0.46). Spearman's rho correlation coefficient for FAI totals of rater B against A was r(59) = 0.93 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The FAI is a reliable tool for measuring outcome following stroke. Suggestions are made to strengthen the reliability, and consequently the validity of the measure.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed1999

Oral contraception and other factors in relation to back disorders in women: findings in a large cohort study.

The Oxford-Family Planning Association contraceptive study includes 17,032 women, initially aged 25-39 years, recruited at 17 British family planning centers during the interval 1968-1974 and subsequently followed-up for periods up to 26 years. This article examines the pattern of referral to hospital for back disorders among these women. Certain back disorders have been reported to occur more frequently in oral contraceptive users than in other women, and back pain has also been reported in some women consequent to using an intrauterine device. The disorders considered were spinal osteoarthritis, displaced cervical disc, displaced lumbar disc, other and unspecified displaced disc, cervicalgia, unspecified back pain, and sprains and strains of the back. Spinal osteoarthritis and unspecified backache were the only two conditions significantly related (both positively) to age. Displaced lumbar disc and other and unspecified displaced disc were strongly positively related to height and weight. Unspecified backache showed similar, but less striking (in terms of the magnitude of the relative risks), associations with height and weight. Little evidence was found of any association between oral contraceptive use and any of the back disorders, and the same was true for intrauterine device use.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Oral contraception and other factors in relation to hospital referral for fracture. Findings in a large cohort study.

There is good evidence that estrogens and progestogens have an important effect on bone metabolism. This article explores the relationship between oral contraceptive (OC) use and fractures occurring at various sites among the 17,032 participants in the Oxford-Family Planning Association contraceptive study, which now includes information accumulated during 310,000 woman-years of observation between 1968 and 1994. In total, 1308 women suffered at least one fracture during the follow-up period, which was largely confined to premenopausal years. When all fractures were combined, there was a modest, but highly significant trend (p < 0.001) of increasing risk with total duration of oral contraceptive use. In addition, there was statistically significant heterogeneity (p < 0.01) when overall fracture rates were examined in relation to recency of oral contraceptive use during the premenopausal lifespan. The highest relative risk (1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.5) was for current or recent oral contraceptive users; however, viewed as a whole, no clear pattern of risk was apparent. Examination of the data for individual fracture sites (including the lower end of the radius/ulna) did not provide any evidence of a protective effect of oral contraceptive use. These results are closely similar to those reported from the Royal College of General Practitioners Oral Contraception Study in 1993.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Risk of myocardial infarction, angina and stroke in users of oral contraceptives: an updated analysis of a cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate risk of myocardial infarction, angina and stroke in users of contraceptive pills compared with users of other methods of contraception. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study, with recruitment between 1968 and 1974 and annual follow up until the age of 45 years. After this age, only women who had never used oral contraception or those who had used it for eight or more years continued to be followed up annually until July 1994. SETTING: Seventeen family planning clinics in England and Scotland. POPULATION: 17,032 women aged between 25 and 39 years at entry to the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Occurrence of angina, myocardial infarction or stroke that was associated with either hospital admission or outpatient referral to hospital or death. RESULTS: Increased risk of myocardial infarction in oral contraceptive users was observed only in women who were heavy smokers at entry to the study. In this subgroup the relative risk of a myocardial infarction was 4.2 (95% CI 1.4-16.6) in ever users of oral contraception compared with non-users, 4.9 (1.2-23.6) in current users, and 4.0 (1.3-16.2) in ex-users. In all current users the relative risk of angina was 0.5 (0.1-1.4), and the relative risk of ischaemic stroke was 2.9 (1.3-6.7). The increased risk of ischaemic stroke did not persist in ex-users. CONCLUSIONS: Use of oral contraception is associated with increased risk of ischaemic stroke and increased risk of myocardial infarction (only in heavy smokers), but no increased risk of angina. These increased risks need to be considered within the context of the very low absolute risks of cardiovascular disease in this population. 5880 women need to take oral contraception for one year to cause one extra stroke, and 1060 women who are heavy smokers need to take it for one year to cause one extra myocardial infarction.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

The impact of an information pack on patients with stroke and their carers: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of information packs on patients with stroke and their carers, and to pilot some of the methodology for a trial of a Family Support Organiser (FSO). SUBJECTS: Seventy-one patients admitted to Oxford hospitals with acute stroke during February-July 1995, and 49 informal carers of these patients. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. Intervention group received an Information pack containing various Stroke Association publications one month after their stroke, or at discharge from hospital, whichever was sooner. Control group received nothing. Follow-up was by interview at the place of residence of the patients six months after their stroke. MEASURES: Outcome measures assessed knowledge about stroke; satisfaction with information received; patient behaviour in terms of access to community services and benefits; and health status and quality of life. RESULTS: Patients and carers in the intervention group tended to know more about stroke, but these differences were not significant once adjusted for age. Patients in the intervention group (but not carers) tended to be more satisfied with the information that they had received, but the differences were not significant. There were no differences with regard to any aspects of quality of life in patients in the intervention group, though carers in the intervention group were found to have significantly better mental health (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: While the study was too small to generate firm conclusions, information leaflets may lead to improved knowledge about stroke several months after they have been distributed. This finding is worth following up with larger studies. The stroke knowledge questionnaire that was piloted in this trial seems to be able to detect differences between groups.

Aged↗