Dataset Information

Mixed-methods evaluation of the NHS Genomic Medicine Service for paediatric rare diseases: study protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

ABSTRACT:

Background

A new nationally commissioned NHS England Genomic Medicine Service (GMS) was recently established to deliver genomic testing with equity of access for patients affected by rare diseases and cancer. The overarching aim of this research is to evaluate the implementation of the GMS during its early years, identify barriers and enablers to successful implementation, and provide recommendations for practice. The focus will be on the use of genomic testing for paediatric rare diseases.

Methods

This will be a four-year mixed-methods research programme using clinic observations, interviews and surveys. Study 1 consists of qualitative interviews with designers/implementers of the GMS in Year 1 of the research programme, along with documentary analysis to understand the intended outcomes for the Service. These will be revisited in Year 4 to compare intended outcomes with what happened in practice, and to identify barriers and facilitators that were encountered along the way. Study 2 consists of clinic observations (pre-test counselling and results disclosure) to examine the interaction between health professionals and parents, along with follow-up interviews with both after each observation. Study 3 consists of a longitudinal survey with parents at two timepoints (time of testing and 12 months post-results) along with follow-up interviews, to examine parent-reported experiences and outcomes. Study 4 consists of qualitative interviews and a cross-sectional survey with medical specialists to identify preparedness, facilitators and challenges to mainstreaming genomic testing. The use of theory-based and prespecified constructs will help generalise the findings and enable integration across the various sub-studies.

Dissemination

We will disseminate our results to policymakers as findings emerge, so any suggested changes to service provision can be considered in a timely manner. A workshop with key stakeholders will be held in Year 4 to develop and agree a set of recommendations for practice.

SUBMITTER: Lewis C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7612282 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDysphagia often occurs during Parkinson's disease (PD) and can have severe consequences. Recently, neuromodulatory techniques have been used to treat neurogenic dysphagia. Here we aimed to compare the neurophysiological and swallowing effects of three different types of neurostimulation, 5 Hertz (Hz) repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), 1 Hz rTMS and pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES) in patients with PD.Method12 PD patients with dysphagia were randomised to receive either 5 Hz rTMS, 1 Hz rTMS, or PES. In a cross-over design, patients were assigned to one intervention and received both real and sham stimulation. Patients received a baseline videofluoroscopic (VFS) assessment of their swallowing, enabling penetration aspiration scores (PAS) to be calculated for: thin fluids, paste, solids and cup drinking. Swallowing timing measurements were also performed on thin fluid swallows only. They then had baseline recordings of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) from both pharyngeal and (as a control) abductor pollicis brevis (APB) cortical areas using single-pulse TMS. Subsequently, the intervention was administered and post interventional TMS recordings were taken at 0 and 30 minutes followed by a repeat VFS within 60 minutes of intervention.ResultsAll interventions were well tolerated. Due to lower than expected recruitment, statistical analysis of the data was not undertaken. However, with respect to PAS swallowing timings and MEP amplitudes, there was small but visible difference in the outcomes between active and sham.ConclusionPES, 5 Hz rTMS and 1 Hz rTMS are tolerable interventions in PD related dysphagia. Due to small patient numbers no definitive conclusions could be drawn from the data with respect to individual interventions improving swallowing function and comparative effectiveness between interventions. Larger future studies are needed to further explore the efficacy of these neuromodulatory treatments in Parkinson's Disease associated dysphagia.

Project description:Background: With the increasing prevalence of myopia there is growing interest in active myopia control. However, the majority of progressive myopes are still prescribed single vision spectacles. This prospective study aims to elucidate the knowledge and attitudes of optometrists toward myopia control, and thereby identify perceived barriers to the implementation of a risk focussed model of myopia management. Methods: A series of four focus group discussions were conducted involving optometrists in different settings and career stages. Results: The key finding to emerge is a disconnect in myopia control knowledge and practices between academic optometrists, final year optometry students and clinicians in practice. Academic faculty believe the optometry curriculum should provide undergraduates with the clinical skills to practise myopia control, however, although students were knowledgeable in relation to myopia associated risk factors, some students had not yet undertaken any practical form of myopia control in their undergraduate degree. Furthermore, students may not receive hands-on myopia control experience during their supervised practice placement, as the majority of clinicians do not offer myopia control treatments, other than to communicate lifestyle advice to modify risk of myopia progression. Clinicians alluded to a lack of availability of myopia control interventions and identified a range of barriers relating to their training, clinical practice and public health challenges, financial, technological and other constraints that affect the implementation of such interventions. Conclusion: ?It appears optometrists have to yet embrace myopia control as a core element of the clinical eye care service they provide. Education, training, finance, and time restrictions, as well as limited availability of myopia control therapies were among the main perceived barriers to myopia control. This study revealed a distinct need for alignment between optometric training and the public health need for effective myopia control.

Project description:Mounting evidence indicates that worldwide, innovation systems are increasing unsustainable. Equally, concerns about inequities in the science and innovation process, and in access to its benefits, continue. Against a backdrop of growing health, economic and scientific challenges global stakeholders are urgently seeking to spur innovation and maximize the just distribution of benefits for all. Open Science collaboration (OS) - comprising a variety of approaches to increase open, public, and rapid mobilization of scientific knowledge - is seen to be one of the most promising ways forward. Yet, many decision-makers hesitate to construct policy to support the adoption and implementation of OS without access to substantive, clear and reliable evidence. In October 2017, international thought-leaders gathered at an Open Science Leadership Forum in the Washington DC offices of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to share their views on what successful Open Science looks like. Delegates from developed and developing nations, national governments, science agencies and funding bodies, philanthropy, researchers, patient organizations and the biotechnology, pharma and artificial intelligence (AI) industries discussed the outcomes that would rally them to invest in OS, as well as wider issues of policy and implementation. This first of two reports, summarizes delegates' views on what they believe OS will deliver in terms of research, innovation and social impact in the life sciences. Through open and collaborative process over the next months, we will translate these success outcomes into a toolkit of quantitative and qualitative indicators to assess when, where and how open science collaborations best advance research, innovation and social benefit. Ultimately, this work aims to develop and openly share tools to allow stakeholders to evaluate and re-invent their innovation ecosystems, to maximize value for the global public and patients, and address long-standing questions about the mechanics of innovation.