Explore the vast range of titles available.

Systematic assessment of blood pressure (BP) control rates may help to improve the clinical management of hypertension in clinical practice. This approach had limited application in Europe over the last three decades and only recently has been implemented in some countries. The present study is aimed at evaluating hypertension prevalence and control among adult outpatients followed by a large, representative sample of general practitioners (GPs) in Italy. We retrospectively analysed the data derived from the GP Health Search-CSD database in 2013. Hypertension prevalence and control were estimated within the overall population sample and in hypertensive outpatients, respectively, according to age and gender. Hypertension diagnosis was defined according to the International Classification of Diseases 9. Clinic BP levels were measured according to the European guidelines. BP control was defined as systolic/diastolic BP <140/90 mm Hg. Data from 911 753 individuals (52.2% females) were scrutinized. Hypertension was diagnosed in 236 377 (25.9%) patients, being higher in male aged <70 years than age-matched female. Hypertension control was recorded in 60.6% of hypertensive patients, being higher in female than male individuals aged <70 years. Our current analysis demonstrates that about 26% of adult outpatients followed in the GP setting had hypertension and that about 61% had controlled BP levels. Both prevalence and control of hypertension appear to be higher when compared with the data reported from the analysis of the same database in 2005, thus confirming a positive trend in BP control in the GP clinical setting in Italy.

Streptococcal pharyngitis is a frequently observed condition, but its optimal management continues to be debated. The goal of this study was to evaluate the available guidelines, developed at the national level, for the management of streptococcal pharyngitis in Western countries, with a focus on their differences. A literature search was conducted of the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, TRIP, and MEDLINE databases from their inception (1993 for the Cochrane Library, 1980 for EMBASE, 1997 for TRIP, and 1966 for MEDLINE) through April 25, 2010. The following search terms were used: pharyngitis, sore throat, tonsillitis, pharyngotonsillitis, Streptococcus pyogenes, Group A β-haemolytic Streptococcus pyogenes, and streptococcal pharyngitis. Searches were limited to type of article or document (practice guideline or guideline) with no language restrictions or language limits. Twelve national guidelines were identified: 6 from European countries (France, United Kingdom, Finland, Holland, Scotland, and Belgium), 5 from the United States, and 1 from Canada. Recommendations differ substantially with regard to the use of a rapid antigen diagnostic test or throat culture and the indications for antibiotic treatment. The North American, Finnish, and French guidelines recommend performing one timely microbiologic investigation in suspected cases, and prescribing antibiotics in confirmed cases to prevent suppurative complications and acute rheumatic fever. According to the remaining European guidelines, however, acute sore throat is considered a benign, self-limiting disease. Microbiologic tests are not routinely recommended by these latter guidelines, and antibiotic treatment is reserved for well-selected cases. The use of the Centor score, for evaluation of the risk of streptococcal infection, is recommended by several guidelines, but subsequent decisions on the basis of the results differ in terms of which subjects should undergo microbiologic investigation. All guidelines agree that narrow-spectrum penicillin is the first choice of antibiotic for the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis and that treatment should last for 10 days to eradicate the microorganism. Once-daily amoxicillin was recommended by 2 US guidelines as equally effective. The present review found substantial discrepancies in the recommendations for the management of pharyngitis among national guidelines in Europe and North America.

Background Many people do not meet the recommended health guidance of participation in a minimum of 150–300 min of moderate intensity physical activity per week, often promoted as at least 30 min of physical activity on 5 days of the week. This is concerning and highlights the importance of finding innovative ways to help people to be physically active each day. Snacktivity™ is a novel approach that aims to encourage people to do small, 2–5 min bouts of physical activity ‘snacks’ throughout the whole day, such that they achieve at least 150 min of moderate intensity activity per week. However, before it can be recommended, there is a need to explore whether the concept is acceptable to the public. Methods A survey to assess the views of the public about Snacktivity™ was distributed to adult patients registered at six general practices in the West Midlands, UK and to health care employees in the same region. Results A total of 5989 surveys were sent to patients, of which 558 were returned (9.3%). A further 166 surveys were completed by health care employees. A total of 85% of respondents liked the Snacktivity™ concept. The flexibility of the approach was highly rated. A high proportion of participants (61%) reported that the ability to self-monitor their behaviour would help them to do Snacktivity™ throughout their day. Physically inactive participants perceived that Snacktivity™ would help to increase their physical activity, more than those who were physically active (OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.25–0.67). Approximately 90% of respondents perceived that Snacktivity™ was easy to do on a non-working day compared to 60% on a working day. Aerobic activity ‘snacks’ were preferred to those which were strength based. Conclusions The Snacktivity™ approach to promoting physical activity was viewed positively by the public and interventions to test the merits of such an approach now need to be developed and tested in a variety of everyday contexts.

Adults living with overweight/obesity are eligible for publicly funded weight management (WM) programmes according to national guidance. People with the most severe and complex obesity are eligible for bariatric surgery. Primary care plays a key role in identifying overweight/obesity and referring to WM interventions. This study aimed to (1) describe the primary care population in England who (a) are referred for WM interventions and (b) undergo bariatric surgery and (2) determine the patient and GP practice characteristics associated with both. An observational cohort study was undertaken using routinely collected primary care data in England from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with Hospital Episode Statistics. During the study period (January 2007 to June 2020), 1,811,587 adults met the inclusion criteria of a recording of overweight/obesity in primary care, of which 54.62% were female and 20.10% aged 45 to 54. Only 56,783 (3.13%) were referred to WM, and 3,701 (1.09% of those with severe and complex obesity) underwent bariatric surgery. Multivariable Poisson regression examined the associations of demographic, clinical, and regional characteristics on the likelihood of WM referral and bariatric surgery. Higher body mass index (BMI) and practice region had the strongest associations with both outcomes. People with BMI [greater than or equal to]40 kg/m.sup.2 were more than 6 times as likely to be referred for WM (10.05% of individuals) than BMI 25.0 to 29.9 kg/m.sup.2 (1.34%) (rate ratio (RR) 6.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) [5.99,6.40], p < 0.001). They were more than 5 times as likely to undergo bariatric surgery (3.98%) than BMI 35.0 to 40.0 kg/m.sup.2 with a comorbidity (0.53%) (RR 5.52, 95% CI [5.07,6.02], p < 0.001). Patients from practices in the West Midlands were the most likely to have a WM referral (5.40%) (RR 2.17, 95% CI [2.10,2.24], p < 0.001, compared with the North West, 2.89%), and practices from the East of England least likely (1.04%) (RR 0.43, 95% CI [0.41,0.46], p < 0.001, compared with North West). Patients from practices in London were the most likely to undergo bariatric surgery (2.15%), and practices in the North West the least likely (0.68%) (RR 3.29, 95% CI [2.88,3.76], p < 0.001, London compared with North West). Longer duration since diagnosis with severe and complex obesity (e.g., 1.67% of individuals diagnosed in 2007 versus 0.34% in 2015, RR 0.20, 95% CI [0.12,0.32], p < 0.001), and increasing comorbidities (e.g., 2.26% of individuals with 6+ comorbidities versus 1.39% with none (RR 8.79, 95% CI [7.16,10.79], p < 0.001) were also strongly associated with bariatric surgery. The main limitation is the reliance on overweight/obesity being recorded within primary care records to identify the study population. Between 2007 and 2020, a very small percentage of the primary care population eligible for WM referral or bariatric surgery according to national guidance received either. Higher BMI and GP practice region had the strongest associations with both. Regional inequalities may reflect differences in commissioning and provision of WM services across the country. Multi-stakeholder qualitative research is ongoing to understand the barriers to accessing WM services and potential solutions. Together with population-wide prevention strategies, improved access to WM interventions is needed to reduce obesity levels.

Background A novel ‘whole day’ approach that could motivate the public to be more physically active is termed Snacktivity™. Consistent with guidance, the Snacktivity™ approach encourages the public to accumulate ≥ 150 min of physical activity in short 2–5-min ‘activity snacks’ of moderate-vigorous intensity physical activity throughout the day/week. Snacktivity™ also promotes muscle-strengthening activity twice per week. Following completion of research to co-design and develop the Snacktivity™ approach, the aim of this trial is to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a Snacktivity™ intervention to increase physical activity and reduce future risk of disease in the population, compared with usual care. Methods A multi-centre, two-arm, individually randomised, parallel group, superiority trial, with an economic evaluation, will be conducted in 966 physically inactive adults. Participants will be recruited from National Health Service Trusts and organisations and non-National Health Service settings (e.g. community groups and social media). Participants will be individually randomized (1:1) to the Snacktivity™ intervention group or a usual care comparator group. The Snacktivity intervention involves two main components; a brief 5-min consultation about the principles and purpose of Snacktivity™; and access to technology support (mobile phone app called the SnackApp, linked to a Fitbit activity device (Versa 4)) that through behavioural change techniques promote self-monitoring of physical activity, habit formation, action planning and feedback on the number of activity snacks completed each day. The primary outcome is the difference in average minutes of moderate-vigorous physical activity between the groups at 12-months follow up, measured using a wrist worn accelerometer. Secondary outcomes include accelerometer-assessed average minutes per day of light, moderate, and vigorous intensity physical activity, time sedentary, weight and psychological health outcomes, at 12 month follow-up. Discussion Innovative interventions such as Snacktivity™, that aim to support the public to increase their physical activity each day are required. Findings could inform future public health guidance and public health messaging that seeks to raise awareness in the population of the potential benefits of Snacktivity™ for health. Trial registration ISRCTN: 12390945 . Registered on 22 March, 2024.

ObjectiveHelping people to change their health behaviours is becoming a greater feature within the role of health professionals, including through whole system initiatives such as Making Every Contact Count. Health services provide an ideal setting to routinely promote health behaviours, including physical activity. Snacktivity is a novel approach that promotes small bouts of physical activity (activity snacks) throughout the day. This study explored health professionals’ initial experiences of delivering a Snacktivity intervention to promote physical activity within routine health consultations. A further aim was to investigate health professionals’ ability/fidelity in delivering the Snacktivity intervention to their patients.DesignSemistructured interviews (n=11) and audio recording of consultations (n=46).Setting and participantsHealthcare professionals from a variety of specialisms who delivered the Snacktivity intervention within patient consultations.ResultsAnalyses revealed two higher-level themes of interest: (1) health professionals’ conceptualisation of Snacktivity (subthemes: observations/reflections about patients’ understanding, engagement and enthusiasm for delivering the Snacktivity intervention) and (2) health professionals’ understanding of Snacktivity and experience in delivering the intervention (subthemes: delivering Snacktivity; limitations, challenges and possible improvements). Consultation audio recordings demonstrated health professionals delivered the Snacktivity intervention with high levels of fidelity. Health professionals were proficient and supportive of delivering the Snacktivity intervention within consultations although practical barriers to implementation such as time constraints were raised, and confidence in doing so was mixed.ConclusionsHealth professionals were proficient and supportive of delivering the Snacktivity intervention within consultations. The primary barrier to implementation was the time to deliver it, however, gaining greater experience in the intervention and improving behaviour change counselling skills may reduce this barrier.Trial registration numberISRCTN64851242.

Background Many people do not regularly participate in physical activity, which may negatively impact their health. Current physical activity guidelines are focused on promoting weekly accumulation of at least 150 min of moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA). Whilst revised guidance now recognises the importance of making small changes to physical activity behaviour, guidance still focuses on adults needing to achieve at least 150 min of MVPA per week. An alternative ‘whole day’ approach that could motivate the public to be more physically active, is a concept called Snacktivity™. Instead of focusing on achieving 150 min per week of physical activity, for example 30 min of MVPA over 5 days, Snacktivity™ encourages the public to achieve this through small, but frequent, 2–5 min ‘snacks’ of MVPA throughout the whole day. Methods The primary aim is to undertake a feasibility trial with nested qualitative interviews to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the Snacktivity™ intervention to inform the design of a subsequent phase III randomised trial. A two-arm randomised controlled feasibility trial aiming to recruit 80 inactive adults will be conducted. Recruitment will be from health and community settings and social media. Participants will be individually randomised (1:1 ratio) to receive either the Snacktivity™ intervention or usual care. The intervention will last 12 weeks with assessment of outcomes completed before and after the intervention in all participants. We are interested in whether the Snacktivity™ trial is appealing to participants (assessed by the recruitment rate) and if the Snacktivity™ intervention and trial methods are acceptable to participants (assessed by Snacktivity™/physical activity adherence and retention rates). The intervention will be delivered by health care providers within health care consultations or by researchers. Participants’ experiences of the trial and intervention, and health care providers’ views of delivering the intervention within health consultations will be explored. Discussion The development of physical activity interventions that can be delivered at scale are needed. The findings from this study will inform the viability and design of a phase III trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Snacktivity™ to increase physical activity. Trial registration ISRCTN: 64851242.

BackgroundAdults living with overweight/obesity are eligible for publicly funded weight management (WM) programmes according to national guidance. People with the most severe and complex obesity are eligible for bariatric surgery. Primary care plays a key role in identifying overweight/obesity and referring to WM interventions. This study aimed to (1) describe the primary care population in England who (a) are referred for WM interventions and (b) undergo bariatric surgery and (2) determine the patient and GP practice characteristics associated with both.Methods and findingsAn observational cohort study was undertaken using routinely collected primary care data in England from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with Hospital Episode Statistics. During the study period (January 2007 to June 2020), 1,811,587 adults met the inclusion criteria of a recording of overweight/obesity in primary care, of which 54.62% were female and 20.10% aged 45 to 54. Only 56,783 (3.13%) were referred to WM, and 3,701 (1.09% of those with severe and complex obesity) underwent bariatric surgery. Multivariable Poisson regression examined the associations of demographic, clinical, and regional characteristics on the likelihood of WM referral and bariatric surgery. Higher body mass index (BMI) and practice region had the strongest associations with both outcomes. People with BMI ≥40 kg/m2 were more than 6 times as likely to be referred for WM (10.05% of individuals) than BMI 25.0 to 29.9 kg/m2 (1.34%) (rate ratio (RR) 6.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) [5.99,6.40], p < 0.001). They were more than 5 times as likely to undergo bariatric surgery (3.98%) than BMI 35.0 to 40.0 kg/m2 with a comorbidity (0.53%) (RR 5.52, 95% CI [5.07,6.02], p < 0.001). Patients from practices in the West Midlands were the most likely to have a WM referral (5.40%) (RR 2.17, 95% CI [2.10,2.24], p < 0.001, compared with the North West, 2.89%), and practices from the East of England least likely (1.04%) (RR 0.43, 95% CI [0.41,0.46], p < 0.001, compared with North West). Patients from practices in London were the most likely to undergo bariatric surgery (2.15%), and practices in the North West the least likely (0.68%) (RR 3.29, 95% CI [2.88,3.76], p < 0.001, London compared with North West). Longer duration since diagnosis with severe and complex obesity (e.g., 1.67% of individuals diagnosed in 2007 versus 0.34% in 2015, RR 0.20, 95% CI [0.12,0.32], p < 0.001), and increasing comorbidities (e.g., 2.26% of individuals with 6+ comorbidities versus 1.39% with none (RR 8.79, 95% CI [7.16,10.79], p < 0.001) were also strongly associated with bariatric surgery. The main limitation is the reliance on overweight/obesity being recorded within primary care records to identify the study population.ConclusionsBetween 2007 and 2020, a very small percentage of the primary care population eligible for WM referral or bariatric surgery according to national guidance received either. Higher BMI and GP practice region had the strongest associations with both. Regional inequalities may reflect differences in commissioning and provision of WM services across the country. Multi-stakeholder qualitative research is ongoing to understand the barriers to accessing WM services and potential solutions. Together with population-wide prevention strategies, improved access to WM interventions is needed to reduce obesity levels.

Introduction Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) has been an established treatment option for patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but there is a relative paucity of evidence-based guidelines on preoperative, operative, and postoperative considerations concerning metabolic surgery for T2DM patients. To address this gap, we initiated a Delphi consensus process with a diverse group of international multidisciplinary experts. Method We embarked on a Delphi consensus-building exercise to propose an evidence-based expert consensus covering various aspects of MBS in patients with T2DM. We defined the scope of the exercise and proposed statements and surveyed the literature through electronic databases. The literature summary and voting process were conducted by 52 experts, who evaluated 44 statements. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Results Consensus, defined as > 80% agreement, was reached for 43 out of 44 statements. The experts reached an agreement on the nature, terminology, and mechanisms of action of MBS. The currently available scores for predicting remission of T2DM after surgery are not robust enough for routine clinical use, and there is a need for further research to enable more personalized treatment. Additionally, they agreed that metabolic surgery for T2DM is cost-effective, and MBS procedures for treating T2DM vary in their safety and efficacy. Conclusion This Delphi expert consensus statement guides clinicians on various aspects of metabolic surgery for T2DM and also grades the quality of the available evidence for each of the proposed statements.