The Gold Standards Framework (GSF) seeks to facilitate consistent and high quality community palliative care through a set of guidelines, mechanisms and assessment tools. The present study set out to examine practitioners' perspectives on the GSF during its first national roll-out. Two general practices that had adopted the GSF were recruited in each of four geographical areas, and each matched as closely as possible with a non-GSF practice. Sixty-eight semi-structured telephone interviews were carried out with general practitioners and district nurses in 16 selected practices, along with the GSF facilitator and up to four other 'stakeholders' in each area. Analysis revealed that the majority of GSF participants felt that the framework had strengthened their provision of community palliative care. In particular, communication within primary health care teams and co-ordination of services improved, aspects which were better in the GSF practices than in the matched non-GSF practices. Practitioners felt there was more consistency of care, with a reduced likelihood that individual patients would 'slip through the net'. The most common areas of concern were in relation to the workload associated with the role of the GSF co-ordinator. Implications for the development and effective implementation of the framework and for further research are discussed.

Background A controlled human infection model (CHIM) involves deliberate exposure of volunteers to pathogens to assess their response to new therapies at an early stage of development. We show here how we used public involvement to help shape the design of a CHIM to support future testing of candidate vaccines for the neglected tropical disease cutaneous leishmaniasis, a disease transmitted by the bite of infected sand flies in tropical regions. Methods We undertook a public involvement (PI) consultation exercise to inform development of a study to test the safety and effectiveness of a sand fly biting protocol using uninfected sand flies (FLYBITE: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03999970) and a CHIM using Leishmania major-infected sand flies (LEISH_Challenge: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04512742), both taking place in York, UK. We involved 10 members of the public including a patient research ambassador and a previous CHIM volunteer. The session took place at The University of York, UK and examined draft study volunteer-facing material and included the CHIM study design, potential adverse events and therapeutic interventions at study endpoints. A discussion of the scientific, ethical, humanitarian and economic basis for the project was presented to the participants to provoke discourse. An inductive, thematic analysis was used to identify the participants’ key concerns. Results Themes were identified relating to i) quality of volunteer-facing written information, ii) improving study design, and iii) factors to motivate involvement in the research. Group participants responded positively to the overall study aims. Initial concerns were expressed about potential risks of study involvement, but further explanation of the science and mitigations of risk secured participant support. Participants provided advice and identified improved terminology to inform the volunteer-facing material. Lastly, treatment options were discussed, and excision of any cutaneous lesion was favoured over alternatives as a treatment. Conclusion The consultation exercise provided invaluable information which led to improved study design and enhanced clarity in the volunteer-facing material. The session also reinforced the need to maintain public trust in scientific rigour prior to initiation of any study. The investigators hope that this description strengthens understanding of PI in clinical research, and encourages its use within other studies.

Background: Leishmaniasis is a globally important yet neglected parasitic disease transmitted by phlebotomine sand flies. With new candidate vaccines in or near the clinic, a controlled human challenge model (CHIM) using natural sand fly challenge would provide a method for early evaluation of prophylactic efficacy. Methods: We evaluated the biting frequency and adverse effects resulting from exposure of human volunteers to bites of either Phlebotomus papatasi or P. duboscqi, two natural vectors of Leishmania major. 12 healthy participants were recruited (mean age 40.2 ± 11.8 years) with no history of significant travel to regions where L. major-transmitting sand flies are prevalent. Participants were assigned to either vector by 1:1 allocation and exposed to five female sand flies for 30 minutes in a custom biting chamber. Bite frequency was recorded to confirm a bloodmeal was taken. Participant responses and safety outcomes were monitored using a visual analogue scale (VAS), clinical examination, and blood biochemistry. Focus groups were subsequently conducted to explore participant acceptability. Results: All participants had at least one successful sand fly bite with none reporting any serious adverse events, with median VAS scores of 0-1/10 out to day 21 post-sand fly bite. Corresponding assessment of sand flies confirmed that for each participant at least 1/5 sand flies had successfully taken a bloodmeal (overall mean 3.67±1.03 bites per participant). There was no significant difference between P. papatasi and P. duboscqi in the number of bites resulting from 5 sand flies applied to human participants (3.3±0.81 vs 3.00±1.27 bites per participant; p=0.56).  In the two focus groups (n=5 per group), themes relating to positive participant-reported experiences of being bitten and the overall study, were identified. Conclusions: These results validate a protocol for achieving successful sand fly bites in humans that is safe, well-tolerated and acceptable for participants. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT03999970 (27/06/2019)

No abstract

The aim of the Leeds Beckett Repository is to provide open access to our research, as required by funder policies and permitted by publishers and copyright law. The Leeds Beckett repository holds a wide range of publications, each of which has been checked for copyright and the relevant embargo period has been applied by the Research Services team. We operate on a standard take-down policy. If you are the author or publisher of an output and you would like it removed from the repository, please contact us and we will investigate on a case-by-case basis.