Multi-site chronic pain is more common than single-site chronic pain and is commonly associated with other problems. Indiscriminate targeting of research and care for chronic musculoskeletal pain on single sites may often be inappropriate.

Great efforts have been made to develop and test treatments for low back pain. Our findings suggest that the overall prevalence of troublesome neck, knee and shoulder pain approaches that of troublesome low back pain and that similar efforts may be required to improve the management these pains.

The tool may be useful for identifying people who would benefit from further assessment of their risk of falling and appropriate intervention.

To tackle the challenges and conflicts identified within the review, change may have to occur, not just in individual patient and practitioner beliefs and behavior, but also at an organizational and system level, for example, changes in undergraduate and postgraduate education and changes in the organization and availability of health services.

Background Internationally, there is a drive to involve patients and the public in health research, due to recognition that patient and public involvement (PPI) may increase the impact and relevance of health research. This scoping review describes the extent and nature of PPI in dementia research in the European Union (EU) and summarises: (i) how PPI is carried out; and (ii) the impact of PPI on people living with dementia and the public, researchers, and the research process. Methods Relevant studies were identified by searches in electronic reference databases and then filtered by two reviewers independently. Eligibility criteria for included studies were: (i) people living with dementia and/or care partners; (ii) PPI activity in dementia research conducted in the European Union (EU); and (iii) published between 2000 and 2018. An adapted version of the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2 SF) was used to collate the data. There was no language restriction other than the abstract needed to be available in English. Results We found 19 studies from the UK and one from the Netherlands meeting inclusion criteria. No studies from other EU countries met inclusion criteria. Studies reported various methods of PPI including workshops, drop-in sessions, meetings, consensus conference, reader consultation and participatory approach. The reported aims of PPI included identifying and prioritising research questions ( n = 4), research design ( n = 5), undertaking and managing research ( n = 8), and data analysis and interpretation ( n = 3). All PPI related to design and implementation of non-pharmacological studies. One study described two pharmacological studies as case studies incorporating PPI. Seventeen studies reported anecdotal impacts of PPI. Conclusions Further development of PPI in dementia research in the EU and in pharmacological dementia research is required. Given the wide range of objectives of PPI in dementia research, PPI methods should be flexible and appropriate for the research context. Researchers should also formally evaluate and report the impacts of PPI for researchers, patients and the general public using good quality research designs to foster development of the field and enable the benefits and challenges of PPI to be better understood. Trial registration PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017053260 . Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-019-1217-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective To explore the factors that influence older people's decision making regarding use of topical or oral ibuprofen for their knee pain. Design Qualitative interview study nested within a randomised controlled trial and a patient preference study that compared advice to use oral or topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for knee pain in older people. Setting 11 general practices. Participants 30 people aged ≥50 with knee pain. Results Participants' decision making was influenced by their perceptions of the associated risk of adverse effects, presence of other illness, nature of their pain, advice received, and practicality. Although participants' understanding of how the medications worked was sometimes poor their decision making about the use of NSAIDs seemed logical and appropriate. Participants' model for treatment was to use topical NSAIDs for mild, local, and transient pain and oral NSAIDs for moderate to severe, generalised, and constant pain (in the absence of other more serious illness or risk of adverse effects). Participants showed marked tolerance and normalisation of adverse effects. Conclusion Participants had clear ideas about the appropriate use of oral and topical NSAIDs. Taking such views into account when prescribing may improve adherence, judgment of efficacy, and the doctor-patient relationship. Tolerance and normalisation of adverse effects in these patients indicate that closer monitoring of older people who use NSAIDs might be needed.

No abstract

Background Patient and public involvement and engagement is an important and expected component of health-related research activity in the UK. Specifically within the health research sphere, public engagement (usually defined as raising awareness of research) and patient involvement (usually defined as actively involving people in research) have traditionally been seen as separate but have much to gain from working together towards a common goal of better health outcomes for all. Methods This paper describes a unique approach taken by the Public Programmes Team: a small interdisciplinary team of public engagement specialists, with backgrounds in science, community development, public engagement and involvement, policy, ethics, communications, industry, museums and creative practice, embedded within translational research infrastructure and delivery in Manchester in the North West of England. We propose a new model of professional practice – a 'cycle' of engagement and involvement – innovating across the complementary fields of public engagement and patient involvement, and working inclusively and in partnership with people in health research. Further, our approach capitalises on strategic collaboration offering economies of scale and a joined up way of working. Our ambition is to boldly experiment, learn and reflect, responsibly and based on evidence and partnerships, using methods of engagement that address issues of social justice. Results Here, we report on preliminary case studies exemplifying the impact of our approach, and data relating to achievements and learning between April 2017 and March 2018. Informed by our findings, we propose that our approach has the potential to be replicated elsewhere. Conclusions Our practice and the beginning of its evaluation lead us to believe that our way of working and model of professional practice – the ‘cycle’ of engagement and involvement – is effective in: addressing our vision of making health research relevant and inclusive for everyone; and embedding and joining up public involvement in a busy and fertile translational health research ecosystem.