Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide new insights into the diet and nutrient intake of people receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT) in the UK, offering implications for recovery-oriented treatment and care. Design/methodology/approach – Diet and nutrient intake were assessed using quantitative methods. The research tools used were: a socio-demographic and drug use questionnaire, 24-hour dietary recall interview and anthropometry measures. A four-month follow-up was conducted using the same methods. Findings – Mean (SD) body mass index for males (n=15) and females (n=10) exceeded the normal range (25.2 (5.9) kg/m2 and 33.3 (8.6) kg/m2, respectively) at baseline. Males decreased to the normal range at follow-up (mean (SD)=24.1 (±6.2) kg/m2]. Females increased to obesity Class II at follow-up (mean (SD)=35.1 (±8.0) kg/m2). Non-starch polysaccharide intakes were significantly lower than the reference nutrient intake (RNI). Iron intakes for females were significantly below the RNI. Saturated fat intake and sodium intake exceeded the RNI. In total, 11 (44 per cent) participants had multiple health conditions. Participants regularly consumed meals and reported frequent snacking events. Research limitations/implications – There is a need for better understanding of nutrition-related issues and dietary deficiencies amongst people receiving OAT, including larger studies that explore differences between males and females, other sub-groups and changes over time. Practical implications – Nutritional recommendations or guidelines and increased attention to nutrition and diet within treatment programmes are needed to help people receiving OAT. Originality/value – This paper demonstrates how diet and nutrient intake are essential to recovery processes and outcomes.
With the aging population and increase in chronic disease conditions, innovation to transform treatment pathways and service delivery will be necessary. The innovation adoption process however, can take 15 years before widespread adoption occurs in most healthcare systems. Current UK government policies to increase the facilitation of innovation adoption are under way. The aim of this study is to explore perceptions of tri-sectoral collaborations in the healthcare sector. The data in the study are drawn from a cross-sectional survey conducted in 2015 of professionals in academia, industry and the healthcare sectors in England, focusing on Diabetes care. Academia and healthcare respondents had the least work experience outside of their sectors compared to the industry respondents. Healthcare and academia respondents rated the industry sector less trustworthy, unethical, having different goals and less understanding of the other sectors. Industry respondents had a more positive perspective towards potential collaborators. The results from the study demonstrate greater potential challenges to tri-sectoral collaborations and the government's knowledge translation policy, due to pre-conceived notions and lack of understanding of other sectors. The purely structural approach of establishing government mandated translational networks may be insufficient without active attempts to improve collaborative relationships. Mechanisms to facilitate trust building and collaboration are proposed.
Background The holistic evolution of patient engagement in medicines development requires a more detailed understanding of the needs of all involved stakeholders, and one that better accounts for the specific needs of some potentially vulnerable patient populations and key stages in medicines development. Objective The purpose of this convergent mixed‐methods study was to better understand the needs of different stakeholders concerning patient engagement at three key stages in medicines development: research priority setting, clinical trial design and early dialogues with Health Technology Assessment bodies and regulators. Design This study brought together findings from three sources: i) an online questionnaire, ii) face‐to‐face consultations with two potentially vulnerable patient populations, a workshop with Health Technology Assessment bodies, and iii) three‐step modified Delphi methodology. Results Overall stakeholders still need additional varied support mechanisms to undertake, sustain or measure value of patient engagement. Health Technology Assessment bodies need better rationale for patient engagement in early dialogue and tools to support its implementation. Improved awareness and understanding of the need and value that involving patients, who are often considered as potentially vulnerable, can bring is needed, as is better accommodation of their specific needs. Similarly, weighted Delphi categories were as follows: aims and objectives, and sustainability. Several additional themes were common across the three key stages in medicines development. Conclusion This broad‐reaching study provides the blocks needed to build a framework for patient engagement in medicines development. Patient or Public Contribution Patients were involved in review and interpretation of data.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.