OBJECTIVES: To explore patient preferences and acceptability of two forms of larval therapy ('bagged' and 'loose'). BACKGROUND:Larval therapy is frequently used to treat patients with leg ulcers. However, patient preferences and acceptability of larval therapy when compared with other treatments is not established. DESIGN: A survey of patient preferences between larvae and standard therapy (hydrogel) using randomized allocation of two questionnaires ('bagged' or 'loose' questionnaire). The questionnaire contained closed and open-response questions and was administered by a nurse researcher. Open responses enabled exploration of patients' preferences and the acceptability of larval therapy when compared with a standard treatment. Qualitative data were analysed for thematic content. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-five participants, aged 18 years and above, with at least one venous leg ulcer were recruited from a UK Hospital Vascular Outpatients Clinic. FINDINGS: Majority of participants stated that they would consider larval therapy, irrespective of method of containment. Acceptance of therapy was influenced by length of time with (or recurrence of) ulceration, experiences of other treatments, social contact in hospitals and the experiences of others. Visual imagery was a key influence among participants who would refuse larval therapy. Refusal was mostly among older women (aged 70 years or above). CONCLUSIONS: Eliciting patient preferences and increasing patient involvement in treatment decisions is an important part of quality improvement and improved health outcomes. These findings have relevance for practitioners offering larval therapy as a treatment option and for the feasibility of clinical trials.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To explore patient preferences and acceptability of two forms of larval therapy ('bagged' and 'loose'). BACKGROUND: Larval therapy is frequently used to treat patients with leg ulcers. However, patient preferences and acceptability of larval therapy when compared with other treatments is not established. DESIGN: A survey of patient preferences between larvae and standard therapy (hydrogel) using randomized allocation of two questionnaires ('bagged' or 'loose' questionnaire). The questionnaire contained closed and open-response questions and was administered by a nurse researcher. Open responses enabled exploration of patients' preferences and the acceptability of larval therapy when compared with a standard treatment. Qualitative data were analysed for thematic content. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-five participants, aged 18 years and above, with at least one venous leg ulcer were recruited from a UK Hospital Vascular Outpatients Clinic. FINDINGS: Majority of participants stated that they would consider larval therapy, irrespective of method of containment. Acceptance of therapy was influenced by length of time with (or recurrence of) ulceration, experiences of other treatments, social contact in hospitals and the experiences of others. Visual imagery was a key influence among participants who would refuse larval therapy. Refusal was mostly among older women (aged 70 years or above). CONCLUSIONS: Eliciting patient preferences and increasing patient involvement in treatment decisions is an important part of quality improvement and improved health outcomes. These findings have relevance for practitioners offering larval therapy as a treatment option and for the feasibility of clinical trials.
Authors: M Ryan; D A Scott; C Reeves; A Bate; E R van Teijlingen; E M Russell; M Napper; C M Robb Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2001 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Andrew Jull; Natalie Walker; Maree Hackett; Mark Jones; Anthony Rodgers; Nicholas Birchall; Robyn Norton; Stephen MacMahon Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Ian D Graham; Margaret B Harrison; E Andrea Nelson; Karen Lorimer; Andrea Fisher Journal: Adv Skin Wound Care Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 2.347
Authors: Anke Persoon; Maud M Heinen; Carien J M van der Vleuten; Michette J de Rooij; Peter C M van de Kerkhof; Theo van Achterberg Journal: J Clin Nurs Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 3.036
Authors: Dariusz Bazaliński; Joanna Przybek Mita; Lucyna Ścisło; Paweł Więch Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 3.390