What is the qualitative evidence concerning the risks, diagnosis, management and consequences of gastrointestinal infections in the community in the United Kingdom? A systematic review and meta-ethnography

English version

Autoři: Suzanne Rotheram ^aff001; Jessie Cooper ^aff003; Sara Ronzi ^aff002; Benjamin Barr ^aff002; Margaret Whitehead ^aff002
Působiště autorů: Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infection (NIHR), Farr Institute @ The Health eResearch Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom ^aff001; Department of Public Health & Policy, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom ^aff002; Division of Health Services Research and Management, School of Health Sciences, University of London, London, United Kingdom ^aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227630

Souhrn

Background

Gastrointestinal (GI) infections cause a significant public health burden worldwide and in the UK with evidence pointing to socio-economic inequalities, particularly among children. Qualitative studies can help us understand why inequalities occur and contribute to developing more effective interventions. This study had two aims: 1. Conduct a systematic review to determine the extent and nature of UK qualitative evidence on gastrointestinal infections; 2. Use meta-ethnography to examine the influences of the differing social contexts in which people live.

Methods

MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of science, CINAHL and JSTOR were searched for UK qualitative studies engaging with the risk, diagnosis, management or consequences of gastrointestinal infections from 1980 to July 2019. Five reviewers were involved in applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracting and synthesising data (PROSPERO CRD 42017055157).

Results

Searches identified 4080 studies, 18 met the inclusion criteria. The majority (n = 16) contained data relating to the risk of gastrointestinal infection and these made up the main synthesis. The tenets of meta-ethnography were used to glean new understandings of the role of social and environmental contexts in shaping the risk of gastrointestinal infection, specifically with respect to foodborne GI illness. Three main explanations concerning risk emerged from the data: explanations of risk in the community were underpinned by understandings of ‘bugs’, dirt and where food comes from; risks were negotiated in households alongside diverse processes of decision making around food; and resources available to households shaped food practices.

Conclusion

This systematic review highlights the scarcity of UK qualitative evidence examining gastrointestinal infections. Apart from risk, questions around diagnosis, management and consequences of illness were largely untouched. No studies investigated patterning by socio-economic status. Nevertheless, the meta-ethnography yielded wider contextual theories and explanations as to why people might not follow food hygiene guidance, giving pointers to the types of qualitative enquiry needed to develop more effective interventions.

Klíčová slova:

Food consumption – Gastrointestinal infections – Genitourinary infections – Hygiene – Milk – Public and occupational health – Qualitative studies – Systematic reviews

Zdroje

1. Tam CC, Viviani L, Rodrigues LC, O’Brien SJ. The second study of infectious intestinal disease (IID2): increased rates of recurrent diarrhoea in individuals aged 65 years and above. BMC Public Health. 2013;13: 739. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-739 24219653

2. Tam CC, Viviani L, Adak B, Boulton E, Dodds JP, Cowden JM, et al. The second study of infectious intestinal disease in the community (IID2 study) final report. 2012.

3. Lund BM, O’Brien SJ. The occurrence and prevention of foodborne disease in vulnerable people. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2011;8: 961–73. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2011.0860 21561383

4. Kirk MD, Pires SM, Black RE, Caipo M, Crump JA, Devleesschauwer B, et al. World Health Organization Estimates of the Global and Regional Disease Burden of 22 Foodborne Bacterial, Protozoal, and Viral Diseases, 2010: A Data Synthesis. PLOS Med. 2015.

5. Tam CC, O’Brien SJ. Economic cost of Campylobacter, Norovirus and Rotavirus disease in the United Kingdom. PLoS One. 2016;11.

6. FSA. A report of the study of Infectious Intestinal Disease in England (IID1). London; 2000.

7. Harris JP, Iturriza-Gomara M, O’Brien SJ. Re-assessing the total burden of norovirus circulating in the United Kingdom population. Vaccine. 2017;35: 853–855. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.01.009 28094075

8. Pockett RD, Adlard N, Carroll S, Rajoriya F. Paediatric hospital admissions for rotavirus gastroenteritis and infectious gastroenteritis of all causes in England: an analysis of correlation with deprivation. Currrent Med Res Opin. 2011;27: 777–784.

9. Adams NL, Rose TC, Hawker J, Violato M, O’Brien SJ, Barr B, et al. Relationship between socioeconomic status and gastrointestinal infections in developed countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018;13.

10. Rose TC, Adams NL, Barr B, Hawker J, O’Brien SJ, Violato M, et al. Socioeconomic status is associated with symptom severity and sickness absence in people with infectious intestinal disease in the UK. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17: 447. doi: 10.1186/s12879-017-2551-1 28645256

11. FSA. Regulation and legislation. In: Food Standards Agency [Internet]. 2019 [cited 23 Dec 2019]. Available: https://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/regulation

12. FSA. Campylobacter. In: Food Standards Agency [Internet]. 2018 [cited 10 Aug 2018]. Available: https://www.food.gov.uk/safety-hygiene/campylobacter

13. FSA. Best before and use by dates. In: Food Standards Agency [Internet]. 2018 [cited 23 Dec 2019]. Available: https://www.food.gov.uk/science/microbiology/use-by-and-best-before-dates

14. NHS. Norovirus. In: NHS choices [Internet]. 2018 [cited 23 Dec 2018]. Available: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/norovirus/

15. Food Standards Agency, Food Standards Agency (FSA), FSA, Food Standards Agency. Foodborne disease strategy 2010–2015. An FSA programme for the reduction of foodborne disease in the UK. Food Stand Agency. London; 2011.

16. O’Reilly K, Louis E. The toilet tripod: Understanding successful sanitation in rural India. Health Place. 2014;29: 43–51. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.05.007 24954614

17. Mabilia M. The cultural context of childhood diarrhoea among Gogo infants. Anthropol Med. 2000;7: 191–208.

18. Zaidi SH, Smith-Morris C. Diapers in war zones: Ethnomedical factors in acute childhood gastroenteritis in Peshawar, Pakistan. PLoS One. 2015;10: 1–14.

19. Rheinländer T, Samuelsen H, Dalsgaard A, Konradsen F. Perspectives on child diarrhoea management and health service use among ethnic minority caregivers in Vietnam. BMC Public Health. 2011;11.

20. Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography : synthesizing qualitative studies. Sage Publications; 1988.

21. Flemming K, Graham H, Heirs M, Fox D, Sowden A. Smoking in pregnancy: A systematic review of qualitative research of women who commence pregnancy as smokers. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69: 1023–36. doi: 10.1111/jan.12066 23278126

22. Brookfield S, Fitzgerald L, Selvey L, Maher L. The Blind Men and the Elephant: Meta-Ethnography 30 Years On. Qual Health Res. 2019.

23. Atkins S, Lewin S, Smith H, Engel M, Fretheim A, Volmink J. Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: Lessons learnt. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8: 21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-21 18416812

24. Crotty M. The foundations of social research. Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: SAGE publications Ltd; 1998.

25. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6.

26. FSA. Food Standards Agency Report Repository. 2019 [cited 18 Jul 2019]. Available: https://www.foodbase.org.uk/

27. FSA. Research, Food Standards Agency. In: 2019 [Internet]. [cited 18 Jul 2019]. Available: https://www.food.gov.uk/search/research

28. Pennington A, Watkins M, Bagnall A-M, South J, Corcoran R, Whitehead M, et al. A systematic review of evidence on the impacts of joint decision-making on community wellbeing Technical report. London; 2018.

29. EndNote. EndNote. 2018 [cited 9 Jun 2018]. http://endnote.com/

30. EPPI-Reviewer. EPPI-Reviewer 4. 2019 [cited 23 Dec 2019]. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?alias=eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/er4

31. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews—a product from the ESRC methods programme. 2006.

32. Lorenc T, Petticrew M, Whitehead M, Neary D, Clayton S, Wright K, et al. Fear of crime and the environment: systematic review of UK qualitative evidence. BMC Public Health. 2013;13.

33. Van Kleef E, Frewer LJ, Chryssochoidis GM, Houghton JR, Korzen-Bohr S, Krystallis T, et al. Perceptions of food risk management among key stakeholders: Results from a cross-European study. Appetite. 2006;47: 46–63. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2006.02.002 16584811

34. NICE. Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance (third edition). Appendix-H-Quality-appraisal-checklist-qualitative-studies. NICE; 2012.

35. Lorenc T, Tyner EF, Petticrew M, Duffy S, Martineau FP, Phillips G, et al. Cultures of evidence across policy sectors: systematic review of qualitative evidence. Eur J Public Health. 2014;24: 1041–7. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cku038 24681818

36. Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R. Using meta ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002.

37. France EF, Wells M, Lang H, Williams B. Why, when and how to update a meta-ethnography qualitative synthesis. Syst Rev. 2016;5.

38. Eves A, Bielby G, Egan B, Lumbers M, Raats M, Adams M, et al. Food safety knowledge and behaviours of children (5–7 years). Health Educ J. 2010;69: 21–30.

39. Albon D. An ethnographic study examining food and drink practices in four early childhood settings. London Metropolitan University. 2010.

40. Wythe HF. Meeting food hygeine challenges in older people: Mobilising Health Assets for health promotion. University of the West of England. 2015.

41. Milne R. A focus group study of food safety practices in relation to listeriosis among the over-60s. Crit Public Health. 2011;21: 485–495.

42. Shaw A. What are they doing to our food? University of Bristol. 2001.

43. Lugg F. The management of paediatric gastroenteritis. University of Cardiff. 2014.

44. McNulty CAM, Lasseter G, Newby K, Joshi P, Yoxall H, Kumaran K, et al. Stool submission by general practitioners in SW England—when, why and how? A qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13: 77. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-13-77 22870944

45. Redmond E, Griffith C. An investigation into the attitudes and behaviours of consumers and caregivers in the preparation, handling and storage of powdered infant formula inside and outside the home. 2013.

46. Meah A. Still blaming the consumer? Geographies of responsibility in domestic food safety practices. Crit Public Health. 2014;24: 88–103.

47. Lecky DM, Hawking MKD, McNulty CAM. Patients’ perspectives on providing a stool sample to their GP: A qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2014;64.

48. Wills W, Meah A, Dickinson A, Short F. Domestic kitchen practices: findings from the ‘kitchen life’ study. Univ Hertfordsh Rep Food Stand Agency. 2013.

49. Watson M, Meah A. Food, waste and safety: negotiating conflicting social anxieties into the practices of domestic provisioning. Sociol Rev. 2013;60: 102–120.

50. Curtis V, Biran A, Deverell K, Hughes C, Bellamy K, Drasar B. Hygiene in the home: Relating bugs and behaviour. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57: 657–672. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00409-4 12821014

51. Evans D. Blaming the consumer–once again: the social and material contexts of everyday food waste practices in some English households. Crit Public Health. 2011;21: 429–440.

52. Green J, Draper A, Dowler E. Short cuts to safety: Risk and “rules of thumb” in accounts of food choice. Health Risk Soc. 2003;5: 33–52.

53. Enticott G. Risking the rural: nature, morality and the consumption of unpasteurised milk. J Rural Stud. 2003;19: 411–424.

54. Meah A, Watson M. Saints and slackers: challenging discourses about the decline of domestic cooking. Sociol Res Online. 2011;16.

55. Shatzki TR, Knorr Cetina K, Von Savigny E. The practice turn in contemporary theory. New York: Routledge; 2001.

56. FSA. Cleaning. In: Food Standards Agency [Internet]. 2019 [cited 23 Dec 2019]. Available: https://www.food.gov.uk/safety-hygiene/cleaning

57. NHS. How to prepare and cook food safely, NHS choices. Department of Health; 2017 [cited 19 Apr 2018]. Available: https://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/homehygiene/Pages/Foodhygiene.aspx

58. Lane CR, LeBaigue S, Esan OB, Awofisyo AA, Adams NL, Fisher IST, et al. Salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis, England and Wales, 1945–2011. Emerg Infect Dis. 2014;20: 1097–1104. doi: 10.3201/eid2007.121850 24960614

59. Lupton D. Risk. 2nd ed. Routledge; 2013.

60. FSA. Food safety and hygiene. In: Food Standards Agency [Internet]. 2018 [cited 10 Aug 2018]. https://www.food.gov.uk/food-safety

61. Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A. How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual Res. 2006;6: 27–44.

62. Evans MR, Sarvotham T, Thomas DR, Howard AJ. Domestic and travel-related foodborne gastrointestinal illness in a population health survey. Epidemiol Infect. 2006; 686–693. doi: 10.1017/S0950268805005790 16436220

63. FSA. Exploring food attitudes and behaviours in the UK: Findings from the Food and You Survey 2010. 2011.

64. South J. A guide to community-centred approaches for health and wellbeing Full report. London; 2015.

65. Whitehead M. A typology of actions to tackle social inequalities in health. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61: 473–8. doi: 10.1136/jech.2005.037242 17496254

66. Williams G. Lay knowledge. 1st ed. In: Gabe J, Bury M, Elston MA, editors. Key concepts in medical sociology. London: SAGE; 2004. p. 229.

67. Popay J, Williams G. Public health research and lay knowledge. Soc Sci Med. 1996;42: 759–768. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00341-x 8685744

68. Popay J, Williams G, Thomas C, Gatrell T. Theorising inequalities in health: the place of lay knowledge. Sociol Health Illn. 1998;20: 619–644.

69. Putland C, Baum FE, Ziersch AM. From causes to solutions—insights from lay knowledge about health inequalities. BMC Public Health. 2011;11: 67. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-67 21281478

70. Cargo M, Mercer SL. The Value and Challenges of Participatory Research: Strengthening Its Practice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29: 325–350. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.091307.083824 18173388

71. Benjamin-Thomas TE, Corrado AM, McGrath C, Rudman DL, Hand C. Working Towards the Promise of Participatory Action Research: Learning From Ageing Research Exemplars. Int J Qual Methods. 2018;17.

What is the qualitative evidence concerning the risks, diagnosis, management and consequences of gastrointestinal infections in the community in the United Kingdom? A systematic review and meta-ethnography

Souhrn

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Klíčová slova:

Zdroje

PLOS One

Současné pohledy na riziko v parodontologii

Svět praktické medicíny 3/2024 (znalostní test z časopisu)

Kardiologické projevy hypereozinofilií

Střevní příprava před kolonoskopií

Aktuální možnosti diagnostiky a léčby litiáz