Scoping studies have been used across a range of disciplines for a wide variety of purposes. However, their value is increasingly limited by a lack of definition and clarity of purpose. The UK's Service Delivery and Organisation Research Programme (SDO) has extensive experience of commissioning and using such studies; twenty four have now been completed.This review article has four objectives; to describe the nature of the scoping studies that have been commissioned by the SDO Programme; to consider the impact of and uses made of such studies; to provide definitions for the different elements that may constitute a scoping study; and to describe the lessons learnt by the SDO Programme in commissioning scoping studies.Scoping studies are imprecisely defined but usually consist of one or more discrete components; most commonly they are non-systematic reviews of the literature, but other important elements are literature mapping, conceptual mapping and policy mapping. Some scoping studies also involve consultations with stakeholders including the end users of research.Scoping studies have been used for a wide variety of purposes, although a common feature is to identify questions and topics for future research. The reports of scoping studies often have an impact that extends beyond informing research commissioners about future research areas; some have been published in peer reviewed journals, and others have been published in research summaries aimed at a broader audience of health service managers and policymakers.Key lessons from the SDO experience are the need to relate scoping studies to a particular health service context; the need for scoping teams to be multi-disciplinary and to be given enough time to integrate diverse findings; and the need for the research commissioners to be explicit not only about the aims of scoping studies but also about their intended uses. This necessitates regular contact between researchers and commissioners.Scoping studies are an essential element in the portfolio of approaches to research, particularly as a mechanism for helping research commissioners and policy makers to ask the right questions. Their utility will be further enhanced by greater recognition of the individual components, definitions for which are provided.

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a prerequisite for many funding bodies and NHS research ethics approval. PPI in research is defined as research carried out with or by the public rather than to, about or for them. While the benefits of PPI have been widely discussed, there is a lack of evidence on the impact and outcomes of PPI in research.Objectives: To determine the types of PPI in funded research, describe key processes, analyse the contextual and temporal dynamics of PPI and explore the experience of PPI in research for all those involved. Mechanisms contributing to the routine incorporation of PPI in the research process were assessed, the impact of PPI on research processes and outcomes evaluated, and barriers and enablers to effective PPI identified.Design: A three-staged realist evaluation drawing on Normalisation Process Theory to understand how far PPI was embedded within health-care research in six areas: diabetes mellitus, arthritis, cystic fibrosis, dementia, public health and learning disabilities. The first two stages comprised a scoping exercise and online survey to chief investigators to assess current PPI activity. The third stage consisted of case studies tracked over 18 months through interviews and document analysis. The research was conducted in four regions of England.Participants: Non-commercial studies currently running or completed within the previous 2 years eligible for adoption on the UK Clinical Research Network portfolio. A total of 129 case study participants included researchers and PPI representatives from 22 research studies, and representatives from funding bodies and PPI networks.Results: In the scoping 51% (n = 92) of studies had evidence of PPI and in the survey 79% (n = 80), with funder requirements and study design the strongest influence on the extent of PPI. There was little transparency about PPI in publicly accessible information. In case studies, context–mechanism–outcome configurations suggested that six salient actions were required for effective PPI. These were a clear purpose, role and structure for PPI; ensuring diversity; whole research team engagement with PPI; mutual understanding and trust between the researchers and lay representatives; ensuring opportunities for PPI throughout the research process; and reflecting on, appraising and evaluating PPI within a research study. PPI models included a ‘one-off’ model with limited PPI, a fully intertwined model in which PPI was fully embedded and an outreach model with lay representatives linking to broader communities. Enabling contexts included funder, topic/design, resources, research host, organisation of PPI and, most importantly, relationships. In some case studies, lack of coherence in defining PPI persisted, with evidence of a dual role of PPI representative/study participant. Evidence of PPI outcomes included changes to study design, improvements to recruitment materials and rates, and dissemination.Conclusions: Six salient actions were required for effective PPI and were characterised by a shared understanding of moral and methodological purposes of PPI, a key individual co-ordinating PPI, ensuring diversity, a research team positive about PPI input and fully engaged with it, based on relationships that were established and maintained over time, and PPI being evaluated in a proactive and systematic approach. Future work recommendations include exploring the impact of virtual PPI, cost analysis and economic evaluation of the different models of PPI, and a longer-term follow-up study of the outcomes of PPI on research findings and impact on services and clinical practice.Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Background: The numbers of GPs and training places in general practice are declining, and retaining GPs in their practices is an increasing problem.Aim: To identify evidence on different approaches to retention and recruitment of GPs, such as intrinsic versus extrinsic motivational determinants.Design and setting: Synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research using seven electronic databases from 1990 onwards (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Health Management Information Consortium [HMIC], Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (Cinahl), PsycINFO, and the Turning Research Into Practice [TRIP] database).Method: A qualitative approach to reviewing the literature on recruitment and retention of GPs was used. The studies included were English-language studies from Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. The titles and abstracts of 138 articles were reviewed and analysed by the research team.Results: Some of the most important determinants to increase recruitment in primary care were early exposure to primary care practice, the fit between skills and attributes, and a significant experience in a primary care setting. Factors that seemed to influence retention were subspecialisation and portfolio careers, and job satisfaction. The most important determinants of recruitment and retention were intrinsic and idiosyncratic factors, such as recognition, rather than extrinsic factors, such as income.Conclusion: Although the published evidence relating to GP recruitment and retention is limited, and most focused on attracting GPs to rural areas, the authors found that there are clear overlaps between strategies to increase recruitment and retention. Indeed, the most influential factors are idiosyncratic and intrinsic to the individuals.

Fluorine is the world’s 13th most abundant element and constitutes 0.08% of the Earth crust. It has the highest electronegativity of all elements. Fluoride is widely distributed in the environment, occurring in the air, soils, rocks, and water. Although fluoride is used industrially in a fluorine compound, the manufacture of ceramics, pesticides, aerosol propellants, refrigerants, glassware, and Teflon cookware, it is a generally unwanted byproduct of aluminium, fertilizer, and iron ore manufacture. The medicinal use of fluorides for the prevention of dental caries began in January 1945 when community water supplies in Grand Rapids, United States, were fluoridated to a level of 1 ppm as a dental caries prevention measure. However, water fluoridation remains a controversial public health measure. This paper reviews the human health effects of fluoride. The authors conclude that available evidence suggests that fluoride has a potential to cause major adverse human health problems, while having only a modest dental caries prevention effect. As part of efforts to reduce hazardous fluoride ingestion, the practice of artificial water fluoridation should be reconsidered globally, while industrial safety measures need to be tightened in order to reduce unethical discharge of fluoride compounds into the environment. Public health approaches for global dental caries reduction that do not involve systemic ingestion of fluoride are urgently needed.

Background: Improving care for people with long-term conditions is central to NHS policy. It has been suggested that the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), a primary care pay-for-performance scheme that rewards practices for delivering effective interventions in long-term conditions, does not encourage high-quality care for this group of patients.Aim: To examine the evidence that the QOF has improved quality of care for patients with long-term conditions.Design and setting: This was a systematic review of research on the effectiveness of the QOF in the UK.Method: The authors searched electronic databases for peer-reviewed empirical quantitative research studying the effect of the QOF on a broad range of processes and outcomes of care, including coordination and integration of care, holistic and personalised care, self-care, patient experience, physiological and biochemical outcomes, health service utilisation, and mortality. Because the studies were heterogeneous, a narrative synthesis was carried out.Results: The authors identified three systematic reviews and five primary research studies that met the inclusion criteria. The QOF was associated with a modest slowing of both the increase in emergency admissions and the increase in consultations in severe mental illness (SMI), and modest improvements in diabetes care. The nature of the evidence means that the authors cannot be sure that any of these associations is causal. No clear effect on mortality was found. The authors found no evidence that the QOF influences integration or coordination of care, holistic care, self-care, or patient experience.Conclusion: The NHS should consider more broadly what constitutes high-quality primary care for people with long-term conditions, and consider other ways of motivating primary care to deliver it.