Couverture de BJGP Interviews

BJGP Interviews

BJGP Interviews

De : The British Journal of General Practice
Écouter gratuitement

3 mois pour 0,99 €/mois

Après 3 mois, 9.95 €/mois. Offre soumise à conditions.

À propos de ce contenu audio

Listen to BJGP Interviews for the latest updates on primary care and general practice research. Hear from researchers and clinicians who will update and guide you to the best practice. We all want to deliver better care to patients and improve health through better research and its translation into practice and policy. The BJGP is a leading international journal of primary care with the aim to serve the primary care community. Whether you are a general practitioner or a nurse, a researcher, we publish a full range of research studies from RCTs to the best qualitative literature on primary care. In addition, we publish editorials, articles on the clinical practice, and in-depth analysis of the topics that matter. We are inclusive and determined to serve the primary care community. BJGP Interviews brings all these articles to you through conversations with world-leading experts. The BJGP is the journal of the UK's Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP). The RCGP grant full editorial independence to the BJGP and the views published in the BJGP do not necessarily represent those of the College. For all the latest research, editorials and clinical practice articles visit BJGP.org (https://www.bjgp.org). If you want all the podcast shownotes plus the latest comment and opinion on primary care and general practice then visit BJGP Life (https://www.bjgplife.com).Copyright 2025 The British Journal of General Practice Hygiène et vie saine Maladie et pathologies physiques Science
Les membres Amazon Prime bénéficient automatiquement de 2 livres audio offerts chez Audible.

Vous êtes membre Amazon Prime ?

Bénéficiez automatiquement de 2 livres audio offerts.
Bonne écoute !
    Épisodes
    • Faecal calprotectin in the over-50s: Rule-out test or red flag?
      Nov 11 2025

      Today, we’re speaking to Dr Rob Perry, who is a Gastroenterology Clinical Research Fellow based at Imperial College London.

      Title of paper: Evaluating the Role of Faecal Calprotectin in Older Adults

      Available at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0169

      There is considerable uncertainty surrounding the use of FC as a diagnostic test in older adults, with varying suggestions in guidelines and a lack of data in the wider literature. This study investigates the performance of FC in older adults (≥50 years), compared to a younger cohort, with a view to guide its correct use in a primary care setting. These data suggest that FC is a sensitive test for IBD and organic gastrointestinal pathology in both groups. However, concerns remain over its PPV and specificity, particularly in older adults, and it should not be used if colorectal cancer is suspected.

      Transcript

      This transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.


      Speaker A

      00:00:00.880 - 00:00:49.180

      Hello and welcome to BJGP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the Associate Editors of the bjgp. Thanks for taking the time today to listen to this podcast. Today we're speaking to Dr.


      Rob Perry, who is a gastroenterology Clinical Research Fellow based at Imperial College London. We're here to talk about the paper he's recently published here in the BJGP titled Evaluating the Role of Fecal Calprotectin in Older Adults.


      So thanks, Rob, for joining me here to talk about your work.


      And I guess I just really want to preface this by saying that a lot has changed in the last few years just in terms of testing for inflammatory bowel disease and bowel cancer in general practice. But I wonder if you could just talk us through this, some of the different guidelines and why you wanted to do this study.


      Speaker B

      00:00:49.660 - 00:02:24.450

      Oh, yes, thank you for having me.


      Firstly, and the rationale for the study is that, you know, consultations for gastrointestinal symptoms make up a large number of consultations in primary care. I think the figures around 10%.


      And whilst fecal cow protection is an increasingly well established test for differentiating between inflammatory bowel disease and functional or other gastrointestinal or non inflammatory gastrointestinal diseases, its role in older adults is far less well established.


      With varying guidelines for clinicians in primary care, the NICE guidelines make no specific mention, for example, of age, other than that calprotectin should not be used where age is considered a risk factor in the context of certain symptoms. For suspicion of cancer, the BSG guidelines on IBD use a cutoff of 40, above which they suggest calprotectin is not used.


      The something called the NICE York Fecal cow protectant care pathway suggests an age cut above 60, which is a NICE endorsed pathway. So there's some uncertainty there in the literature about which cutoff should be used for fecal cow protectin.


      And the reason any cutoff is suggested is because data has previously shown that calprotectin lacks sensitivity for diagnosing colorectal cancer.


      And as age is considered a risk factor for colorectal cancer, guidelines normally mandate earlier endoscopic evaluation of patients with GI symptoms in older age groups.


      Speaker A

      00:02:24.530 - 00:02:39.170

      And can you just talk us through briefly what you did here? So you looked at patients referred for a colonoscopy at one single centre, so at Imperial College Healthcare Trust.


      But just talk us through...

      Afficher plus Afficher moins
      15 min
    • Antidepressants in pregnancy: A closer look at miscarriage risk
      Nov 4 2025

      Today, we’re speaking to Flo Martin, an honorary research associate at the University of Bristol.

      Title of paper: First trimester antidepressant use and miscarriage: a comprehensive analysis in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD

      Available at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0092

      Antidepressant use during pregnancy is rising, with concerns from pregnant women that these medications may increase the risk of miscarriage if taken prenatally. Evidence is conflicting so we used the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a large repository of UK-based primary care data, and a range of methods to investigate antidepressant use during trimester one and risk of miscarriage.

      Transcript

      This transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.


      Speaker A

      00:00:00.240 - 00:00:52.800

      Hello and welcome to BJJP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the associate editors at the bjgp. Thanks for taking the time today to listen to this podcast.


      In today's episode, we're speaking to Dr. Flo Martin, an honorary research associate at the University of Bristol.


      We're here to look at the paper she's recently published here in the BJGP titled First Trimester Antidepressant Use and Miscarriage A Comprehensive Analysis in the Clinical Practice Research Data Link. Gold. So, hi, Flo, it's great to meet you and talk about this research.


      And I think this paper touches on an area that clinicians and women often approach with a bit of uncertainty, just in terms of prescribing safety, really, in pregnancy in general. But can you talk us through what we know already about prescribing for antidepressants and risk in pregnancy, just to frame what you've done here?


      Speaker B

      00:00:53.280 - 00:02:22.860

      Yeah, absolutely.


      So we actually did some work a couple of years ago doing a systematic review of the literature in this space, so looking at antidepressant use during pregnancy and the risk of miscarriage. And the work spanned the last kind of 30 years.


      And what we found was a 30% increase in risk of miscarriage following antidepressant use during pregnancy. And this was obviously kind of alarming to see this increase in risk. But the kind of key takeaway from the paper was not actually this finding.


      It was mostly the kind of variation in the literature that we observed when answering this question.


      We kind of were very cautious about interpreting this 30% increase in risk as a kind of true causal effect because we had observed these other things that might be driving the estimate kind of upwards and might not necessarily show the true effect that was happening in this population. So that was kind of the environment that we were existing in before we started the study.


      And it really informed the way that we wanted to do this study.


      So we thought it was really important to try and understand that baseline risk in both unexposed and exposed pregnancies, so that whatever we observed was contextualized against what the underlying risk was among those who hadn't been prescribed antidepressants.


      Speaker A

      00:02:23.500 - 00:02:58.120

      Yeah, fair enough.


      So this is a large analysis of the clinical practice research data link, and you looked at pregnancies between 1996 and 2016 and then followed up women who had been prescribed or not antidepressants and risk of miscarriage.


      And I think if people are specifically interested in how you did this, they can go back to the paper and look at some of the different methods you used. But I...

      Afficher plus Afficher moins
      10 min
    • Not one size fits all: Accessing menopause care in the NHS
      Oct 28 2025

      Today, we’re speaking to Claire Mann, a Research Fellow who is based at the University of Warwick, and Sarah Hillman, who is a GP and Clinical Associate Professor based at the University of Birmingham.

      Title of paper: Accessing Equitable Menopause Care in the Contemporary NHS – Women’s Experiences

      Available at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0781

      Menopause awareness has increased in recent years, as well as HRT use, however, this has not been experienced equally. Cultural influences such as stigma, preferences for non-medical approaches, perceptions of ailments appropriate for healthcare, lack of representation, work against women seeking help. GPs should not assume all women who would benefit from HRT will advocate for it. They ought to initiate discussions about potential HRT, as well as other approaches, with all presenting women who may benefit.

      Transcript

      This transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.


      Speaker A

      00:00:00.240 - 00:01:12.020

      Hello and welcome to BJGP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the Associate editors of the bjgp. Thanks for taking the time today to listen to this podcast.


      In today's episode, we're talking to Claire Mann, a research fellow who's based at the University of Warwick, and Sarah Hillman, who is a GP and Clinical Associate professor based at the University of Birmingham.


      We're here to discuss the recent paper published here in the BJGP titled Accessing Equitable Menopause Care in the Contemporary NHS Women's Experiences. Thanks, Claire and Sarah, for joining me here today to talk about this work.


      This study focuses particularly on the women's experience of menopause and accessing general practice and primary care. But I'll point out just before we begin that you've also published a linked paper looking at the clinician perspective.


      So anyone who's interested in that angle should look up your other paper. But back to this one. Sarah, I wonder if I could start with you first.


      I wonder if you could just talk us through the focus of the paper here and the kind of disparities that different women might face in accessing menopause care in the UK.


      Speaker B

      00:01:13.620 - 00:02:57.750

      Essentially, this work came about because in 2020, we published a piece of work in the BJGP that looked at prescribing a practice level of hrt.


      And what we found was that actually, if you were a patient at one of the most deprived practices in England, you were about a third less likely to be prescribed HRT than if you were in the most affluent. What we didn't have at that point in time was data at an individual level, just at a practice level.


      But it was important that work was done because that really pushed that forwards. But what we didn't understand was what was going on underneath that. So.


      So we asked the nihr, we wrote a grant for something called Research for Patient Benefit and said, look, we want to explore exactly why there is this disparity, because our feeling as researchers was that it wasn't straightforward and that there was a lot going on, both from the woman's perspective and the healthcare professional's perspective. And we really wanted to know exactly how that was all adding up to this gap in prescribing.


      What we did was we spoke to 40 women, but we were incredibly mindful that we wanted to speak to women that were less likely on paper to be prescribed hrt. So we tried to speak to women that were from more socially economically deprived areas and also black and South Asian women.


      So this project

      Afficher plus Afficher moins
      16 min
    Aucun commentaire pour le moment