You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 7, Issue 11
  • ’Well, it literally stops me from having a life when it’s really bad': a nested qualitative interview study of patient views on the use of self-management treatments for the management of recurrent sinusitis (SNIFS trial)

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
General practice / Family practice
Research
’Well, it literally stops me from having a life when it’s really bad': a nested qualitative interview study of patient views on the use of self-management treatments for the management of recurrent sinusitis (SNIFS trial)
  1. Geraldine M Leydon1,
  2. Lisa McDermott2,
  3. Tammy Thomas1,
  4. Amy Halls1,
  5. Ben Holdstock-Brown1,
  6. Stephen Petley1,
  7. Clare Wiseman1,
  8. Paul Little1
  9. on behalf of the SNIFS Investigators
  1. 1 Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK
  2. 2 Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King’s College, 614, 6th Floor, Capital House, 42 Weston Street, London, SE1 3QD, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Geraldine M Leydon; gerry{at}soton.ac.uk

Abstract

Objective To explore the experience and perceptions of illness, the decision to consult a general practitioner and the use of self-management approaches for chronic or recurrent sinusitis.

Design Qualitative semistructured interview study.

Setting UK primary care.

Participants 32 participants who had been participating in the ‘SNIFS’ (Steam inhalation and Nasal Irrigation For recurrent Sinusitis) trial in the South of England.

Method Thematic analysis of semistructured telephone interviews.

Results Participants often reported dramatic impact on both activities and their quality of life. Participants were aware of both antibiotic side effects and resistance, but if they had previously been prescribed antibiotics, many patients believed that they would be necessary for the future treatment of sinusitis. Participants used self-help treatments for short and limited periods of time only. In the context of the trial, steam inhalation used for recurrent sinusitis was described as acceptable but is seen as having limited effectiveness. Nasal irrigation was viewed as acceptable and beneficial by more patients. However, some participants reported that they would not use the treatment again due to the uncomfortable side effects they experienced, which outweighed any symptom relief, which may have resulted had they continued.

Conclusions Steam inhalation is acceptable but seen as having limited effectiveness. Nasal irrigation is generally acceptable and beneficial for symptoms, but detailed information on the correct procedure and potential benefits of persisting may increase acceptability and adherence in those patients who find it uncomfortable.

Trial registration number ISRCTN 88204146.

  • primary care
  • qualitative research
  • sinusitis
  • antibiotics
  • self-help

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017130

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • GML and LMcD contributed equally.

    • Contributors GML led the qualitative work as part of the SNIFS trial. PL secured research funding and acted as overall PI of the SNIFS trial. TT facilitated coordination and recruitment with P Alexant and S Johnson. SP, BH-B, C Smith and CW collected interview data. All authors were involved in/commented on data analysis (led by GML and LMcD). AH progressed the manuscript and all authors contributed to its writing.

    • Funding The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research (grant no. RP-PG-0407-10098). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, NIHR or the Department of Health. The University of Southampton was the sponsor, but it had no role in the running of the study, the analysis or interpretation of the results or the preparation of the manuscript.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Ethics approval This study was given ethical approval by the Hampshire Rec B Research Ethics Committee (number 07/Q1704/69).

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement No additional data are available

    • Collaborators SNIFS Investigators: Universityof Southampton: Pat Alexant, Sophie Johnson, Chris Smith.