The nature and impact of patient and public involvement in cancer prevention, screening and early detection research: A systematic review.

Patient and public involvement can produce high-quality, relevant research that better addresses the needs of patients and their families. This systematic review investigated the nature and impact of patient and public involvement in cancer prevention, screening and early detection research. Two patient representatives were involved as members of the review team. Databases (Medline, EMBASE, Emcare, Involve Evidence Library) were searched for English-language studies published 1995-March 2022. Titles/abstracts were screened by two reviewers independently. For eligible studies, data were extracted on study characteristics, patient and public involvement (who, when, how, and impact on research outcomes), and reporting quality using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2-Short Form. Of 4095 articles screened, 58 were eligible. Most research was from the United States (81%) and examined cancer screening or prevention (82%). Community members/organisations/public were the most involved (71%); fewer studies involved patients and/or carers (14%). Over half reported a high-level of involvement (i.e. partner and/or expert involvement), although this declined in later stages of the research cycle, e.g. data analysis. Common positive impacts included improved study design, research methods and recruitment, although most papers (62%) did not describe methods to determine impact. Reporting quality was sub-optimal, largely due to failure to consider challenges. This review found that high-level involvement of patients and the public in cancer prevention, screening and early detection research is feasible and has several advantages. However, improvements are needed to encourage involvement across the research cycle, and in evaluating and reporting its impact.

Challenges and opportunities for using population health data to investigate cancer survivors' quality of life in Australia.

There is a recognised need for reported national data that inform health policy, health professions, and consumers about the wellbeing of Australians with cancer and other chronic conditions. International initiatives have demonstrated the viability and benefits of utilising population-based cancer registries to monitor the prevalence and trajectory of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes among people with cancer. Establishing a similar level of monitoring in Australia would require timely access to health data collected by publicly funded, population-based cancer registries, and the capacity to link this information across jurisdictions. Combining information from different sources via data linkage is an efficient and cost-effective way to maximise how data are used to inform population health and policy development. However, linking health datasets has historically been highly restricted, resource-intensive, and costly in Australia due to complex and outdated legislative requirements, duplicative approval processes, and differing policy frameworks in each state and territory. This has resulted in significant research waste due to underutilisation of existing data, duplication of research efforts and resources, and data not being translated into decision-making. Recognising these challenges, from 2015 to 2017 the Productivity Commission investigated options for improving data availability and use in Australia, considering factors such as privacy, security, and intellectual property. The inquiry report recommended significant reforms for Australian legislation, including the creation of a data sharing and release structure to improve access to data for research and policy development purposes. This paper discusses (1) opportunities in HRQOL research enabled by data linkage, (2) barriers to data access and use in Australia and the implications for waste in HRQOL research, and (3) proposed legislative reforms for improving data availability and use in Australia.

Should I Take Aspirin? (SITA): randomised controlled trial of a decision aid for cancer chemoprevention.

BACKGROUND: Australian guidelines recommend that people aged 50-70 years consider taking low-dose aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). AIM: To determine the effect of a consultation with a researcher before an appointment in general practice using a decision aid presenting the benefits and harms of taking low-dose aspirin compared with a general CRC prevention brochure on patients' informed decision making and low-dose aspirin use. DESIGN AND SETTING: Individually randomised controlled trial in six general practices in Victoria, Australia, from October 2020 to March 2021. METHOD: Participants were recruited from a consecutive sample of patients aged 50-70 years attending a GP. The intervention was a consultation using a decision aid to discuss taking aspirin to reduce CRC risk while control consultations discussed reducing CRC risk generally. Self-reported co-primary outcomes were the proportion of individuals making informed choices about taking aspirin at 1 month and on low-dose aspirin uptake at 6 months, respectively. The intervention effect was estimated using a generalised linear model and reported with Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values. RESULTS: A total of 261 participants (86% of eligible patients) were randomised into trial arms (n = 129 intervention; n = 132 control). Of these participants, 17.7% (n = 20/113) in the intervention group and 7.6% (n = 9/118) in the control group reported making an informed choice about taking aspirin at 1 month, an estimated 9.1% (95% CI = 0.29 to 18.5) between-arm difference in proportions (odds ratio [OR] 2.47, 97.5% CI = 0.94 to 6.52, P = 0.074). The proportions of individuals who reported taking aspirin at 6 months were 10.2% (n = 12/118) of the intervention group versus 13.8% (n = 16/116) of the control group, an estimated between-arm difference of -4.0% (95% CI = -13.5 to 5.5; OR 0.68 [97.5% CI = 0.27 to 1.70, P = 0.692]). CONCLUSION: The decision aid improved informed decision making but this did not translate into long-term regular use of aspirin to reduce CRC risk. In future research, decision aids should be delivered alongside various implementation strategies.

SCORE: a randomised controlled trial evaluating shared care (general practitioner and oncologist) follow-up compared to usual oncologist follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer.

Background: SCORE is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine shared oncologist and general practitioner (GP) follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC). SCORE aimed to show that shared care (SC) was non-inferior to usual care (UC) on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHQ-QoL) scale to 12 months. Methods: The study recruited patients from five public hospitals in Melbourne, Australia between February 2017 and May 2021. Patients post curative intent treatment for stage I-III CRC underwent 1:1 randomisation to SC and UC. SC replaced two oncologist visits with GP visits and included a survivorship care plan and primary care management guidelines. Assessments were at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Difference between groups on GHQ-QoL to 12 months was estimated from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), with a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of -10 points. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QoL); patient perceptions of care; costs and clinical care processes (CEA tests, recurrences). Registration ACTRN12617000004369p. Findings: 150 consenting patients were randomised to SC (N = 74) or UC (N = 76); 11 GPs declined. The mean (SD) GHQ-QoL scores at 12 months were 72 (20.2) for SC versus 73 (17.2) for UC. The MMRM mean estimate of GHQ-QoL across the 6 month and 12 month follow-up was 69 for SC and 73 for UC, mean difference -4.0 (95% CI: -9.0 to 0.9). The lower limit of the 95% CI did not cross the NIM. There was no clear evidence of differences on other QoL, unmet needs or satisfaction scales. At 12 months, the majority preferred SC (40/63; 63%) in the SC group, with equal preference for SC (22/62; 35%) and specialist care (22/62; 35%) in UC group. CEA completion was higher in SC. Recurrences similar between arms. Patients in SC on average incurred USD314 less in health costs versus UC patients. Interpretation: SC seems to be an appropriate and cost-effective model of follow-up for CRC survivors. Funding: Victorian Cancer Agency and Cancer Australia.

Consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services: A systematic review and meta-analysis of methods and effects.

To assess the effects of consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services. We updated a review published in 2006 and 2009 and revised the previous search strategies for key databases (The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Web of Science) up to February 2020. Selection criteria included randomised controlled trials assessing consumer engagement in developing health care policy, research, or health services. The International Association for Public Participation, Spectrum of Public Participation was used to identify, describe, compare and analyse consumer engagement. Outcome measures were effects on people; effects on the policy/research/health care services; or process outcomes. We included 23 randomised controlled trials with a moderate or high risk of bias, involving 136,265 participants. Most consumer engagement strategies adopted a consultative approach during the development phase of interventions, targeted to health services. Based on four large cluster-randomised controlled trials, there is evidence that consumer engagement in the development and delivery of health services to enhance the care of pregnant women results in a reduction in neonatal, but not maternal, mortality. From other trials, there is evidence that involving consumers in developing patient information material results in material that is more relevant, readable and understandable for patients, and can improve knowledge. Mixed effects are reported of consumer-engagement on the development and/or implementation of health professional training. There is some evidence that using consumer interviewers instead of staff in satisfaction surveys can have a small influence on the results. There is some evidence that consumers may have a role in identifying a broader range of health care priorities that are complementary to those from professionals. There is some evidence that consumer engagement in monitoring and evaluating health services may impact perceptions of patient safety or quality of life. There is growing evidence from randomised controlled trials of the effects of consumer engagement on the relevance and positive outcomes of health policy, research and services. Health care consumers, providers, researchers and funders should continue to employ evidence-informed consumer engagement in their jurisdictions, with embedded evaluation. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018102595.

Depression after cardiac hospitalisation--the Identifying Depression as a Comorbid Condition (IDACC) study.

BACKGROUND: The Identifying Depression as a Comorbid Condition (IDACC) study aimed to identify depressive symptoms in hospitalised cardiac patients and support management of depression in general practice. OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis of the IDACC trial examines the effectiveness and practicality of different forms of communication between hospital psychiatric services and general practitioners. METHODS: We randomised 669 cardiac inpatients with depressive symptoms, identified with the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), to an intervention or usual care control group. Individual depression scores and depression management guidelines were sent to GPs of all intervention patients. Where possible, psychiatric advice was provided to the GP either by multidisciplinary enhanced primary care case conference or one-to-one telephone advice. RESULTS: Multidisciplinary case conferences were implemented for only 24% of intervention patients. General practitioners received individual telephone advice in 40% of cases, and 36% received written information only. The psychiatrist telephone advice resulted in a significant reduction in the proportion of patients with moderate to severe depression 12 months after cardiac hospitalisation (19% vs. 35%). DISCUSSION: Screening, combined with psychiatrist telephone advice to GPs, was simple to organise and effective in reducing depression severity after cardiac admission.

Effect of psychiatry liaison with general practitioners on depression severity in recently hospitalised cardiac patients: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect on depressive symptoms in cardiac patients of patient-specific advice to general practitioners regarding management of comorbid depression. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomised controlled trial in four general hospitals in Adelaide, South Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (n = 669) admitted to cardiology units for a range of cardiovascular conditions who were screened and assessed as being depressed according to the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). INTERVENTION: Inpatient psychiatric review, followed by telephone case conferencing between specialist hospital staff and GPs to provide patient-specific information about the patient's depression and its management, educational material, and ongoing clinical support. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Level of depression severity at 12 months post-hospitalisation. RESULTS: On the basis of intention to treat, intervention patients had lower rates of moderate to severe depression (CES-D > or = 27) after 12 months (25% v 35%, relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96, number needed to treat for benefit, 11). The intervention was most effective in preventing progression from mild depression to moderate to severe depression. The multidisciplinary telephone case conferencing was difficult to implement and, in a post hoc analysis, brief phone advice from a psychiatrist was found to be effective. CONCLUSIONS: Screening hospitalised cardiac patients for depression and providing targeted advice to their GPs reduces depression severity 12 months after hospitalisation.