'ThinkCancer!': randomised feasibility trial of a novel practice-based early cancer diagnosis intervention.

BACKGROUND: UK cancer deaths remain high; primary care is key for earlier cancer diagnosis as half of avoidable delays occur here. Improvement is possible through lower referral thresholds, better guideline adherence, and better safety-netting systems. Few interventions target whole practice teams. We developed a novel whole-practice team intervention to address this. AIM: To test the feasibility and acceptability of a novel, complex behavioural intervention, 'ThinkCancer!', for assessment in a subsequent Phase III trial. DESIGN & SETTING: Pragmatic, superiority pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis in Welsh general practices. METHOD: Clinical outcome data were collected from practices (the unit of randomisation). Practice characteristics and cancer safety-netting systems were assessed. Individual practice staff completed evaluation and feedback forms and qualitative interviews. The intervention was adapted and refined. RESULTS: Trial recruitment and workshop deliveries took place between March 2020 and May 2021. Trial progression criteria for recruitment, intervention fidelity, and routine data collection were met. Staff-level fidelity, retention, and individual level data collection processes were reviewed and amended. Interviews highlighted positive participant views on all aspects of the intervention. All practices set out to liberalise referral thresholds appropriately, implement guidelines, and address safety-netting plans in detail. CONCLUSION: 'ThinkCancer!' appears feasible and acceptable. The new iteration of the workshops was completed and the Phase III trial has been funded to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this novel professional behaviour change intervention. Delivery at scale to multiple practices will likely improve fidelity and reach.

The Diagnostic Pathway Experiences of People Living with Rare Dementia and Their Family Caregivers: A Cross-Sectional Mixed Methods Study Using Qualitative and Economic Analyses.

The pathways for receiving a diagnosis of a rare type of dementia are poorly understood. Diagnostic challenges decrease access to relevant health promotion activities and post-diagnostic support. This study was focused on pathways experienced by people affected by rare dementia in Wales, United Kingdom (UK), considering the practical, emotional, and economic consequences. Semi-structured interviews were completed with 10 people affected by rare dementia across Wales, UK (nine family caregivers and one person living with rare dementia). The interview data were subject to a thematic analysis and a bottom-up costing approach was used to cost the pathway journeys. Five transitional points occurred across the diagnostic pathway (initial contact, initial referral, further referrals-provider, further referrals-private, and diagnosis) alongside two further themes (i.e., involved in the diagnostic process and disputes between stakeholders). The timeliness of the diagnosis was perceived to often be subject to 'luck', with access to private healthcare a personal finance option to expedite the process. Higher economic costs were observed when, in retrospect, inappropriate referrals were made, or multiple referrals were required. The confusion and disputes relating to individual diagnostic pathways led to further emotional burdens, suggesting that higher economic costs and emotional consequences are interlinked. Clearer diagnostic pathways for rare dementia may prevent unnecessary service contacts, waiting times, and associated distress. Prioritising appropriate and timely service contacts leads to diagnosis and support to families and enables people to increase control over their health. Appropriate diagnostic pathways may be less costly and reduce costs for families.

Prevention of postpartum haemorrhage: Economic evaluation of the novel butterfly device in a UK setting.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the cost-effectiveness of a novel PPH device as compared with usual care. DESIGN: A decision analytical model was used to explore the cost-effectiveness of the PPH Butterfly device compared with usual care. This was part of a United Kingdom, UK, clinical trial ISRCTN15452399 using a matched historical cohort who had standard PPH management without the use of the PPH Butterfly device. The economic evaluation was conducted from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. SETTING: Liverpool Women's Hospital, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 57 women with 113 matched controls. INTERVENTION: The PPH Butterfly is a novel device that has been invented and developed in the UK to facilitate bimanual compression of the uterus in the treatment of PPH. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measures included healthcare costs, blood loss, and maternal morbidity events. RESULTS: Mean treatment costs in the Butterfly cohort were £3,459.66 as compared with standard care £3,223.93. Treatment with the Butterfly device resulted in decreased total blood loss in comparison with standard care. The Butterfly device had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3,795.78 per PPH progression avoided (defined as ≤ 1000 ml additional blood loss from device insertion point). If the NHS is prepared to pay £8,500 per PPH progression avoided, then the Butterfly device is cost-effective with a probability of 87 percent. In the PPH Butterfly treatment arm there were 9% fewer cases of massive obstetric haemorrhage (severe PPH of more than 2000mls or more than 4 units of blood transfusion required) recorded as compared with the standard care historical cohort. As a low-cost device, the PPH Butterfly device is cost-effective but can be cost-saving to the NHS. CONCLUSION: The PPH pathway can result in high-cost resource use such as blood transfusion or high dependence unit hospital stays. The Butterfly device is a relative low-cost device in a UK NHS setting with a high probability of being cost-effective. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) can use this evidence in considering the adoption of innovative technologies such as the Butterfly device in the NHS. Extrapolation on an international scale to lower and middle-income countries could prevent mortality associated with PPH.

General medical services by non-medical health professionals: a systematic quantitative review of economic evaluations in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Previous systematic reviews have found that nurses and pharmacists can provide equivalent, or higher, quality of care for some tasks performed by GPs in primary care. There is a lack of economic evidence for this substitution. AIM: To explore the costs and outcomes of role substitution between GPs and nurses, pharmacists, and allied health professionals in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of economic evaluations exploring role substitution of allied health professionals in primary care was conducted. Role substitution was defined as 'the substitution of work that was previously completed by a GP in the past and is now completed by a nurse or allied health professional'. METHOD: The following databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. The review followed guidance from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: Six economic evaluations were identified. There was some limited evidence that nurse-led care for common minor health problems was cost-effective compared with GP care, and that nurse-led interventions for chronic fatigue syndrome and pharmacy-led services for the medicines management of coronary heart disease and chronic pain were not. In South Korea, community health practitioners delivered primary care services for half the cost of physicians. The review did not identify studies for other allied health professionals such as physiotherapists and occupational therapists. CONCLUSION: There is limited economic evidence for role substitution in primary care; more economic evaluations are needed.