Hidden systems in primary care cancer detection: an embedded qualitative intervention development study.

BACKGROUND: UK cancer mortality is worse than in many other high-income countries, partly because of diagnostic delays in primary care. AIM: To understand beliefs and behaviours of GPs, and systems of general practice teams, to inform the Think Cancer! intervention development. DESIGN AND SETTING: An embedded qualitative study guided by behaviour change models (COM-B [Capability, Opportunity, Motivation - Behaviour] and theoretical domains framework [TDF]) in primary care in Wales, UK. METHOD: Twenty qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews with GPs were undertaken and four face-to-face focus groups held with practice teams. Framework analysis was used and results were mapped to multiple, overlapping components of COM-B and TDF. RESULTS: Three themes illustrate complex, multilevel referral considerations facing GPs and practice teams; external influences and constraints; and the role of practice systems and culture. Tensions emerged between individual considerations of GPs (Capability and Motivation) and context-dependent external pressures (Opportunity). Detecting cancer was guided not only by external requirements, but also by motivational factors GPs described as part of their cancer diagnostics process. External influences on the diagnosis process often resulted from the primary-secondary care interface and social pressures. GPs adapted their behaviour to deal with this disconnect. Positive practice culture and supportive practice-based systems ameliorated these tensions and complexity. CONCLUSION: By exploring individual GP behaviours together with practice systems and culture we contribute new understanding about how cancer diagnosis operates in primary care and how delays can be improved. We highlight commonly overlooked dynamics and tensions that are experienced by GPs as a tension between individual decision making (Capability and Motivation) and external considerations, such as pressures in secondary care (Opportunity).

Rationalisation of long-term high-dose opioids for chronic pain: development of an intervention and conceptual framework.

There has been a large increase in the number of prescriptions for opioid drugs in the United Kingdom over the last 20 years or more and the prescribing of opioids in high doses continues to increase. Much opioid prescribing is for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) despite serious doubts about the long-term effectiveness of opioids for this indication. Clinical experience is that there are increasing numbers of patients who are on high dosages of opioid drugs over sustained periods which provide limited or no pain relief while having significant negative effects on functioning and quality of life. The aim of this article is to bring readers' attention to some clinical observations of the CNCP population with high doses and to describe an intervention to reduce these doses. Many of these patients have no clinical features of addiction; we suggest that those who show little or no substance misuse behaviours are best understood as a distinct clinical population who have different treatment needs. In order to understand and treat these patients, a model is required which, rather than seeing the problem as lying solely with the patient, focuses on the interaction between the individual and his or her environment and seeks a change in what the patient does every day, rather than a simple, and largely unattainable, goal of symptom elimination. The clinician authors worked together to develop an intervention based upon approaches taken from both pain management and psychiatric practice. A detailed description of this rapid opioid reduction intervention (RORI) is provided along with some preliminary outcome data.

Pragmatic methods for reviewing exceptionally large bodies of evidence: systematic mapping review and overview of systematic reviews using lung cancer survival as an exemplar.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer (LC) is the most common cause of cancer death in the world and associated with significant economic burden. We conducted a review of published literature to identify prognostic factors associated with LC survival and determine which may be modifiable and could be targeted to improve outcomes. METHODS: The exceptionally large volume of LC prognostic research required a new staged approach to reviewing the literature. This comprised an initial mapping review of existing reviews or meta-analyses, based on titles and abstracts, followed by an overview of systematic reviews evaluating factors that independently contribute to lung cancer survival. The overview of reviews was based on full text papers and incorporated a more in-depth assessment of reviews evaluating modifiable factors. RESULTS: A large volume of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified, but very few focused on modifiable factors for LC survival. Several modifiable factors were identified, which are potential candidates for targeted interventions aiming to improve cancer outcomes. The mapping review included 398 reviews, of which 207 investigated the independent effect of prognostic factors on lung cancer survival. The most frequently evaluated factors were novel biomarkers (86 biomarkers in 138 reviews). Only 15 modifiable factors were investigated in 20 reviews. Those associated with significant survival improvement included normal BMI/less weight loss, good performance status, not smoking/quitting after diagnosis, good pre-treatment quality of life, small gross volume tumour, early-stage tumour, lung resection undertaken by a thoracic/cardiothoracic surgeon, care being discussed by a multidisciplinary team, and timeliness of care. CONCLUSIONS: The study utilised a novel approach for reviewing an extensive and complicated body of research evidence. It enabled us to address a broad research question and focus on a specific area of priority. The staged approach ensured the review remained relevant to the stakeholders throughout, whilst maintaining the use of objective and transparent methods. It also provided important information on the needs of future research. However, it required extensive planning, management, and ongoing reviewer training.

A lifestyle management programme focused on exercise, diet and physiotherapy support for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis and a body mass index over 35: A qualitative study.

The Lifestyle Management Programme (LMP) is an exercise and weight management programme with physiotherapy support for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) and a body mass index (BMI) over 35. This qualitative study explored views and experiences of the LMP among patients and professionals, and offers insight for future programmes. Five referring clinicians and six delivering professionals participated in focus groups. Three referring GPs and nine patients who attended the LMP took part in semi-structured interviews. Topics included: referral, reasons for taking up and continuing the programme or not, and experiences and outcomes. Framework method was used to analyse the qualitative data. Overall, patients and professionals valued the multidisciplinary nature of the LMP. However, professionals explained feeling guilty about delaying patients on the orthopaedic waiting list and believed that the programme should be redirected to those with less severe OA and a lower BMI. Referring clinicians differed in their interpretation of the referral criteria and expressed varying levels of autonomy when making referrals. Patients referred after a consultation with their general practitioner appeared to be more satisfied with the referral process. Patients were also encouraged by the opportunity to improve health, their likelihood of surgery and social benefits. However, patients were discouraged by inconvenience, cost, lack of readiness to change and embarrassment. In conclusion, shared decision-making about lifestyle management without delaying orthopaedic opinion is preferable, and more psychological support may increase participation. Importantly, the programme may be better focused on rehabilitation for patients with a lower BMI and less severe symptoms.

Development of an intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis through primary care: a protocol.

BACKGROUND: GPs can play an important role in achieving earlier cancer diagnosis to improve patient outcomes, for example through prompt use of the urgent suspected cancer referral pathway. Barriers to early diagnosis include individual practitioner variation in knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, professional expectations, and norms. AIM: This programme of work (Wales Interventions and Cancer Knowledge about Early Diagnosis [WICKED]) will develop a behaviour change intervention to expedite diagnosis through primary care and contribute to improved cancer outcomes. DESIGN & SETTING: Non-experimental mixed-method study with GPs and primary care practice teams from Wales. METHOD: Four work packages will inform the development of the behaviour change intervention. Work package 1 will identify relevant evidence-based interventions (systematic review of reviews) and will determine why interventions do or do not work, for whom, and in what circumstances (realist review). Work package 2 will assess cancer knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour of GPs, as well as primary care teams' perspectives on cancer referral and investigation (GP survey, discrete choice experiment [DCE], interviews, and focus groups). Work package 3 will synthesise findings from earlier work packages using the behaviour change wheel as an overarching theoretical framework to guide intervention development. Work package 4 will test the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, and determine methods for measuring costs and effects of subsequent behaviour change in a randomised feasibility trial. RESULTS: The findings will inform the design of a future effectiveness trial, with concurrent economic evaluation, aimed at earlier diagnosis. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive, evidence-based programme will develop a complex GP behaviour change intervention to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer, and may be applicable to countries with similar healthcare systems.

Talking about human papillomavirus and cancer: development of consultation guides through lay and professional stakeholder coproduction using qualitative, quantitative and secondary data.

BACKGROUND: High-risk human papillomaviruses (HPVs) cause all cervical cancer and the majority of vulvar, vaginal, anal, penile and oropharyngeal cancers. Although HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection, public awareness of this is poor. In addition, many clinicians lack adequate knowledge or confidence to discuss sexual transmission and related sensitive issues. Complex science needs to be communicated in a clear, digestible, honest and salient way. Therefore, the aim of this study was to coproduce with patients who have cancer appropriate resources to guide these highly sensitive and difficult consultations. METHODS: A matrix of evidence developed from a variety of sources, including a systematic review and telephone interviews with clinicians, supported the production of a draft list of approximately 100 potential educational messages. These were refined in face-to-face patient interviews using card-sorting techniques, and tested in cognitive debrief interviews to produce a â€Ëœfast and frugal’ knowledge tool. RESULTS: We developed three versions of a consultation guide, each comprising a clinician guidance sheet and patient information leaflet for gynaecological (cervical, vaginal, vulvar), anal or oropharyngeal cancers. That cancer could be caused by a sexually transmitted virus acquired many years previously was surprising to many and shocking to a few patients. However, they found the information clear, helpful and reassuring. Clinicians acknowledged a lack of confidence in explaining HPV, welcomed the clinician guidance sheets and considered printed information for patients particularly useful. CONCLUSION: Because of the â€Ëœshock factor’, clinicians will need to approach the discussion of HPV with sensitivity and take individual needs and preferences into account, but we provide a novel, rigorously developed and tested resource which should have broad applicability in the UK National Health Service and other health systems.

Talking about human papillomavirus and cancer: protocol for a patient-centred study to develop scripted consultations.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent infection with sexually transmitted, high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types is the cause of all cervical cancers and some anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers. HPV is an extremely common asymptomatic infection but little known and poorly understood by the public. Patients with HPV-related cancers have new and challenging information needs due to the complex natural history of HPV and the stigma of sexual transmission. They may ask questions that are outside the remit of the traditional cancer consultation, and there is a lack of guidance on how to counsel them. This study aims to fulfil that need by developing and testing cancer site-specific scripted consultations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A synthesis of findings generated from previous work, a systematic review of information-based interventions for patients with HPV-related cancers, and interviews with cancer clinicians will provide the evidence base underpinning provisional messages. These will be explored in three phases of face-to-face interviews with 75-90 purposively selected patients recruited in cancer clinics to: (1) select and prioritise the most salient messages, (2) phrase the messages appropriately in plain English and, (3) test their acceptability and usefulness. Phases 1 and 2 will draw on card-sorting methods used in website design. In phase three, we will create cancer site-specific versions of the script and test them using cognitive interviewing techniques. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The final product will be cancer-specific scripted consultations, most likely in the form of a two-sided information sheet with the most important messages to be conveyed in a consultation on one side, and frequently asked questions for later reading on the reverse. However, they will also be appropriate and readily adaptable to web-based uses.

Comparative clinical effectiveness of management strategies for sciatica: systematic review and network meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: There are numerous treatment approaches for sciatica. Previous systematic reviews have not compared all these strategies together. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of different treatment strategies for sciatica simultaneously. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched 28 electronic databases and online trial registries, along with bibliographies of previous reviews for comparative studies evaluating any intervention to treat sciatica in adults, with outcome data on global effect or pain intensity. Network meta-analysis methods were used to simultaneously compare all treatment strategies and allow indirect comparisons of treatments between studies. The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; there are no potential conflict of interests. RESULTS: We identified 122 relevant studies; 90 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs. Interventions were grouped into 21 treatment strategies. Internal and external validity of included studies was very low. For overall recovery as the outcome, compared with inactive control or conventional care, there was a statistically significant improvement following disc surgery, epidural injections, nonopioid analgesia, manipulation, and acupuncture. Traction, percutaneous discectomy, and exercise therapy were significantly inferior to epidural injections or surgery. For pain as the outcome, epidural injections and biological agents were significantly better than inactive control, but similar findings for disc surgery were not statistically significant. Biological agents were significantly better for pain reduction than bed rest, nonopioids, and opioids. Opioids, education/advice alone, bed rest, and percutaneous discectomy were inferior to most other treatment strategies; although these findings represented large effects, they were statistically equivocal. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, many different treatment strategies for sciatica have been compared in the same systematic review and meta-analysis. This approach has provided new data to assist shared decision-making. The findings support the effectiveness of nonopioid medication, epidural injections, and disc surgery. They also suggest that spinal manipulation, acupuncture, and experimental treatments, such as anti-inflammatory biological agents, may be considered. The findings do not provide support for the effectiveness of opioid analgesia, bed rest, exercise therapy, education/advice (when used alone), percutaneous discectomy, or traction. The issue of how best to estimate the effectiveness of treatment approaches according to their order within a sequential treatment pathway remains an important challenge.

Cost-effectiveness of different strategies to manage patients with sciatica.

The aim of this paper is to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of treatment regimens for managing patients with sciatica. A deterministic model structure was constructed based on information from the findings from a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, published sources of unit costs, and expert opinion. The assumption was that patients presenting with sciatica would be managed through one of 3 pathways (primary care, stepped approach, immediate referral to surgery). Results were expressed as incremental cost per patient with symptoms successfully resolved. Analysis also included incremental cost per utility gained over a 12-month period. One-way sensitivity analyses were used to address uncertainty. The model demonstrated that none of the strategies resulted in 100% success. For initial treatments, the most successful regime in the first pathway was nonopioids, with a probability of success of 0.613. In the second pathway, the most successful strategy was nonopioids, followed by biological agents, followed by epidural/nerve block and disk surgery, with a probability of success of 0.996. Pathway 3 (immediate surgery) was not cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses identified that the use of the highest cost estimates results in a similar overall picture. While the estimates of cost per quality-adjusted life year are higher, the economic model demonstrated that stepped approaches based on initial treatment with nonopioids are likely to represent the most cost-effective regimens for the treatment of sciatica. However, development of alternative economic modelling approaches is required.

Patient-reported measurement of time to diagnosis in cancer: development of the Cancer Symptom Interval Measure (C-SIM) and randomised controlled trial of method of delivery.

BACKGROUND: The duration between first symptom and a cancer diagnosis is important because, if shortened, may lead to earlier stage diagnosis and improved cancer outcomes. We have previously developed a tool to measure this duration in newly-diagnosed patients. In this two-phase study, we aimed further improve our tool and to conduct a trial comparing levels of anxiety between two modes of delivery: self-completed versus researcher-administered. METHODS: In phase 1, ten patients completed the modified tool and participated in cognitive debrief interviews. In phase 2, we undertook a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) of the revised tool (Cancer Symptom Interval Measure (C-SIM)) in three hospitals for 11 different cancers. Respondents were invited to provide either exact or estimated dates of first noticing symptoms and presenting them to primary care. The primary outcome was anxiety related to delivery mode, with completeness of recording as a secondary outcome. Dates from a subset of patients were compared with GP records. RESULTS: After analysis of phase 1 interviews, the wording and format were improved. In phase 2, 201 patients were randomised (93 self-complete and 108 researcher-complete). Anxiety scores were significantly lower in the researcher-completed group, with a mean rank of 83.5; compared with the self-completed group, with a mean rank of 104.0 (Mann-Whitney U = 3152, p = 0.007). Completeness of data was significantly better in the researcher-completed group, with no statistically significant difference in time taken to complete the tool between the two groups. When comparing the dates in the patient questionnaires with those in the GP records, there was evidence in the records of a consultation on the same date or within a proscribed time window for 32/37 (86%) consultations; for estimated dates there was evidence for 23/37 consultations (62%). CONCLUSIONS: We have developed and tested a tool for collecting patient-reported data relating to appraisal intervals, help-seeking intervals, and diagnostic intervals in the cancer diagnostic pathway for 11 separate cancers, and provided evidence of its acceptability, feasibility and validity. This is a useful tool to use in descriptive and epidemiological studies of cancer diagnostic journeys, and causes less anxiety if administered by a researcher.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of biological treatments targeting tumour necrosis factor α for sciatica.

PURPOSE: Systematic review comparing biological agents, targeting tumour necrosis factor α, for sciatica with placebo and alternative interventions. METHODS: We searched 21 electronic databases and bibliographies of included studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs and controlled observational studies of adults who had sciatica treated by biological agents compared with placebo or alternative interventions. RESULTS: We pooled the results of six studies (five RCTs and one non-RCT) in meta-analyses. Compared with placebo biological agents had: better global effects in the short-term odds ratio (OR) 2.0 (95 % CI 0.7-6.0), medium-term OR 2.7 (95 % CI 1.0-7.1) and long-term OR 2.3 [95 % CI 0.5 to 9.7); improved leg pain intensity in the short-term weighted mean difference (WMD) -13.6 (95 % CI -26.8 to -0.4), medium-term WMD -7.0 (95 % CI -15.4 to 1.5), but not long-term WMD 0.2 (95 % CI -20.3 to 20.8); improved Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in the short-term WMD -5.2 (95 % CI -14.1 to 3.7), medium-term WMD -8.2 (95 % CI -14.4 to -2.0), and long-term WMD -5.0 (95 % CI -11.8 to 1.8). There was heterogeneity in the leg pain intensity and ODI results and improvements were no longer statistically significant when studies were restricted to RCTs. There was a reduction in the need for discectomy, which was not statistically significant, and no difference in the number of adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to recommend these agents when treating sciatica, but sufficient evidence to suggest that larger RCTs are needed.