What health inequalities exist in access to, outcomes from and experience of treatment for lung cancer? A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer (LC) continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related deaths and while there have been significant improvements in overall survival, this gain is not equally distributed. To address health inequalities (HIs), it is vital to identify whether and where they exist. This paper reviews existing literature on what HIs impact LC care and where these manifest on the care pathway. DESIGN: A systematic scoping review based on Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework. DATA SOURCES: Multiple databases (EMBASE, HMIC, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed) were used to retrieve articles. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Search limits were set to retrieve articles published between January 2012 and April 2022. Papers examining LC along with domains of HI were included. Two authors screened papers and independently assessed full texts. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: HIs were categorised according to: (a) HI domains: Protected Characteristics (PC); Socioeconomic and Deprivation Factors (SDF); Geographical Region (GR); Vulnerable or Socially Excluded Groups (VSG); and (b) where on the LC pathway (access to, outcomes from, experience of care) inequalities manifest. Data were extracted by two authors and collated in a spreadsheet for structured analysis and interpretation. RESULTS: 41 papers were included. The most studied domain was PC (32/41), followed by SDF (19/41), GR (18/41) and VSG (13/41). Most studies investigated differences in access (31/41) or outcomes (27/41), with few (4/41) exploring experience inequalities. Evidence showed race, rural residence and being part of a VSG impacted the access to LC diagnosis, treatment and supportive care. Additionally, rural residence, older age or male sex negatively impacted survival and mortality. The relationship between outcomes and other factors (eg, race, deprivation) showed mixed results. CONCLUSIONS: Findings offer an opportunity to reflect on the understanding of HIs in LC care and provide a platform to consider targeted efforts to improve equity of access, outcomes and experience for patients.

Patient perspectives of recovery after hip fracture: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the current review is to synthesize the evidence of patients' perspectives of recovery after hip fracture across the care continuum. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted, focusing on qualitative data from hip fracture patients. Screening, quality appraisal, and a subset of articles for extraction were completed in duplicate. Themes were generated using a thematic synthesis of data from original studies. RESULTS: Fourteen high-quality qualitative studies were included. Four review themes were identified: recovery as participation, feelings of vulnerability, driving recovery, and reliance on support. Patients considered recovery as a return to pre-fracture activities or "normal" enabling independence. Feelings of vulnerability were observed irrespective of the time since hip fracture and only diminished when recovery of function and activities enabled participation in valued activities, e.g., outdoor mobility. Participants expressed a desire to engage in recovery with realistic expectations and the benefits of meaningful feedback reported. While reliance on healthcare professionals decreased towards a later stage of recovery, reliance on social support persisted until recovery was perceived to have been achieved. CONCLUSION: Patient perspectives highlighted hip fracture as a major life event requiring health professional and social support to overcome feelings of vulnerability and enable active engagement in recovery.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONRehabilitation professionals should ensure expectations and goals are set early in the recovery process.Rehabilitation professionals should ensure goals set with patients are tailored to the individual's pre-fracture activities or "normal" promoting independence.Rehabilitation professionals should monitor goals ensuring they are providing support, motivation, and managing expectations across the care continuum.Rehabilitation professionals should address patients' feelings of vulnerability, particularly in the absence of social support, and ensure appropriate ongoing input to maximize recovery.

Orthopaedic physiotherapists' perceptions of mechanisms for observed variation in the implementation of physiotherapy practices in the early postoperative phase after hip fracture: a UK qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: to explore physiotherapists' perceptions of mechanisms to explain observed variation in early postoperative practice after hip fracture surgery demonstrated in a national audit. METHODS: a qualitative semi-structured interview study of 21 physiotherapists working on orthopaedic wards at seven hospitals with different durations of physiotherapy during a recent audit. Thematic analysis of interviews drawing on Normalisation Process Theory to aid interpretation of findings. RESULTS: four themes were identified: achieving protocolised and personalised care; patient and carer engagement; multidisciplinary team engagement across the care continuum and strategies for service improvement. Most expressed variation from protocol was legitimate when driven by what is deemed clinically appropriate for a given patient. This tailored approach was deemed essential to optimise patient and carer engagement. Participants reported inconsistent degrees of engagement from the multidisciplinary team attributing this to competing workload priorities, interpreting 'postoperative physiotherapy' as a single professional activity rather than a care delivery approach, plus lack of integration between hospital and community care. All participants recognised changes needed at both structural and process levels to improve their services. CONCLUSION: physiotherapists highlighted an inherent conflict between their intention to deliver protocolised care and allowing for an individual patient-tailored approach. This conflict has implications for how audit results should be interpreted, how future clinical guidelines are written and how physiotherapists are trained. Physiotherapists also described additional factors explaining variation in practice, which may be addressed through increased engagement of the multidisciplinary team and resources for additional staffing and advanced clinical roles.