Understanding who benefits most from cognitive rehabilitation for multiple sclerosis: A secondary data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Up to 70% of people with multiple sclerosis (MS) experience cognitive difficulties. Cognitive rehabilitation is a type of therapy that helps manage cognitive problems. OBJECTIVE: The Cognitive Rehabilitation for Attention and Memory in MS (CRAMMS) trial showed some evidence of effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation in improving cognitive function, with some participants benefitting more than others. We therefore conducted a secondary analysis of the CRAMMS data to understand who benefits most. METHODS: We grouped baseline data into four categories of possible predictors. We used regression models to identify specific factors/characteristics that could predict the likelihood that an individual will benefit from cognitive rehabilitation. RESULTS: The models predicted whether a participant improved or did not improve in neuropsychological function following cognitive rehabilitation in up to 86% of participants. Results suggest that younger participants with medium to high education, diagnosed with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and primary-progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) who have not experienced any recent relapses, with mild to moderate cognitive difficulties were most likely to benefit from cognitive rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: We can predict which participants are most likely to demonstrate significant improvements in neuropsychological function following group-based cognitive rehabilitation. Clinically, this allows us to optimise limited neuropsychology resources by offering such cognitive rehabilitation to those most likely to benefit.

Psychological impact of lung cancer screening using a novel antibody blood test followed by imaging: the ECLS randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Early CDT®-Lung antibody blood test plus serial computed tomography scans for test-positives (TPGs) reduces late-stage lung cancer presentation. This study assessed the psychological outcomes of this approach. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial (n = 12 208) comparing psychological outcomes 1-12 months post-recruitment in a subsample (n = 1032) of TPG, test-negative (TNG) and control groups (CG). RESULTS: Compared to TNG, TPG had lower positive affect (difference between means (DBM), 3 months (3m: -1.49 (-2.65, - 0.33)), greater impact of worries (DBM 1m: 0.26 (0.05, 0.47); 3m: 0.28 (0.07, 0.50)), screening distress (DBM 1m: 3.59 (2.28, 4.90); 3m: 2.29 (0.97, 3.61); 6m: 1.94 (0.61, 3.27)), worry about tests (odds ratio (OR) 1m: 5.79 (2.66, 12.63) and more frequent lung cancer worry (OR 1m: 2.52 (1.31, 4.83); 3m: 2.43 (1.26, 4.68); 6m: 2.87 (1.48, 5.60)). Compared to CG, TPG had greater worry about tests (OR 1m: 3.40 (1.69, 6.84)). TNG had lower negative affect (log-transformed DBM 3m: -0.08 (-0.13, -0.02)), higher positive affect (DBM 1m: 1.52 (0.43, 2.61); 3m: 1.43 (0.33, 2.53); 6m: 1.27 (0.17, 2.37)), less impact of worries (DBM 3m: -0.27 (-0.48, -0.07)) and less-frequent lung cancer worry (OR 3m: 0.49 (0.26, 0.92)). CONCLUSIONS: Negative psychological effects in TPG and positive effects in TNG were short-lived and most differences were small.

Factors influencing the decision to attend screening for cancer in the UK: a meta-ethnography of qualitative research.

Background: This review aimed to better understand experiences of being invited to cancer screening and associated decision-making. Methods: Qualitative evidence explaining UK cancer screening attendance decisions was systematically identified. Data were extracted and meta-ethnography used to identify shared themes, synthesize findings and generate higher level interpretations. Results: Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria. They related to uptake of breast, cervical, colorectal, prostate, ovarian and lung cancer screening. Three primary themes emerged from the synthesis. 'Relationships with the health service' shaped decisions, influenced by trust, compliance with power, resistance to control or surveillance and perceived failures to meet cultural, religious and language needs. 'Fear of cancer screening' was both a motivator and barrier in different ways and to varying degrees. Strategies to negotiate moderate fear levels were evident. 'Experiences of risk' included the creation of alternative personal risk discourses and the use of screening as a coping strategy, influenced by disease beliefs and feelings of health and wellness. Conclusions: The findings highlight the importance of the provider-patient relationship in screening uptake and enrich our understanding of how fear and risk are experienced and negotiated. This knowledge can help promote uptake and improve the effectiveness of cancer screening.