Informing evidence-based policy during the COVID-19 pandemic and recovery period: learning from a national evidence centre.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the vital need for research to inform policy decision-making and save lives. The Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre (WCEC) was established in March 2021 and funded for two years, to make evidence about the impact of the pandemic and ongoing research priorities for Wales available and actionable to policy decision-makers, service leads and the public. OBJECTIVES: We describe the approaches we developed and our experiences, challenges and future vision. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION: The centre operated with a core team, including a public partnership group, and six experienced research groups as collaborating partners. Our rapid evidence delivery process had five stages: 1. Stakeholder engagement (continued throughout all stages); 2. Research question prioritisation; 3. Bespoke rapid evidence review methodology in a phased approach; 4. Rapid primary research; and 5. Knowledge Mobilisation to ensure the evidence was available for decision-makers. MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS: Between March 2021-23 we engaged with 44 stakeholder groups, completed 35 Rapid Evidence Reviews, six Rapid Evidence Maps and 10 Rapid Evidence Summaries. We completed four primary research studies, with three published in peer reviewed journals, and seven ongoing. Our evidence informed policy decision-making and was cited in 19 Welsh Government papers. These included pandemic infection control measures, the Action Plan to tackle gender inequalities, and Education Renew and Reform policy. We conducted 24 Welsh Government evidence briefings and three public facing symposia. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Strong engagement with stakeholder groups, a phased rapid evidence review approach, and primary research to address key gaps in current knowledge enabled high-quality efficient, evidence outputs to be delivered to help inform Welsh policy decision-making during the pandemic. We learn from these processes to continue to deliver evidence from March 2023 as the Health and Care Research Wales Evidence Centre, with a broader remit of health and social care, to help inform policy and practice decisions during the recovery phase and beyond.

Methodological approaches to measuring mental health in a cost-of-living crisis: A rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Cost-of-living crises are damaging to population mental health and require a public health response. It is important to assess whether public health interventions are effective. We aimed to identify population-level methods and measures and the appropriateness of the measures for vulnerable populations. METHODS: A rapid evidence review was undertaken. Nineteen databases, including grey literature, were searched for evidence published between 1970 and April 2023. RESULTS: Seven reviews, nine primary studies and two reports from grey literature were identified. Methods consisted of analyses of existing data from national or regional cohort studies, household panel surveys, repeated cross-sectional surveys, routine medical data, or data on suicide death rates. Twelve brief validated mental health measurement tools, embedded in population-level surveys, were identified. Two quasi-experimental studies used data from a UK household panel survey to examine the impact of the introduction of specific welfare policies on mental health. Studies identified socio-economic vulnerabilities, but it was not possible to determine whether data were effectively captured from people from minority ethnic groups. CONCLUSION: Population-level surveys can be used in quasi-experimental studies to measure the effects of a public health initiative with specific roll out dates to tackle cost-of-living impacts. It is unclear as to whether the identified methods and tools are suitable for use with people from minority ethnic groups.

The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Community Diagnostic Centres: A Rapid Review.

Objectives: To examine the effectiveness of community diagnostic centres as a potential solution to increasing capacity and reducing pressure on secondary care in the UK. Methods: A comprehensive search for relevant primary studies was conducted in a range of electronic sources in August 2022. Screening and critical appraisal were undertaken by two independent reviewers. There were no geographical restrictions or limits to year of publication. A narrative synthesis approach was used to analyse data and present findings. Results: Twenty primary studies evaluating twelve individual diagnostic centres were included. Most studies were specific to cancer diagnosis and evaluated diagnostic centres located within hospitals. The evidence of effectiveness appeared mixed. There is evidence to suggest diagnostic centres can reduce various waiting times and reduce pressure on secondary care. However, cost-effectiveness may depend on whether the diagnostic centre is running at full capacity. Most included studies used weak methodologies that may be inadequate to infer effectiveness. Conclusion: Further well-designed, quality research is needed to better understand the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community diagnostic centres.

Effectiveness and safety of asynchronous telemedicine consultations in general practice: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is a focus on increasing asynchronous telemedicine use, which allows medical data to be transmitted, stored, and interpreted later; however, limited evidence of the quality of care it allows in general practice hinders its use. AIM: To investigate uses and effectiveness of asynchronous telemedicine in general practice, according to the domains of healthcare quality, and describe how the COVID-19 pandemic changed its use. DESIGN & SETTING: Systematic review in general practice. METHOD: A systematic search was carried out across four databases using terms related to general practice, asynchronous telemedicine, uses, and effectiveness, and supported by citation searching. This was followed by screening according to pre-defined criteria, data extraction, and critical appraisal. Narrative synthesis was then undertaken guided by the six domains of healthcare quality and exploring differences in use before and following the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Searches yielded 6864 reports; 27 reports from 23 studies were included. Asynchronous telemedicine is used by a range of staff and patients across many countries. Safety and equity are poorly reported but there were no major safety concerns. Evidence from other domains of healthcare quality show effectiveness in making diagnoses, prescribing medications, replacing other consultations, providing timely care, and increased convenience for patients. Efficiency is impacted by negative effects on workflow, through poor implementation and patient non-adherence, limiting usability and requiring new administrative approaches from healthcare staff. Asynchronous telemedicine use increased rapidly from March 2020, following the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. CONCLUSION: Asynchronous telemedicine provides quality care for patients but is limited by reports of increased workload and inefficient workflow compared with face-to-face consultations. Limits of evidence include heterogeneity and small-scale studies. Further research into cost-effectiveness, equity, safety, and sustained implementation will influence future policy and practice.

The cost of implementing the COVID-19 shielding policy in Wales.

BACKGROUND: The EVITE Immunity study investigated the effects of shielding Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) people during the COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes and healthcare costs in Wales, United Kingdom, to help prepare for future pandemics. Shielding was intended to protect those at highest risk of serious harm from COVID-19. We report the cost of implementing shielding in Wales. METHODS: The number of people shielding was extracted from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. Resources supporting shielding between March and June 2020 were mapped using published reports, web pages, freedom of information requests to Welsh Government and personal communications (e.g. with the office of the Chief Medical Officer for Wales). RESULTS: At the beginning of shielding, 117,415 people were on the shielding list. The total additional cost to support those advised to stay home during the initial 14 weeks of the pandemic was £13,307,654 (£113 per person shielded). This included the new resources required to compile the shielding list, inform CEV people of the shielding intervention and provide medicine and food deliveries. The list was adjusted weekly over the 3-month period (130,000 people identified by June 2020). Therefore the cost per person shielded lies between £102 and £113 per person. CONCLUSION: This is the first evaluation of the cost of the measures put in place to support those identified to shield in Wales. However, no data on opportunity cost was available. The true costs of shielding including its budget impact and opportunity costs need to be investigated to decide whether shielding is a worthwhile policy for future health emergencies.

Analysis of applying a patient safety taxonomy to patient and clinician-reported incident reports during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in major disruption to healthcare delivery worldwide causing medical services to adapt their standard practices. Learning how these adaptations result in unintended patient harm is essential to mitigate against future incidents. Incident reporting and learning system data can be used to identify areas to improve patient safety. A classification system is required to make sense of such data to identify learning and priorities for further in-depth investigation. The Patient Safety (PISA) classification system was created for this purpose, but it is not known if classification systems are sufficient to capture novel safety concepts arising from crises like the pandemic. We aimed to review the application of the PISA classification system during the COVID-19 pandemic to appraise whether modifications were required to maintain its meaningful use for the pandemic context. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study integrating two phases in an exploratory, sequential design. This included a comparative secondary analysis of patient safety incident reports from two studies conducted during the first wave of the pandemic, where we coded patient-reported incidents from the UK and clinician-reported incidents from France. The findings were presented to a focus group of experts in classification systems and patient safety, and a thematic analysis was conducted on the resultant transcript. RESULTS: We identified five key themes derived from the data analysis and expert group discussion. These included capitalising on the unique perspective of safety concerns from different groups, that existing frameworks do identify priority areas to investigate further, the objectives of a study shape the data interpretation, the pandemic spotlighted long-standing patient concerns, and the time period in which data are collected offers valuable context to aid explanation. The group consensus was that no COVID-19-specific codes were warranted, and the PISA classification system was fit for purpose. CONCLUSIONS: We have scrutinised the meaningful use of the PISA classification system's application during a period of systemic healthcare constraint, the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these constraints, we found the framework can be successfully applied to incident reports to enable deductive analysis, identify areas for further enquiry and thus support organisational learning. No new or amended codes were warranted. Organisations and investigators can use our findings when reviewing their own classification systems.

Household Composition and Inequalities in COVID-19 Vaccination in Wales, UK.

The uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in Wales is high at a population level but many inequalities exist. Household composition may be an important factor in COVID-19 vaccination uptake due to the practical, social, and psychological implications associated with different living arrangements. In this study, the role of household composition in the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in Wales was examined with the aim of identifying areas for intervention to address inequalities. Records within the Wales Immunisation System (WIS) COVID-19 vaccination register were linked to the Welsh Demographic Service Dataset (WDSD; a population register for Wales) held within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank. Eight household types were defined based on household size, the presence or absence of children, and the presence of single or multiple generations. Uptake of the second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine was analysed using logistic regression. Gender, age group, health board, rural/urban residential classification, ethnic group, and deprivation quintile were included as covariates for multivariable regression. Compared to two-adult households, all other household types were associated with lower uptake. The most significantly reduced uptake was observed for large, multigenerational, adult group households (aOR 0.45, 95%CI 0.43-0.46). Comparing multivariable regression with and without incorporation of household composition as a variable produced significant differences in odds of vaccination for health board, age group, and ethnic group categories. These results indicate that household composition is an important factor for the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination and consideration of differences in household composition is necessary to mitigate vaccination inequalities.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a personalised self-management intervention for living with long COVID: protocol for the LISTEN randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with long COVID experience multiple, interacting and fluctuating symptoms which can have a dramatic impact on daily living. The aim of the Long Covid Personalised Self-managemenT support EvaluatioN (LISTEN) trial is to evaluate effects of the LISTEN co-designed self-management support intervention for non-hospitalised people living with long COVID on participation in routine activities, social participation, emotional well-being, quality of life, fatigue, and self-efficacy. Cost-effectiveness will also be evaluated, and a detailed process evaluation carried out to understand how LISTEN is implemented. METHODS: The study is a pragmatic randomised effectiveness and cost-effectiveness trial in which a total of 558 non-hospitalised people with long COVID will be randomised to either the LISTEN intervention or usual care. Recruitment strategies have been developed with input from the LISTEN Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) advisory group and a social enterprise, Diversity and Ability, to ensure inclusivity. Eligible participants can self-refer into the trial via a website or be referred by long COVID services. All participants complete a range of self-reported outcome measures, online, at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months post randomisation (the trial primary end point). Those randomised to the LISTEN intervention are offered up to six one-to-one sessions with LISTEN-trained intervention practitioners and given a co-designed digital resource and paper-based book. A detailed process evaluation will be conducted alongside the trial to inform implementation approaches should the LISTEN intervention be found effective and cost-effective. DISCUSSION: The LISTEN trial is evaluating a co-designed, personalised self-management support intervention (the LISTEN intervention) for non-hospitalised people living with long COVID. The design has incorporated extensive strategies to minimise participant burden and maximise access. Whilst the duration of follow-up is limited, all participants are approached to consent for long-term follow-up (subject to additional funding being secured). TRIAL REGISTRATION: LISTEN ISRCTN36407216. Registered on 27/01/2022.

Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a targeted cancer awareness intervention for adults living in deprived areas of the UK.

BACKGROUND: Cancer outcomes are poor in socioeconomically deprived communities, with low symptom awareness contributing to prolonged help-seeking and advanced disease. Targeted cancer awareness interventions require evaluation. METHODS: This is a randomised controlled trial involving adults aged 40+ years recruited in community and healthcare settings in deprived areas of South Yorkshire and South-East Wales. INTERVENTION: personalised behavioural advice facilitated by a trained lay advisor. CONTROL: usual care. Follow-up at two weeks and six months post-randomisation. PRIMARY OUTCOME: total cancer symptom recognition score two weeks post-randomisation. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-four participants were randomised. The difference in total symptom recognition at two weeks [adjusted mean difference (AMD) 0.6, 95% CI: -0.03, 1.17, p = 0.06] was not statistically significant. Intervention participants reported increased symptom recognition (AMD 0.8, 95% CI: 0.18, 1.37, p = 0.01) and earlier intended presentation (AMD -2.0, 95% CI: -3.02, -0.91, p < 0.001) at six months. "Lesser known" symptom recognition was higher in the intervention arm (2 weeks AMD 0.5, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.97 and six months AMD 0.7, 95% CI: 0.16, 1.17). Implementation cost per participant was £91.34, with no significant between-group differences in healthcare resource use post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Improved symptom recognition and earlier anticipated presentation occurred at longer-term follow-up. The ABACus Health Check is a viable low-cost intervention to increase cancer awareness in socioeconomically deprived communities. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16872545.

Emergency department clinical leads' experiences of implementing primary care services where GPs work in or alongside emergency departments in the UK: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: To manage increasing demand for emergency and unscheduled care NHS England policy has promoted services in which patients presenting to Emergency Departments (EDs) with non-urgent problems are directed to general practitioners (GPs) and other primary care clinicians working within or alongside emergency departments. However, the ways that hospitals have implemented primary care services in EDs are varied. The aim of this study was to describe ED clinical leads' experiences of implementing and delivering 'primary care services' and 'emergency medicine services' where GPs were integrated into the ED team. METHODS: We conducted interviews with ED clinical leads in England (n = 19) and Wales (n = 2). We used framework analysis to analyse interview transcripts and explore differences across 'primary care services', 'emergency medicine services' and emergency departments without primary care services. RESULTS: In EDs with separate primary care services, success was reported when having a distinct workforce of primary care clinicians, who improved waiting times and flow by seeing primary care-type patients in a timely way, using fewer investigations, and enabling ED doctors to focus on more acutely unwell patients. Some challenges were: trying to align their service with the policy guidance, inconsistent demand for primary care, accessible community primary care services, difficulties in recruiting GPs, lack of funding, difficulties in agreeing governance protocols and establishing effective streaming pathways. Where GPs were integrated into an ED workforce success was reported as managing the demand for both emergency and primary care and reducing admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing a policy advocating a preferred model of service to address primary care demand was not useful for all emergency departments. To support successful and sustainable primary care services in or alongside EDs, policy makers and commissioners should consider varied ways that GPs can be employed to manage variation in local demand and also local contextual factors such as the ability to recruit and retain GPs, sustainable funding, clear governance frameworks, training, support and guidance for all staff. Whether or not streaming to a separate primary care service is useful also depended on the level of primary care demand.

A genetic risk assessment for prostate cancer influences patients' risk perception and use of repeat PSA testing: a cross-sectional study in Danish general practice.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common cancer among men in the western world. Genetic lifetime risk assessment could alleviate controversies about prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing for early diagnosis. AIM: To determine how men interpret information about their lifetime risk for PC and how this can affect their choice of having a repeated PSA test. DESIGN & SETTING: A genetic test was offered for assessment of individual PC lifetime risk in general practices in Denmark, with the purpose of promoting appropriate use of PSA testing. METHOD: Participants had a genetic lifetime risk assessment for PC diagnosis (either high or normal risk). A month after receiving the result, participants answered a questionnaire about their perceived risk of getting or dying from PC compared with other men, as well as their intentions for repeated PSA testing. RESULTS: Nearly half (44.7%) of 555 participants who received the genetic risk assessment were not aware they had a genetic test. Nevertheless, compared with men with a normal genetic risk, those with high genetic risk reported higher perceived risk for PC (mean difference of 0.74 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.56 to 0.96] on a 5-point scale), higher perceived risk of dying from PC (mean difference of 0.48 [95% CI = 0.29 to 0.66] on a 5-point scale), and increased intention for repeated PSA testing (mean difference of 0.48 [95% CI = 0.30 to 0.65] on a 4-point scale). CONCLUSION: Despite low awareness and/or understanding of the test result, a high genetic risk for PC made participants more aware of their risk, and it increased their intention and probability for repeated PSA testing.

The impact of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a rapid realist review.

OBJECTIVES: Worldwide, emergency healthcare systems are under intense pressure from ever-increasing demand and evidence is urgently needed to understand how this can be safely managed. An estimated 10%-43% of emergency department patients could be treated by primary care services. In England, this has led to a policy proposal and £100 million of funding (US$130 million), for emergency departments to stream appropriate patients to a co-located primary care facility so they are 'free to care for the sickest patients'. However, the research evidence to support this initiative is weak. DESIGN: Rapid realist literature review. SETTING: Emergency departments. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Articles describing general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments. AIM: To develop context-specific theories that explain how and why general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments affect: patient flow; patient experience; patient safety and the wider healthcare system. RESULTS: Ninety-six articles contributed data to theory development sourced from earlier systematic reviews, updated database searches (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane DSR & CRCT, DARE, HTA Database, BSC, PsycINFO and SCOPUS) and citation tracking. We developed theories to explain: how staff interpret the streaming system; different roles general practitioners adopt in the emergency department setting (traditional, extended, gatekeeper or emergency clinician) and how these factors influence patient (experience and safety) and organisational (demand and cost-effectiveness) outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors influence the effectiveness of emergency department streaming to general practitioners; caution is needed in embedding the policy until further research and evaluation are available. Service models that encourage the traditional general practitioner approach may have shorter process times for non-urgent patients; however, there is little evidence that this frees up emergency department staff to care for the sickest patients. Distinct primary care services offering increased patient choice may result in provider-induced demand. Economic evaluation and safety requires further research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017069741.

Coproduction and health: Public and clinicians' perceptions of the barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: Coproduction is an approach increasingly recognized across public services internationally. However, awareness of the term and the barriers and facilitators to its implementation in the NHS are not widely understood. This study examines clinician and public perceptions of coproduction within the context of the Prudent Healthcare initiative. OBJECTIVES: To provide insights into how coproduction is viewed by clinicians and the public and identify perceived barriers and facilitators to its implementation. DESIGN: Using qualitative research methods, interviews were conducted with the public (n = 40) and clinicians (n = 40). Five focus groups were also conducted with the public (n = 45) and six focus groups with clinicians (n = 26). The COM-B model was used to analyse the data; key domains include Capability, Opportunity and Motivation. SETTING: This is an all-Wales study, involving six Health Boards, an NHS trust and community and patient groups. RESULTS: Key barriers relating to Capability include lack of awareness of the term coproduction and inadequate communication between clinicians and citizens. Opportunity-centred barriers include service and time constraints. Conversely, facilitators included utilizing partnerships with community organizations. Motivation-related barriers included preconceptions about patients' limitations to coproduce. CONCLUSIONS: There were broadly positive perceptions among participants regarding coproduction, despite initial unfamiliarity with the term. Despite study limitations including underrepresentation of employed public participants and junior doctors, our analysis may assist researchers and policymakers who are designing, implementing and evaluating interventions to promote coproduction.

Implementing Prudent Healthcare in the NHS in Wales; what are the barriers and enablers for clinicians?

RATIONALE: Prudent Healthcare is a strategy adopted by the Welsh Government in response to the challenge of improving health care during times of austerity and when needs and demand are rising. Four principles underlie Prudent Healthcare: to achieve health and wellbeing through co production; care for those with the greatest health needs first; do only what is needed; and reduce inappropriate variation. For Prudent Healthcare to be implemented in Wales, it is necessary for health professionals to adopt these principles in practice. OBJECTIVE: This paper reports a qualitative evaluation of clinicians' awareness, experiences, and views about Prudent Healthcare, identifying barriers and enablers to implementation from the clinician's perspective. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews (n = 28) and five focus groups (with 23 participants) were undertaken with a diverse range of health professionals working in primary and secondary care. Analysis was underpinned by the COM-B model which provides a framework to understand behaviour change in context using three domains, Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation. RESULTS: Clinicians reported the importance and challenges of accessing and sharing information and evidence to inform practice (Capability). Reduced staffing levels and service availability were highlighted as possible barriers to Prudent Healthcare implementation while multidisciplinary working and reorganization of staff roles and services were considered enablers (Opportunity). Finally, although the principles of Prudent Healthcare were broadly welcomed (Motivation), a lack of awareness of the initiative and the management of patient expectations presented barriers. CONCLUSION: While there was a positive response and widespread support for the principles of Prudent Healthcare by clinicians, increasing awareness of the initiative and improvement to systems to enable information sharing and the monitoring of patient outcomes could improve the consistency of implementation.

Genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice: systematic review of tools available, clinician attitudes, and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: A growing demand for cancer genetic services has led to suggestions for the involvement of GPs. How, and in which conditions, they can be involved, and whether there are important barriers to implementation should be ascertained. AIM: To review the tools available, clinician attitudes and experiences, and the effects on patients of genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of papers published worldwide between 1996 and 2017. METHOD: The MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases and grey literature were searched for entries dating from January 1996 to December 2017. Study quality was assessed with relevant Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool checklists and a narrative synthesis of findings was conducted. RESULTS: In total, 40 studies were included in the review. A variety of testing and screening tools were available for genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice, principally for breast, breast-ovarian, and colorectal cancer risk. GPs often reported low knowledge and confidence to engage with genetic cancer risk assessment; however, despite time pressures and concerns about confidentiality and the impact of results on family members, some recognised the potential importance relating to such a development of the GP's role. Studies found few reported benefits for patients. Concerns about negative impacts on patient anxiety and cancer worries were largely not borne out. CONCLUSION: GPs may have a potential role in identifying patients at risk of hereditary cancer that can be facilitated by family-history tools. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the implementation of population-wide screening for genetic cancer risk, especially given the competing demands of general practice.

Perceptions about screening for prostate cancer using genetic lifetime risk assessment: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Most health authorities do not recommend screening for prostate cancer with PSA tests in asymptomatic patients who are not at increased risk. However, opportunistic screening for prostate cancer is still wanted by many patients and it is widely used in primary care clinics, with potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Better tools for risk assessment have been called for, to better target such opportunistic screening. Our aim was to explore perceptions about prostate cancer risk and subsequent opportunistic screening among patients who were not at increased risk of prostate cancer after a first PSA test plus a genetic lifetime risk assessment. METHODS: We undertook semi-structured patient interviews with recording and verbatim transcription of interviews. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: uncertainty of the nature of prostate cancer; perceived benefits of testing; and conflicting public health recommendations. Prostate cancer was spoken of as an inescapable risk in older age. The aphorism "you die with it, not from it" was prominent in the interviews but patients focused on the benefits of testing now rather than the future risks associated with treatment relating to potential overdiagnosis. Many expressed frustration with perceived mixed messages about early detection of cancer, in which on one side men feel that they are encouraged to seek medical testing to act responsibly regarding the most common cancer disease in men, and on the other side they are asked to refrain from opportunistic testing for prostate cancer. Taken together, personal risks of prostate cancer were perceived as high in spite of a normal PSA test and a genetic lifetime risk assessment showing no increased risk. CONCLUSION: Patients saw prostate cancer risk as high and increasing with age. They focused on the perceived benefit of early detection using PSA testing. It was also commonly acknowledged that most cases are indolent causing no symptoms and not shortening life expectancy. There was a frustration with mixed messages about the benefit of early detection and risk of overdiagnosis. These men's genetic lifetime risk assessment showing no increased risk did not appear to influence current intentions to get PSA testing in the future.

Shifting mindsets: a realist synthesis of evidence from self-management support training.

CONTEXT: Accompanying the growing expectation of patient self-management is the need to ensure health care professionals (HCPs) have the required attitudes and skills to provide effective self-management support (SMS). Results from existing training interventions for HCPs in SMS have been mixed and the evidence base is weaker for certain settings, including supporting people with progressive neurological conditions (PNCs). We set out to understand how training operates, and to identify barriers and facilitators to training designed to support shifts in attitudes amongst HCPs. METHODS: We undertook a realist literature synthesis focused on: (i) the influence of how HCPs, teams and organisations view and adopt self-management; and (ii) how SMS needs to be tailored for people with PNCs. A traditional database search strategy was used alongside citation tracking, grey literature searching and stakeholder recommendations. We supplemented PNC-specific literature with data from other long-term conditions. Key informant interviews and stakeholder advisory group meetings informed the synthesis process. Realist context-mechanism-outcome configurations were generated and mapped onto the stages described in Mezirow's Transformative Learning Theory. RESULTS: Forty-four original articles were included (19 relating to PNCs), from which seven refined theories were developed. The theories identified important training elements (evidence provision, building skills and confidence, facilitating reflection and generating empathy). The significant influence of workplace factors as possible barriers or facilitators was highlighted. Embracing SMS often required challenging traditional professional role boundaries. CONCLUSION: The integration of SMS into routine care is not an automatic outcome from training. A transformative learning process is often required to trigger the necessary mindset shift. Training should focus on how individual HCPs define and value SMS and how their work context (patient group and organisational constraints) influences this process. Proactively addressing potential contextual barriers may facilitate implementation. These findings could be applied to other types of training designed to shift attitudes amongst HCPs.

Sources of unsafe primary care for older adults: a mixed-methods analysis of patient safety incident reports.

Background: older adults are frequent users of primary healthcare services, but are at increased risk of healthcare-related harm in this setting. Objectives: to describe the factors associated with actual or potential harm to patients aged 65 years and older, treated in primary care, to identify action to produce safer care. Design and Setting: a cross-sectional mixed-methods analysis of a national (England and Wales) database of patient safety incident reports from 2005 to 2013. Subjects: 1,591 primary care patient safety incident reports regarding patients aged 65 years and older. Methods: we developed a classification system for the analysis of patient safety incident reports to describe: the incident and preceding chain of incidents; other contributory factors; and patient harm outcome. We combined findings from exploratory descriptive and thematic analyses to identify key sources of unsafe care. Results: the main sources of unsafe care in our weighted sample were due to: medication-related incidents e.g. prescribing, dispensing and administering (n = 486, 31%; 15% serious patient harm); communication-related incidents e.g. incomplete or non-transfer of information across care boundaries (n = 390, 25%; 12% serious patient harm); and clinical decision-making incidents which led to the most serious patient harm outcomes (n = 203, 13%; 41% serious patient harm). Conclusion: priority areas for further research to determine the burden and preventability of unsafe primary care for older adults, include: the timely electronic tools for prescribing, dispensing and administering medication in the community; electronic transfer of information between healthcare settings; and, better clinical decision-making support and guidance.

Barriers to cancer symptom presentation among people from low socioeconomic groups: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival can in part be explained by long patient intervals among people from deprived groups; however, the reasons for this are unclear. This qualitative study explores the actual and anticipated barriers to cancer symptom presentation in the context of socioeconomic deprivation. METHODS: Thirty participants were recruited through the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Welsh database (n = 20), snowball sampling (n = 8) and community partners (n = 2). Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with symptomatic and asymptomatic adults over the age of 50 years, who were identified as being from a low socioeconomic group based on multiple individual and group level indicators. Transcripts were analysed using a Framework approach based on the COM-B model (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour). RESULTS: There was evidence of poor awareness of non-specific cancer symptoms (Capability), fearful and fatalistic beliefs about cancer (Motivation), and various barriers to accessing an appointment with the family physician (Opportunity) and full disclosure of symptoms (Capability). These in combination were associated with a lengthened patient interval among participants. Social networks (Opportunity) were influential on the formation of knowledge and beliefs about cancer. Participants' behavioural and normative beliefs were usually formed and reinforced by people they knew with cancer, and such beliefs were considered to lengthen the patient interval. Discussing symptoms with a family member or friend before a visit to the family physician was the norm, and could act as a barrier or facilitator depending on the quality of advice given (Opportunity). Economic hardship meant fulfilling basic day-to-day needs such as finding money for food were prioritised over medical help seeking (Opportunity). CONCLUSIONS: The complex interaction between individual characteristics and socio-environmental factors is important for understanding cancer symptom presentation behaviour, especially in the context of socioeconomic deprivation. Interventions targeted at deprived communities should take into account the wider social influences on symptom presentation behaviour.