Inequalities in colorectal cancer screening uptake in Wales: an examination of the impact of the temporary suspension of the screening programme during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Response to the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the temporary disruption of cancer screening in the UK, and strong public messaging to stay safe and to protect NHS capacity. Following reintroduction in services, we explored the impact on inequalities in uptake of the Bowel Screening Wales (BSW) programme to identify groups who may benefit from tailored interventions. METHODS: Records within the BSW were linked to electronic health records (EHR) and administrative data within the Secured Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank. Ethnic group was obtained from a linked data method available within SAIL. We examined uptake for the first 3 months of invitations (August to October) following the reintroduction of BSW programme in 2020, compared to the same period in the preceding 3 years. Uptake was measured across a 6 month follow-up period. Logistic models were conducted to analyse variations in uptake by sex, age group, income deprivation quintile, urban/rural location, ethnic group, and clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) status in each period; and to compare uptake within sociodemographic groups between different periods. RESULTS: Uptake during August to October 2020 (period 2020/21; 60.4%) declined compared to the same period in 2019/20 (62.7%) but remained above the 60% Welsh standard. Variation by sex, age, income deprivation, and ethnic groups was observed in all periods studied. Compared to the pre-pandemic period in 2019/20, uptake declined for most demographic groups, except for older individuals (70-74 years) and those in the most income deprived group. Uptake continues to be lower in males, younger individuals, people living in the most income deprived areas and those of Asian and unknown ethnic backgrounds. CONCLUSION: Our findings are encouraging with overall uptake achieving the 60% Welsh standard during the first three months after the programme restarted in 2020 despite the disruption. Inequalities did not worsen after the programme resumed activities but variations in CRC screening in Wales associated with sex, age, deprivation and ethnic group remain. This needs to be considered in targeting strategies to improve uptake and informed choice in CRC screening to avoid exacerbating disparities in CRC outcomes as screening services recover from the pandemic.

Contribution of avoidable mortality to life expectancy inequalities in Wales: a decomposition by age and by cause between 2002 and 2020.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the contribution of avoidable mortality to life expectancy inequalities in Wales during 2002-2020. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Wales, 2002-20, including early data from the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used routine statistics for 2002-2020 on population and deaths in Wales stratified by age, sex, deprivation quintile and cause of death. We estimated the contribution of avoidable causes of death and specific age-categories using the Arriaga decomposition method to highlight priorities for action. RESULTS: Life expectancy inequalities rose 2002-20 amongst both sexes, driven by serial decreases in life expectancy amongst the most deprived quintiles. The contributions of amenable and preventable mortality to life expectancy inequalities changed relatively little between 2002 and 2020, with larger rises in non-avoidable causes. Key avoidable mortality conditions driving the life expectancy gap in the most recent period of 2018-2020 for females were circulatory disease, cancers, respiratory disease and alcohol- and drug-related deaths, and also injuries for males. CONCLUSIONS: Life expectancy inequalities widened during 2002-20, driven by deteriorating life expectancy in the most deprived quintiles. Sustained investment in prevention post-COVID-19 is needed to address growing health inequity in Wales; there remains a role for the National Health Service in ensuring equitable healthcare access to alongside wider policies that promote equity.

Impact of the temporary suspension of the Bowel Screening Wales programme on inequalities during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective register-based study.

BACKGROUND: Response to the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the temporary disruption of routine services in the UK National Health Service, including cancer screening. Following the reintroduction of services, we explored the impact on inequalities in uptake of the Bowel Screening Wales (BSW) programme to identify groups who might benefit from tailored intervention. METHODS: BSW records were linked to electronic health record and administrative data within the Secured Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank Trusted Research Environment. We examined uptake in the first 3 months (from August to October, 2020) of invitations following the reintroduction of the BSW programme compared with the same period in the preceding 3 years. We analysed inequalities in uptake by sex, age group, income deprivation quintile, urban and rural location, ethnic group, and uptake between different periods using logistic regression models. FINDINGS: Overall uptake remained above the 60% Welsh standard during the COVID-19 pandemic period of 2020-21 but declined compared with the pre-pandemic period of 2019-20 (60·4% vs 62·7%; p<0·001). During the COVID-19 pandemic period of 2020-21, uptake declined for most demographic groups, except for older individuals (70-74 years) and those in the most deprived quintile. Variation by sex, age, income deprivation, and ethnic groups was observed in all periods studied. Among low-uptake groups, including males, younger individuals (60-64 years), those living in most deprived areas, and ethnic minorities, uptake remains below the 60% Welsh standard. INTERPRETATION: Despite the disruption, uptake remained above the Welsh standard and inequalities did not worsen after the programme resumed activities. However, variations associated with sex, age, deprivation, and ethnicity remain. These findings need to be considered in targeting strategies to improve uptake and informed choice in colorectal cancer screening such as co-producing information products with low-uptake groups and upscaling the use of GP-endorsed invitations and reminder letters for bowel screening. FUNDING: Health Data Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Administrative Data Research UK, and Health and Care Research Wales.

Life after prostate cancer diagnosis: protocol for a UK-wide patient-reported outcomes study.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer and its treatment may impact physically, psychologically and socially; affecting the health-related quality of life of men and their partners/spouses. The Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study is a UK-wide patient-reported outcomes study which will generate information to improve the health and well-being of men with prostate cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Postal surveys will be sent to prostate cancer survivors (18-42 months postdiagnosis) in all 4 UK countries (n=∼70 000). Eligible men will be identified and/or verified through cancer registration systems. Men will be surveyed twice, 12 months apart, to explore changes in outcomes over time. Second, separate cohorts will be surveyed once and the design will include evaluation of the acceptability of online survey tools. A comprehensive patient-reported outcome measure has been developed using generic and specific instruments with proven psychometric properties and relevance in national and international studies. The outcome data will be linked with administrative health data (eg, treatment information from hospital data). To ensure detailed understanding of issues of importance, qualitative interviews will be undertaken with a sample of men who complete the survey across the UK (n=∼150) along with a small number of partners/spouses (n=∼30). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received the following approvals: Newcastle and North Tyneside 1 Research Ethics Committee (15/NE/0036), Health Research Authority Confidentiality Advisory Group (15/CAG/0110), NHS Scotland Public Benefit and Privacy Panel (0516-0364), Office of Research Ethics Northern Ireland (16/NI/0073) and NHS R&D approval from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Using traditional and innovative methods, the results will be made available to men and their partners/spouses, the funders, the NHS, social care, voluntary sector organisations and other researchers.

Is case management effective in reducing the risk of unplanned hospital admissions for older people? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Case management is a collaborative practice involving coordination of care by a range of health professionals, both within the community and at the interface of primary and secondary care. It has been promoted as a way of reducing unplanned admissions in older people. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to systematically review evidence from randomized controlled trials regarding the effectiveness of case management in reducing the risk of unplanned hospital admissions in older people. METHODS: Eighteen databases were searched from inception to June 2010. Relevant websites were searched with key words and reference lists of included studies checked. A risk-of-bias tool was used to assess included studies and data extraction performed using customized tables. The primary outcome of interest was enumeration of unplanned hospital admission or readmissions. RESULTS: Eleven trials of case management in the older population were included. Risk of bias was generally low. Six were trials of hospital-initiated case management. Three were suitable for meta-analysis, of which two showed a reduction in unplanned admissions. Overall, there was no statistically significant reduction in unplanned admissions [relative rate: 0.71 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.49 to 1.03)]. Three trials reported reduced length of stay. Five trials were of community-initiated case management. None showed a reduction in unplanned admissions. Three were suitable for meta-analysis [mean difference in unplanned admissions: 0.05 (95% CI: -0.04 to 0.15)]. CONCLUSIONS: The identified trials included a range of case management interventions. Nine of the 11 trials showed no reduction of unplanned hospital admissions with case management compared with the same with usual care.