Spatial disparities in access to NHS dentistry: a neighbourhood-level analysis in England.

Over the past decade, access to National Health Service (NHS) dentistry in England has been problematic. There are increasing media reports of patients being unable to find treatment at a local NHS dentist. However, the extent of this issue varies by location and by the characteristics of the neighbourhood. The study uses official data sources on NHS dental provision and population. Travel accessibility is measured using car journey times. An advanced form of Floating Catchment Area accessibility is used, which accounts for supply competition, varying catchments, and distance decay. Spatial availability and accessibility indices are calculated. Ways in which the method can be used to explore various types of 'what-if' scenarios are outlined. Both availability and accessibility vary by the level of neighbourhood deprivation and the urban/rural nature of the neighbourhood. A case study, based on a real-world situation, shows the impact on the local neighbourhood of the closure of a dental practice. For all neighbourhoods, NHS dental provision is generally less than would be needed to provide basic dental care. The interpretation of outputs needs to take account of edge-effects near to Scotland and Wales. Possible improvements include the inclusion of other modes of travel and the exclusion of the population that does not want to access NHS care.

Effect of Incidental Findings Information on Lung Cancer Screening Intent: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires decision aid use for lung cancer screening (LCS) shared decision-making. However, it does not require information about incidental findings, a potential harm of screening. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of incidental findings information in an LCS decision aid on screening intent as well as knowledge and valuing of screening benefits and harms. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial conducted online between July 16, 2020, and August 22, 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Adults 55-80 years, eligible for LCS. INTERVENTION: LCS video decision aid including information on incidental findings or a control video decision aid. MAIN MEASURES: Intent to undergo LCS; knowledge regarding the benefit and harms of LCS using six knowledge questions; and valuing of six benefits and harms using rating (1-5 scale, 5 most important) and ranking (ranked 1-6) exercises. KEY RESULTS: Of 427 eligible individuals approached, 348 (83.1%) completed the study (173 intervention, 175 control). Mean age was 64.5 years, 48.6% were male, 73.0% white, 76.3% with less than a college degree, and 64.1% with income < $50,000. There was no difference between the intervention and controls in percentage intending to pursue screening (70/173, 40.5% vs 73/175, 41.7%, diff 1.2%, 95% CI - 9.1 to 11.5%, p = 0.81). Intervention participants had a higher percentage of correct answers for the incidental findings knowledge than controls (164/173, 94.8% vs 129/175, 73.7%, 95% CI - 28.4 to - 13.8%, p < 0.01). Incidental findings had the fifth highest mean importance rating (4.0 ± 1.1) and the third highest mean ranking (3.6 ± 1.5). There was no difference in mean rating or ranking of incidental findings between intervention and control groups (rating 4.0 vs 3.9, diff 0.1, 95% CI - 0.2, 0.3, p = 0.51; ranking 3.6 vs 3.6, diff 0.02, 95% CI - 0.3, 0.3, p = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Incidental findings information in a LCS decision aid did not affect LCS intent, but it resulted in more informed individuals regarding these findings. In formulating screening preferences, incidental findings were less important than other benefits and harms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04432753.

What is the effect of a decision aid on knowledge, values and preferences for lung cancer screening? An online pre-post study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine if a decision aid improves knowledge of lung cancer screening benefits and harms and which benefits and harms are most valued. DESIGN: Pre-post study. SETTING: Online. PARTICIPANTS: 219 current or former (quit within the previous 15 years) smokers ages 55-80 with at least 30 pack-years of smoking. INTERVENTION: Lung cancer screening video decision aid. MAIN MEASURES: Screening knowledge tested by 10 pre-post questions and value of benefits and harms (reducing chance of death from lung cancer, risk of being diagnosed, false positives, biopsies, complications of biopsies and out-of-pocket costs) assessed through rating (1-5 scale) and ranking (top three ranked). RESULTS: Mean age was 64.7±6.1, 42.5% were male, 75.4% white, 48.4% married, 28.9% with less than a college degree and 67.6% with income

Dietary Patterns Derived from UK Supermarket Transaction Data with Nutrient and Socioeconomic Profiles.

Poor diet is a leading cause of death in the United Kingdom (UK) and around the world. Methods to collect quality dietary information at scale for population research are time consuming, expensive and biased. Novel data sources offer potential to overcome these challenges and better understand population dietary patterns. In this research we will use 12 months of supermarket sales transaction data, from 2016, for primary shoppers residing in the Yorkshire and Humber region of the UK (n = 299,260), to identify dietary patterns and profile these according to their nutrient composition and the sociodemographic characteristics of the consumer purchasing with these patterns. Results identified seven dietary purchase patterns that we named: Fruity; Meat alternatives; Carnivores; Hydrators; Afternoon tea; Beer and wine lovers; and Sweet tooth. On average the daily energy intake of loyalty card holders -who may buy as an individual or for a household- is less than the adult reference intake, but this varies according to dietary purchase pattern. In general loyalty card holders meet the recommended salt intake, do not purchase enough carbohydrates, and purchase too much fat and protein, but not enough fibre. The dietary purchase pattern containing the highest amount of fibre (as an indicator of healthiness) is bought by the least deprived customers and the pattern with lowest fibre by the most deprived. In conclusion, supermarket sales data offer significant potential for understanding population dietary patterns.

Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the US. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through May 2019; references; experts; and literature surveillance through November 20, 2020. Study Selection: English-language studies of screening with LDCT, accuracy of LDCT, risk prediction models, or treatment for early-stage lung cancer. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Data were not pooled because of heterogeneity of populations and screening protocols. Main Outcomes and Measures: Lung cancer incidence, lung cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, test accuracy, and harms. Results: This review included 223 publications. Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (N = 86 486) evaluated lung cancer screening with LDCT; the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST, N = 53 454) and Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON, N = 15 792) were the largest RCTs. Participants were more likely to benefit than the US screening-eligible population (eg, based on life expectancy). The NLST found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.96]; number needed to screen [NNS] to prevent 1 lung cancer death, 323 over 6.5 years of follow-up) with 3 rounds of annual LDCT screening compared with chest radiograph for high-risk current and former smokers aged 55 to 74 years. NELSON found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (IRR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61-0.90]; NNS to prevent 1 lung cancer death of 130 over 10 years of follow-up) with 4 rounds of LDCT screening with increasing intervals compared with no screening for high-risk current and former smokers aged 50 to 74 years. Harms of screening included radiation-induced cancer, false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, and increases in distress. For every 1000 persons screened in the NLST, false-positive results led to 17 invasive procedures (number needed to harm, 59) and fewer than 1 person having a major complication. Overdiagnosis estimates varied greatly (0%-67% chance that a lung cancer was overdiagnosed). Incidental findings were common, and estimates varied widely (4.4%-40.7% of persons screened). Conclusions and Relevance: Screening high-risk persons with LDCT can reduce lung cancer mortality but also causes false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, increases in distress, and, rarely, radiation-induced cancers. Most studies reviewed did not use current nodule evaluation protocols, which might reduce false-positive results and invasive procedures for false-positive results.

Assessment of Lung Cancer Screening Program Websites.

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that individuals at high risk for lung cancer consider benefits and harms before pursuing lung cancer screening. Medical centers develop websites for their lung cancer screening programs, but to date little is known about the websites' portrayal of benefits and harms or what next steps they recommend for individuals considering screening. Objective: To assess the presentation of potential benefits and harms and recommended next steps on lung cancer screening program websites. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional content analysis of 162 lung cancer screening program websites of academic medical centers (n = 81) and state-matched community medical centers (n = 81) that were randomly selected from American College of Radiology lung cancer screening-designated centers was conducted. The study was performed from December 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Website presentation of screening-associated benefits and harms was the primary outcome. Benefit was defined as any description related to the potential reduction in lung cancer mortality. Harms were based on the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations and included false positives, false negatives, overdiagnosis, radiation exposure, and incidental findings. The secondary outcome was next steps that are recommended by websites. Results: Overall, the 162 lung cancer screening program websites described the potential benefits more frequently than they described any potential harms (159 [98%] vs 78 [48%], P < .01). False-positive findings were the most frequently reported (72 [44%]) potential harm. Community centers were less likely than academic centers to report any potential harm (32 [40%] vs 46 [57%], P = .03), potential harm from radiation (20 [25%] vs 35 [43%], P = .01), and overdiagnosis (0% vs 11 [14%], P < .01). One hundred nineteen websites (73%) did not explicitly recommend that individuals personally consider the potential benefits and harms of screening; community centers were less likely than academic centers to give this recommendation (15 [19%] vs 28 [35%], P = .02). Most institutions (157 [97%]) listed follow-up steps for screening, but few institutions (35 [22%]) recommended that individuals discuss benefits and harms with a health care professional. Conclusions and Relevance: Information on public-facing websites of US lung cancer screening programs appears to lack balance with respect to portrayal of potential benefits and harms of screening. Important harms, such as overdiagnosis, were commonly ignored in the sites evaluated, and most of the centers did not explicitly guide individuals toward a guideline-recommended, shared decision-making discussion of harms and benefits.

Clinical Yield of a Molecular Diagnostic Panel for Enteric Pathogens in Adult Outpatients With Diarrhea and Validation of Guidelines-Based Criteria for Testing.

BACKGROUND: Molecular diagnostic panels for enteric pathogens offer increased sensitivity and reduced turnaround time. However, many pathogen detections do not change clinical management, and the cost is substantial. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of adult outpatients with diarrhea at the University of Virginia who had samples tested by the FilmArray Gastrointestinal Panel (BioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, UT) to identify the clinical yield and to validate the clinical criteria for testing recommended in the 2017 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines. RESULTS: We analyzed 629 tests sent from adult outpatients with diarrhea between March 23, 2015, and July 18, 2016. A pathogen was detected in 127 of 629 specimens (20.2%). The most common pathogens were enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (47, 7.5%), norovirus (24, 3.8%), enteroaggregative E. coli (14, 2.2%), Campylobacter (9, 1.4%), and Salmonella (9; 1.4%). The clinical yield of testing was low, with antimicrobial treatment clearly indicated for only 18 subjects (2.9%) and any change in clinical management indicated for 33 subjects (5.2%). Following the clinical criteria for diagnostic testing from the 2017 IDSA guidelines, which suggest diagnostic testing for patients with fever, abdominal pain, blood in stool, or an immunocompromising condition, would have reduced testing by 32.3% without significantly reducing the clinical yield (sensitivity, 97.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 84.2%-99.9%; negative predictive value, 99.5%; 95% CI, 97.3%-100.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical yield of molecular diagnostic testing in this population was low. Compliance with IDSA guidelines in adult outpatients with diarrhea could reduce testing by approximately one-third.

A mass-market appraisal of the English housing rental market using a diverse range of modelling techniques.

INTRODUCTION: Mass appraisals in the rental housing market are far less common than those in the sales market. However, there is evidence for substantial growth in the rental market and this lack of insight hampers commercial organisations and local and national governments in understanding this market. CASE DESCRIPTION: This case study uses data that are supplied from a property listings web site and are unique in their scale, with over 1.2 million rental property listings available over a 2 year period. The data is analysed in a large data institute using generalised linear regression, machine learning and a pseudo practitioner based approach. DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION: The study should be seen as a practical guide for property professionals and academics wishing to undertake such appraisals and looking for guidance on the best methods to use. It also provides insight into the property characteristics which most influence rental listing price. CONCLUSIONS: From the regression analysis, attributes that increase the rental listing price are: the number of rooms in the property, proximity to central London and to railway stations, being located in more affluent neighbourhoods and being close to local amenities and better performing schools. Of the machine learning algorithms used, the two tree based approaches were seen to outperform the regression based approaches. In terms of a simple measure of the median appraisal error, a practitioner based approach is seen to outperform the modelling approaches. A practical finding is that the application of sophisticated machine learning algorithms to big data is still a challenge for modern desktop PCs.

Sub regional estimates of morbidities in the English elderly population.

This study focuses on identifying the future trends and spatial concentrations of morbidities in the English elderly population. The morbidities to be estimated are: coronary heart disease; strokes; diabetes; cancer; respiratory illnesses and arthritis in the 60 year and older household residential population. The technique used is a spatial microsimulation of the elderly population of local authorities in England using data from the 2001 Census and the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. The longitudinal nature of the microsimulated population is then used to estimate the morbidity prevalences for local authorities in 2010/2011. With this knowledge, planners will be able to focus the available health and care resources in those areas with greatest need. For most of these morbidities, there is evidence of a strong correlation between the type of authority and the estimated prevalence rates.