Experiences and perspectives of adults on using opioids for pain management in the postoperative period: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Opioids play an important role in peri-operative pain management. However, opioid use is challenging for healthcare practitioners and patients because of concerns related to opioid crises, addiction and side effects. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to identify and synthesise the existing evidence related to adults' experiences of opioid use in postoperative pain management. DESIGN: Systematic scoping review of qualitative studies. Inductive content analysis and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) were applied to analyse and report the findings and to identify unexplored gaps in the literature. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All qualitative and mixed-method studies, in English, that not only used a qualitative approach that explored adults' opinions or concerns about opioids and/or opioid reduction, and adults' experience related to opioid use for postoperative pain control, including satisfaction, but also aspects of overall quality of a person's life (physical, mental and social well being). RESULTS: Ten studies were included; nine were qualitative ( n  = 9) and one used mixed methods. The studies were primarily conducted in Europe and North America. Concerns about opioid dependence, adverse effects, stigmatisation, gender roles, trust and shared decision-making between clinicians and patients appeared repeatedly throughout the studies. The TDF analysis showed that many peri-operative factors formed people's perceptions and experiences of opioids, driven by the following eight domains: Knowledge, Emotion, Beliefs about consequences, Beliefs about capabilities, Self-confidence, Environmental Context and Resources, Social influences and Decision Processes/Goals. Adults have diverse pain management goals, which can be categorised as proactive and positive goals, such as individualised pain management care, as well as avoidance goals, aimed at sidestepping issues such as addiction and opioid-related side effects. CONCLUSION: It is desirable to understand the complexity of adults' experiences of pain management especially with opioid use and to support adults in achieving their pain management goals by implementing an individualised approach, effective communication and patient-clinician relationships. However, there is a dearth of studies that examine patients' experiences of postoperative opioid use and their involvement in opioid usage decision-making. A summary is provided regarding adults' experiences of peri-operative opioid use, which may inform future researchers, healthcare providers and guideline development by considering these factors when improving patient care and experiences.

How does social context influence appraisal and help-seeking for potential cancer symptoms in adults aged 50 and over? A qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how social context and social network activation influence appraisal and help-seeking for symptoms potentially indicative of cancer. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interview study. Community dwelling adults who had experienced at least one symptom potentially indicative of cancer within the last month were sampled from a national symptom survey. RESULTS: Thirty-four interviews were conducted. Participants looked to peers and wider society to judge whether symptoms might be normal for their age. Involvement of others in symptom appraisal promoted an active management strategy, such as contacting a healthcare professional or trying a medication. There were practical, emotional, attitudinal, normative and moral barriers to involving others. Cancer narratives from significant others, public health campaigns and the media influenced symptom appraisal. Participants held mental representations of types of people who get cancer, for example, smokers and unfit people. This had two consequences. First, participants did not identify themselves as a candidate for cancer; impeding help-seeking. Second, social judgements about lifestyle introduced stigma. CONCLUSION: Involving friends/family in symptom appraisal facilitates help-seeking but barriers exist to involving others. Campaigns to promote earlier cancer diagnosis should incorporate age-appropriate narratives, address misconceptions about 'types' of people who get cancer and tackle stigma about lifestyle factors.

Cancer pain self-management in the context of a national opioid epidemic: Experiences of patients with advanced cancer using opioids.

BACKGROUND: The US opioid epidemic has prompted dramatic changes in public attitudes and regulations governing opioid prescribing. Little is known about the experiences of patients with advanced cancer using opioids in the context of the epidemic. METHODS: Semistructured interviews of 26 patients with advanced cancer were conducted between May 2019 and April 2020; their experiences self-managing chronic pain with opioids were evaluated. RESULTS: Patients consistently described the negative impact of the opioid epidemic on their ability to self-manage pain. Negative media coverage and personal experiences with the epidemic promoted stigma, fear, and guilt surrounding opioid use. As a result, many patients delayed initiating opioids and often viewed their decision to take opioids as a moral failure-as "caving in." Patients frequently managed this internal conflict through opioid-restricting behaviors (eg, skipping or taking lower doses). Stigma also impeded patient-clinician communication; patients often avoided discussing opioids or purposely conveyed underusing them to avoid being labeled a "pill seeker." Patients experienced structural barriers to obtaining opioids such as prior authorizations, delays in refills, or being questioned by pharmacists about their opioid use. Barriers were stressful, amplified stigma, interfered with pain control, and reinforced ambivalence about opioids. CONCLUSIONS: The US opioid epidemic has stigmatized opioid use and undermined pain management in individuals with advanced cancer. Interventions seeking to alleviate cancer pain should attend to the multiple, negative influences of the opioid crisis on patients' ability to self-manage. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with advanced cancer suffer from significant pain and frequently receive opioids to manage their pain. Of the 26 patients with advanced cancer interviewed, the majority of patients experienced stigma about their opioid use for cancer pain management. All patients felt that the opioid epidemic fostered this stigma. Several struggled to use opioids for pain because of this stigma and the logistical complications they experienced with pharmacies and insurance coverage. Many were afraid to share their concerns about opioids with their providers. ​.

Can-Pain-a digital intervention to optimise cancer pain control in the community: development and feasibility testing.

PURPOSE: To develop a novel digital intervention to optimise cancer pain control in the community. This paper describes intervention development, content/rationale and initial feasibility testing. METHODS: Determinants of suboptimal cancer pain management were characterised through two systematic reviews; patient, caregiver and healthcare professional (HCP) interviews (n = 39); and two HCP focus groups (n = 12). Intervention mapping was used to translate results into theory-based content, creating the app "Can-Pain". Patients with/without a linked caregiver, their general practitioners and community palliative care nurses were recruited to feasibility test Can-Pain over 4 weeks. RESULTS: Patients on strong opioids described challenges balancing pain levels with opioid intake, side effects and activities and communicating about pain management problems with HCPs. Can-Pain addresses these challenges through educational resources, contemporaneous short-acting opioid tracking and weekly patient-reported outcome monitoring. Novel aspects of Can-Pain include the use of contemporaneous breakthrough analgesic reports as a surrogate measure of pain control and measuring the level at which pain becomes bothersome to the individual. Patients were unwell due to advanced cancer, making recruitment to feasibility testing difficult. Two patients and one caregiver used Can-Pain for 4 weeks, sharing weekly reports with four HCPs. Can-Pain highlighted unrecognised problems, promoted shared understanding about symptoms between patients and HCPs and supported shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary testing suggests that Can-Pain is feasible and could promote patient-centred pain management. We will conduct further small-scale evaluations to inform a future randomised, stepped-wedge trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Qualitative research: ClinicalTrials.gov , reference NCT02341846 Feasibility study: NIHR CPMS database ID 34172.

Leveraging mobile health technology and research methodology to optimize patient education and self-management support for advanced cancer pain.

PURPOSE: Patient education is critical for management of advanced cancer pain, yet the benefits of psychoeducational interventions have been modest. We used mobile health (mHealth) technology to better meet patients' needs. METHODS: Using the Agile and mHealth Development and Evaluation Frameworks, a multidisciplinary team of clinicians, researchers, patients, and design specialists followed a four-phase iterative process to develop comprehensive, tailored, multimedia cancer pain education for a patient-facing smartphone application. The target population reviewed the content and provided feedback. RESULTS: The resulting application provides comprehensive cancer pain education spanning pharmacologic and behavioral aspects of self-management. Custom graphics, animated videos, quizzes, and audio-recorded relaxations complemented written content. Computable algorithms based upon daily symptom surveys were used to deliver brief, tailored motivational messages that linked to more comprehensive teaching. Patients found the combination of pharmacologic and behavioral support to be engaging and helpful. CONCLUSION: Digital technology can be used to provide cancer pain education that is engaging and tailored to individual needs. A replicable interdisciplinary and patient-centered approach to intervention development was advantageous. mHealth interventions may be a scalable approach to improve cancer pain. Frameworks that merge software and research methodology can be useful in developing interventions.

Cancer diagnosis in Scottish primary care: Results from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize cancer diagnosis in Scottish primary care and draw comparisons with cancer diagnostic activity in England. METHOD: A national audit of cancer diagnosis was conducted in Scottish and English general practices. Participating GPs collected diagnostic pathway data on patients diagnosed in 2014 from medical records. Data were supplemented by linkage to national cancer registries. Analysis explored and compared patient characteristics, diagnostic intervals, and routes to diagnosis. RESULTS: 7.7% of all Scottish general practices in 2017 provided data on 2,014 cancer diagnoses. 71.5% of cases presented to GPs and 37.4% were referred using the "Urgent-Suspected Cancer" route. The median primary care interval was 5 days (IQR 0-23 days) and median diagnostic interval was 30 days (IQR 13-68). Both varied by cancer-site. Diagnostic intervals were longer in the most remote patients and those with more comorbidities. Scottish and English samples corresponded closely in key characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Most people diagnosed with cancer in Scotland present to a GP first. Most are referred and diagnosed quickly, with variations by cancer-site. Intervals were longest for the most remote patients. GPs in Scotland and England appear to perform equally but, in view of growing differences between health systems, future comparative audits may be informative.

Does emergency presentation of cancer represent poor performance in primary care? Insights from a novel analysis of linked primary and secondary care data.

BACKGROUND: People diagnosed with cancer following emergency presentation have poorer short-term survival. To what extent this signifies a missed opportunity for earlier diagnosis in primary care remains unclear as little detailed data exist on the patient/general practitioner interaction beforehand. METHODS: Analysis of primary care and regional data for 1802 cancer patients from Northeast Scotland. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for patient and GP practice predictors of emergency presentation. Qualitative context coding of primary care interaction before emergency presentation. RESULTS: Emergency presentations equalled 20% (n=365). Twenty-eight per cent had no relevant prior GP contact. Of those with prior GP contact 30% were admitted while waiting to be seen in secondary care, and 19% were missed opportunities for earlier diagnosis. Associated predictors: no prior GP contact (OR=3.89; CI 95% 2.14-7.09); having lung (OR=23.24; 95% CI 7.92-68.21), colorectal (OR=18.49; CI 95% 6.60-51.82) and upper GI cancer (OR=18.97; CI 95% 6.08-59.23); ethnicity (OR=2.78; CI 95% 1.27-6.06). CONCLUSIONS: Our novel approach has revealed that emergency cancer presentation is more complex than previously thought. Patient delay, prolonged referral pathways and missed opportunities by GPs all contribute, but emergency presentation can also represent effective care. Resources should be used proportionately to raise public and GP awareness and improve post-referral pathways.

Understanding patterns of fatigue in health and disease: protocol for an ecological momentary assessment study using digital technologies.

INTRODUCTION: Fatigue is prevalent across a wide range of medical conditions and can be debilitating and distressing. It is likely that fatigue is experienced differently according to the underlying aetiology, but this is poorly understood. Digital health technologies present a promising approach to give new insights into fatigue.The aim of this study is to use digital health technologies, real-time self-reports and qualitative interview data to investigate how fatigue is experienced over time in participants with myeloma, long COVID, heart failure and in controls without problematic fatigue. Objectives are to understand which sensed parameters add value to the characterisation of fatigue and to determine whether study processes are feasible, acceptable and scalable. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An ecological momentary assessment study will be carried out over 2 or 4 weeks (participant defined). Individuals with fatigue relating to myeloma (n=10), heart failure (n=10), long COVID (n=10) and controls without problematic fatigue or a study condition (n=10) will be recruited. ECG patches will measure heart rate variability, respiratory rate, body temperature, activity and posture. A wearable bracelet accompanied by environment beacons will measure physical activity, sleep and room location within the home. Self-reports of mental and physical fatigue will be collected via smartphone app four times daily and on-demand. Validated fatigue and affect questionnaires will be completed at baseline and at 2 weeks. End-of-study interviews will investigate experiences of fatigue and study participation. A feedback session will be offered to participants to discuss their data.Data will be analysed using multilevel modelling and machine learning. Interviews and feedback sessions will be analysed using content or thematic analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the East of England-Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee (22/EE/0261). The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05622669.

Treatment burden in survivors of prostate and colorectal cancers: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment burden is the workload of healthcare and the impact this has on the individual. Treatment burden is associated with poorer patient outcomes in several chronic diseases. Illness burden has been extensively studied in cancer, but little is known about treatment burden, particularly in those who have completed primary treatment for cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate treatment burden in survivors of prostate and colorectal cancers and their caregivers. DESIGN: Semistructured interview study. Interviews were analysed using Framework and thematic analysis. SETTING: Participants were recruited via general practices in Northeast Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were individuals who had been diagnosed with colorectal or prostate cancer without distant metastases within the previous 5 years and their caregivers. Thirty-five patients and six caregivers participated: 22 patients had prostate and 13 had colorectal cancers (six male, seven female). RESULTS: The term 'burden' did not resonate with most survivors, who expressed gratitude that time invested in cancer care could translate into improved survival. Cancer management was time consuming, but workload reduced over time. Cancer was usually considered as a discrete episode. Individual, disease and health system factors protected against or increased treatment burden. Some factors, such as health service configuration, were potentially modifiable. Multimorbidity contributed most to treatment burden and influenced treatment decisions and engagement with follow-up. The presence of a caregiver protected against treatment burden, but caregivers also experienced burden. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive cancer treatment and follow-up regimens do not necessarily lead to perceived burden. A cancer diagnosis serves as a strong motivator to engage in health management, but a careful balance exists between positive perceptions and burden. Treatment burden could lead to poorer cancer outcomes by influencing engagement with and decisions about care. Clinicians should ask about treatment burden and its impact, particularly in those with multimorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04163068.

Rural and Urban patients' Requirements and Experiences of Out-of-hours medical care after cancer (RUREO): a questionnaire study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how individuals diagnosed with cancer use out-of-hours (OOH) medical services, describe the behavioural determinants of OOH service use and explore whether there are differences between urban and rural dwellers. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional questionnaire study conducted in Northeast Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: The questionnaire was sent to 2549 individuals diagnosed with cancer in the preceding 12 months identified through the National Health Service Grampian Cancer Care Pathway database. 490 individuals returned the questionnaire (19.2% response rate), 61.8% were urban and 34.9% were rural. OUTCOMES: Outcomes were differences in frequency of medical service use and attitudes towards OOH services between urban and rural participants. Patient experience (qualitative data) was compared. RESULTS: Daytime services were used much more frequently than OOH services-83.3% of participants had never contacted an OOH primary care service in the preceding 12 months but 44.2% had used their daytime general practitioner at least four times. There were no significant differences between urban and rural dwellers in the patterns of OOH or daytime service use, the behavioural determinants of service use or the experiences of OOH services. Rural dwellers were significantly less likely to agree that OOH services were close by and more likely to agree that where they lived made it difficult to access these services. Rural dwellers were no more likely to agree or disagree that distance would affect their decision to contact OOH services. Qualitative results highlighted barriers to accessing OOH services exist for all patients but that long travel distances can be offset by service configuration, travel infrastructure and access to a car. CONCLUSIONS: Urban and rural dwellers have similar beliefs, attitudes towards and patterns of OOH service use. In Northeast Scotland, place of residence is unlikely to be the most important factor in influencing decisions about whether to access OOH medical care.

Supraneural versus Infraneural Approach to transforaMinal Epidural StEroid injection for unilateral lumbosacral radicular pain (SIAMESE): a study protocol for a randomised non-inferiority trial.

Background: Lumbosacral radicular pain is commonly treated by transforaminal steroid epidural injection. There are two methods: the supraneural and the infraneural approaches. The supraneural approach can result in rare but catastrophic consequences from injury to the radiculomedullary artery. The infraneural technique avoids the artery; both approaches show efficacy and are used locally. Methods: This is a protocol for a randomised, single-blinded, non-inferiority trial of infraneural vs supraneural transforaminal epidural injection for lumbosacral radicular pain at a tertiary referral pain management clinic. Adult patients (n=92) with moderate-to-severe lumbosacral radicular pain of >3 months duration, scheduled for transforaminal epidural steroid injection, will be randomised to epidural by either the infraneural or supraneural approach. Only the treating physicians will know which route is used. The primary outcome measure is the differential impact on pain intensity score at 3 months. Secondary outcome measures will include disability and function scores, sleep and activity measures, and adverse events. Participants will be followed up for 12 months. Conclusions: This study will determine whether the techniques are comparable and, if so, will enable recommendations for the use of an approach without risk of artery damage and catastrophic injury. Clinical trial registration: ISRCTN 36195887.

Treatment burden in individuals living with and beyond cancer: A systematic review of qualitative literature.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with cancer are being given increasing responsibility for the self-management of their health and illness. In other chronic diseases, individuals who experience treatment burden are at risk of poorer health outcomes. Less is known about treatment burden and its impact on individuals with cancer. This systematic review investigated perceptions of treatment burden in individuals living with and beyond cancer. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Medline, CINAHL and EMBASE databases were searched for qualitative studies that explored treatment burden in individuals with a diagnosis of breast, prostate, colorectal, or lung cancer at any stage of their diagnostic/treatment trajectory. Descriptive and thematic analyses were conducted. Study quality was assessed using a modified CASP checklist. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021145601). Forty-eight studies were included. Health management after cancer involved cognitive, practical, and relational work for patients. Individuals were motivated to perform health management work to improve life-expectancy, manage symptoms, and regain a sense of normality. Performing health care work could be empowering and gave individuals a sense of control. Treatment burden occurred when there was a mismatch between the resources needed for health management and their availability. Individuals with chronic and severe symptoms, financial challenges, language barriers, and limited social support are particularly at risk of treatment burden. For those with advanced cancer, consumption of time and energy by health care work is a significant burden. CONCLUSION: Treatment burden could be an important mediator of inequities in cancer outcomes. Many of the factors leading to treatment burden in individuals with cancer are potentially modifiable. Clinicians should consider carefully what they are asking or expecting patients to do, and the resources required, including how much patient time will be consumed.

Using a discrete choice experiment to develop a decision aid tool to inform the management of persistent pain in pharmacy: a protocol for a randomised feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: In an era of personalised healthcare, it has become increasingly important to elicit individual-level preferences. While discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are widely used to measure patient preferences in the delivery of healthcare, the focus has been sample-level analysis. Using the DCE methodology, this project has designed a digital decision aid tool (DAT) with the potential to estimate individual preferences in real time to inform clinical consultation decisions in persistent pain management. METHODS: Using a feasibility randomised control trial, this study aims to assess the feasibility of using this Understanding Persistent Pain (UPP) DAT in a pharmacy-based clinical setting and to test processes for a future definite randomised trial. Community and practice-based pharmacists (up to 10) will be recruited in The National Health Service (NHS) Grampian and trained in the use of the digital UPP DAT. Pharmacists will recruit up to 60 patients who are living with persistent pain. Patients will be randomised to one of two groups: using the UPP DAT or usual care. Pharmacists will follow-up patients as needed according to clinical need and following standard practice. DCE response data collected by the UPP DAT will be analysed using the penalised logit model, allowing estimation of individual preferences in real time. We will follow-up pharmacists and patients who use the UPP DAT to gather feedback on their experiences. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethical approval from the North of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (21/NS/0059) and received Research & Development Management Permission to proceed from NHS Grampian (2021UA003E). The study has been registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, presentations and newsletters and made available in the University of Aberdeen and Pharmacy Research UK websites. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05102578; clinicaltrials.gov.

Is stroke incidence increased in survivors of adult cancers? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Existing research hints that people living with and beyond cancer are at an increased risk of stroke. However, there is insufficient evidence to appropriately inform guidelines for specific stroke prevention or management for cancer patients. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to describe and quantify stroke incidence in people living with and beyond cancer. METHODS: Medline, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for epidemiological studies comparing stroke incidence between cancer and non-cancer patients. Reviewers independently extracted data; random-effects meta-analyses and quality assessment were performed. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were narratively synthesised. Meta-analysis was conducted using seven studies. Methodological quality was high for most studies. Study populations were heterogeneous, and the length of follow-up and risk factors varied. There was a variation in risk between different cancer types and according to stroke type: pancreatic (HR 2.85 (95% CI 2.43-3.36), ischaemic) (HR 2.28 (95% CI 1.43-3.63), haemorrhagic); lung (HR 2.33 (95% CI 1.63-3.35), ischaemic) (HR 2.14 (95% CI 1.45-3.15), haemorrhagic); and head and neck (HR 1.54 (95% CI 1.40-1.69), haemorrhagic) cancers were associated with significantly increased incidence of stroke. Risk is highest within the first 6 months of diagnosis. Narrative synthesis indicated that several studies also showed significantly increased incidence of stroke in individuals with colorectal cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer, leukaemia, and myeloma, and those who have received radiotherapy for head and neck cancers and platinum-based chemotherapy may also have higher stroke incidence. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke incidence is significantly increased after diagnosis of certain cancers. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Cardiovascular risk should be assessed during cancer survivorship care, with attention to modifying shared cancer/cardiovascular risk factors.

Phase II double-blind randomised controlled trial of exogenous administration of melatonin in chronic pain (DREAM-CP): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain is prevalent, and approximately half of patients with chronic pain experience sleep disturbance. Exogenous melatonin is licensed to treat primary insomnia and there is some evidence for analgesic effects of melatonin.The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of oral melatonin (as Circadin) 2 mg at night in adults with severe non-malignant pain of at least 3 months' duration. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over study. The primary outcome is sleep disturbance. Secondary outcomes are pain intensity, actigraphy, fatigue, reaction time testing, serum melatonin and endogenous opioid peptide levels along with patient views about study participation.We aim to recruit 60 patients with severe chronic pain (average pain intensity ≥7 on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)) from a tertiary referral pain clinic in Northeast Scotland. Participants will be randomised to receive melatonin (as modified release Circadin) 2 mg daily for 6 weeks or placebo, followed by a 4-week washout period, then 6 weeks treatment with the treatment they did not receive. Participants will complete the Verran Snyder-Halpern Sleep Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Pain and Sleep Questionnaire 3-item index, BPI and psychomotor vigilance reaction time testing at 6 points over 20 weeks. Actigraphy watches will be used to provide objective measures of sleep duration and latency and other sleep measures and will prompt patients to report contemporaneous pain and fatigue scores daily.Cross-over analyses will include tests for effects of treatment, period, treatment-period interaction (carryover effect) and sequence. Within-patient effects and longitudinal data will be analysed using mixed linear models, accounting for potential confounders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by Office for Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland, reference 19/NI/0007. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and will be presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12861060.

Impact of geography on Scottish cancer diagnoses in primary care: Results from a national cancer diagnosis audit.

BACKGROUND: A recent meta-analysis of global research found cancer patients living in rural locations are 5% less likely to survive than their urban counterparts, a survival disadvantage that has never been satisfactorily explained. AIMS: [1] To describe and compare primary-care involvement in the diagnosis of cancer between rural and urban patients in Scotland. [2] To compare the length of key diagnostic pathway intervals between rural and urban cancer patients in Scotland. METHODS: Participating GPs in the Scottish National Cancer Audit of cancer diagnosis (2017) collected data from primary-care medical records on the diagnostic pathway of patients diagnosed in 2014. Residential postcodes designated the patients as rural or urban dwellers. Key cancer diagnostic pathway intervals (primary, diagnostic, secondary, and treatment) were compared using binary logistic regression. Descriptive analysis included comparison of patient characteristics, and routes to diagnosis. RESULTS: 73 Scottish general practices provided data on 1,905 cancer diagnoses. Rural patients did not have higher odds of prolonged diagnostic intervals compared to urban patients but were significantly more likely to have had a cancer alarm feature at presentation and three or more primary-care consultations prior to referral. Rural GPs were significantly more likely to perceive an avoidable delay in their patient's diagnostic pathway. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence that rural patients were more likely to be subject to prolonged cancer diagnostic delays than urban patients. Rural patients may experience primary care differently in the lead-up to a cancer diagnosis. The effect on outcome is probably negligible, but further research is required to confirm this.

Influences of rurality on action to diagnose cancer by primary care practitioners - Results from a Europe-wide survey in 20 countries.

BACKGROUND: Rural-dwellers have poorer cancer outcomes than urban counterparts, for reasons which are unclear. At healthcare institution level, poorer access to investigations and different clinical decision-making by rural primary healthcare practitioners (PCPs) could be important. AIM: To compare access to investigations, attitudes to cancer diagnosis and clinical decision-making between rural and urban PCPs. SETTING: A vignette-based cross-sectional survey of rural and urban PCPs in 20 European countries. METHODS: Data on PCPs' decision-making and attitudes to cancer diagnosis were based on clinical scenarios. Comparisons were made using tests of proportion, univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 1779 PCPs completing the survey 541 30.4 %) practiced rurally. Rural PCPs had significantly less direct access to all investigative modalities: ultrasound; endoscopy; x-ray and advanced screening (all p < 0.001). Rural PCPs were as likely as urban PCPs to take diagnostic action (investigation and/or referral) at the index consultation in all four clinical vignettes ((OR, 95 % CI) for lung: 0.90, 0.72-1.12; ovarian: 0.95, 0.75-1.19; breast: 0.87, 0.69-1.09; colorectal: 0.98, 0.75-1.30). Rural PCPs were less likely to refer to a specialist at the index consultation for ovarian cancer (OR 0.71 95 % CI 0.51-0.99). Rural PCPs were significantly more likely to report that their patients faced barriers to accessing specialist care, but practitioners did not report greater difficulties making specialist referral than their urban counterparts CONCLUSIONS: European rural PCPs report poorer access to investigations but are at least as likely as urban PCPs to investigate or refer patients that might have cancer at the index consultation.

Patterns of symptoms possibly indicative of cancer and associated help-seeking behaviour in a large sample of United Kingdom residents-The USEFUL study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer awareness campaigns aim to increase awareness of the potential seriousness of signs and symptoms of cancer, and encourage their timely presentation to healthcare services. Enhanced understanding of the prevalence of symptoms possibly indicative of cancer in different population subgroups, and associated general practitioner (GP) help-seeking behaviour, will help to target cancer awareness campaigns more effectively. AIM: To determine: i) the prevalence of 21 symptoms possibly indicative of breast, colorectal, lung or upper gastrointestinal cancer in the United Kingdom (UK), including six 'red flag' symptoms; ii) whether the prevalence varies among population subgroups; iii) the proportion of symptoms self-reported as presented to GPs; iv) whether GP help-seeking behaviour varies within population subgroups. METHODS: Self-completed questionnaire about experience of, and response to, 25 symptoms (including 21 possibly indicative of the four cancers of interest) in the previous month and year; sent to 50,000 adults aged 50 years or more and registered with 21 general practices in Staffordshire, England or across Scotland. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were received from 16,778 respondents (corrected response rate 34.2%). Almost half (45.8%) of respondents had experienced at least one symptom possibly indicative of cancer in the last month, and 58.5% in the last year. The prevalence of individual symptoms varied widely (e.g. in the last year between near zero% (vomiting up blood) and 15.0% (tired all the time). Red flag symptoms were uncommon. Female gender, inability to work because of illness, smoking, a history of a specified medical diagnosis, low social support and lower household income were consistently associated with experiencing at least one symptom possibly indicative of cancer in both the last month and year. The proportion of people who had contacted their GP about a symptom experienced in the last month varied between 8.1% (persistent cough) and 39.9% (unexplained weight loss); in the last year between 32.8% (hoarseness) and 85.4% (lump in breast). Nearly half of respondents experiencing at least one red flag symptom in the last year did not contact their GP about it. Females, those aged 80+ years, those unable to work because of illness, ex-smokers and those previously diagnosed with a specified condition were more likely to report a symptom possibly indicative of cancer to their GP; and those on high household income less likely. CONCLUSION: Symptoms possibly indicative of cancer are common among adults aged 50+ years in the UK, although they are not evenly distributed. Help-seeking responses to different symptoms also vary. Our results suggest important opportunities to provide more nuanced messaging and targeting of symptom-based cancer awareness campaigns.

Publicly available apps for cancer survivors: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To review the nature and scope of apps targeting individuals living with and beyond cancer. DESIGN: Scoping review, searching the two largest app stores, Google Play and Apple's App store. App descriptions were exported verbatim, and summarised descriptively, thematically and by content coding. RESULTS: We included 151 apps targeting individuals living with and beyond cancer. Most targeted all cancer types (n=89, 58.9%) or breast cancer (n=22, 14.6%) and originated in the USA (n=68, 45.0%). The country of origin was unclear for 31 (20.5%) apps. Most apps were developed by commercial companies/private individuals (n=64, 43%) or non-profit organisations (n=30, 19.9%) and marketed apps in terms of fighting metaphors, navigating a journey and becoming empowered to take control.App content could be summarised under five main categories: (1) imparting information about cancer; (2) planning and organising cancer care; (3) interacting with others (including others affected by cancer and healthcare professionals); (4) enacting management strategies and adjusting to life with or beyond cancer and (5) getting feedback about cancer management, for example, by sharing self-monitoring reports with professionals. We found some apps describing 'cures' for cancer or selling products, such as alkaline waters to cancer survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Apps are currently available via on-line stores that cover a large spectrum of cancer survivorship activities. The effects of such apps on clinical consultations, patient work/burden and clinical outcomes merit further attention. Most apps are developed by commercial organisations, and promises of empowerment in the 'fight' against cancer are tempered by the potential for exaggerated claims and exploitation.