Future cancer risk after urgent suspected cancer referral in England when cancer is not found: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Following referral for investigation of urgent suspected cancer within the English National Health Service referral system, 7% of referred individuals are diagnosed with cancer. This study aimed to investigate the risk of cancer occurrence within 1-5 years of finding no cancer following an urgent suspected cancer referral. METHODS: This national cohort study used urgent suspected cancer referral data for England from the Cancer Waiting Times dataset and linked it with cancer diagnosis data from the National Cancer Registration dataset. Data were extracted for the eight most commonly referred to urgent suspected cancer referral pathways (breast, gynaecological, head and neck, lower and upper gastrointestinal, lung, skin, and urological) for the period April 1, 2013, to March 31, 2014, with 5-year follow-up for individuals with no cancer diagnosis within 1 year of referral. The primary objective was to investigate the occurrence and type of subsequent cancer in years 1-5 following an urgent suspected cancer referral when no cancer was initially found, both overall and for each of the eight referral pathways. The numbers of subsequent cancers were compared with expected cancer incidence in years 1-5 following referral, using standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) based on matched age-gender distributions of expected cancer incidence in England for the same time period. The analysis was repeated, stratifying by referral group, and by calculating the absolute and expected rate of all cancers and of the same individual cancer as the initial referral. FINDINGS: Among 1·18 million referrals without a cancer diagnosis in years 0-1, there were 63 112 subsequent cancers diagnosed 1-5 years post-referral, giving an absolute rate of 1338 (95% CI 1327-1348) cancers per 100 000 referrals per year (1038 [1027-1050] in females, 1888 [1867-1909] in males), compared with an expected rate of 1054 (1045-1064) cancers per 100 000 referrals per year (SIR 1·27 [95% CI 1·26-1·28]). The absolute rate of any subsequent cancer diagnosis 1-5 years after referral was lowest following suspected breast cancer referral (746 [728-763] cancers per 100 000 referrals per year) and highest following suspected urological (2110 [2070-2150]) or lung cancer (1835 [1767-1906]) referral. For diagnosis of the same cancer as the initial referral pathway, the highest absolute rates were for the urological and lung pathways (1011 [984-1039] and 638 [598-680] cancers per 100 000 referrals per year, respectively). The highest relative risks of subsequent diagnosis of the same cancer as the initial referral pathway were for the head and neck pathway (SIR 3·49 [95% CI 3·22-3·78]) and lung pathway (3·00 [2·82-3·20]). INTERPRETATION: Cancer risk was higher than expected in the 5 years following an urgent suspected cancer referral. The potential for targeted interventions, such as proactive monitoring, safety-netting, and cancer awareness or risk reduction initiatives should be investigated. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Advice after urgent suspected cancer referral when cancer is not found in England: Survey of patients' preferences and perceived acceptability.

Objective: No standardised approach exists to provide advice after urgent suspected cancer (USC) referral when cancer is not found. This study aimed to assess preferences and acceptability of receiving advice after USC referral related to: 1) managing ongoing symptoms, 2) responding to early symptoms of other cancers, 3) cancer screening, 4) reducing risks of future cancer. Methods: 2,541 patients from two English NHS Trusts were mailed a survey 1-3 months after having no cancer found following urgent suspected gastrointestinal or head and neck cancer referral. Participants were asked about: willingness to receive advice; prospective acceptability; preferences related to mode, timing and who should provide advice; and previous advice receipt. Results: 406 patients responded (16.0%) with 397 in the final analyses. Few participants had previously received advice, yet most were willing to. Willingness varied by type of advice: fewer were willing to receive advice about early symptoms of other cancers (88.9%) than advice related to ongoing symptoms (94.3%). Acceptability was relatively high for all advice types. Reducing the risk of future cancer advice was more acceptable. Acceptability was lower in those from ethnic minority groups, and with lower levels of education. Most participants preferred to receive advice from a doctor; with results or soon after; either face to face or via the telephone. Conclusions: There is a potential unmet need for advice after USC referral when no cancer is found. Equitable intervention design should focus on increasing acceptability for people from ethnic minority groups and those with lower levels of education.

Strategies used for childhood chronic functional constipation: the SUCCESS evidence synthesis.

Background: Up to 30% of children have constipation at some stage in their life. Although often short-lived, in one-third of children it progresses to chronic functional constipation, potentially with overflow incontinence. Optimal management strategies remain unclear. Objective: To determine the most effective interventions, and combinations and sequences of interventions, for childhood chronic functional constipation, and understand how they can best be implemented. Methods: Key stakeholders, comprising two parents of children with chronic functional constipation, two adults who experienced childhood chronic functional constipation and four health professional/continence experts, contributed throughout the research. We conducted pragmatic mixed-method reviews. For all reviews, included studies focused on any interventions/strategies, delivered in any setting, to improve any outcomes in children (0-18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of chronic functional constipation (excluding studies of diagnosis/assessment) included. Dual reviewers applied inclusion criteria and assessed risk of bias. One reviewer extracted data, checked by a second reviewer. Scoping review: We systematically searched electronic databases (including Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) (January 2011 to March 2020) and grey literature, including studies (any design) reporting any intervention/strategy. Data were coded, tabulated and mapped. Research quality was not evaluated. Systematic reviews of the evidence of effectiveness: For each different intervention, we included existing systematic reviews judged to be low risk of bias (using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews), updating any meta-analyses with new randomised controlled trials. Where there was no existing low risk of bias systematic reviews, we included randomised controlled trials and other primary studies. The risk of bias was judged using design-specific tools. Evidence was synthesised narratively, and a process of considered judgement was used to judge certainty in the evidence as high, moderate, low, very low or insufficient evidence. Economic synthesis: Included studies (any design, English-language) detailed intervention-related costs. Studies were categorised as cost-consequence, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility or cost-benefit, and reporting quality evaluated using the consensus health economic criteria checklist. Systematic review of implementation factors: Included studies reported data relating to implementation barriers or facilitators. Using a best-fit framework synthesis approach, factors were synthesised around the consolidated framework for implementation research domains. Results: Stakeholders prioritised outcomes, developed a model which informed evidence synthesis and identified evidence gaps. Scoping review: 651 studies, including 190 randomised controlled trials and 236 primary studies, conservatively reported 48 interventions/intervention combinations. Effectiveness systematic reviews: studies explored service delivery models (n = 15); interventions delivered by families/carers (n = 32), wider children's workforce (n = 21), continence teams (n = 31) and specialist consultant-led teams (n = 42); complementary therapies (n = 15); and psychosocial interventions (n = 4). One intervention (probiotics) had moderate-quality evidence; all others had low to very-low-quality evidence. Thirty-one studies reported evidence relating to cost or resource use; data were insufficient to support generalisable conclusions. One hundred and six studies described implementation barriers and facilitators. Conclusions: Management of childhood chronic functional constipation is complex. The available evidence remains limited, with small, poorly conducted and reported studies. Many evidence gaps were identified. Treatment recommendations within current clinical guidelines remain largely unchanged, but there is a need for research to move away from considering effectiveness of single interventions. Clinical care and future studies must consider the individual characteristics of children. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019159008. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 128470) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Between 5% and 30% of children experience constipation at some stage. In one-third of these children, this progresses to chronic functional constipation. Chronic functional constipation affects more children with additional needs. We aimed to find and bring together published information about treatments for chronic functional constipation, to help establish best treatments and treatment combinations. We did not cover assessment or diagnosis of chronic functional constipation. This project was guided by a 'stakeholder group', including parents of children with constipation, people who experienced constipation as children, and healthcare professionals/continence experts. We carried out a 'scoping review' and a series of 'systematic reviews'. Our 'scoping review' provides an overall picture of research about treatments, with 651 studies describing 48 treatments. This helps identify important evidence gaps. 'Systematic reviews' are robust methods of bringing together and interpreting research evidence. Our stakeholder group decided to structure our systematic reviews to reflect who delivered the interventions. We brought together evidence about how well treatments worked when delivered by families/carers (32 studies), the wider children's workforce (e.g. general practitioner, health visitor) (21 studies), continence teams (31 studies) or specialist consultant-led teams (42 studies). We also considered complementary therapies (15 studies) and behavioural strategies (4 studies). Care is affected by what is done and how it is done. We brought together evidence about different models of delivering care (15 studies), barriers and facilitators to implementation of treatments (106 studies) and costs (31 studies). Quality of evidence was mainly low to very low. Despite numerous studies, there was often insufficient information to support generalisable conclusions. Our findings generally agreed with current clinical guidelines. Management of childhood chronic functional constipation should be child-centred, multifaceted and adapted according to the individual child, their needs, the situation in which they live and the health-care setting in which they are looked after. Research is needed to address our identified evidence gaps.

Distinguishing emotional distress from mental disorder in primary care: a qualitative exploration of the Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Primary care clinicians see people experiencing the full range of mental health problems. Determining when symptoms reflect disorder is complex. The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) uniquely distinguishes general distress from depressive and anxiety disorders. It may support diagnostic conversations and targeting of treatment. AIM: To explore peoples' experiences of completing the 4DSQ and their perceptions of their resulting score profile across distress, depression, anxiety, and physical symptoms. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study was conducted in the UK with people recruited from primary care and community settings. METHOD: Participants completed the 4DSQ then took part in semi-structured telephone interviews. They were interviewed about their experience of completing the 4DSQ, their perceptions of their scores across four dimensions, and the perceived utility if used with a clinician. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Twenty-four interviews were conducted. Most participants found the 4DSQ easy to complete and reported that scores across the four dimensions aligned well with their symptom experience. Distinct scores for distress, depression, and anxiety appeared to support improved self-understanding. Some valued the opportunity to discuss their scores and provide relevant context. Many felt the use of the 4DSQ with clinicians would be helpful and likely to support treatment decisions, although some were concerned about time-limited consultations. CONCLUSION: Distinguishing general distress from depressive and anxiety disorders aligned well with people's experience of symptoms. Use of the 4DSQ as part of mental health consultations may support targeting of treatment and personalisation of care.

MulTI-domain self-management in older People wiTh OstEoarthritis and multi-morbidities: protocol for the TIPTOE randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Four out of five people living with osteoarthritis (OA) also suffer with at least one other long-term health condition. The complex interaction between OA and multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs) can result in difficulties with self-care, restricted mobility, pain, anxiety, depression and reduced quality of life. The aim of the MulTI-domain Self-management in Older People wiTh OstEoarthritis and Multi-Morbidities (TIPTOE) trial is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Living Well self-management support intervention, co-designed with people living with OA, integrated into usual care, in comparison to usual care alone. METHODS: TIPTOE is a multi-centre, two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial where 824 individuals over 65 years old with knee and/or hip joint pain from their OA affected joint and at least one other long-term health condition will be randomised to receive either the Living Well Self-Management support intervention or usual care. Eligible participants can self-refer onto the trial via a website or be referred via NHS services across Wales and England. Those randomised to receive the Living Well support intervention will be offered up to six one-to-one coaching sessions with a TIPTOE-trained healthcare practitioner and a co-designed book. Participants will be encouraged to nominate a support person to assist them throughout the study. All participants will complete a series of self-reported outcome measures at baseline and 6- and 12-month follow-up. The primary outcome is symptoms and quality of life as assessed by the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ). Routine data will be used to evaluate health resource use. A mixed methods process evaluation will be conducted alongside the trial to inform future implementation should the TIPTOE intervention be found both clinically and cost-effective. An embedded 'Study Within A Project' (SWAP) will explore and address barriers to the inclusion of under-served patient groups (e.g. oldest old, low socioeconomic groups, ethnic groups). DISCUSSION: TIPTOE will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a co-designed, living well personalised self-management support intervention for older individuals with knee and/or hip OA and MLTCs. The trial has been designed to maximise inclusivity and access. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 16024745 . Registered on October 16, 2023.

Personal assistants in England and the factors associated with absenteeism.

Personal assistants (PAs) have become an increasingly important element of long-term care (LTC) in England since the introduction of Direct Payments in 1996 and the Care Act 2014 legislation. The PAs, who are directly employed by social care users, can perform a number of support tasks including vital assistance in activities of daily living (ADL). Internationally these roles would be classed as domestic care work, including the employment of migrant care workers, e.g. in Germany and Austria. High turnover rates and work absenteeism in this market can cause disruption of these important daily activities, causing LTC users to potentially suffer neglect and poorer quality of life. Although there is research on turnover and absenteeism in nursing workforce in hospitals and LTC workers in nursing homes, little attention has been given to reasons for turnover of PAs and even less for absenteeism, which often precedes turnover, in a workforce of over 100,000 people in England. This research aims to fill this gap in knowledge by analyzing the reasons behind the absenteeism of PAs using quantitative methods. We used survey data of PAs in England, exploring the factors associated to one form of absenteeism-sick leave from work. After controlling for a number of factors ranging from job characteristics such as number of hours worked and type of contract, socio-economic characteristics from the PA and their employer, and supply and demand factors at local government region, the findings suggest a number of factors that significantly influenced sick leave, including distances traveled to work and number of PAs employed. Following the analysis, two people with life experience of LTC discuss the findings of the study and how they compare to their experiences of the market for PAs, providing a unique perspective from the people who could benefit the most from improving PA retention and reducing absenteeism.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of a New psychosocial intervention to support Independence in Dementia (NIDUS-family) for family carers and people living with dementia in their own homes: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most people living with dementia want to remain living in their own homes and are supported to do so by family carers. No interventions have consistently demonstrated improvements to people with dementia's life quality, functioning, or other indices of living as well as possible with dementia. We have co-produced, with health and social care professionals and family carers of people with dementia, a new intervention (NIDUS-family). To our knowledge, NIDUS-family is the first manualised intervention that can be tailored to personal goals of people living with dementia and their families and is delivered by facilitators without clinical training. The intervention utilizes components of behavioural management, carer support, psychoeducation, communication and coping skills training, enablement, and environmental adaptations, with modules selected to address dyads' selected goals. We will evaluate the effect of NIDUS-family and usual care on goal attainment, as measured by Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) rated by family carers, compared to usual care alone at 12-month follow-up. We will also determine whether NIDUS-family and usual care is more cost-effective than usual care alone over 12 months. METHODS: A randomised, two-arm, single-masked, multi-site clinical trial involving 297 people living with dementia-family carer dyads. Dyads will be randomised 2:1 to receive the NIDUS-family intervention with usual care (n = 199) or usual care alone (n = 98). The intervention group will be offered, over 1 year, via 6-8 video call or telephone sessions (or face to face if COVID-19 restrictions allow in the recruitment period) in the initial 6 months, followed by telephone follow-ups every 1-2 months to support implementation, with a trained facilitator. DISCUSSION: Increasing the time lived at home by people living with dementia is likely to benefit lives now and in the future. Our intervention, which we adapted to include remote delivery prior to trial commencement due to the COVID-19 pandemic, aims to address barriers to living as well and as independently as possible that distress people living with dementia, exacerbate family carer(s) stress, negatively affect relationships, lead to safety risks, and frequently precipitate avoidable moves to a care home. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number ISRCTN11425138 . Registered on 7 October 2019.