How do public health professionals view and engage with research? A qualitative interview study and stakeholder workshop engaging public health professionals and researchers.

BACKGROUND: With increasing financial pressures on public health in England, the need for evidence of high relevance to policy is now stronger than ever. However, the ways in which public health professionals (PHPs) and researchers relate to one another are not necessarily conducive to effective knowledge translation. This study explores the perspectives of PHPs and researchers when interacting, with a view to identifying barriers to and opportunities for developing practice that is effectively informed by research. METHODS: This research focused on examples from two responsive research schemes, which provide university-based support for research-related enquiries from PHPs: the NIHR SPHR Public Health Practitioner Evaluation Scheme1 and the responsive research service AskFuse2. We examined enquiries that were submitted to both between 2013 and 2015, and purposively selected eight enquiries for further investigation by interviewing the PHPs and researchers involved in these requests. We also identified individuals who were eligible to make requests to the schemes but chose not to do so. In-depth interviews were conducted with six people in relation to the PHPES scheme, and 12 in relation to AskFuse. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic framework analysis. Verification and extension of the findings were sought in a stakeholder workshop. RESULTS: PHPs recognised the importance of research findings for informing their practice. However, they identified three main barriers when trying to engage with researchers: 1) differences in timescales; 2) limited budgets; and 3) difficulties in identifying appropriate researchers. The two responsive schemes addressed some of these barriers, particularly finding the right researchers to work with and securing funding for local evaluations. The schemes also supported the development of new types of evidence. However, other barriers remained, such as differences in timescales and the resources needed to scale-up research. CONCLUSIONS: An increased mutual awareness of the structures and challenges under which PHPs and researchers work is required. Opportunities for frequent and meaningful engagement between PHPs and researchers can help to overcome additional barriers to co-production of evidence. Collaborative models, such as the use of researchers embedded in practice might facilitate this; however, flexible research funding schemes are needed to support these models.

Age-related references in national public health, technology appraisal and clinical guidelines and guidance: documentary analysis.

Background: older people may be less likely to receive interventions than younger people. Age bias in national guidance may influence entire public health and health care systems. We examined how English National Institute for Health & Care Excellence (NICE) guidance and guidelines consider age. Methods: we undertook a documentary analysis of NICE public health (n = 33) and clinical (n = 114) guidelines and technology appraisals (n = 212). We systematically searched for age-related terms, and conducted thematic analysis of the paragraphs in which these occurred ('age-extracts'). Quantitative analysis explored frequency of age-extracts between and within document types. Illustrative quotes were used to elaborate and explain quantitative findings. Results: 2,314 age-extracts were identified within three themes: age documented as an a-priori consideration at scope-setting (518 age-extracts, 22.4%); documentation of differential effectiveness, cost-effectiveness or other outcomes by age (937 age-extracts, 40.5%); and documentation of age-specific recommendations (859 age-extracts, 37.1%). Public health guidelines considered age most comprehensively. There were clear examples of older-age being considered in both evidence searching and in making recommendations, suggesting that this can be achieved within current processes. Conclusions: we found inconsistencies in how age is considered in NICE guidance and guidelines. More effort may be required to ensure age is consistently considered. Future NICE committees should search for and document evidence of age-related differences in receipt of interventions. Where evidence relating to effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in older populations is available, more explicit age-related recommendations should be made. Where there is a lack of evidence, it should be stated what new research is needed.

Socio-economic inequalities in stage at diagnosis, and in time intervals on the lung cancer pathway from first symptom to treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cancer diagnosis at an early stage increases the chance of curative treatment and of survival. It has been suggested that delays on the pathway from first symptom to diagnosis and treatment may be socio-economically patterned, and contribute to socio-economic differences in receipt of treatment and in cancer survival. This review aimed to assess the published evidence for socio-economic inequalities in stage at diagnosis of lung cancer, and in the length of time spent on the lung cancer pathway. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases were searched to locate cohort studies of adults with a primary diagnosis of lung cancer, where the outcome was stage at diagnosis or the length of time spent within an interval on the care pathway, or a suitable proxy measure, analysed according to a measure of socio-economic position. Meta-analysis was undertaken when there were studies available with suitable data. Of the 461 records screened, 39 papers were included in the review (20 from the UK) and seven in a final meta-analysis for stage at diagnosis. There was no evidence of socio-economic inequalities in late stage at diagnosis in the most, compared with the least, deprived group (OR=1.04, 95% CI=0.92 to 1.19). No socio-economic inequalities in the patient interval or in time from diagnosis to treatment were found. Socio-economic inequalities in stage at diagnosis are thought to be an important explanatory factor for survival inequalities in cancer. However, socio-economic inequalities in stage at diagnosis were not found in a meta-analysis for lung cancer. PROSPERO PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014007145.

Socio-Economic Differences in the Association between Self-Reported and Clinically Present Diabetes and Hypertension: Secondary Analysis of a Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes and hypertension are key risk factors for coronary heart disease. Prevalence of both conditions is socio-economically patterned. Awareness of presence of the conditions may influence risk behaviour and use of preventative services. Our aim was to examine whether there were socio-economic differences in awareness of hypertension and diabetes in a UK population. METHOD: Data from the Scottish Health Survey was used to compare self-reported awareness of hypertension and diabetes amongst those found on examination to have these conditions, by socioeconomic position (SEP) (measured by occupation, education and income). Odds ratios of self-reported awareness against presence, and the sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of self-reporting as a measure of the presence of the condition, were calculated. RESULTS: Presence and self-reported awareness of both conditions increased as SEP decreased, on most measures. There was only one significant difference in awareness by SEP once other factors had been taken into account. Sensitivity showed that those in the most disadvantaged groups were most likely to self-report awareness of their hypertension, and specificity showed that those in the least disadvantaged groups were most likely to self-report awareness of its absence. There were few differences of note for diabetes. CONCLUSION: We found no consistent pattern in the associations between SEP and the presence and self-reported awareness of hypertension and diabetes amongst those with these conditions. Without evidence of differences, it is important that universal approaches continue to be applied to the identification and management of those at risk of these and other conditions that underpin cardiovascular disease.

The role of receipt and timeliness of treatment in socioeconomic inequalities in lung cancer survival: population-based, data-linkage study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer survival is socioeconomically patterned, and socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of treatment have been demonstrated. In England, there are target waiting times for the referral (14 days) and treatment intervals (31 days from diagnosis, 62 days from GP referral). Socioeconomic inequalities in the time intervals from GP referral have been found. Cancer registry, Hospital Episode Statistics and lung cancer audit data were linked in order to investigate the contribution of these inequalities to socioeconomic inequalities in lung cancer survival. METHODS: Logistic regression was used to examine the likelihood of being alive 2 years after diagnosis, by socioeconomic position, for 22,967 lung cancer patients diagnosed in 2006-2009, and in a subset with stage recorded (n=5233). RESULTS: Socioeconomic inequalities in survival were found in a multivariable analysis adjusted for age, sex, histology, year, timely GP referral, performance status and comorbidity, with those in the most deprived socioeconomic group significantly less likely to be alive after 2 years (OR=0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.88, p<0.001). When receipt of treatment was included in the analysis, the association no longer remained significant (OR=0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00, p=0.06). Addition of timeliness of treatment did not alter the conclusion. Patients treated within guideline targets had lower likelihood of two-year survival. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic inequalities in survival from lung cancer were statistically explained by socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of treatment, but not by timeliness of referral and treatment. Further research is required to determine the currently unexplained socioeconomic variance in treatment rates.

Socio-economic inequalities in patient, primary care, referral, diagnostic, and treatment intervals on the lung cancer care pathway: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis and treatment of cancer is thought to be important for improving survival. Longer time between the onset of cancer symptoms and receipt of treatment may help explain the poorer survival of UK cancer patients compared to that in other countries.Socio-economic inequalities in receipt of, and time to, treatment may contribute to socio-economic differences in cancer survival. Socio-economic inequalities in receipt of lung cancer treatment have been shown in a recent systematic review. However, no systematic review of the evidence for socio-economic inequalities in time to presentation (patient interval), time to first investigation (primary care interval), time to secondary care investigation (referral interval), time to diagnosis (diagnostic interval), and time to treatment (treatment interval) has been conducted.This review aims to assess the published and grey literature evidence for socio-economic inequalities in the length of time spent on the lung cancer diagnostic and treatment pathway, examining interim intervals on the pathway where inequalities might occur. METHODS: Systematic methods will be used to identify relevant studies, assess study eligibility for inclusion, and evaluate study quality. The online databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL will be searched to locate cohort studies of adults with a primary diagnosis of lung cancer; where the outcome is mean or median time to the interval endpoint (or a suitable proxy measure of this), or the likelihood of longer or shorter time to the endpoint; analysed by a measure of socio-economic position. Meta-analysis will be conducted if there are sufficient studies available with suitable data. DISCUSSION: This review will systematically determine if there are socio-economic inequalities in time from symptom onset to treatment for lung cancer. If such inequalities are present, our review evidence will help inform the development of interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis and treatment, ultimately helping to reduce socio-economic inequalities in survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014007145.

Socioeconomic inequalities in lung cancer treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intervention-generated inequalities are unintended variations in outcome that result from the organisation and delivery of health interventions. Socioeconomic inequalities in treatment may occur for some common cancers. Although the incidence and outcome of lung cancer varies with socioeconomic position (SEP), it is not known whether socioeconomic inequalities in treatment occur and how these might affect mortality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing research on socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of treatment for lung cancer. METHODS AND FINDINGS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched up to September 2012 for cohort studies of participants with a primary diagnosis of lung cancer (ICD10 C33 or C34), where the outcome was receipt of treatment (rates or odds of receiving treatment) and where the outcome was reported by a measure of SEP. Forty-six papers met the inclusion criteria, and 23 of these papers were included in meta-analysis. Socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of lung cancer treatment were observed. Lower SEP was associated with a reduced likelihood of receiving any treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.79 [95% CI 0.73 to 0.86], p<0.001), surgery (OR = 0.68 [CI 0.63 to 0.75], p<0.001) and chemotherapy (OR = 0.82 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.93], p = 0.003), but not radiotherapy (OR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.86 to 1.14], p = 0.89), for lung cancer. The association remained when stage was taken into account for receipt of surgery, and was found in both universal and non-universal health care systems. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with lung cancer living in more socioeconomically deprived circumstances are less likely to receive any type of treatment, surgery, and chemotherapy. These inequalities cannot be accounted for by socioeconomic differences in stage at presentation or by differences in health care system. Further investigation is required to determine the patient, tumour, clinician, and system factors that may contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of lung cancer treatment.

The influence of childhood IQ and education on social mobility in the Newcastle Thousand Families birth cohort.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that social, educational, cultural and physical factors in childhood and early adulthood may influence the chances and direction of social mobility, the movement of an individual between social classes over his/her life-course. This study examined the association of such factors with intra-generational and inter-generational social mobility within the Newcastle Thousand Families 1947 birth cohort. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the potential association of sex, housing conditions at age 5 years, childhood IQ, achieved education level, adult height and adverse events in early childhood with upward and downward social mobility. RESULTS: Childhood IQ and achieved education level were significantly and independently associated with upward mobility between the ages of 5 and 49-51 years. Only education was significantly associated (positively) with upward social mobility between 5 and 25 years, and only childhood IQ (again positively) with upward social mobility between 25 and 49-51 years. Childhood IQ was significantly negatively associated with downward social mobility. Adult height, childhood housing conditions, adverse events in childhood and sex were not significant determinants of upward or downward social mobility in this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: As upward social mobility has been associated with better health as well as more general benefits to society, supportive measures to improve childhood circumstances that could result in increased IQ and educational attainment may have long-term population health and wellbeing benefits.