Serial tests of T-cell function predict long-term survival in an elderly cohort from a Scottish general practice.

INTRODUCTION The care of the elderly presents serious challenges to general practice. In 1979, the first author took over the care of a general practice in Scotland where 21% of registered patients were elderly. This resulted in a high workload and prompted research into how this might be mitigated. AIM To measure serial tests of T-cell function in these individuals in order to identify those whose immune response was impaired and assess the effect of this in a long term follow up. METHODS This research comprised two phases. In the assessment phase (1979-82), patients were invited to have a 3-monthly visit from a research nurse where clinical measurements were made and blood taken for immunological tests of lymphocyte proliferation after culture with phytohaemagglutinin (PHA). For each patient, all records were surveyed and problems identified. In the follow-up phase (post 1982), all deaths were assessed with complete life-long follow up. RESULTS Of 405 people originally invited to participate in this research, 314 (78%) agreed and 246 (153 female, 93 male) entered the follow-up phase and were followed for 36.5 years. Factors significantly associated with lower survival were age, male sex, diastolic blood pressure, current smoking and poor immune function, as demonstrated by the percentage of negative responses in at least six PHA tests. Considered in four groups by percentage of failing tests, the lowest group had a life span 4 years shorter than the highest (P<0.01). The four groups did not differ significantly in general practitioner workload, diagnosed problems or causes of death. DISCUSSION Poor cellular immune function was associated with poor survival over lifetime follow up of >30 years. A sensitive, specific and longitudinally consistent measure of T-cell function is required to predict who may be at risk of poorer survival within our practices.

Perceived impact on clinical practice and logistical issues in clinical management surveys of cancer: Australian experience.

BACKGROUND: In September 2004, 28 published and 17 ongoing clinical management surveys (CMS) of cancer in Australia were identified, describing the clinical management of representative series of cancer patients. The present study assessed the perceived influence of these on clinical practice and the logistical issues involved in conducting a CMS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Questionnaire sent to a key clinical investigator in each survey. RESULTS: For the 28 published CMS, respondents (response rate 54%) reported that the CMS were influential in half or more of subsequent changes in the development or implementation of standard protocols, increasing specialist involvement in clinical trials, reducing variability in practice, and providing informed choice for patients. The surveys were regarded as influential in a third to half of noted changes in the use of evidence-based treatments, multidisciplinary care, and standardised collection of data. For CMS in progress, respondents (response rate 65%) reported on objectives and logistical issues, with the need for multiple ethical approvals emerging as a major issue. CONCLUSION: CMS of cancer have played a modest but important role in stimulating and supporting improvements in clinical care in Australia. Many Australian surveys have been large and population-based and with high response rates. The recent introduction of a requirement for patient consent by some (but not all) ethical committees greatly increases the difficulties and costs of such surveys.

Validity of self-reported skin screening histories.

Screening by whole-body clinical skin examination may improve early diagnosis of melanoma and reduce mortality, but objective scientific evidence of this is lacking. As part of a randomized controlled trial of population screening for melanoma in Queensland, Australia, the authors assessed the validity of self-reported history of whole-body skin examination and factors associated with accuracy of recall among 2,704 participants in 2001. Approximately half of the participants were known to have undergone whole-body skin examination within the past 3 years at skin screening clinics conducted as part of the randomized trial. All positive and negative self-reports were compared with screening clinic records. Where possible, reports of skin examinations conducted outside the clinics were compared with private medical records. The validity of self-reports of whole-body skin examination in the past 3 years was high: Concordance between self-reports and medical records was 93.7%, sensitivity was 92.0%, and specificity was 96.3%. Concordance was lower (74.3%) for self-reports of examinations conducted in the past 12 months, and there was evidence of "telescoping" in recall for this more recent time frame. In multivariate analysis, women and younger participants more accurately recalled their history of skin examinations. Participants with a history of melanoma did not differ from other participants in their accuracy of recall.

Once is enough--why some women do not continue to participate in a breast cancer screening programme.

AIM: To assess the reasons why many women who have been screened once in a breast screening programme decline an invitation for further screening. METHODS: Telephone interview survey of a sample of such women; for questions relating to their experience of previous mammography, comparison to data on a representative sample of first screen attendees. The subjects were women who had attended the first round of the Otago-Southland breast cancer screening programme in 1991-1994, who were eligible for re-screening but had been rescreened; age range 50-62. RESULTS: From programme records, 86% of women who were eligible for a second screen accepted it. Of the women not recorded as having had a second screen, some had attended for a second screen; some had not been invited until they had become age ineligible and some had received no invitation for re-screening. Of women who had received and declined an invitation for re-screening (n = 81), the major reason (46%) was their previous mammogram being painful. Other factors contributing were illness in themselves or their spouse, practical difficulties arranging time and negative experiences with staff in the previous mammography, although these related to relatively few women. A few women thought mammography would be of no benefit, and a few thought re-screening was unnecessary because their first mammography had been normal, or because they practise self-examination. CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring that all women eligible for further screening do get invited could substantially increase the re-screening rate. Even women who have declined previous invitations should be offered further invitations, as a substantial proportion with to be screened. Flexible and convenient appointment times are the main modifiable logistic issue. The major factor influencing non-participation with further screening is a painful experience of mammography. Innovative approaches, either to reduce the pain or to reduce the impact of the pain on the woman's attitude to re-screening, should be trialed.

The general practitioner's role in breast cancer screening: a survey in Otago-Southland.

AIMS: To study the experience of general practitioners in Otago and Southland with the existing breast cancer screening programme and the reviews on future programmes. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all 210 general practitioners in Otago and Southland in June 1996. RESULTS: The response rate was 71%. All the 141 respondents except one encouraged eligible women to take part in the programme; this was done mainly during individual doctor-patient consultations, by pamphlets and posters, and in the work of the practice nurse. Ten percent of practitioners had a practice-based recall system for breast cancer screening. Seventy-five percent of general practitioners currently provide a list of eligible women to the programme, and of these, 52% check the list to exclude ineligible women. Only 24% of practitioners supplying a patient list to the programme reported that a patient had ever requested that their name be excluded from the list. Twenty-five percent of general practitioners providing lists had a notice in the waiting room stating that. Of those who did not provide lists, concerns about logistics, ethical issues and cost were raised, although 40% of these general practitioners intended to provide lists in the future. In a future programme, 57% of general practitioners felt they should be paid for supplying lists defined by age only and 82% felt they should be paid for supplying a list of women eligible by both age and medical history. Most general practitioners felt that general practitioner lists were the preferred source for invitations to the breast screening programme and that general practitioners had an important part in any future programme. Screening at the ages 50-64 (as currently proposed) is supported by 95% of general practitioners; in addition, 64% supported screening at ages 65-69. Only a minority of general practitioners supported screening at ages 40-49 or ages 70-74. Most general practitioners would offer screening to women under age 50 with either a strong or a weak family history, or even with a past history of a fibroadenoma. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that almost all general practitioners support breast cancer screening programmes and feel that they have an important role in future programmes. The majority support extension of the programme to ages 65-69, but not to ages 40-49. The majority support screening women with individual risk factors at ages under 50, although their responses show that better information on the importance of different risk factors is required.

A community survey of sun exposure, sunburn and sun protection.

AIM: To describe outdoor activities, sun protection behaviours and the experience of sunburn in a sample of New Zealanders during summer weekends of 1994. METHODS: 1243 respondents to a telephone survey provided information regarding their outdoor activities for the 5 hour period around midday of the previous Saturday and Sunday. The sample was drawn from those aged 15 to 65 years in the five centres of Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin. Respondents provided information on sun exposure, sunburn, sun protection and beliefs about tanning, as well as background demographic information, skin type and previous experience of sunburn. RESULTS: 12% of the sample (or 17% of all those outdoors) reported being sunburned on the preceding weekend, and those sunburned tended to be men, and to be under age 35 years. The face, neck and limbs were the areas most frequently reported as burned. Sporting activities and beach or water activities were associated with the highest number of episodes of burning. Overall 38% of those outside reported wearing a hat and 32% reported the use of a sunscreen. Positive attitudes to tanning were quite common and probably present the main target for change in the community. CONCLUSION: On any sunny weekend in summer about three-quarters of adult New Zealanders will be out in the sun for relatively long periods of time, and many will get sunburned. The reduction of such harmful sun exposures remains an important public health goal.

Participation in breast cancer screening: randomised controlled trials of doctors' letters and of telephone reminders.

The study used a randomised controlled trial to find out whether supporting letters from general practitioners accompanying the invitations from a screening centre affected participation in a population-based breast cancer screening program for women aged 50 to 64. A further randomised controlled trial compared the effect of postal reminders with telephone reminders for women who did not respond to an initial invitation to participate in the program. There were 482 women in the first trial and 641 in the second. Excluding women who were ineligible or could not be contacted, participation in screening was 71 per cent in the group which received letters from their general practitioners compared with 62 per cent in the group which did not receive letters (P = 0.059). In the group that received letters, 56 per cent were screened without a reminder compared with 43 per cent of the group that did not receive letters (P = 0.01). Fewer women who received letters from their general practitioners declined the invitation to be screened (P = 0.048). In the second trial, there was no difference in participation between the group receiving telephone reminders and the group receiving postal reminders. As in breast cancer screening programs in other countries, general practitioner endorsement of invitations increased participation in breast cancer screening. Postal reminders were as effective as telephone reminders in encouraging women who did not respond to an initial invitation to participate in screening.

The recognition and management of melanoma and other skin lesions by general practitioners in New Zealand.

AIM: To assess current levels of knowledge and management practices with respect to melanoma and other skin cancers, in a representative sample of New Zealand general practitioners. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 900 general practitioners. The questionnaire included 12 cases with coloured photographs of skin lesions and a brief presenting history. Responders were asked to assess probable diagnosis, need for biopsy and management of the lesion. Other attitudinal and relevant background information was also gathered. The questionnaire was sent to a comparison sample of 35 dermatologists. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 66% among the general practitioners and 68% among the dermatologists. The sample responding was representative of the larger population of doctors practising in New Zealand. Correct decisions whether or not to biopsy lesions (mean score of 10.1 out of 12) were significantly higher than the number of correct diagnoses (mean 8.4). Correct identification and recognition of the need to biopsy melanomas was high. Diagnostic skills and recognition of the need for biopsy were somewhat lower among general practitioners aged 50 years and over than among younger doctors. Doctors who had experience of a patient with melanoma had higher diagnostic skills and made more correct biopsy decisions. The general practitioners' scores for correct biopsy decisions were similar to those of the dermatologists sampled, although their diagnostic skills were somewhat lower, particularly with respect to nonmelanoma skin cancers. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate a high level of expertise in terms of diagnosis of skin lesions and identification of need to biopsy suspicious lesions among general practitioners in this country.