What can patient-reported experience measures tell us about the variation in patients' experience of prostate cancer care? A cross-sectional study using survey data from the National Prostate Cancer Audit in England.

OBJECTIVES: A national survey aimed to measure how men with prostate cancer perceived their involvement in and decisions around their care immediately after diagnosis. This study aimed to describe any differences found by socio-demographic groups. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of men who were diagnosed with and treated for prostate cancer. SETTING: The National Prostate Cancer Audit patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) survey in England. PARTICIPANTS: Men diagnosed in 2014-2016, with non-metastatic prostate cancer, were surveyed. Responses from 32 796 men were individually linked to records from a national clinical audit and to administrative hospital data. Age, ethnicity, deprivation and disease risk classification were used to explore variation in responses to selected questions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to five questions from the PREMs survey: the proportion responding to the highest positive category was compared across the socio-demographic characteristics above. RESULTS: When adjusted for other factors, older men were less likely than men under the age of 60 to feel side effects had been explained in a way they could understand (men 80+: relative risk (RR)=0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.00), that their views were considered (RR=0.79, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.87) or that they were involved in decisions (RR=0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00). The latter was also apparent for men who were not white (black men: RR=0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; Asian men: RR=0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96) and, to a lesser extent, for more deprived men. CONCLUSIONS: The observed discrepancies highlight the need for more focus on initiatives to improve the experience of ethnic minority patients and those older than 60 years. The findings also argue for further validation of discriminatory instruments to help cancer care providers fully understand the variation in the experience of their patients.

Variations in the Type of Adjuvant Chemotherapy Among Stage III Colon Cancer Patients in England.

PURPOSE: Treatment with any adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer has been shown to differ between population groups. Few studies, however, explore variations in the type of adjuvant chemotherapy received, none of which are from the UK. The aim of this study is to explore variation in the type of chemotherapy received by stage III colon cancer patients in England. METHODS: Data from the national cancer registry was linked to the Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy database, which provides detailed information on treatment of malignant diseases from all NHS England chemotherapy providers. Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between those who received monotherapy (fluoropyrimidine) or combination chemotherapy (fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin) among stage III colon cancer patients between 2012 and 2017. RESULTS: Of 8750 patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy, 22.3% (n = 2359) received monotherapy and 60.4% (n = 6391) received combination therapy. The odds of receiving combination therapy decreased with age. Those from the most deprived group had half the odds (OR: 0.5, CI: 0.42, 0.59, p < 0.001) of receiving combination therapy compared to the least deprived group. Women were 14% less likely to get combined therapy (OR: 0.86, CI: 0.77, 0.95, p = 0.005). Those with the largest tumour size (T4) and those with more than three lymph nodes involved (N2) had 30% (OR: 1.30; CI: 1.07, 1.59; p = 0.008) and 50% (OR: 1.50; 1.34, 1.69; p < 0.001) higher odds of receiving combination therapy compared to T1 or T2 and N1, respectively. CONCLUSION: There is variation in the type of chemotherapy received for stage III colon cancer patients by sociodemographic factors, despite clear clinical guidelines.

Quantifying the effectiveness and health co-benefits of climate change mitigation actions across sectors: a protocol for an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Effective and rapid actions are required to achieve global goals for climate change mitigation, and there is an opportunity to ensure that the actions taken are also positive for human health. However, little is known about the relative magnitude of the health co-benefits that can be achieved from mitigation actions, so robust and comprehensive syntheses of the evidence on the nature and effects of relevant actions are required. This paper presents a protocol for an interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral umbrella review of systematic reviews, synthesising modelled and empirical evidence on such actions. METHODS: Nine bibliographic databases will be searched, capturing literature across a wide range of disciplines and sectors. Unique records retrieved by the searches will be screened by two independent reviewers. The quality of all the included systematic reviews will be assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 critical appraisal tool. Data will be extracted on methodological and thematic characteristics of the reviews, nature of the actions, and their effects on greenhouse gas emission reduction, health, and its determinants, as well as any other reported effects and interactions across different actions. RESULTS: Narrative and quantitative synthesis methods will be used to create a typology of relevant actions, map pathways to their impacts on health, compare the magnitude of health and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction impacts by selected characteristics of the actions and the nature of the evidence, as well as to identify gaps in evidence syntheses. CONCLUSION: This review will identify the most effective actions for global climate change mitigation and health based on the best available scientific evidence.   This protocol has been registered in PROSPERO, Reg No.: CRD42021239292.

A protocol for analysing the effects on health and greenhouse gas emissions of implemented climate change mitigation actions.

Background: It is crucial to understand the benefits to human health from decarbonisation to galvanise action among decision makers. Most of our existing evidence comes from modelling studies and little is known about the extent to which the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation actions are realised upon implementation. We aim to analyse evidence from mitigation actions that have been implemented across a range of sectors and scales, to identify those that can improve and sustain health, while accelerating progress towards a zero-carbon economy. Objectives: To understand the implementation process of actions and the role of key actors; explain the contextual elements influencing these actions; summarise what effects, both positive and negative, planned and unplanned they may have on emissions of greenhouse gases and health; and to summarise environmental, social, or economic co-benefits. Data: We will review evidence collected through partnership with existing data holders and an open call for evidence. We will also conduct a hand search of reference lists from systematic reviews and websites of organisations relevant to climate change mitigation. Screening: Screening will be done by two reviewers according to a pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Analysis: We will identify gaps where implementation or evaluation of implementation of mitigation actions is lacking. We will synthesise the findings to describe how actions were implemented and how they achieved results in different contexts, identifying potential barriers and facilitators to their design, implementation, and uptake. We will also synthesise their effect on health outcomes and other co-benefits. Quantitative synthesis will depend on the heterogeneity of outcomes and metrics. Conclusions: Findings will be used to identify lessons that can be learned from successful and unsuccessful mitigation actions, to make inferences on replicability, scalability, and transferability and will contribute to the development of frameworks that can be used by policy makers.

Five Challenges in the Design and Conduct of IS Trials for HIV Prevention and Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Implementation science (IS) trials in HIV treatment and prevention evaluate implementation strategies that deliver health-enhancing tools such as antiretroviral medicines or prevention technologies to those who need them, rather than evaluating the tools themselves. METHOD: Opinion piece drawing on a non-systematic review of HIV prevention and treatment trials to inform an assessment of 5 key challenges for IS trials. RESULTS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are an appropriate design for IS but must address 5 challenges. IS trials must be feasible to deliver, which will require addressing challenges in maintaining multisectoral partnerships, strengthening routine data, and clarifying ethical principles. IS trials should be informative, evaluating implementation strategies that are well designed and adequately described, and measuring implementation outcomes, coverage of tools, and, when appropriate, epidemiological impacts. IS trials should be rigorous, striving for internally valid estimates of effect by adopting best practices, and deploying optimal nonrandomized designs where randomization is not feasible. IS trials should be relevant, considering and documenting how "real-life" is the implementation monitoring and whether research participants are representative of the target population. Finally, IS trials should be useful, deploying process evaluations to provide results that can be used in onward decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: IS trials can help ensure that efficacious tools for HIV prevention and treatment have maximum impact in the real world. These trials will be an important component of this scientific agenda if they are feasible to deliver and if their results are informative, rigorous, relevant, and useful.

The association between being currently in school and HIV prevalence among young women in nine eastern and southern African countries.

INTRODUCTION: Interventions to keep adolescent girls and young women in school, or support their return to school, are hypothesised to also reduce HIV risk. Such interventions are included in the DREAMS combination package of evidence-based interventions. Although there is evidence of reduced risky sexual behaviours, the impact on HIV incidence is unclear. We used nationally representative surveys to investigate the association between being in school and HIV prevalence. METHODS: We analysed Demographic and Health Survey data from nine DREAMS countries in sub-Saharan Africa restricted to young women aged 15-19 (n = 20,429 in total). We used logistic regression to assess cross-sectional associations between being in school and HIV status and present odds ratios adjusted for age, socio-economic status, residence, marital status, educational attainment and birth history (aOR). We investigated whether associations seen differed across countries and by age. RESULTS: HIV prevalence (1.0%-9.8%), being currently in school (50.0%-72.6%) and the strength of association between the two, varied between countries. We found strong evidence that being currently in school was associated with a reduced odds of being HIV positive in Lesotho (aOR: 0.37; 95%CI: 0.17-0.79), Swaziland (aOR: 0.32; 95%CI: 0.17-0.59), and Uganda (aOR: 0.48: 95%CI: 0.29-0.80) and no statistically significant evidence for this in Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia or Zimbabwe. CONCLUSIONS: Although the relationship is not uniform across countries or over time, these data are supportive of the hypothesis that young women in school are at lower risk of being HIV positive than those who leave school in some sub-Saharan African settings. There is a possibility of reverse causality, with pre-existing HIV infection leading to school drop-out. Further investigation of the contextual factors behind this variation will be important in interpreting the results of HIV prevention interventions promoting retention in school.