Programme theories to describe how different general practitioner service models work in different contexts in or alongside emergency departments (GP-ED): realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Addressing increasing patient demand and improving ED patient flow is a key ambition for NHS England. Delivering general practitioner (GP) services in or alongside EDs (GP-ED) was advocated in 2017 for this reason, supported by £100 million (US$130 million) of capital funding. Current evidence shows no overall improvement in addressing demand and reducing waiting times, but considerable variation in how different service models operate, subject to local context. METHODS: We conducted mixed-methods analysis using inductive and deductive approaches for qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analyses of attendances, reattendances, hospital admissions, length of stay) based on previous research using a purposive sample of 13 GP-ED service models (3 inside-integrated, 4 inside-parallel service, 3 outside-onsite and 3 with no GPs) in England and Wales. We used realist methodology to understand the relationship between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes to develop programme theories about how and why different GP-ED service models work. RESULTS: GP-ED service models are complex, with variation in scope and scale of the service, influenced by individual, departmental and external factors. Quantitative data were of variable quality: overall, no reduction in attendances and waiting times, a mixed picture for hospital admissions and length of hospital stay. Our programme theories describe how the GP-ED service models operate: inside the ED, integrated with patient flow and general ED demand, with a wider GP role than usual primary care; outside the ED, addressing primary care demand with an experienced streaming nurse facilitating the 'right patients' are streamed to the GP; or within the ED as a parallel service with most variability in the level of integration and GP role. CONCLUSION: GP-ED services are complex . Our programme theories inform recommendations on how services could be modified in particular contexts to address local demand, or whether alternative healthcare services should be considered.

Evaluation of different models of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a mixed-methods realist evaluation.

Background: Emergency healthcare services are under intense pressure to meet increasing patient demands. Many patients presenting to emergency departments could be managed by general practitioners in general practitioner-emergency department service models. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, patient experience and system implications of the different general practitioner-emergency department models. Design: Mixed-methods realist evaluation. Methods: Phase 1 (2017-8), to understand current practice: rapid realist literature review, national survey and follow-up key informant interviews, national stakeholder event and safety data analysis. Phase 2 (2018-21), to collect and analyse qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analysis); cost-consequences analysis of routine data; and case site data for 'marker condition' analysis from a purposive sample of 13 case sites in England and Wales. Phase 3 (2021-2), to conduct mixed-methods analysis for programme theory and toolkit development. Results: General practitioners commonly work in emergency departments, but delivery models vary widely in terms of the scope of the general practitioner role and the scale of the general practitioner service. We developed a taxonomy to describe general practitioner-emergency department service models (Integrated with the emergency department service, Parallel within the emergency department, Outside the emergency department on the hospital site) and present a programme theory as principal output of the study to describe how these service models were observed to operate. Routine data were of variable quality, limiting our analysis. Time series analysis demonstrated trends across intervention sites for: increased time spent in the emergency department; increased emergency department attendances and reattendances; and mixed results for hospital admissions. Evidence on patient experience was limited but broadly supportive; we identified department-level processes to optimise the safety of general practitioner-emergency department models. Limitations: The quality, heterogeneity and extent of routine emergency department data collection during the study period limited the conclusions. Recruitment was limited by criteria for case sites (time series requirements) and individual patients (with 'marker conditions'). Pandemic and other pressures limited data collection for marker condition analysis. Data collected and analysed were pre pandemic; new approaches such as 'telephone first' and their relevance to our findings remains unexplored. Conclusion: Findings suggest that general practitioner-emergency department service models do not meet the aim of reducing the overall emergency department waiting times and improving patient flow with limited evidence of cost savings. Qualitative data indicated that general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We have developed a toolkit, based on our findings, to provide guidance for implementing and delivering general practitioner-emergency department services. Future work: The emergency care data set has since been introduced across England to help standardise data collection to facilitate further research. We would advocate the systematic capture of patient experience measures and patient-reported outcome measures as part of routine care. More could be done to support the development of the general practitioner in emergency department role, including a core set of competencies and governance structure, to reflect the different general practitioner-emergency department models and to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness to guide future policy. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017069741. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/145/04) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Hospital emergency departments are under huge pressure. Patients are waiting many hours to be seen, some with problems that general practitioners could deal with. To reduce waiting times and improve patient care, arrangements have been put in place for general practitioners to work in or alongside emergency departments (general practitioner­emergency department models). We studied the different ways of working to find out what works well, how and for whom. We brought together a lot of information. We reviewed existing evidence, sent out surveys to 184 emergency departments, spent time in the emergency departments observing how they operated and interviewing 106 staff in 13 hospitals and 24 patients who visited those emergency departments. We also looked at statistical information recorded by hospitals. Two public contributors were involved from the beginning, and we held two stakeholder events to ensure the relevance of our research to professionals and patients. Getting reliable figures to compare the various general practitioner­emergency department set-ups (inside, parallel to or outside the emergency department) was difficult. Our findings suggest that over time more people are coming to emergency departments and overall waiting times did not generally improve due to general practitioner­emergency department models. Evidence that general practitioners might admit fewer patients to hospital was mixed, with limited findings of cost savings. Patients were generally supportive of the care they received, although we could not speak to as many patients as we planned. The skills and experience of general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We identified how the care provided was kept safe with: strong leaders, good communication between different types of staff, highly trained and experienced nurses responsible for streaming and specific training for general practitioners on how they were expected to work. We have produced a guide to help professionals develop and improve general practitioner­emergency department services and we have written easy-to-read summaries of all the articles we published.

Satisfaction with remote consultations in primary care during COVID-19: a population survey of UK adults.

BACKGROUND: Mode of access to primary care changed during the COVID-19 pandemic; remote consultations became more widespread. With remote consultations likely to continue in UK primary care, it is important to understand people's perceptions of remote consultations and identify potential resulting inequalities. AIM: To assess satisfaction with remote GP consultations in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic and identify demographic variation in satisfaction levels. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional survey from the second phase of a large UK-based study, which was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: In total, 1426 adults who self-reported having sought help from their doctor in the past 6 months completed an online questionnaire (February to March 2021). Items included satisfaction with remote consultations and demographic variables. Associations were analysed using multivariable regression. RESULTS: A novel six-item scale of satisfaction with remote GP consultations had good psychometric properties. Participants with higher levels of education had significantly greater satisfaction with remote consultations than participants with mid-level qualifications (B = -0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.41 to -0.23) or those with low or no qualifications (B = -1.65, 95% CI = -2.29 to -1.02). People living in Wales reported significantly higher satisfaction compared with those living in Scotland (B = -1.94, 95% CI = -3.11 to -0.78), although caution is warranted due to small group numbers. CONCLUSION: These findings can inform the use and adaptation of remote consultations in primary care. Adults with lower educational levels may need additional support to improve their experience and ensure equitable care via remote consultations.

Patient and healthcare professionals' perceptions of a combined blood and faecal immunochemical test for excluding colorectal cancer diagnosis in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the perceptions of patients and healthcare professionals on Raman-faecal immunochemical test (FIT) as an alternative test for colorectal cancer exclusion in primary care. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews within a feasibility study. SETTING: Patients presenting to primary care with colorectal symptoms and healthcare professionals working in primary and secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 23 patients and 12 healthcare professionals. METHODS: Patient participants were asked to complete a novel combined Raman-FIT test before being seen in secondary care. This study sought their opinions about the test. We also sought the views of healthcare professionals. FINDINGS: Patients and healthcare professionals agreed that Raman-FIT was a suitable test to be given in primary care. It aligned with routine practice and was a simple test for most patients to complete. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are willing and able to complete the Raman-FIT test in primary care. Raman-FIT may accelerate access to diagnosis with the potential to improve cancer outcomes. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Lay members (J. H. and I. H.) with experience and knowledge of colorectal cancer and screening contributed to developing, undertaking, and disseminating all aspects of the research. They were supported to collaborate as equal members of the research team. They were involved in developing the study as coapplicants, using personal experience to ensure that the research and its methods were relevant to the patient and public needs. Both prepared participant information sheets, coanalysed data, and contributed to study reporting and dissemination through papers, conference presentations and a lay summary.

A novel blood based triage test for colorectal cancer in primary care: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The majority of colorectal cancers (CRCs) are detected after symptomatic presentation to primary care. Given the shared symptoms of CRC and benign disorders, it is challenging to manage the risk of missed diagnosis. Colonoscopy resources cannot keep pace with increasing demand. There is a pressing need for access to simple triage tools in primary care to help prioritise patients for referral. AIM: To evaluate the performance of a novel spectroscopy-based CRC blood test in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: Mixed-methods pilot study of test performance and GP focus group discussions in South Wales. METHOD: Patients on the urgent suspected cancer (USC) pathway were recruited for the Raman spectroscopy (RS) test coupled to machine learning classification ('Raman-CRC') to identify CRC within the referred population. Qualitative focus group work evaluated the acceptability of the test in primary care by thematic analysis of focus group theorising. RESULTS: A total of 532 patients aged ≥50 years referred on the USC pathway were recruited from 27 GP practices. Twenty-nine patients (5.0%) were diagnosed with CRC. Raman-CRC identified CRC with sensitivity 95.7%, specificity 69.3% with area under curve (AUC) of 0.80 compared with colonoscopy as the reference test (248 patients). Stage I and II cancers were detected with 78.6% sensitivity. Focus group themes underlined the convenience of a blood test for the patient and the test's value as a risk assessment tool in primary care. CONCLUSION: The findings support this novel, non-invasive, blood-based method to prioritise those patients most likely to have CRC. Raman-CRC may accelerate access to diagnosis with potential to improve cancer outcomes.

Implementing public involvement throughout the research process-Experience and learning from the GPs in EDs study.

BACKGROUND: Public involvement in health services research is encouraged. Descriptions of public involvement across the whole research cycle of a major study are uncommon and its effects on research conduct are poorly understood. AIM: This study aimed to describe how we implemented public involvement, reflect on process and effects in a large-scale multi-site research study and present learning for future involvement practice. METHOD: We recorded public involvement roles and activities throughout the study and compared these to our original public involvement plan included in our project proposal. We held a group interview with study co-applicants to explore their experiences, transcribed the recorded discussion and conducted thematic analysis. We synthesized the findings to develop recommendations for future practice. RESULTS: Public contributors' activities went beyond strategic study planning and management to include active involvement in data collection, analysis and dissemination. They attended management, scrutiny, planning and task meetings. They also facilitated public involvement through annual planning and review sessions, conducted a Public Involvement audit and coordinated public and patient input to stakeholder discussions at key study stages. Group interview respondents said that involvement exceeded their expectations. They identified effects such as changes to patient recruitment, terminology clarification and extra dissemination activities. They identified factors enabling effective involvement including team and leader commitment, named support contact, building relationships and demonstrating equality and public contributors being confident to challenge and flexible to meet researchers' timescales and work patterns. There were challenges matching resources to roles and questions about the risk of over-professionalizing public contributors. CONCLUSION: We extended our planned approach to public involvement and identified benefits to the research process that were both specific and general. We identified good practice to support effective public involvement in health services research that study teams should consider in planning and undertaking research. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This paper was co-conceived, co-planned and co-authored by public contributors to contribute research evidence, based on their experiences of active involvement in the design, implementation and dissemination of a major health services research study.

Health behaviour change among UK adults during the pandemic: findings from the COVID-19 cancer attitudes and behaviours study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 related lockdowns may have affected engagement in health behaviours among the UK adult population. This prospective observational study assessed socio-demographic patterning in attempts to change and maintain a range of health behaviours and changes between two time points during the pandemic. METHODS: Adults aged 18 years and over (n = 4,978) were recruited using Dynata (an online market research platform) and the HealthWise Wales platform, supplemented through social media advertising. Online surveys were conducted in August/September 2020 when lockdown restrictions eased in the UK following the first major UK lockdown (survey phase 1) and in February/March 2021 during a further national lockdown (survey phase 2). Measures derived from the Cancer Awareness Measure included self-reported attempts to reduce alcohol consumption, increase fruit/vegetable consumption, increase physical activity, lose weight and reduce/stop smoking. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess individual health behaviour change attempts over time, adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, employment and education. RESULTS: Around half of participants in survey phase 1 reported trying to increase physical activity (n = 2607, 52.4%), increase fruit/vegetables (n = 2445, 49.1%) and lose weight (n = 2413, 48.5%), with 19.0% (n = 948) trying to reduce alcohol consumption among people who drink. Among the 738 participants who smoked, 51.5% (n = 380) were trying to reduce and 27.4% (n = 202) to stop smoking completely. Most behaviour change attempts were more common among women, younger adults and minority ethnic group participants. Efforts to reduce smoking (aOR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.82-1.17) and stop smoking (aOR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.80-1.20) did not differ significantly in phase 2 compared to phase 1. Similarly, changes over time in attempts to improve other health behaviours were not statistically significant: physical activity (aOR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.99-1.16); weight loss (aOR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.90-1.00); fruit/vegetable intake (aOR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.91-1.06) and alcohol use (aOR: 1.32, 95% CI: 0.92-1.91). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of participants reported attempts to change health behaviours in the initial survey phase. However, the lack of change observed over time indicated that overall motivation to engage in healthy behaviours was sustained among the UK adult population, from a period shortly after the first lockdown toward the end of the second prolonged lockdown.

The effectiveness of primary care streaming in emergency departments on decision-making and patient flow and safety - A realist evaluation.

Primary care streaming was implemented in UK Emergency Departments (EDs) to manage an increasing demand for urgent care. We aimed to explore its effectiveness in EDs with different primary care models and identify contexts and mechanisms that influenced outcomes: streaming patients to the most appropriate clinician or service, ED flow and patient safety. METHOD: We observed streaming and interviewed ED and primary care staff during case study visits to 10 EDs in England. We used realist methodology, synthesising a middle-range theory with our qualitative data to refine and create a set of theories that explain relationships between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. RESULTS: Mechanisms contributing to the effectiveness of primary care streaming were: quality of decision-making, patient flow, redeploying staff, managing patients across streams, the implementation of governance protocols, guidance, training, service evaluation and quality improvement efforts. Experienced nurses and good teamworking and strategic and operational management were key contextual factors. CONCLUSION: We recommend service improvement strategies, operational management, monitoring, evaluation and training to ensure that ED nurses stream patients presenting at an ED seeking urgent care to the most appropriate clinicians for their needs in a safe and efficient manner.

Patients' experiences of attending emergency departments where primary care services are located: qualitative findings from patient and clinician interviews from a realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience is an important outcome and indicator of healthcare quality, and patient reported experiences are key to improving quality of care. While patient experience in emergency departments (EDs) has been reported in research, there is limited evidence about patients' specific experiences with primary care services located in or alongside EDs. We aim to identify theories about patient experience and acceptability of being streamed to a primary care clinician in an ED. METHODS: Using theories from a rapid realist review as a basis, we interviewed 24 patients and 106 staff members to generate updated theories about patient experience and acceptability of streaming to primary care services in EDs. Feedback from 56 stakeholders, including clinicians, policymakers and patient and public members, as well as observations at 13 EDs, also contributed to the development of these theories, which we present as a programme theory. RESULTS: We found that patients had no expectations or preferences for which type of clinician they were seen by, and generally found being streamed to a primary care clinician in the ED acceptable. Clinicians and patients reported that patients generally found primary care streaming acceptable if they felt their complaint was dealt with suitably, in a timely manner, and when clinicians clearly communicated the need for investigations, and how these contributed to decision-making and treatment plans. CONCLUSIONS: From our findings, we have developed a programme theory to demonstrate that service providers can expect that patients will be generally satisfied with their experience of being streamed to, and seen by, primary care clinicians working in these services. Service providers should consider the potential advantages and disadvantages of implementing primary care services at their ED. If primary care services are implemented, clear communication is needed between staff and patients, and patient feedback should be sought.

Intentions to participate in cervical and colorectal cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods study.

Worldwide, cancer screening faced significant disruption in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. If this has led to changes in public attitudes towards screening and reduced intention to participate, there is a risk of long-term adverse impact on cancer outcomes. In this study, we examined previous participation and future intentions to take part in cervical and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening following the first national lockdown in the UK. Overall, 7543 adults were recruited to a cross-sectional online survey in August-September 2020. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify correlates of strong screening intentions among 2319 participants eligible for cervical screening and 2502 eligible for home-based CRC screening. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a sub-sample of 30 participants. Verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically. Of those eligible, 74% of survey participants intended to attend cervical screening and 84% intended to complete home-based CRC screening when next invited. Thirty percent and 19% of the cervical and CRC samples respectively said they were less likely to attend a cancer screening appointment now than before the pandemic. Previous non-participation was the strongest predictor of low intentions for cervical (aOR 26.31, 95% CI: 17.61-39.30) and CRC (aOR 67.68, 95% CI: 33.91-135.06) screening. Interview participants expressed concerns about visiting healthcare settings but were keen to participate when screening programmes resumed. Intentions to participate in future screening were high and strongly associated with previous engagement in both programmes. As screening services recover, it will be important to monitor participation and to ensure people feel safe to attend.

Cancer symptom experience and help-seeking behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a cross-sectional population survey.

OBJECTIVES: To understand self-reported potential cancer symptom help-seeking behaviours and attitudes during the first 6 months (March-August 2020) of the UK COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: UK population-based survey conducted during August and September 2020. Correlates of help-seeking behaviour were modelled using logistic regression in participants reporting potential cancer symptoms during the previous 6 months. Qualitative telephone interviews with a purposeful subsample of participants, analysed thematically. SETTING: Online UK wide survey. PARTICIPANTS: 7543 adults recruited via Cancer Research UK online panel provider (Dynata) and HealthWise Wales (a national register of 'research ready' participants) supplemented with social media (Facebook and Twitter) recruitment. 30 participants were also interviewed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survey measures included experiences of 15 potential cancer symptoms, help-seeking behaviour, barriers and prompts to help-seeking. RESULTS: Of 3025 (40.1%) participants who experienced a potential cancer symptom, 44.8% (1355/3025) had not contacted their general practitioner (GP). Odds of help-seeking were higher among participants with disability (adjusted OR (aOR)=1.38, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.71) and who experienced more symptoms (aOR=1.68, 95% CI 1.56 to 1.82), and lower among those who perceived COVID-19 as the cause of symptom(s) (aOR=0.36, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.52). Barriers included worries about wasting the doctor's time (1158/7543, 15.4%), putting strain on healthcare services (945, 12.6%) and not wanting to make a fuss (907, 12.0%). Interviewees reported reluctance to contact the GP due to concerns about COVID-19 and fear of attending hospitals, and described putting their health concerns on hold. CONCLUSIONS: Many people avoided healthcare services despite experiencing potential cancer symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Alongside current help-seeking campaigns, well-timed and appropriate nationally coordinated campaigns should signal that services are open safely for those with unusual or persistent symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17782018.

Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a targeted cancer awareness intervention for adults living in deprived areas of the UK.

BACKGROUND: Cancer outcomes are poor in socioeconomically deprived communities, with low symptom awareness contributing to prolonged help-seeking and advanced disease. Targeted cancer awareness interventions require evaluation. METHODS: This is a randomised controlled trial involving adults aged 40+ years recruited in community and healthcare settings in deprived areas of South Yorkshire and South-East Wales. INTERVENTION: personalised behavioural advice facilitated by a trained lay advisor. CONTROL: usual care. Follow-up at two weeks and six months post-randomisation. PRIMARY OUTCOME: total cancer symptom recognition score two weeks post-randomisation. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-four participants were randomised. The difference in total symptom recognition at two weeks [adjusted mean difference (AMD) 0.6, 95% CI: -0.03, 1.17, p = 0.06] was not statistically significant. Intervention participants reported increased symptom recognition (AMD 0.8, 95% CI: 0.18, 1.37, p = 0.01) and earlier intended presentation (AMD -2.0, 95% CI: -3.02, -0.91, p < 0.001) at six months. "Lesser known" symptom recognition was higher in the intervention arm (2 weeks AMD 0.5, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.97 and six months AMD 0.7, 95% CI: 0.16, 1.17). Implementation cost per participant was £91.34, with no significant between-group differences in healthcare resource use post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Improved symptom recognition and earlier anticipated presentation occurred at longer-term follow-up. The ABACus Health Check is a viable low-cost intervention to increase cancer awareness in socioeconomically deprived communities. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16872545.

Identifying safe care processes when GPs work in or alongside emergency departments: a realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Increasing pressure on emergency services has led to the development of different models of care delivery including GPs working in or alongside emergency departments (EDs), but with a lack of evidence for patient safety outcomes. AIM: This study aimed to explore how care processes work and how patient safety incidents associated with GPs working in ED settings may be mitigated. DESIGN AND SETTING: Realist methodology with a purposive sample of 13 EDs in England and Wales with different GP service models. The study sought to understand the relationship between contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes to develop theories about how and why patient safety incidents may occur, and how safe care was perceived to be delivered. METHOD: Qualitative data were collected (observations, semi-structured audio-recorded staff interviews, and local patient safety incident reports). Data were coded using 'if, then, because' statements to refine initial theories developed from an earlier rapid realist literature review and analysis of a sample of national patient safety incident reports. RESULTS: The authors developed a programme theory to describe how safe patient care was perceived to be delivered in these service models, including: an experienced streaming nurse using local guidance and early warning scores; support for GPs' clinical decision making, with clear governance processes relevant to the intended role (traditional GP approach or emergency medicine approach); and strong clinical leadership to promote teamwork and improve communication between services. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study can be used as a focus for more in-depth human factors investigations to optimise work conditions in this complex care delivery setting.

A classification of primary care streaming pathways in UK emergency departments: Findings from a multi-methods study comprising cross-sectional survey; site visits with observations, semi-structured and informal interviews.

BACKGROUND: Variation in initial assessment methods at emergency departments in with primary care service models and a conflated terminology causes difficulties in assessing relative performance, improving quality or gathering evidence about safety and clinical effectiveness. We aim to describe and classify streaming pathways in emergency departments in different models of emergency department primary care services in England and Wales. METHODS: We used a multi-stage method, including an online survey completed by 77 emergency departments across England & Wales, interviews with 21 clinical leads, and in-depth case studies of 13 emergency departments. All qualitative data were triangulated and analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Common emergency department pathways to primary care services were: front door streaming; streaming inside the emergency department; or primary care staff selecting patients. Pathways were also in place to redirect patients with non-urgent primary care problems to community primary care services. Streaming and redirection pathways were often adapted, with variation in protocols based on local circumstances. CONCLUSION: Clinical leads should consider which pathway(s) best suit their local context. Consistency of terminology used to describe pathways between emergency departments and primary care services is necessary for performance measurement, quality improvement and rigorous future multi-site evaluative and descriptive research.

Recruitment and retention of participants from socioeconomically deprived communities: lessons from the Awareness and Beliefs About Cancer (ABACus3) Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment of research participants poses challenges in socioeconomically deprived areas. The Awareness and Beliefs About Cancer (ABACus) phase 3 Randomised Control Trial recruited adult participants from socioeconomically deprived areas using a combined healthcare/community engagement model. We report the strategies used to successfully recruit and retain our trial participant sample. METHODS: Community and healthcare settings in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation were identified by lay advisors who recruited participants opportunistically or by appointment. Follow-up was done by telephone or post at 2-weeks and 6-months after recruitment, and all participants were offered financial incentives. Qualitative interviews were conducted with lay advisors regarding their experience and reflections. RESULTS: The lay advisors identified and contacted 107 potential recruitment venues across South and West Yorkshire and South East Wales of which 41.1% (n = 42) were opened for recruitment. A total of 234 participants were recruited, with 91% (n = 212) retention at 2-weeks and 85% (n = 199) at 6-months. Community settings yielded 75% (n = 176) of participants. Participants had a mean age of 61.3 years and 63.3% (n = 148) were female, with 66% (n = 154) resident in the most deprived geographical areas. Lay advisors described recruitment as intensive, although engaging participants was easier in community settings. CONCLUSIONS: The ABACus3 trial achieved recruitment and high retention with a population that is often "hard to reach" or entirely missed in health research. Strategies were specifically tailored to engage the venues and adult residents of highly deprived areas. Future studies recruiting adults living in the most deprived areas might benefit from community recruitment and from collaborating with local gatekeepers who are key to engagement. This study adheres to CONSORT guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered with ISRCTN ( http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16872545 ) on 12.01.2018.

Improving cancer symptom awareness and help-seeking among adults living in socioeconomically deprived communities in the UK using a facilitated health check: A protocol for the Awareness and Beliefs About Cancer (ABACus) Randomised Control Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survival is lower in socioeconomically deprived communities, partly due to low awareness of symptoms, negative beliefs and delayed help-seeking. We developed an interactive health check questionnaire facilitated by trained lay advisors. It entails 29 questions about background, lifestyle and health with tailored behaviour change advice. Personalised results are printed using a traffic light (red/amber/green) system, highlighting areas where action should be taken. This is an individually randomised control trial to test effectiveness of the health check on symptom recognition. METHODS: A total 246 participants aged 40+ years will be recruited from community and healthcare settings in socioeconomically deprived areas of Yorkshire and South Wales. Participants will be randomised to receive the health check or standard care (1:1 ratio). Outcome measures include: adapted Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer (primary outcome), brief State Trait Anxiety Inventory, intentions and motivation to adopt recommended health behaviours (early symptom presentation, cancer screening and lifestyle behaviours), adapted Client Service Receipt Inventory, brief medical history/screening and demographic questionnaire at: baseline; 2-weeks; and 6-months post-randomisation. A purposive sample of intervention sessions will be audio-recorded (n = 24) and half will additionally be observed (n = 12). Semi-structured interviews will take place at 2-weeks (n = 30) and 6-months (n = 15-20) post-randomisation. The primary analysis will compare cancer symptom recognition scores between arms at 2-weeks. Secondary analysis will assess cancer beliefs, barriers/time to presentation, screening and lifestyle behaviours, anxiety and costs. A process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity, dose and contamination. The London-Surrey NHS Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 17/LO/1507) approved this trial. DISCUSSION: This is a trial of a theoretically underpinned complex intervention which has undergone phase 1 and 2 development work. The findings will evaluate evidence about the effect of the health check on symptom awareness. Although there are few exclusion criteria there are limitations regarding the population we are able to reach, who may have even higher risks of late diagnosis and poor cancer prognosis. However, the health check has the potential to improve cancer symptom awareness and encourage early help-seeking behaviour in deprived populations, thereby reducing inequalities in longer term cancer outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered with ISRCTN (Ref: ISRCTN16872545 ) on 12.01.2018.