Testing a faith-placed education intervention for bowel cancer screening in Muslim communities using a two-group non-randomised mixed-methods approach: Feasibility study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Inequalities exist in uptake of bowel cancer screening in England with low uptake in areas with high deprivation and amongst certain ethnic and religious groups. Individuals from these groups are more likely to receive a late diagnosis of bowel cancer. Uptake in Muslim communities, for example, has been shown to be lower than in the general population. Culturally adapted interventions are needed to address these inequalities. This feasibility study aims to assess the acceptability and accessibility of an educational faith-placed bowel cancer screening intervention in the East of England, alongside its impact on bowel screening uptake. It was developed by the British Islamic Medical Association in partnership with community stakeholders and professionals. METHODS: Ethical approval was granted on the 27 October 2021, REC reference number 21/EE/0231. A two-group non-randomised feasibility mixed methods study will be conducted, using surveys, focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Participants eligible for bowel screening will be recruited through local mosques and community venues. We aim to recruit 100 participants to the intervention group and 150 to the comparison group (not receiving the intervention). Intervention group participants will complete a survey at baseline, post-intervention and at six-month follow up. Comparison group participants will complete a survey at baseline and at six-month follow up. Outcomes will include: intention to take up screening; actual screening uptake; knowledge, attitudes, barriers and facilitators towards screening. Regional screening hub records will be used to ascertain actual screening uptake at six-month follow-up. Quantitative survey data will be summarised using descriptive statistics (e.g., proportion), and exploratory univariate analysis will be undertaken (e.g., chi-squared test). Two focus group interviews will be conducted with intervention group participants (with up to 16 participants). Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with 10 clinicians delivering the intervention to explore the acceptability of the intervention, training, and delivery. All qualitative data will be subject to a general inductive analysis. DISCUSSION: The findings will inform how faith-placed interventions can be implemented to increase uptake of bowel cancer screening, and potentially other health promotion programmes, to address health inequalities in ethnically diverse communities in England.

Systematic review of post-COVID-19 syndrome rehabilitation guidelines.

Introduction: Post-COVID-19 syndrome is associated with significant health and potential socioeconomic burden. Due to its novel nature, there is a lack of clarity over best practice for the rehabilitation of patients with ongoing or new symptoms following acute COVID-19 infection. We conducted a systematic review of clinical and service guidelines for post-COVID-19 syndrome rehabilitation. Methods: This review was registered on PROSPERO and is reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We included guidelines formally published or endorsed by a recognised professional body, covering rehabilitation of people with symptoms following resolution of acute COVID-19 infection. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, NHS Evidence, MedRxiv, PsyArXiv and Google for terms related to COVID-19, rehabilitation and guideline. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion, data extracted and quality assessed using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX tools for clinical guidelines and the AGREE-HS tool for service guidelines. We included guidelines of sufficient quality in a narrative synthesis. Results: We identified 12 790 articles, of which 37 guidelines (19 clinical only, 7 service only and 11 combined clinical and service) were included. Guidelines covered a range of countries, rehabilitation types, populations and rehabilitation settings. Synthesis of clinical guidelines (n=4) was structured following the patient pathway, from identification, to assessment, treatment and discharge, with consideration of specific patient groups. Synthesis of service guidelines (n=8) was structured according to the Donabedian framework. Discussion: Though the available post-COVID-19 syndrome rehabilitation guidelines were generally of poor quality, there was a high degree of consensus regarding the breadth of symptoms, the need for holistic assessment by a broad multidisciplinary team and person-centred care. There was less clarity on management options, measuring outcomes and discharge criteria. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021236049.