Prevalence of multimorbidity in survivors of 28 cancer sites: an English nationwide cross-sectional study.

Multimorbidity, the presence of a chronic condition in addition to cancer, is of particular importance to cancer survivors. It has an impact on the progression, stage at diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of cancer patients. Evidence is scarce on the prevalence of specific comorbidities in survivors of different cancers to inform prevention and management of multimorbidity. The objective of this study is to address this evidence gap by using large scale electronic health data from multiple linked UK healthcare databases to examine the prevalence of multimorbidity in 28 cancer sites. For this population-based cross-sectional study, we linked primary and secondary healthcare data from the UK Clinical Research Practice Datalink (CPRD) GOLD dataset and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). We identified survivors of 28 common cancers aged 18 years or older at diagnosis who survived 2 years of cancer and compared their multimorbidity with matched controls without a history of cancer. To compare prevalence of individual comorbidity, multivariable logistic regression models, adjusted for confounding factors were used. Between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2020, we identified 347,028 cancer survivors and 804,299 controls matched on age, sex and general practice. Cancer survivors had a higher prevalence of multimorbidity compared to non-cancer controls across all the cancer sites. Hypertension (56.2%), painful conditions (39.8%), osteoarthritis (38.0%), depression (31.8%) and constipation (31.4%) were the five most frequent chronic conditions reported. Compared to the controls, higher odds of constipation were found in survivors of 25 of the 28 cancer sites and higher odds of anaemia were found in 23 cancer sites. Prevalence of constipation, anaemia and painful conditions were higher after cancer diagnosis compared to before diagnosis. Since these comorbidities are not uniformly assessed as part of any of the comorbidity scales, they tend to be underreported among cancer survivors. The elevated risk of certain comorbidities in cancer survivors suggests the potential for preventative efforts in this population to lower disease burden and improve quality of life. Long-term conditions should not be viewed as the inevitable result of cancer diagnosis and treatment. We need to consider integrated management of chronic conditions tailored to specific cancers to improve cancer survivorship.

Multimorbidity in people living with and beyond cancer: a scoping review.

Globally, both cancer incidence and survival are increasing. Early cancer detection and improved treatment means many people with cancer will survive for ten or more years following diagnosis. Multimorbidity, defined as two or more chronic conditions, is up to three times higher in people living with and beyond cancer (LWBC) compared to the general population. This scoping review summarises the research evidence on the association between cancer and multimorbidity in people LWBC. It explores five key domains in people LWBC: 1) prevalence of multimorbidity, 2) association between ethnicity and socio-economic status (SES) and multimorbidity, 3) association between health status and multimorbidity, 4) adverse health consequences of cancer and related treatments, and 5) whether being a cancer survivor impacts treatment received for multimorbidity. It focuses on ten common cancers with high survival rates: prostate, breast, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, bowel/colorectal, kidney, head and neck, bladder, leukaemia, uterine and myeloma. A search of Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsychINFO and Web of Science databases identified 9,460 articles, 115 of which met the inclusion criteria. Articles were included in the review that involved multimorbidity in adult cancer patients. An evaluation of the evidence was performed, and a summary of findings was generated according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. This review included work from 20 countries, most studies were from the US (44%). The results showed that the most common long-term conditions in people LWBC were: hypertension, heart conditions, depression, COPD, and diabetes. The most reported incident comorbidities after a cancer diagnosis were congestive heart failure, chronic pain, and chronic fatigue. Multimorbidity tended to be higher amongst people LWBC from ethnic minority groups and those with lower SES. Quality of life was poorer in people LWBC with multimorbidity. The review identified the need for a uniform approach to measure multimorbidity in cancer patients across the world. Further research is required to compare multimorbidity before and after a cancer diagnosis, to explore the association of multimorbidity with ethnicity and socio-economic status and to determine whether a cancer diagnosis impacts care received for multimorbidity in people LWBC.

Clinical trials in cancer screening, prevention and early diagnosis (SPED): a systematic mapping review.

BACKGROUND: Global annual cancer incidence is forecast to rise to 27.5 M by 2040, a 62% increase from 2018. For most cancers, prevention and early detection are the most effective ways of reducing mortality. This study maps trials in cancer screening, prevention, and early diagnosis (SPED) to identify areas of unmet need and highlight research priorities. METHODS: A systematic mapping review was conducted to evaluate all clinical trials focused on cancer SPED, irrespective of tumour type. The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) portfolio, EMBASE, PubMed and Medline were searched for relevant papers published between 01/01/2007 and 01/04/2020. References were exported into Covidence software and double-screened. Data were extracted and mapped according to tumour site, geographical location, and intervention type. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen thousand seven hundred one abstracts were screened, 5157 full texts reviewed, and 2888 studies included. 1184 (52%) trials focussed on screening, 554 (24%) prevention, 442 (20%) early diagnosis, and 85 (4%) a combination. Colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer comprised 61% of all studies compared with 6.4% in lung and 1.8% in liver cancer. The latter two are responsible for 26.3% of global cancer deaths compared with 19.3% for the former three. Number of studies varied markedly according to geographical location; 88% were based in North America, Europe, or Asia. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows clear disparities in the volume of research conducted across different tumour types and according to geographical location. These findings will help drive future research effort so that resources can be directed towards major challenges in cancer SPED.

What is the evidence behind cancer care reviews, a primary care cancer support tool? A scoping review.

PURPOSE: A "cancer care review" (CCR) is a conversation between a patient recently diagnosed with cancer and primary care practitioner soon after a diagnosis of cancer in the UK. This scoping review aimed to identify: methodology and validated outcome measures used to evaluate CCRs, the impact of CCRs on quality of life or symptoms, and the views of patients, their carers and healthcare professionals on CCRs. METHODS: A scoping review was performed and five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar) were searched systematically from January 2000 to March 2022. RESULTS: Of 4133 articles, ten met the inclusion criteria. These included surveys, qualitative research on stakeholders' views and a small study evaluating group consultation CCRs. There were no studies on methodology to evaluate CCRs or the impact of CCRs on patient quality of life or symptoms. Some primary care professionals felt CCRs were a tick-box exercise, and that they had inadequate time to deliver care, compounded by inadequate primary-secondary care coordination and lack of expertise which was echoed by patients. Interviews with patients found few recalled CCRs and those that recalled CCRs did, did not find them particularly helpful. Partners of patients would welcome CCRs to raise personal health concerns and remain updated on patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Further studies should identify the role that stakeholders believe they should have in CCRs, improve care coordination between primary care and secondary care and how to support caregivers. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of CCRs in general practice.

Vaccination uptake amongst older adults from minority ethnic backgrounds: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Older adults from minority ethnic backgrounds are at increased risk of contracting COVID-19 and developing severe infection and have increased risk of mortality. Whilst an age-based vaccination approach prioritising older groups is being implemented worldwide, vaccine hesitancy is high amongst minority ethnic groups. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic review and convergent synthesis to systematically examine perceptions of vaccinations amongst older adults from minority ethnic backgrounds. We included studies that reported on perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes towards vaccinations in older adults aged ≥65 years from a minority ethnic background. We excluded studies of vaccinations in investigation or development, studies focused on specific medical conditions, studies where ethnic background or age group was unidentifiable, systematic reviews, editorials, and conference abstracts. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Virtual Health Library, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, medRxiv, and PROSPERO databases from inception to 15 July 2021. Risk of bias for studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The quality of evidence of collective outcomes was estimated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) framework. A total of 28 eligible studies conducted between 1997 and 2020 were included in the final analysis (17 quantitative surveys, 8 focus group or interview studies, 2 mixed methods studies, and 1 case-control study). The majority were US studies in English or Spanish, except for 6 studies set in Hong Kong, 2 studies in Japan, 1 study in Brazil, and 1 multi-centre study (including China, Indonesia, Turkey, South Korea, Greece, UK, Brazil, and Nigeria). In total, 28,262 individuals with an estimated mean age of 69.8 years were included, 63.2% of whom were female. We summarised the common concepts and themes across studies and populations using a convergent synthesis analysis. Thirteen themes categorised as barriers or facilitators were identified and grouped into structural factors-healthcare provider and system related, patient related, and policy and operational-and were analysed by minority ethnic group. The main limitation of the study was the predominance of studies from the US and East Asia. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, we found that factors influencing vaccination uptake involve healthcare provider and system, patient-related, and governance-level factors that are specific to the older ethnic minority community being served. The evidence included in this review is supported by high or moderate certainty and can be translated to practice and policy. A tailored, multi-level approach combining increased education, access, and culturally competent discussions with trusted healthcare professionals to address health beliefs can maximise the potential impact of widespread vaccination policies.

'It's like juggling fire daily': Well-being, workload and burnout in the British NHS - A survey of 721 physicians.

BACKGROUND: Physicians are at higher risk for burnout than workers in other fields. Burnout negatively impacts physician health, care delivery and healthcare cost. Existing studies quantify the workforce affected by burnout whilst qualitative studies use specific specialty groups limiting generalisability of solutions. This is important given increased stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to understand the causes of work-related burnout, identify what supportive resources physicians utilise, and to propose solutions. METHODS: A questionnaire was circulated between March and May 2019 via the 'Doctors' Association UK' website and social media. RESULTS: 721 responses were received. 94%of respondents worked in the NHS, with over half being either general practitioners (GPs) or consultants. One in two (53%) respondents felt unable to raise workplace concerns regarding wellbeing, stress or workload. Almost all respondents (97%) felt the NHS has a culture of viewing excessive stress and workload as the norm. Three themes emerged from qualitative analysis: negative workplace culture; high workload and lack of resources; and generational change. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents described system-level factors which negatively impacted their wellbeing whilst organisations focused on physician-level factors. The research literature supports multi-level change beyond the individual tackling work unit and organisational factors. These include providing infrastructure to allow delegation of administrative work and physical space for relaxation and flexible work with time for leave. At a national level, there is greater urgency for an increase in healthcare funding and resourcing especially during increased clinician workloads during a pandemic where burnout rates will increase.

Implicit bias in healthcare: clinical practice, research and decision making.

Bias is the evaluation of something or someone that can be positive or negative, and implicit or unconscious bias is when the person is unaware of their evaluation. This is particularly relevant to policymaking during the coronavirus pandemic and racial inequality highlighted during the support for the Black Lives Matter movement. A literature review was performed to define bias, identify the impact of bias on clinical practice and research as well as clinical decision making (cognitive bias). Bias training could bridge the gap from the lack of awareness of bias to the ability to recognise bias in others and within ourselves. However, there are no effective debiasing strategies. Awareness of implicit bias must not deflect from wider socio-economic, political and structural barriers as well ignore explicit bias such as prejudice.