Search

Previous research in Victoria, Australia, found differences in prostate cancer outcomes in regional and metropolitan areas. This investigation of undiagnosed men in regional areas and a metropolitan area of South Australia sought their perspectives on prostate cancer. Our aim was to learn whether men who had not been diagnosed could shed light on why men outside metropolitan areas tended to have poorer outcomes than metropolitan men. Our goal was to build on evidence contributing to improving outcomes in prostate cancer care. Semi-structured interviews were designed to elicit explanation and meaning. 15 men (10 metropolitan, 5 regional) not diagnosed with prostate cancer were recruited through widely-distributed flyers in medical and community settings. Interviews were recorded and transcribed; transcripts were analysed thematically. Five main themes were identified, four of which were prompted by the questions: Addressing prostate health, Experiences with and expectations of GPs, Differences in care between regional and metropolitan areas, and Achieving early diagnosis. The fifth theme arose spontaneously: Australian masculinity. Men identified as problematic the limited availability of GPs in regional areas, the lack of consistency in approaches to prostate cancer detection, and men’s reluctance to seek medical care. Community-level strategies appear to be valued to encourage men to address prostate health. Maintaining and extending a systemic approach to prostate care may improve outcomes for men in Australia.

Background Globally, road transport accidents contribute significantly to mortality and burden of disability. Up to 50 million people suffer a transport-related non-fatal injury each year, which often leads to long-term disability. A substantial number of people with minor injuries struggle to recover and little is known about the factors leading to poor or non-recovery. The aim of this paper is to present a systematic review of biopsychosocial factors related to poor or non-recovery after a minor transport-related injury. Methods and findings Studies were selected through searches of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library. Methodological quality was assessed using a Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) critical appraisal checklist for quantitative cohort studies and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) checklist for qualitative articles. Data were extracted using the Cochrane data extraction tool based on the biopsychosocial model of health (BPS). In total, there were 37 articles included. However, heterogeneity of the techniques and tools used to assess factors and outcomes across studies meant that pooling of results to determine biopsychosocial factors most predictive of poor or non-recovery was not possible. Hence, a narrative synthesis was conducted and shown multiple factors to be associated with poorer outcomes or non-recovery, most being identified in the biological and psychological domain of the BPS model. Factors that were the most representative across studies and have shown to have the strongest associations with poor or non-recovery were high initial pain intensity, pain duration and severity, pre-accident physical and mental health status and pain catastrophising. Conclusions This review demonstrates the complexity of recovery and a challenge in reporting on predictors of recovery. It is evident that a range of multi-factorial biopsychosocial factors impact recovery. These factors are often inter-connected and multi-faceted and therefore, it was not feasible to select or focus on one single factor. In defining the most predictive factors, further research is required, yet the consensus around which tools to use to measure recovery outcomes is needed and is highly recommended. Regardless of the descriptive nature, the review demonstrated that high levels of post-injury pain are associated with poorer outcomes such as chronic pain and physical and mental disability. Therefore, early targeting of modifiable factors such as pain, pain catastrophizing and arising comorbidities such as PTSD, depression and anxiety may assist in reducing chronic pain and ongoing related disabilities. Systematic review trial registration number Systematic review protocol was registered in International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 14 December 2016. Registration number CRD42016052276.

Background Clinical quality registries (CQRs) are playing an increasingly important role in improving health outcomes and reducing health care costs. CQRs are established with the purpose of monitoring quality of care, providing feedback, benchmarking performance, describing pattern of treatment, reducing variation and as a tool for conducting research. Objectives To synthesise the impact of clinical quality registries (CQRs) as an 'intervention' on (I) mortality/survival; (II) measures of outcome that reflect a process or outcome of health care; (III) health care utilisation; and (IV) healthcare-related costs. Methods The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL and Google Scholar. In addition, a review of the grey literature and a reference check of citations and reference lists within articles was undertaken to identify relevant studies in English covering the period January 1980 to December 2016. The PRISMA-P methodology, checklist and standard search strategy using pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria and structured data extraction tools were used. Data on study design and methods, participant characteristics attributes of included registries and impact of the registry on outcome measures and/or processes of care were extracted. Results We identified 30102 abstracts from which 75 full text articles were assessed and finally 17 articles were selected for synthesis. Out of 17 studies, six focused on diabetes care, two on cardiac diseases, two on lung diseases and others on organ transplantations, rheumatoid arthritis, ulcer healing, surgical complications and kidney disease. The majority of studies were "before after" design (#11) followed by cohort design (#2), randomised controlled trial (#2), experimental non randomised study and one cross sectional comparison. The measures of impact of registries were multifarious and included change in processes of care, quality of care, treatment outcomes, adherence to guidelines and survival. Sixteen of 17 studies demonstrated positive findings in their outcomes after implementation of the registry. Conclusions Despite the large number of published articles using data derived from CQRs, few have rigorously evaluated the impact of the registry as an intervention on improving health outcomes. Those that have evaluated this impact have mostly found a positive impact on healthcare processes and outcomes. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42015017319.