Search

Background: Ensuring fair comparisons of cancer survival statistics across population groups requires careful consideration of differential competing mortality due to other causes, and adjusting for imbalances over groups in other prognostic covariates (e.g. age). This has typically been achieved using comparisons of age-standardised net survival, with age standardisation addressing covariate imbalance, and the net estimates removing differences in competing mortality from other causes. However, these estimates lack ease of interpretability. In this paper, we motivate an alternative non-parametric approach that uses a common rate of other cause mortality across groups to give reference-adjusted estimates of the all-cause and cause-specific crude probability of death in contrast to solely reporting net survival estimates.Methods: We develop the methodology for a non-parametric equivalent of standardised and reference adjusted crude probabilities of death, building on the estimation of non-parametric crude probabilities of death. We illustrate the approach using regional comparisons of survival following a diagnosis of rectal cancer for men in England. We standardise to the covariate distribution and other cause mortality of England as a whole to offer comparability, but with close approximation to the observed all-cause region-specific mortality.Results: The approach gives comparable estimates to observed crude probabilities of death, but allows direct comparison across population groups with different covariate profiles and competing mortality patterns. In our illustrative example, we show that regional variations in survival following a diagnosis of rectal cancer persist even after accounting for the variation in deprivation, age at diagnosis and other cause mortality.Conclusions: The methodological approach of using standardised and reference adjusted metrics offers an appealing approach for future cancer survival comparison studies and routinely published cancer statistics. Our non-parametric estimation approach through the use of weighting offers the ability to estimate comparable survival estimates without the need for statistical modelling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Systematic reviews have identified effective strategies for increasing postal response rates to questionnaires; however, most studies have isolated single techniques, testing the effect of each one individually. Despite providing insight into explanatory mechanisms, this approach lacks ecological validity, given that multiple techniques are often combined in routine practice.Methods: We used a two-armed parallel randomised controlled trial (n = 2702), nested within a cross-sectional health survey study, to evaluate whether using a pragmatic combination of behavioural science and evidenced-based techniques (e.g., personalisation, social norms messaging) in a study invitation letter increased response to the survey, when compared with a standard invitation letter. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. We tested this in a sample of women testing positive for human papillomavirus (HPV) at cervical cancer screening in England.Results: Overall, 646 participants responded to the survey (response rate [RR] = 23.9%). Logistic regression revealed higher odds of response in the intervention arm (n = 357/1353, RR = 26.4%) compared with the control arm (n = 289/1349, RR = 21.4%), while adjusting for age, deprivation, clinical site, and clinical test result (aOR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.09-1.55).Conclusion: Applying easy-to-implement behavioural science and evidence-based methods to routine invitation letters improved postal response to a health-related survey, whilst adjusting for demographic characteristics. Our findings provide support for the pragmatic adoption of combined techniques in routine research to increase response to postal surveys.Trial Registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN15113095 . Registered 7 May 2019 - retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early mobilisation leads to a two-fold increase in the adjusted odds of discharge by 30-days compared to late mobilisation. Whether this association varies by patient characteristics identified as reasons for delayed mobilisation is unknown.Methods: Audit data was linked to hospitalisation records for 133,319 patients 60 years or older surgically treated for hip fracture in England or Wales between 2014 and 2016. Adjusted proportional odds regression models tested whether the cumulative incidences of discharge differed between those mobilised early and those mobilised late for subgroups defined by dementia, delirium, hypotension, prefracture ambulation, and prefracture residence, accounting for the competing risk of death.Results: Overall, 34,253 patients presented with dementia, 9818 with delirium, and 10,123 with hypotension. Prefracture, 100,983 were ambulant outdoors, 30,834 were ambulant indoors only, 107,144 were admitted from home, and 23,588 from residential care. 1502 had incomplete data for ambulation and 2587 for prefracture residence. 10, 8, 8, 12, and 12% fewer patients with dementia, delirium, hypotension, ambulant indoors only prefracture, or admitted from residential care mobilised early when compared to those who presented without dementia, delirium, hypotension, with outdoor ambulation prefracture, or admitted from home. The adjusted odds ratios of discharge by 30-days postoperatively among those who mobilised early compared with those who mobilised late were 1.71 (95% CI 1.62-1.81) for those with dementia, 2.06 (95% CI 1.98-2.15) without dementia, 1.56 (95% CI 1.41-1.73) with delirium, 2.00 (95% CI 1.93-2.07) without delirium, 1.83 (95% CI, 1.66-2.02) with hypotension, 1.95 (95% CI, 1.89-2.02) without hypotension, 2.00 (95% CI 1.92-2.08) with outdoor ambulation prefracture, 1.80 (95% CI 1.70-1.91) with indoor ambulation only prefracture, 2.30 (95% CI 2.19-2.41) admitted from home, and 1.64 (95% CI 1.51-1.77) admitted from residential care, accounting for the competing risk of death.Conclusion: Irrespective of dementia, delirium, hypotension, prefracture ambulation or residence, early compared to late mobilisation increased the likelihood of hospital discharge by 30-days postoperatively. However, fewer patients with dementia, delirium, or hypotension, poorer prefracture ambulation, or from residential care mobilised early. There is a need reduce this care gap by ensuring sufficient resource to enable all patients to benefit from early mobilisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Increasing demand on emergency healthcare systems has prompted introduction of new healthcare service models including the provision of GP services in or alongside emergency departments. In England this led to a policy proposal and £100million (US$130million) of funding for all emergency departments to have co-located GP services. However, there is a lack of evidence for whether such service models are effective and safe. We examined diagnostic errors reported in patient safety incident reports to develop theories to explain how and why they occurred to inform potential priority areas for improvement and inform qualitative data collection at case study sites to further refine the theories.Methods: We used a mixed-methods design using exploratory descriptive analysis to identify the most frequent and harmful sources of diagnostic error and thematic analysis, incorporating realist methodology to refine theories from an earlier rapid realist review, to describe how and why the events occurred and could be mitigated, to inform improvement recommendations. We used two UK data sources: Coroners' reports to prevent future deaths (30.7.13-14.08.18) and National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) patient safety incident reports (03.01.05-30.11.15).Results: Nine Coroners' reports (from 1347 community and hospital reports, 2013-2018) and 217 NRLS reports (from 13 million, 2005-2015) were identified describing diagnostic error related to GP services in or alongside emergency departments. Initial theories to describe potential priority areas for improvement included: difficulty identifying appropriate patients for the GP service; under-investigation and misinterpretation of diagnostic tests; and inadequate communication and referral pathways between the emergency and GP services. High-risk presentations included: musculoskeletal injury, chest pain, headache, calf pain and sick children.Conclusion: Initial theories include the following topics as potential priority areas for improvement interventions and evaluation to minimise the risk of diagnostic errors when GPs work in or alongside emergency departments: a standardised initial assessment with streaming guidance based on local service provision; clinical decision support for high-risk conditions; and standardised computer systems, communication and referral pathways between emergency and GP services. These theories require refinement and testing with qualitative data collection from case study (hospital) sites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many health visiting services in England use the Promotional Guide system with mothers and fathers, an intervention to support their transition to parenthood, but there is little known about its use and effectiveness, especially with fathers. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of the Promotional Guide system with first-time fathers and pilot potential outcome measures to assess their mental health and wellbeing.Methods: A mixed methods prospective observational cohort study. Expectant first-time fathers were recruited from four London (UK) local authority boroughs. Data were collected through online pre and post intervention questionnaires, and semi-structured telephone interviews. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data were analysed using framework analysis.Results: Eighty-six fathers were interested in participating; 7 did not meet inclusion criteria and 79 were invited to complete the baseline questionnaire. Questionnaires completed by 45 men at both timepoints were included in the final analysis. Mean and standard deviations were calculated for all outcomes, showing a slight deterioration in the scores across all measures in the postnatal period compared to the antenatal. Ten of these men were also interviewed. Six major categories were identified: 1) Experience of health visitor contact, 2) Experience of Promotional Guides, 3) Experience of perinatal health services, 4) Experience of fatherhood, 5) Fathers' mental health and wellbeing, and 6) Experience of the research process. While antenatal and postnatal outcomes were collected from 45 first-time fathers, none had received the intervention in its entirety. This study identified major gaps in the implementation of the Promotional Guide system with fathers.Conclusion: This study assessed recruitment of first-time fathers, time to complete recruitment, and retention rates and identified outcome measures that could be used in a future definitive study. While it wasn't possible to examine the potential changes following the use of the Promotional Guide system, the study reported on the changes in the fathers' 'states' in the antenatal and postnatal period. It provided a narrative on whether first-time fathers found it acceptable to be asked about their mental health and wellbeing, highlighted their specific needs during their transition to fatherhood, and how they wanted to be supported. It also identified barriers to implementation of the Promotional Guide system by health visitors, which need to be addressed prior to any future research into this intervention. These findings have a number of implications for researchers, health professionals, health service managers, commissioners, policy makers and parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]