Search

Introduction: Right hemicolectomy (RHC) remains the treatment standard for goblet cell adenocarcinoma (GCA), despite limited evidence supporting survival benefit. This study aims to explore factors influencing surgical management and survival outcomes among patients treated with RHC or appendicectomy using NCRAS (UK) and SEER (USA) data. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using 998 (NCRAS) and 1703 (SEER) cases. Factors influencing procedure type were explored using logistic regression analyses. Overall survival (OS) probabilities and Kaplan–Meier (KM) plots were generated using KM analysis and the log-rank test compared survival between groups. Cox regression analyses were performed to assess hazard ratios. Results: The NCRAS analysis revealed that age and regional stage disease were determinants of undergoing RHC, with all age groups showing similar odds of receiving RHC, excluding the 75+ age group. The SEER analysis revealed tumour size > 2 cm, and receipt of chemotherapy were determinants of undergoing RHC, unlike the distant stage, which was associated with appendicectomy. Surgery type was not a significant predictor of OS in both analyses. In NCRAS, age and stage were significant predictors of OS. In SEER, age, stage, and Black race were significant predictors of worse OS. Conclusions: The study shows variations in the surgical management of GCA, with limited evidence to support a widespread recommendation for RHC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are occurring more frequently worldwide. Data from the UK cancer database (National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS)) showed that female patients have better survival with neuroendocrine neoplasms. This study used the U.S. cancer database (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)) to validate and compare these findings. Sixty-months survival for NENs were calculated for both male and female patients from NCRAS and SEER. The findings from NCRAS were confirmed by the findings from SEER that females survive more than males with NENs, mainly with lung and stomach NENs. The reason behind this is unclear and remains unexplained. Background: Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are increasing in incidence globally. Previous analysis of the UK cancer database (National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS)) showed a notable female survival advantage in most tumour sites. This study aims to compare NCRAS to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) to validate these results using the same statistical methods. Methods: A total of 14,834 and 108,399 patients with NENs were extracted from NCRAS and SEER, respectively. Sixty-months survival for both males and females for each anatomical site of NENs were calculated using restricted mean survival time (RMST) and Kaplan–Meier Survival estimates. The sixty-month RMST female survival advantage (FSA) was calculated. Results: FSA was similar in NCRAS and SEER. The highest FSA occurred in lung and stomach NENs. Conclusions: The data from SEER confirm the findings published by NCRAS. Female survival advantage remains unexplained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Libraries in the UK have evolved from traditional book-lending institutions into dynamic community hubs, This study aims to explore the potential of libraries to act as community hubs to promote mental and physical health and wellbeing of community-dwelling adults, drawing on insights from both library users and library staff in England. Design: A mixed-method, cross-sectional study using online survey and interviews with community-dwelling adults and library staff. Methods: We collected data using a 14-item electronic survey and interviews with library users and staff to gauge perceptions. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used to identify key trends and emergent themes. Results: We included 605 respondents from the survey and interviewed 12 library users and staff. Libraries remain popular and are considered a 'safe place by members of the community, regardless of their frequency of service usage irrespective of whether they are frequent users of services. However, a lack of awareness among library users about community-facing services could act as a hurdle to improving community health and wellbeing. Targeted engagement with residents is needed to increase awareness of libraries' services, including community interventions to help tackle loneliness and inequalities in digital and health literacy. Library staff often did not feel involved in important decision-making. Various barriers, drivers and practical recommendations were identified to leverage libraries as hubs to promote community health and wellbeing. Conclusion: Libraries already offer a variety of resources that directly or indirectly support the health and wellbeing of community-dwelling adults and young people. However, public awareness of these services is limited. As we navigate post-pandemic recovery, libraries can serve as platforms for community engagement, fostering resilience, mental health support and reducing social isolation. Recognising libraries' untapped potential can lead to healthier communities and improved wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Even prior to the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was ample evidence that loneliness and social isolation negatively impacted physical and mental health, employability, and are a financial burden on the state. In response, there has been significant policy-level attention on tackling loneliness. The objective of this scoping review was to conduct a loneliness policy landscape analysis across 52 countries of the UN European country groups. Our policy analysis sought to highlight commonalities and differences between the different national approaches to manage loneliness, with the goal to provide actionable recommendations for the consideration of policymakers wishing to develop, expand or review existing loneliness policies. Methods: We searched governmental websites using the Google search engine for publicly available documents related to loneliness and social isolation. Seventy-eight documents were identified in total, from which 23 documents were retained. Exclusion of documents was based on predetermined criteria. A structured content analysis approach was used to capture key information from the policy documents. Contextual data were captured in a configuration matrix to highlight common and unique themes. Results: We could show that most policies describe loneliness as a phenomenon that was addressed to varying degrees in different domains such as social, health, geographical, economic and political. Limited evidence was found regarding funding for suggested interventions. We synthesised actionable recommendations for the consideration of policy makers focusing on the use of language, prioritisation of interventions, revisiting previous campaigns, sharing best practice across borders, setting out a vision, evaluating interventions, and the need for the rapid and sustainable scalability of interventions. Conclusions: Our study provides the first overview of the national loneliness policy landscape, highlighting the increasing prioritisation of loneliness and social isolation as a major public health and societal issue. Our findings suggest that policymakers can sustain this momentum and strengthen their strategies by incorporating rigorous, evidence-based intervention evaluations and fostering international collaborations for knowledge sharing. We believe that policymakers can more effectively address loneliness by directing funds to develop and implement interventions that impact the individual, the community and society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The global prevalence of mental health disorders has risen significantly since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has additionally caused disruption to mental health services, leading to a shift from in-person to remote service delivery. Given its long-term impact, it has become critical to evaluate whether changes in health delivery during the pandemic have had an effect on prescribing patterns for commonly prescribed psychotropic drugs. This study aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on changes in psychotropic prescribing patterns in adults, as well as differences in prescribing in different healthcare delivery approaches across various geographical contexts., Design and Eligibility Requirements: Systematic review of cohort, interrupted time-series and cross-sectional studies examining prescribing trends for at least one commonly prescribed psychotropic drug during and after COVID-19 in accessing care remotely or face to face between 1 January 2020 and 17 June 2022., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC and PsycINFO databases were searched in addition to citation chaining of relevant reviews., Extraction and Analysis: Study screening, data extraction and quality assessment were completed by two independent reviewers. The PECO strategy was used to devise the systematic review and findings were synthesised narratively., Results: 16 studies were eligible for inclusion. Studies documenting changes in psychotropic prescribing trends provided very conflicting findings. There were no stark differences in prescribing outcomes between different healthcare delivery methods (ie, face-to-face consultations vs remote consultations). A noteworthy finding was that the prescribing rate of benzodiazepines was higher in women than men. No particular trends were observed for the prescription rates of hypnotics, antidepressants or antipsychotics., Conclusions: Findings support mixed trends in the prescription of psychotropic medications in a range of settings, hindering conclusive statements on COVID-19's impact on prescribing. In areas where remote consultations are in use, more comprehensive research is required to assess the safety of prescribing in these settings to inform public health policy and assess if the observed trends in our systematic review persist over time (given the increased consideration of remote and telehealth care in delivering services), particularly the safe and effective deployment of these services., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RI and NM are employees of Oracle UK, a health technology organisation. AJV-V reports past or current participation in investigator-initiated research grants to Imperial College London from Pfizer, Amgen, Sanofi, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo and Regeneron, honoraria for lectures from Amgen, Mylan and Akcea, and steering committee/consulting fees from Radcliffe Cardiology and Bayer, all outside the submitted work. KID reports past or current participation in investigator-initiated research grants to Imperial College London from Amgen, Sanofi, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo and Regeneron and consulting fees from Bayer, all outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)