Search

This is a protocol that outlines the process of a scoping review which aims to map and summarise the evidence on lived experience and factors associated with non-medical use of tramadol.

Additional file 2.

Additional file 1.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes using a guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt) reduce CRC mortality. Interval cancers are diagnosed between screening rounds: reassurance from a negative gFOBt has the potential to influence the pathway to diagnosis of an interval colorectal cancer.METHODS: Twenty-six semi-structured face-to-face interviews were carried out in Scotland and England, with individuals diagnosed with an interval colorectal cancer following a negative gFOBt result.RESULTS: Participants reported they were reassured by a negative gFOBt, interpreting their result as an "all clear". Therefore, most did not suspect cancer as a possible cause of symptoms and many did not recall their screening result during symptom appraisal. Among those who did consider cancer, and did think about their screening test result, reassurance from a negative gFOBt led some to "downplay" the seriousness of their symptoms with some interviewees explicitly stating that their negative test result contributed to a delayed decision to seek help.CONCLUSION: Screening participants need to be informed of the limitations of screening and the ongoing risk of developing colorectal cancer even when in receipt of a negative result: the importance of minimizing delay in seeking medical advice for colorectal symptoms should be emphasized.

INTRODUCTION: As cancer survivors continue to live longer, the incidence of second primary cancers (SPCs) will also rise. Relatively little is understood about the diagnostic pathway for SPCs, how people appraise, interpret symptoms and seek help for a second different cancer and the experiences (including challenges) of healthcare providers relating to SPCs. This study aims to systematically appraise and synthesise the literature on the pathways to diagnosis of an SPC and the associated patient and healthcare provider experiences.METHODS: The approach taken includes systematic searches of published and unpublished literature without any date or language restrictions. MEDLINE, Embase, CAB Abstracts, MEDLINE In-Process and non-indexed citations, PsycINFO, Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and other non-indexed citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, CINAHL, ASSIA, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science, PROSPERO and grey literature will be searched to identify observational, systematic reviews, mixed methods and qualitative studies of interest. Titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened against the inclusion-exclusion criteria by at least two reviewers independently. Relevant outcomes of interest and study and population characteristics will be extracted. Synthesis will be used guided by the Pathways to Treatment model and the Olesen model of time intervals.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. This systematic review will provide a deeper understanding of the complex and heterogeneous diagnostic pathways of SPCs, while identifying common themes across the diagnostic interval, routes to diagnosis and patient and healthcare provider experiences. These findings will help provide a nuanced picture of the diagnostic pathway for SPCs that may inform policy and consistent practice. In particular, approaches to early diagnosis for an SPC; including the timing and reasons behind the decision by the patient to seek care,the challenges faced by healthcare providers, and in the development of future interventions to reduce the delay in patient time-to-presentation.PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016051692.

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of feedback on safety of prescribing compared with moderately enhanced usual care.Design Three arm, highly pragmatic cluster randomised trial.Setting and participants 262/278 (94%) primary care practices in three Scottish health boards.Interventions Practices were randomised to: “usual care,” consisting of emailed educational material with support for searching to identify patients (88 practices at baseline, 86 analysed); usual care plus feedback on practice’s high risk prescribing sent quarterly on five occasions (87 practices, 86 analysed); or usual care plus the same feedback incorporating a behavioural change component (87 practices, 86 analysed).Main outcome measures The primary outcome was a patient level composite of six prescribing measures relating to high risk use of antipsychotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, and antiplatelets. Secondary outcomes were the six individual measures. The primary analysis compared high risk prescribing in the two feedback arms against usual care at 15 months. Secondary analyses examined immediate change and change in trend of high risk prescribing associated with implementation of the intervention within each arm.Results In the primary analysis, high risk prescribing as measured by the primary outcome fell from 6.0% (3332/55 896) to 5.1% (2845/55 872) in the usual care arm, compared with 5.9% (3341/56 194) to 4.6% (2587/56 478) in the feedback only arm (odds ratio 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.96) compared with usual care; P=0.007) and 6.2% (3634/58 569) to 4.6% (2686/58 582) in the feedback plus behavioural change component arm (0.86 (0.78 to 0.95); P=0.002). In the pre-specified secondary analysis of change in trend within each arm, the usual care educational intervention had no effect on the existing declining trend in high risk prescribing. Both types of feedback were associated with significantly more rapid decline in high risk prescribing after the intervention compared with before.Conclusions Feedback of prescribing safety data was effective at reducing high risk prescribing. The intervention would be feasible to implement at scale in contexts where electronic health records are in general use.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01602705.

Objectives: To compare the prevalence of use of potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) between older patients living in their own homes versus those living in nursing or residential homes, and to test the association between exposure to PIMs and mortality. Design: Cohort study stratified by place of residence. Setting: Tayside, Scotland. Participants: All people aged between 66 and 99 years who were resident or died in Tayside from 2005 to 2006. Main outcome measures: The exposure variable was PIM use as defined by Beers' Criteria. All cause mortality was the main outcome measure. Results: 70 299 people were enrolled in the cohort of whom 96% were exposed to any medicine and 31% received a PIM. Place of residence was not associated with overall risk of receiving PIMs, adjusted OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.01. Exposure to five of the PIMs (including long-acting benzodiazepines) was significantly higher in nursing homes whereas exposure to five other PIMs (including amitriptyline and NSAIDs) was significantly lower. Exposure to PIMs was similar (20e46%) across all 71 general practices in Tayside and was not associated with increased risk of mortality after adjustment for age, gender and polypharmacy (adjusted OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.05). Conclusions: The authors question the validity of the full list of PIMs as an indicator of safety of medicines in older people because one-third of the population is exposed with little practice variation and no significant impact on mortality. Future studies should focus on management of a shorter list of genuinely high-risk medicines.