Mortality: What Are the Roles of Risk Factor Prevalence,Screening, and Use of Recommended Treatment?

CONTEXT: Despite advances in early detection and prevention of cervical cancer, women living in rural areas, and particularly in Appalachia, the rural South, the Texas/Mexico border, and the central valley of California, have had consistently higher rates of cervical cancer mortality than their counterparts in other areas during the past several decades. METHODS: This paper reviews the published literature from 1966 to July 2002 to assess three potential pathways underlying this excess mortality--high human papilloma virus (HPV) prevalence, lack of or infrequent screening and advanced disease at diagnosis, and under-use of recommended treatment and shorter survival. FINDINGS: Living in rural areas may impose barriers to cervical cancer control, including lack of transportation and medical care infrastructures. Population characteristics that place women at greater risk for developing and dying from cervical cancer, such as low income, lack of health insurance, and physician availability, are concentrated in rural areas. Published data, however, are insufficient to identify the key reasons for the observed mortality patterns. CONCLUSIONS: At this time, given the lack of definitive evidence in the published literature, decisions about priorities in areas with high rates of cervical cancer mortality will depend on knowledge of current levels of screening, incidence, and stage distribution; and service delivery infrastructures, resources, and acceptability of interventions to the target population.     

Exploring the decision-making preferences of people with colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVES: To explore patient views on participation in treatment, physical care and psychological care decisions and factors that facilitate and hinder patients from making decisions. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Three NHS Trusts in the north-west of England. Theoretical sampling including 41 patients who had been treated for colorectal cancer. RESULTS: For patients, participation in the decision-making process was about being informed and feeling involved in the consultation process, whether patients actually made decisions or not. The perceived availability of treatment choices (surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy) was related to type of treatment. Factors that impacted on whether patients wanted to make decisions included a lack of information, a lack of medical knowledge and trust in medical expertise. Patients perceived that they could have a more participatory role in decisions related to physical and psychological care. CONCLUSION: This study has implications for health professionals aiming to implement policy guidelines that promote patient participation and shared partnerships. Patients in this study wanted to be well informed and involved in the consultation process but did not necessarily want to use the information they received to make decisions. The presentation of choices and preferences for participation may be context specific and it cannot be assumed that patients who do not want to make decisions about one aspect of their care and treatment do not want to make decisions about other aspects of their care and treatment.     

What does it mean to involve consumers successfully in NHS research? A consensus study

OBJECTIVE: To obtain consensus on the principles and indicators of successful consumer involvement in NHS research. DESIGN: Consensus methods were used. An expert workshop, employing the nominal group technique was used to generate potential principles and indicators. A two-round postal Delphi process was used to obtain consensus on the principles and indicators. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants were drawn from health, social care, universities and consumer organizations. A purposive sampling strategy was used to identify people who had experience and/or knowledge of consumer involvement in NHS research. Six researchers and seven consumers participated in an expert workshop. Ninety-six people completed both rounds of the Delphi process. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consensus on principles and indicators of successful consumer involvement in NHS research. RESULTS: Eight principles were developed through an expert workshop and Delphi process, and rated as both clear and valid. Consensus was reached on at least one clear and valid indicator by which to measure each principle. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus has been obtained on eight principles of successful consumer involvement in NHS research. They may help commissioners, researchers and consumers to deepen their understanding of this issue, and can be used to guide good practice.     

Comparing Medications in a Therapeutic Area Using an NNT Model

OBJECTIVES: Clinicians are told to use the number needed to treat (NNT) to compare the benefits of therapeutic strategies, and researchers are asked to report results this way, generally without considering differences among the studies from which these were derived. METHODS: The crude NNT currently advocated is compared to the NNT standardized for a common outcome, follow-up time, study population and comparator. An NNT model for cardiovascular disease is described as an example that addresses differences among studies of secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Crude NNTs are compared to those obtained from the model. RESULTS: Follow-up in the 18 trials identified varied from 1.0 to 6.2 years; rates of cardiovascular events in the untreated subgroups ranged from 4.8% to 45.9%. The crude NNTs were more variable (9.1-163.7) than those obtained from the model (9.1-75.2). The effect of standardization was substantial in some cases, with proportional changes ranging from a 91% decrease to a 223% increase. CONCLUSION: Using an NNT model to account for differences in study design allows for more meaningful comparisons.     

Social work, general practice and evidence-based policy in the collaborative care of older people: current problems and future possibilities

While collaborative (or joint) working between social services and primary healthcare continues to rise up the policy agenda, current policy is not based on sound evidence of benefit to either patients or the wider community. Both sets of practitioners report benefits for their own work from adopting new arrangements for collaboration. The underlying assumption behind much of this activity is that a greater degree of integration provides benefits to both users and their carers, a perspective that at times obscures the issue of resource availability, especially in the form of practical community services such as district nursing and home help. At the present time there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that formal arrangements for collaborative working (CW) are better than those forged informally between committed individuals or teams. Furthermore, arrangements for CW have not hitherto been widely evaluated in systematic studies with a comparative design and focus on outcomes for users and carers rather than on processes. In this paper we propose a number of process measures for future evaluation of CW: (1) study populations must be comparable; (2) details of how services are actually delivered must be obtained and colocation should not be assumed to mean collaboration; (3) care packages in areas of comparable resources should be examined; (4) both destinational outcomes and user‐defined evaluations of benefit should be considered; (5) possible disadvantages of integrated care also need to be actively considered; (6) evaluations should include an economic analysis. Those implementing new policies in Primary Care Trusts have, at present, little sound evidence to guide them in their innovative work. However, they should take the opportunity to rigorously test the advantages and disadvantages of collaboration.     

Perspectives on colorectal cancer screening: a focus group study

Objective To assess attitudes and acceptability of Ontario consumers and doctors towards colorectal screening with faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and colonoscopy. Design, setting and participants Focus groups with gender‐specific samples of the population, high‐risk gastroenterology patients and family doctors. Method Semi‐structured interview guides used by facilitator to lead groups through knowledge of risk factors and prevention of colorectal cancer, the screening modalities, requirements for implementing screening programmes, barriers to screening and preferences towards screening. Main findings There were low levels of knowledge about colorectal cancer and its prevention in the general population. FOBT was an acceptable screening modality, but considerable education about its use and benefits would be necessary to implement a screening programme. Colonoscopy was not perceived to be a good choice for a primary screen in the general population. The high‐risk group supported use of FOBT in the general population and emphasized the need for education. The doctors were more reluctant about screening, requesting clear guidelines. They also identified the time and resources that would be required if a screening programme were initiated. Conclusion While colorectal screening is acceptable in this sample, information and decision aids are required to enable consumers and providers to make effective decisions. Implementation of colorectal screening programmes requires substantial educational efforts for both consumers and doctors.