General Practice and Primary Care - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9
-
ItemCommentary: Pivoting during a pandemic: developing a new recruitment model for a randomised controlled trial in response to COVID-19(BMC, 2021-09-08)BACKGROUND: Many non-COVID-19 trials were disrupted in 2020 and either struggled to recruit participants or stopped recruiting altogether. In December 2019, just before the pandemic, we were awarded a grant to conduct a randomised controlled trial, the Should I Take Aspirin? (SITA) trial, in Victoria, the Australian state most heavily affected by COVID-19 during 2020. MAIN BODY: We originally modelled the SITA trial recruitment method on previous trials where participants were approached and recruited in general practice waiting rooms. COVID-19 changed the way general practices worked, with a significant increase in telehealth consultations and restrictions on in person waiting room attendance. This prompted us to adapt our recruitment methods to this new environment to reduce potential risk to participants and staff, whilst minimising any recruitment bias. We designed a novel teletrial model, which involved calling participants prior to their general practitioner appointments to check their eligibility. We delivered the trial both virtually and face-to-face with similar overall recruitment rates to our previous studies. CONCLUSION: We developed an effective teletrial model which allowed us to complete recruitment at a high rate. The teletrial model is now being used in our other primary care trials as we continue to face the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
-
ItemAn RCT of a decision aid to support informed choices about taking aspirin to prevent colorectal cancer and other chronic diseases: a study protocol for the SITA (Should I Take Aspirin?) trial(BMC, 2021-07-15)BACKGROUND: Australian guidelines recommend that all people aged 50-70 years old actively consider taking daily low-dose aspirin (100-300 mg per day) for 2.5 to 5 years to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite the change of national CRC prevention guidelines, there has been no active implementation of the guidelines into clinical practice. We aim to test the efficacy of a health consultation and decision aid, using a novel expected frequency tree (EFT) to present the benefits and harms of low dose aspirin prior to a general practice consultation with patients aged 50-70 years, on informed decision-making and uptake of aspirin. METHODS: Approximately five to seven general practices in Victoria, Australia, will be recruited to participate. Patients 50-70 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner (GP) for any reason, will be invited to participate in the trial. Two hundred fifty-eight eligible participants will be randomly allocated 1:1 to intervention or active control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice, sex, and mode of trial delivery (face-to-face or teletrial). There are two co-primary outcomes: informed decision-making at 1-month post randomisation, measured by the Multi-dimensional Measure of Informed Choice (MMIC), and self-reported daily use of aspirin at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include decisional conflict at 1-month and other behavioural changes to reduce CRC risk at both time points. DISCUSSION: This trial will test the efficacy of novel methods for implementing national guidelines to support informed decision-making about taking aspirin in 50-70-year-olds to reduce the risk of CRC and other chronic diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12620001003965 . Registered on 10 October 2020.
-
ItemEvaluation of the benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of potential alternatives to iFOBT testing for colorectal cancer screening in Australia(WILEY, 2018-07-15)The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) will fully roll-out 2-yearly screening using the immunochemical Faecal Occult Blood Testing (iFOBT) in people aged 50 to 74 years by 2020. In this study, we aimed to estimate the comparative health benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of screening with iFOBT, versus other potential alternative or adjunctive technologies. A comprehensive validated microsimulation model, Policy1-Bowel, was used to simulate a total of 13 screening approaches involving use of iFOBT, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, computed tomographic colonography (CTC), faecal DNA (fDNA) and plasma DNA (pDNA), in people aged 50 to 74 years. All strategies were evaluated in three scenarios: (i) perfect adherence, (ii) high (but imperfect) adherence, and (iii) low adherence. When assuming perfect adherence, the most effective strategies involved using iFOBT (annually, or biennially with/without adjunct sigmoidoscopy either at 50, or at 54, 64 and 74 years for individuals with negative iFOBT), or colonoscopy (10-yearly, or once-off at 50 years combined with biennial iFOBT). Colorectal cancer incidence (mortality) reductions for these strategies were 51-67(74-80)% in comparison with no screening; 2-yearly iFOBT screening (i.e. the NBCSP) would be associated with reductions of 51(74)%. Only 2-yearly iFOBT screening was found to be cost-effective in all scenarios in context of an indicative willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/life-year saved (LYS); this strategy was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of A$2,984/LYS-A$5,981/LYS (depending on adherence). The fully rolled-out NBCSP is highly cost-effective, and is also one of the most effective approaches for bowel cancer screening in Australia.
-
ItemClinicians' opinions on recommending aspirin to prevent colorectal cancer to Australians aged 50-70 years: a qualitative study(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2021-02)OBJECTIVES: Australian guidelines recommend all adults aged 50-70 years old without existing contraindications consider taking low-dose aspirin (100-300 mg per day) for at least 2.5 years to reduce their risk of developing colorectal cancer. We aimed to explore clinicians' practices, knowledge, opinions, and barriers and facilitators to the implementation of these new guidelines. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with clinicians to whom the new guidelines may be applicable (Familial Cancer Clinic staff (geneticists, oncologists and genetic counsellors), gastroenterologists, pharmacists and general practitioners (GPs)). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) underpinned the development of the interview guide. Coding was inductive and themes were developed through consensus between the authors. Emerging themes were mapped onto the CFIR domains: characteristics of the intervention, outer setting, inner setting, individual characteristics and process. RESULTS: Sixty-four interviews were completed between March and October 2019. Aspirin was viewed as a safe and cheap option for cancer prevention. GPs were considered by all clinicians as the most important health professionals for implementation of the guidelines. Cancer Council Australia, as a trusted organisation, was an important facilitator to guideline adoption. Uncertainty about aspirin dosage and perceived strength of the evidence, precise wording of the recommendation, previous changes to guidelines about aspirin and conflicting findings from trials in older populations were barriers to implementation. CONCLUSION: Widespread adoption of these new guidelines could be an important strategy to reduce the incidence of bowel cancer, but this will require more active implementation strategies focused on primary care and the wider community. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12620001003965).
-
ItemPathways to a cancer-free future: a protocol for modelled evaluations to minimise the future burden of colorectal cancer in Australia(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2020)INTRODUCTION: With almost 50% of cases preventable and the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program in place, colorectal cancer (CRC) is a prime candidate for investment to reduce the cancer burden. The challenge is determining effective ways to reduce morbidity and mortality and their implementation through policy and practice. Pathways-Bowel is a multistage programme that aims to identify best-value investment in CRC control by integrating expert and end-user engagement; relevant evidence; modelled interventions to guide future investment; and policy-driven implementation of interventions using evidence-based methods. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Pathways-Bowel is an iterative work programme incorporating a calibrated and validated CRC natural history model for Australia (Policy1-Bowel) and assessing the health and cost outcomes and resource use of targeted interventions. Experts help identify and prioritise modelled evaluations of changing trends and interventions and critically assess results to advise on their real-world applicability. Where appropriate the results are used to support public policy change and make the case for optimal investment in specific CRC control interventions. Fourteen high-priority evaluations have been modelled or planned, including evaluations of CRC outcomes from the changing prevalence of modifiable exposures, including smoking and body fatness; potential benefits of daily aspirin intake as chemoprevention; increasing CRC incidence in people aged <50 years; increasing screening participation in the general and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations; alternative screening technologies and modalities; and changes to follow-up surveillance protocols. Pathways-Bowel is a unique, comprehensive approach to evaluating CRC control; no prior body of work has assessed the relative benefits of a variety of interventions across CRC development and progression to produce a list of best-value investments. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was not required as human participants were not involved. Findings are reported in a series of papers in peer-reviewed journals and presented at fora to engage the community and policymakers.
-
ItemPathways to a cancer-free future: a protocol for modelled evaluations to minimise the future burden of colorectal cancer in Australia(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2020-01-01)INTRODUCTION: With almost 50% of cases preventable and the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program in place, colorectal cancer (CRC) is a prime candidate for investment to reduce the cancer burden. The challenge is determining effective ways to reduce morbidity and mortality and their implementation through policy and practice. Pathways-Bowel is a multistage programme that aims to identify best-value investment in CRC control by integrating expert and end-user engagement; relevant evidence; modelled interventions to guide future investment; and policy-driven implementation of interventions using evidence-based methods. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Pathways-Bowel is an iterative work programme incorporating a calibrated and validated CRC natural history model for Australia (Policy1-Bowel) and assessing the health and cost outcomes and resource use of targeted interventions. Experts help identify and prioritise modelled evaluations of changing trends and interventions and critically assess results to advise on their real-world applicability. Where appropriate the results are used to support public policy change and make the case for optimal investment in specific CRC control interventions. Fourteen high-priority evaluations have been modelled or planned, including evaluations of CRC outcomes from the changing prevalence of modifiable exposures, including smoking and body fatness; potential benefits of daily aspirin intake as chemoprevention; increasing CRC incidence in people aged <50 years; increasing screening participation in the general and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations; alternative screening technologies and modalities; and changes to follow-up surveillance protocols. Pathways-Bowel is a unique, comprehensive approach to evaluating CRC control; no prior body of work has assessed the relative benefits of a variety of interventions across CRC development and progression to produce a list of best-value investments. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was not required as human participants were not involved. Findings are reported in a series of papers in peer-reviewed journals and presented at fora to engage the community and policymakers.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableAbility of known susceptibility SNPs to predict colorectal cancer risk for persons with and without a family history(SPRINGER, 2019-10)Before SNP-based risk can be incorporated in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, the ability of these SNPs to estimate CRC risk for persons with and without a family history of CRC, and the screening implications need to be determined. We estimated the association with CRC of a 45 SNP-based risk using 1181 cases and 999 controls, and its correlation with CRC risk predicted from detailed family history. We estimated the predicted change in the distribution across predefined risk categories, and implications for recommended screening commencement age, from adding SNP-based risk to family history. The inter-quintile risk ratio for colorectal cancer risk of the SNP-based risk was 3.28 (95% CI 2.54-4.22). SNP-based and family history-based risks were not correlated (r = 0.02). For persons with no first-degree relatives with CRC, screening could commence 4 years earlier for women (5 years for men) in the highest quintile of SNP-based risk. For persons with two first-degree relatives with CRC, screening could commence 16 years earlier for men and women in the highest quintile, and 7 years earlier for the lowest quintile. This 45 SNP panel in conjunction with family history, can identify people who could benefit from earlier screening. Risk reclassification by 45 SNPs could inform targeted screening for CRC prevention, particularly in clinical genetics settings when mutations in high-risk genes cannot be identified. Yet to be determined is cost-effectiveness, resources requirements, community, patient and clinician acceptance, and feasibility with potentially ethical, legal and insurance implications.
-
ItemThe use of a risk assessment and decision support tool (CRISP) compared with usual care in general practice to increase risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial(BMC, 2018-07-25)BACKGROUND: Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence rates of colorectal cancer worldwide. In Australia there is significant unwarranted variation in colorectal cancer screening due to low uptake of the immunochemical faecal occult blood test, poor identification of individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer, and over-referral of individuals at average risk for colonoscopy. Our pre-trial research has developed a novel Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction (CRISP) tool, which could be used to implement precision screening in primary care. This paper describes the protocol for a phase II multi-site individually randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool in primary care. METHODS: This trial aims to test whether a standardised consultation using the CRISP tool in general practice (the CRISP intervention) increases risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening compared to control participants who receive standardised information on cancer prevention. Patients between 50 and 74 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner for any reason, will be invited into the trial. A total of 732 participants will be randomised to intervention or control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice. The primary outcome (risk-appropriate screening at 12 months) will be measured using baseline data for colorectal cancer risk and objective health service data to measure screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes will include participant cancer risk perception, anxiety, cancer worry, screening intentions and health service utilisation measured at 1, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. DISCUSSION: This trial tests a systematic approach to implementing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening in primary care, based on an individual's absolute risk, using a state-of-the-art risk assessment tool. Trial results will be reported in 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12616001573448p . Registered on 14 November 2016.
-
ItemFamily history-based colorectal cancer screening in Australia: A modelling study of the costs, benefits, and harms of different participation scenarios(PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, 2018-08)BACKGROUND: The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NBCSP) was introduced in 2006. When fully implemented, the programme will invite people aged 50 to 74 to complete an immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) every 2 years. METHODS AND FINDINGS: To investigate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening occurring outside of the NBCSP, we classified participants (n = 2,480) in the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (ACCFR) into 3 risk categories (average, moderately increased, and potentially high) based on CRC family history and assessed their screening practices according to national guidelines. We developed a microsimulation to compare hypothetical screening scenarios (70% and 100% uptake) to current participation levels (baseline) and evaluated clinical outcomes and cost for each risk category. The 2 main limitations of this study are as follows: first, the fact that our cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective, which does not include indirect costs and results in overestimated cost-effectiveness ratios, and second, that our natural history model of CRC does not include polyp sojourn time, which determines the rate of cancerous transformation. Screening uptake was low across all family history risk categories (64%-56% reported no screening). For participants at average risk, 18% reported overscreening, while 37% of those in the highest risk categories screened according to guidelines. Higher screening levels would substantially reduce CRC mortality across all risk categories (95 to 305 fewer deaths per 100,000 persons in the 70% scenario versus baseline). For those at average risk, a fully implemented NBCSP represented the most cost-effective approach to prevent CRC deaths (AUS$13,000-16,000 per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]). For those at moderately increased risk, higher adherence to recommended screening was also highly cost-effective (AUS$19,000-24,000 per QALY). CONCLUSION: Investing in public health strategies to increase adherence to appropriate CRC screening will save lives and deliver high value for money.