BACKGROUND: Treatment of dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus prevents progression to adenocarcinoma; however, the optimal diagnostic strategy for Barrett's oesophagus is unclear. The Cytosponge-trefoil factor 3 (TFF3) is a non-endoscopic test for Barrett's oesophagus. The aim of this study was to investigate whether offering this test to patients on medication for gastro-oesophageal reflux would increase the detection of Barrett's oesophagus compared with standard management. METHODS: This multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial was done in 109 socio-demographically diverse general practice clinics in England. Randomisation was done both at the general practice clinic level (cluster randomisation) and at the individual patient level, and the results for each type of randomisation were analysed separately before being combined. Patients were eligible if they were aged 50 years or older, had been taking acid-suppressants for symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux for more than 6 months, and had not undergone an endoscopy procedure within the past 5 years. General practice clinics were selected by the local clinical research network and invited to participate in the trial. For cluster randomisation, clinics were randomly assigned (1:1) by the trial statistician using a computer-generated randomisation sequence; for individual patient-level randomisation, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by the general practice clinics using a centrally prepared computer-generated randomisation sequence. After randomisation, participants received either standard management of gastro-oesophageal reflux (usual care group), in which participants only received an endoscopy if required by their general practitioner, or usual care plus an offer of the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure, with a subsequent endoscopy if the procedure identified TFF3-positive cells (intervention group). The primary outcome was the diagnosis of Barrett's oesophagus at 12 months after enrolment, expressed as a rate per 1000 person-years, in all participants in the intervention group (regardless of whether they had accepted the offer of the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure) compared with all participants in the usual care group. Analyses were intention-to-treat. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN68382401, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between March 20, 2017, and March 21, 2019, 113 general practice clinics were enrolled, but four clinics dropped out shortly after randomisation. Using an automated search of the electronic prescribing records of the remaining 109 clinics, we identified 13 657 eligible patients who were sent an introductory letter with 14 days to opt out. 13 514 of these patients were randomly assigned (per practice or at the individual patient level) to the usual care group (n=6531) or the intervention group (n=6983). Following randomisation, 149 (2%) of 6983 participants in the intervention group and 143 (2%) of 6531 participants in the usual care group, on further scrutiny, did not meet all eligibility criteria or withdrew from the study. Of the remaining 6834 participants in the intervention group, 2679 (39%) expressed an interest in undergoing the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure. Of these, 1750 (65%) met all of the eligibility criteria on telephone screening and underwent the procedure. Most of these participants (1654 [95%]; median age 69 years) swallowed the Cytosponge successfully and produced a sample. 231 (3%) of 6834 participants had a positive Cytosponge-TFF3 result and were referred for an endoscopy. Patients who declined the offer of the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure and all participants in the usual care group only had an endoscopy if deemed necessary by their general practitioner. During an average of 12 months of follow-up, 140 (2%) of 6834 participants in the intervention group and 13 (<1%) of 6388 participants in the usual care group were diagnosed with Barrett's oesophagus (absolute difference 18·3 per 1000 person-years [95% CI 14·8-21·8]; rate ratio adjusted for cluster randomisation 10·6 [95% CI 6·0-18·8], p<0·0001). Nine (<1%) of 6834 participants were diagnosed with dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus (n=4) or stage I oesophago-gastric cancer (n=5) in the intervention group, whereas no participants were diagnosed with dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus or stage I gastro-oesophageal junction cancer in the usual care group. Among 1654 participants in the intervention group who swallowed the Cytosponge device successfully, 221 (13%) underwent endoscopy after testing positive for TFF3 and 131 (8%, corresponding to 59% of those having an endoscopy) were diagnosed with Barrett's oesophagus or cancer. One patient had a detachment of the Cytosponge from the thread requiring endoscopic removal, and the most common side-effect was a sore throat in 63 (4%) of 1654 participants. INTERPRETATION: In patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux, the offer of Cytosponge-TFF3 testing results in improved detection of Barrett's oesophagus. Cytosponge-TFF3 testing could also lead to the diagnosis of treatable dysplasia and early cancer. This strategy will lead to additional endoscopies with some false positive results. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research, the UK National Health Service, Medtronic, and the Medical Research Council.

BACKGROUND: General Practitioners (GPs) often play an important role in caring for people at the end of life. While some international studies suggest that GPs experience a number of barriers to providing palliative care, little is known about views and experiences of GPs in Australia. This study explored Australian GPs' perceptions of barriers and enablers to the provision of palliative care and provides new insights into how to implement best practice care at the end of life. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using 25 semi-structured phone interviews conducted with GPs practising in metropolitan and non-metropolitan New South Wales, Australia. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: GPs reported difficulties with palliative care provision due to i) the complex and often emotional nature of doctor-family-interaction; ii) a lack of evidence to guide care; and iii) the need to negotiate roles and responsibilities within the healthcare team. GPs listed a number of strategies to help deal with their workload and to improve communication processes between healthcare providers. These included appropriate scheduling of appointments, locally tailored mentoring and further education, and palliative care guidelines which more clearly outline the roles and responsibilities within multidisciplinary teams. GPs also noted the importance of online platforms to facilitate their communication with patients, their families and other healthcare providers, and to provide centralised access to locally tailored information on palliative care services. GPs suggested that non-government organisations could play an important role by raising awareness of the key role of GPs in palliative care provision and implementing an "official visitor" program, i.e. supporting volunteers to provide peer support or respite to people with palliative care needs and their families. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers new insights into strategies to overcome well documented barriers to palliative care provision in general practice and help implement optimal care at the end of life. The results suggest that researchers and policy makers should adopt a comprehensive approach to improving the provision of palliative care which tackles the array of barriers and enablers identified in this study.

BACKGROUND: GPs can play a central role in palliative care delivery. However, little is known about their views on what constitutes best practice care at the end of life. AIM: To explore, in a sample of Australian GPs, their perceptions of best practice palliative care and their ideal role in its delivery. DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative interview study of 25 GPs practising in metropolitan and non-metropolitan locations in New South Wales, Australia. METHOD: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 51 years, and had practised between 3 and 38 years (mean 19 years). Best practice palliative care was perceived to be proactive and responsive to a wide range of patient and family needs. Many participants indicated a need for relational continuity, which involves GPs establishing a care pathway from diagnosis to palliation, coordinating care across the pathway, and collaborating with other healthcare providers. A number of participants perceived palliative care as a natural extension of primary care and indicated that best practice palliative care mainly requires experiential knowledge and good communication skills, rather than specialised medical knowledge. Participants listed a number of communication strategies to offer patients and their families choice and ongoing negotiation about the recommended treatments. CONCLUSION: This study provides novel in-depth insights into GPs' perceptions of best practice palliative care. Future research should further investigate the identified features of care, and whether they can maximise the outcomes of patients and their families.

BACKGROUND: Patient-clinician communication training is a core component of the undergraduate medical program. As with all areas of medicine, the best available evidence for teaching these skills should be incorporated into training programs. Examining the volume, type and design-quality of publications in this field can help to determine whether research is following a natural scientific progression to inform interactional skills training. This study aimed to review: (i) whether the proportion of publications examining teaching interactional skills to undergraduate medical students by study type, across three time-periods (2007-2008, 2011-2012, 2015-2016), changed over time (i.e. measurement, descriptive or interventions studies); and (ii) the proportion of intervention studies meeting Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) research design criteria. METHODS: Medline, PubMed, PsycInfo and the Cochrane Database were searched for studies published in English from 2007 to 2016. Title and abstract reviews were performed for the included years. Articles were examined against the inclusion/exclusion criteria and those included were coded into descriptive, measurement or intervention categories. RESULTS: A total of 243 relevant publications were identified. Fifty-two were published from 2007 to 2008, 75 from 2011 to 2012 and 116 from 2015 to 2016. Most identified studies were descriptive (63%), followed by measurement studies (22%) and intervention studies (15%). The proportion of descriptive studies increased significantly over time. However, the proportion of intervention studies did not change and the proportion of measures studies significantly decreased. Of the 37 intervention studies identified within the three time-periods, only 16 (43%) met EPOC study design criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The largest proportion of identified studies were descriptive, however, descriptive research is not sufficient to ensure communication skills training can effectively improve interactions between clinicians and patients. A more rigorous approach to research in this area is needed to inform education strategies.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2017.310.

BACKGROUND: Personalised care and support planning (CSP) has been shown to improve diabetes outcomes, patient experience and provider morale in the care of persons living with diabetes. However, this has not been confirmed in controlled studies. Patient Activation through Community Empowerment/Engagement for Diabetes Management (PACE-D) is a pragmatic controlled trial that evaluates the effectiveness of personalised CSP in persons living with diabetes in the public primary care setting in Singapore. METHODS: Teamlet-empanelled patients with diabetes at four polyclinics are recruited for this study. Participants who attend either of the two Intervention clinics are sent their investigation results in a care planning letter (CPL) to prepare them for the CSP conversation. This conversation is facilitated by a trained CSP practitioner who engages them in discussion of concerns, goals and action plans, and documents their plans for subsequent review. Participants in the two Control clinics will receive standard diabetes care. Participants will complete two or more CSP conversations (Intervention) or regular consultations (Control) at the annual review visits within the 18 months of the study. The sample size is calculated at 1620 participants, with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) as the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures include patient activation (as measured by PAM-13) and changes in healthcare utilisation and cost. DISCUSSION: This study is a pragmatic trial that evaluates the effectiveness of personalised CSP in persons living with diabetes in a real world setting. It promises to provide insights with regard to the implementation of this model of care in Singapore and the region. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04288362. Retrospectively registered on 28 February 2020.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is of increasing prevalence and importance. It has been associated with poorer health-related quality of life (HrQoL) especially in the elderly population. Despite substantial multimorbidity in the middle-aged population, defined as those aged between 40-64 years old, there is a paucity of research investigating the impact of multimorbidity in this population. This study aimed to investigate the association between multimorbidity and HrQoL in the middle-aged primary care population in Singapore. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted at a primary care centre in Singapore. Interviewer-administered questionnaires were used to collect data regarding the participants' sociodemographic characteristics, chronic conditions, and HrQoL, as measured by the EuroQol five dimensions 3-levels questionnaire (EQ5D). We defined multimorbidity as the presence of three or more conditions, out of a list of 14 chronic conditions. The associations between multimorbidity and the components of the EQ5D were assessed using multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: The study included 297 participants, aged 40-64 years, of which 124 (41.7%) had multimorbidity. After adjusting for sociodemographic factors, participants with multimorbidity had significantly lower EQ5D UI, (β-coefficient - 0.064 (C.I -0.125, - 0.003), p = 0.04), but not significantly lower EQ5D VAS, (β-coefficient - 0.045 (C.I 0.102, 0.012), p = 0.12). Additionally, participants with multimorbidity had higher odds (OR = 2.41, p = 0.01) of reporting problems due to pain/discomfort. CONCLUSION: Multimorbidity was not significantly associated with the overall health state, as measured by the EQ5D VAS, in middle-aged primary care patients. However, it was associated with the EQ5D UI which is a composite measure of five specific domains of HrQoL. Specifically, there was a statistically significant association between multimorbidity and the pain domain. Further studies are required to understand the relationship between multimorbidity and pain to enable physicians to better manage pain and HrQoL in this population.

BACKGROUND: In the US, Hispanic women have a higher incidence of, and mortality from, cervical cancer than non-Hispanic white women. The reason for this disparity may be attributable to both low rates of screening and poor adherence to recommended diagnostic follow-up after an abnormal Pap test. The 'Cervical Cancer Screening and Adherence to Follow-up Among Hispanic Women' study is a collaboration between a research institution and community partners made up of members from community based organizations, the Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic and the Breast, Cervical, and Colon Health Program of the Yakima District . The study will assess the efficacy of two culturally-appropriate, tailored educational programs designed to increase cervical cancer screening among Hispanic women, based in the Yakima Valley, Washington, US. METHODS/DESIGN: A parallel randomized-controlled trial of 600 Hispanic women aged 21-64, who are non-compliant with Papanicolau (Pap) test screening guidelines. Participants will be randomized using block randomization to (1) a control arm (usual care); (2) a low-intensity information program, consisting of a Spanish-language video that educates women on the importance of cervical cancer screening; or (3) a high-intensity program consisting of the video plus a 'promotora' or lay-community health educator-led, home based intervention to encourage cervical cancer screening. Participants who attend cervical cancer screening, and receive a diagnosis of an abnormal Pap test will be assigned to a patient navigator who will provide support and information to promote adherence to follow-up tests, and any necessary surgery or treatment. Primary endpoint: Participants will be tracked via medical record review at community-based clinics, to identify women who have had a Pap test within 7 months of baseline assessment. Medical record reviewers will be blinded to randomization arm. Secondary endpoint: An evaluation of the patient navigator program as a method to improve adherence and reduce time to follow-up among participants who receive an abnormal Pap test result. An additional secondary endpoint is the cost-effectiveness of the two different intensity intervention programs. DISCUSSION: This culturally sensitive intervention aims to increase compliance and adherence to cervical screening in a Hispanic population. If effective, such interventions may reduce incidence of cervical cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01525433.

BACKGROUND: Excessive waiting times for cancer elective surgery are a concern in publicly funded healthcare systems. Several countries including Australia have introduced healthcare reforms involving time-based targets and public performance reporting (PPR) of hospital data. However, there is mixed evidence of their benefits. We sought to examine the impact of targets and PPR of cancer elective surgery waiting times on access to breast, bowel and lung cancer elective surgery. METHODS: We analysed routinely-collected linked data on admissions and waiting times for patients aged 15 years or over (n = 199,885) who underwent cancer surgery in a public hospital in Victoria, Australia over a 10-year period. We conducted difference-in-differences analyses to compare waiting times before (2006-07 to 2011-12) and after (2012-13 to 2015-16) the introduction of PPR in meeting these targets. RESULTS: Across all cancer types, urgent patients were all treated within 30 days before and after PPR. Following PPR, there was a slight increase in the mean waiting times across all cancer types and urgency categories. Patients with lung cancer waited on average two and half days longer for treatment and patients with breast cancer waited on average half-a-day less. There was no effect of PPR on waiting times for patients with bowel cancer across urgency categories. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that time-based targets and PPR had minimal impact on surgical waiting times. This may be due to reasonable waiting times prior to PPR, improved efficiency being masked by 20% growth in the population, lack of public knowledge that waiting times are publicly reported, or lack of real-time reporting to drive behavioural change. The use of generic elective surgery recommended waiting time measures for cancer is discussed.

INTRODUCTION: Starting cancer treatment early can improve outcomes. Psychosocial factors influencing patients' medical help-seeking decisions may be particularly important in low and lower middle-income countries (LMIC) where cancer outcomes are poor. Comprehensive review evidence is needed to understand the psychosocial influences on medical help-seeking for cancer symptoms, attendance for diagnosis and starting cancer treatment. METHODS: Mixed-methods systematic review registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018099057). Peer-reviewed databases were searched until April 2020 for studies assessing patient-related barriers and facilitators to medical help-seeking for cancer symptoms, diagnosis and treatment in adults (18+ years) living in LMICs. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Data were synthesised using meta-analytic techniques, meta-ethnography or narrative synthesis as appropriate. RESULTS: Of 3963 studies identified, 64 were included. In quantitative studies, use of traditional, complementary and alternative medicine (TCAM) was associated with 3.60 higher odds of prolonged medical help-seeking (95% CI 2.06 to 5.14). Qualitative studies suggested that use of TCAM was a key barrier to medical help-seeking in LMICs, and was influenced by causal beliefs, cultural norms and a preference to avoid biomedical treatment. Women face particular barriers, such as needing family permission for help-seeking, and higher stigma for cancer treatment. Additional psychosocial barriers included: shame and stigma associated with cancer such as fear of social rejection (eg, divorce/disownment); limited knowledge of cancer and associated symptoms; and financial and access barriers associated with travel and appointments. CONCLUSION: Due to variable quality of studies, future evaluations would benefit from using validated measures and robust study designs. The use of TCAM and gender influences appear to be important barriers to help-seeking in LMIC. Cancer awareness campaigns developed with LMIC communities need to address cultural influences on medical help-seeking behaviour.

Background: This study examined why women and doctors screen for ovarian cancer (OC) contrary to guidelines. Methods: Surveys, based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, were sent to women in the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer and family physicians and gynecologists who organized their screening. Results: Of 1264 Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer women, 832 (65.8%) responded. In the past 2 years, 126 (15.1%) had screened. Most of these (n = 101, 80.2%) would continue even if their doctor told them it is ineffective. For women, key OC screening motivators operated in the domains of social role and goals (staying healthy for family, 93.9%), emotion and reinforcement (peace of mind, 93.1%), and beliefs about capabilities (tests are easy to have, 91.9%). Of 531 clinicians 252 (47.5%) responded; a minority (family physicians 45.8%, gynecologists 16.7%) thought OC screening was useful. For gynecologists, the main motivators of OC screening operated in the domains of environmental context (lack of other screening options, 27.6%), and emotion (patient peace of mind, 17.2%; difficulty discontinuing screening, 13.8%). For family physicians,, the strongest motivators were in the domains of social influence (women ask for these tests, 20.7%), goals (a chance these tests will detect cancer early, 16.4%), emotion (patient peace of mind, 13.8%), and environmental context (no other OC screening options, 11.2%). Conclusion: Reasons for OC screening are mostly patient driven. Clinician knowledge and practice are discordant. Motivators of OC screening encompass several domains, which could be targeted in interventions to reduce inappropriate OC screening.

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).