Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: In Australia, evidence-based guidelines recommend that women consider taking selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) to reduce their risk of breast cancer. In practice, this requires effective methods for communicating the harms and benefits of taking SERMs so women can make an informed choice. AIM: To evaluate how different risk presentations influence women's decisions to consider taking SERMs. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional, correlational study of Australian women in general practice. METHOD: Three risk communication formats were developed that included graphics, numbers, and text to explain the reduction in breast cancer risk and risk of side effects for women taking SERMs (raloxifene or tamoxifen). Women aged 40–74 years in two general practices were shown the risk formats using vignettes of hypothetical women at moderate or high risk of breast cancer and asked to choose 'If this was you, would you consider taking a SERM?' Descriptive statistics and predictors (risk format, level of risk, and type of SERM) of choosing SERMs were determined by logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 288 women were recruited (an 88% response rate) between March and May 2017. The risk formats that showed a government statement and an icon array were associated with a greater likelihood of considering SERMs relative to one that showed a novel expected frequency tree. Risk formats for raloxifene and for the high-risk vignettes were also more strongly associated with choosing to consider SERMs. No associations were found with any patient demographics. CONCLUSION: Specific risk formats may lead to more women considering taking SERMs to reduce breast cancer risk, especially if they are at high risk of the condition. Raloxifene may be a more acceptable SERM to patients.

Abstract Background Relatively few studies have examined survival by pharmacotherapy level and the effects of patient characteristics on mortality by pharmacotherapy level in older chronic respiratory disease (CRD) patients. This study aimed to investigate these issues in older (≥ 65) CRD patients in Western Australia. Methods We identified 108,312 patients ≥ 65 years with CRD during 1992-2006 using linked medical, pharmaceutical, hospital and mortality databases held by the Commonwealth and State governments. Pharmacotherapy classification levels were designed by a clinical consensus panel. Cox regression was used to investigate the study aim. Results Patients using only short acting bronchodilators experienced similar, but slightly worse survival than patients in the highest pharmacotherapy level group using high dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) ± long acting bronchodilators (LABs) ± oral steroids. Patients using low to medium dose ICS ± LABs experienced relatively better survival. Also, male gender was associated with all-cause mortality in all patients (HR = 1.72, 95% CI 1.65-1.80) and especially in those in the highest pharmacotherapy level group (HR = 1.97, 95%CI = 1.84-2.10). The P-value of interaction between gender and pharmacotherapy level for the effect on all-cause death was significant (0.0003). Conclusions Older patients with CRD not using ICS experienced the worst survival in this study and may benefit from an escalation in therapeutic regime. Males had a higher risk of death than females, which was more pronounced in the highest pharmacotherapy level group. Hence, primary health care should more actively direct disease management to mild-to-moderate disease patients.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> This cluster-randomized controlled trial aimed to assess the effect of the "Which test is best?" tool on risk-appropriate screening (RAS) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> General practices in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia, and a random sub-sample of 460 patients (aged 25–74 years) per practice were invited by post. Clusters were computer randomized independently of the researchers to an online CRC risk calculator with risk-based recommendations versus usual care. Primary and secondary outcomes were RAS and screening uptake via self-reported 5-year screening behaviour after 12 months follow-up. The usual care group (UCG) also self-reported 5-year CRC screening behaviour at 12 month post-randomization. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Fifty-six practices were randomized (27 to the intervention and 29 to the control, 55 practices participated) with 818 intervention and 677 controls completing the primary outcome measure. The intervention significantly increased RAS in high-risk participants compared with UCG (80.0% vs. 64.0%, respectively; OR = 3.14, 95% CI: 1.25–7.96) but not in average-risk (44.9% vs. 49.5%, respectively; OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.99–1.12) or moderate-risk individuals (67.9% vs. 81.1%, respectively; OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.12–1.33). Faecal occult blood testing uptake over 12 months was increased compared with the UCG (24.9% vs. 15.1%; adjusted OR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.24–2.22), and there was a non-significant increase in colonoscopies during the same period (16.6% vs. 12.2%; adjusted OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 0.97–2.08). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> An online CRC risk calculator with risk-based screening recommendations increased RAS in high-risk participants and improved screening uptake overall within a 12-month follow-up period. Such tools may be useful for facilitating the uptake of risk-based screening guidelines.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Genomic tests can predict risk and tailor screening recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC). Primary care could be suitable for their widespread implementation. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> We aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of administering a CRC genomic test in primary care. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Participants aged 45–74 years recruited from 4 Australian general practices were offered a genomic CRC risk test. Participants received brief verbal information about the test comprising 45 CRC-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms, before choosing whether to undertake the test. Personalized risks were given to testers. Uptake and knowledge of the genomic test, cancer-specific anxiety (Cancer Worry Scale), psychosocial impact (Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment [MICRA] score), and impact on CRC screening behaviour within 6 months were measured. <b><i>Results:</i></b> In 150 participants, test uptake was high (126, 84%), with 125 (83%) having good knowledge of the genomic test. Moderate risk participants were impacted more by the test (MICRA mean: 15.9) than average risk participants (mean: 9.5, difference in means: 6.4, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5, 11.2, <i>p</i> = 0.01), but all scores were low. Average risk participants' cancer-specific anxiety decreased (mean differences from baseline: 1 month −0.5, 95% CI: −1.0, −0.1, <i>p</i> = 0.03; 6 months −0.6, 95% CI: −1.0, −0.2, <i>p</i> = 0.01). We found limited evidence for genomic testers being more likely to complete the risk-appropriate CRC screening than non-testers (41 vs. 17%, odds ratio = 3.4, 95% CI: 0.6, 34.8, <i>p</i> = 0.19), but some mediators of screening behaviour were altered in genomic testers. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Genomic testing for CRC risk in primary care is acceptable and likely feasible. Further development of the risk assessment intervention could strengthen the impact on screening behaviour.

BACKGROUND: In some countries, such as the Netherlands and Norway, point-of-care testing (POCT) is more widely implemented in general practice compared to countries such as England and Australia. To comprehend what is necessary to realize the benefits of POCT, regarding its integration in primary care, it would be beneficial to have an overview of the structure of healthcare operations and the transactions between stakeholders (also referred to as value networks). The aim of this paper is to identify the current value networks in place applying to POCT implementation at general practices in England, Australia, Norway and the Netherlands and to compare these networks in terms of seven previously published factors that support the successful implementation, sustainability and scale-up of innovations. METHODS: The value networks were described based on formal guidelines and standards published by the respective governments, organizational bodies and affiliates. The value network of each country was validated by at least two relevant stakeholders from the respective country. RESULTS: The analysis revealed that the biggest challenge for countries with low POCT uptake was the lack of effective communication between the several organizations involved with POCT as well as the high workload for general practitioners (GPs) aiming to implement POCT. It is observed that countries with a single national authority responsible for POCT have a better uptake as they can govern the task of POCT roll-out and management and reduce the workload for GPs by assisting with set-up, quality control, training and support. CONCLUSION: Setting up a single national authority may be an effective step towards realizing the full benefits of POCT. Although it is possible for day-to-day operations to fall under the responsibility of the GP, this is only feasible if support and guidance are readily available to ensure that the workload associated with POCT is limited and as low as possible.