Search

IntroductionDiabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) attendance in young adults (YAs) is consistently below recommended levels. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and enablers of DRS attendance among YAs in the UK living with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D).Research design and methodsYAs (18–34 years) were invited to complete an anonymous online survey in June 2021 assessing agreement with 30 belief statements informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) of behavior change describing potential barriers/enablers to DRS.ResultsIn total, 102 responses were received. Most had T1D (65.7%) and were regular attenders for DRS (76.5%). The most salient TDF domains for DRS attendance were ‘Goals’, with 93% agreeing that DRS was a high priority, and ‘Knowledge’, with 98% being aware that screening can detect eye problems early.Overall, 67.4% indicated that they would like greater appointment flexibility(Environmental context/resources) and 31.3% reported difficulties getting time off work/study to attend appointments(Environmental context/resources). This was more commonly reported by occasional non-attenders versus regular attenders (59.1% vs 23.4%, p=0.002). Most YAs were worried about diabetic retinopathy (74.3%), anxious when receiving screening results (63%) (Emotion) and would like more support after getting their results (66%) (Social influences). Responses for T1D and T2D were broadly similar, although those with T2D were more likely have developed strategies to help them to remember their appointments (63.6% vs 37.9%, p=0.019) (Behavioral regulation).ConclusionsAttendance for DRS in YAs is influenced by complex interacting behavioral factors. Identifying modifiable determinants of behavior will provide a basis for designing tailored interventions to improve DRS in YAs and prevent avoidable vision loss.

IntroductionPrior to the COVID-19 pandemic, substance use health services for treatment of alcohol use disorder and problematic alcohol use (AUD/PAU) were fragmented and challenging to access. The pandemic magnified system weaknesses, often resulting in disruptions of treatment as alcohol use during the pandemic rose. When treatment services were available, utilisation was often low for various reasons. Virtual care was implemented to offset the drop in in-person care, however accessibility was not universal. Identification of the characteristics of treatment services for AUD/PAU that impact accessibility, as perceived by the individuals accessing or providing the services, will provide insights to enable improved access. We will perform a scoping review that will identify characteristics of services for treatment of AUD/PAU that have been identified as barriers to or facilitators of service access from the perspectives of these groups.Methods and analysisWe will follow scoping review methodological guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Using the OVID platform, we will search Ovid MEDLINE including Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase Classic+Embase, APA PsychInfo, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CINAHL (Ebsco Platform). Multiple reviewers will screen citations. We will seek studies reporting data collected from individuals with AUD/PAU or providers of treatment for AUD/PAU on service-level factors affecting access to care. We will map barriers to and facilitators of access to AUD/PAU treatment services identified in the relevant studies, stratified by service type and key measures of inequity across service users.Ethics and disseminationThis research will enhance awareness of existing evidence regarding barriers to and facilitators of access to services for the treatment of alcohol use disorder and problematic alcohol use. Findings will be disseminated through publications, conference presentations and a stakeholder meeting. As this is a scoping review of published literature, no ethics approval was required.

ObjectiveTo examine rates of vaccine hesitancy and their correlates among Canadian adults between April 2020 and March 2021.DesignFive sequential cross-sectional age, sex and province-weighted population-based samples who completed online surveys.SettingCanada.ParticipantsA total of 15 019 Canadians aged 18 years and over were recruited through a recognised polling firm (Leger Opinion). Respondents were 51.5% female with a mean age of 48.1 (SD 17.2) years (range 18–95 years) and predominantly white (80.8%).Primary and secondary outcome measuresRates of vaccine hesitancy over the five surveys (time points) and their sociodemographic, clinical and psychological correlates.ResultsA total of 42.2% of respondents reported some degree of vaccine hesitancy, which was lowest during surveys 1 (April 2020) and 5 (March 2021) and highest during survey 3 (November 2020). Fully adjusted multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that women, those aged 50 and younger, non-white, those with high school education or less, and those with annual household incomes below the poverty line in Canada were significantly more likely to report vaccine hesitancy, as were essential and healthcare workers, parents of children under the age of 18 and those who do not get regular influenza vaccines. Endorsing prevention behaviours as important for reducing virus transmission and high COVID-19 health concerns were associated with 77% and 54% reduction in vaccine hesitancy, respectively. Having high personal financial concerns was associated with 1.33 times increased odds of vaccine hesitancy.ConclusionsResults highlight the importance of targeting vaccine efforts to specific groups by emphasising the outsized health benefits compared with risks of vaccination. Future research should monitor changes in vaccine intentions and behaviour to better understand underlying factors.

IntroductionDiabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) attendance in young adults is consistently below recommended levels. The aim of this study was to conduct a survey of screening providers in the UK Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (DESP) to identify perceived barriers and enablers to DRS attendance in young adults and elicit views on the effectiveness of strategies to improve screening uptake in this population.Research design and methodsMembers of the British Association of Retinal Screening (n=580) were invited to complete an anonymous online survey in July 2020 assessing agreement with 37 belief statements, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) of behavior change, describing potential barrier/enablers to delivering DRS for young adults and further survey items exploring effectiveness of strategies to improve uptake of DRS.ResultsIn total, 140 (24%) responses were received mostly from screener/graders (67.1%). There was a high level of agreement that the DESP had a role in improving attendance in young adults (96.4%) and that more could be done to improve attendance (90.0%). The most commonly reported barriers related to TDF domains Social influences and Environmental context and resources including lack of integration of DRS with other processes of diabetes care, which limited the ability to discuss diabetes self-management. Other barriers included access to screening services and difficulties with scheduling appointments. Less than half (46.4%) of respondents reported having a dedicated strategy to improve screening uptake in young adults. Strategies perceived to be effective included: screening within the community; prompts/reminders and integrating eye screening with other diabetes services.ConclusionsScreening providers were concerned about screening uptake in young adults, although many programs lacked a dedicated strategy to improve attendance. Problems associated with a lack of integration between DRS with other diabetes care processes were identified as a major barrier to providing holistic care to young adults and supporting diabetes self-management.

ObjectivesTo explore (1) the extent to which a multicomponent intervention addressed determinants of the desired behaviours (ie, adherence to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and cardiovascular medications), (2) the associated mechanism(s) of action and (3) how future interventions might be better designed to meet the needs of this patient population.DesignA qualitative evaluation embedded within a multicentre randomised trial, involving purposive semistructured interviews.SettingNine cardiac centres in Ontario, Canada.ParticipantsPotential participants were stratified according to the trial’s primary outcomes of engagement and adherence, resulting in three groups: (1) engaged, adherence outcome positive, (2) engaged, adherence outcome negative and (3) did not engage, adherence outcome negative. Participants who did not engage but had positive adherence outcomes were excluded. Individual domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework were applied as deductive codes and findings were analysed using a framework approach.ResultsThirty-one participants were interviewed. Participants who were engaged with positive adherence outcomes attributed their success to the intervention’s ability to activate determinants including behavioural regulation and knowledge, which encouraged an increase in self-monitoring behaviour and awareness of available supports, as well as reinforcement and social influences. The behaviour of those with negative adherence outcomes was driven by beliefs about consequences, emotions and identity. As currently designed, the intervention failed to target these determinants for this subset of participants, resulting in partial engagement and poor adherence outcomes.ConclusionThe intervention facilitated CR adherence through reinforcement, behavioural regulation, the provision of knowledge and social influence. To reach a broader and more diverse population, future iterations of the intervention should target aberrant beliefs about consequences, memory and decision-making and emotion.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov registry; NCT02382731

IntroductionPatients with relapsed or refractory malignancies have a poor prognosis. Immunotherapy with chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cells redirects a patient’s immune cells against the tumour antigen. CAR-T cell therapy has demonstrated promise in treating patients with several haematological malignancies, including acute B-cell lymphoblastic leukaemia and B-cell lymphomas. CAR-T cell therapy for patients with other solid tumours is also being tested. Safety is an important consideration in CAR-T cell therapy given the potential for serious adverse events, including death. Previous reviews on CAR-T cell therapy have been limited in scope and methodology. Herein, we present a protocol for a systematic review to identify CAR-T cell interventional studies and examine the safety and efficacy of this therapy in patients with haematology malignancies and solid tumours.Methods and analysisWe will search MEDLINE, including In-Process and Epub Ahead of Print, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1946 to 22 February 2017. Studies will be screened by title, abstract and full text independently and in duplicate. Studies that report administering CAR-T cells of any chimeric antigen receptor construct targeting antigens in patients with haematological malignancies and solid tumours will be eligible for inclusion. Outcomes to be extracted will include complete response rate (primary outcome), overall response rate, overall survival, relapse and adverse events. A meta-analysis will be performed to synthesise the prevalence of outcomes reported as proportions with 95% CIs. The potential for bias within included studies will be assessed using a modified Institute of Health Economics tool. Heterogeneity of effect sizes will be determined using the CochraneI2statistic.Ethics and disseminationThe review findings will be submitted for peer-reviewed journal publication and presented at relevant conferences and scientific meetings to promote knowledge transfer.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017075331.

Contains fulltext : 118262.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) OBJECTIVES: To develop and pilot a theory and evidence-based intervention to improve quality of life (QoL) in people with colorectal cancer. DESIGN: A complex intervention development study. SETTING: North East Scotland and Glasgow. PARTICIPANTS: Semistructured interviews with people with colorectal cancer (n=28), cancer specialists (n=16) and primary care health professionals (n=14) and pilot testing with patients (n=12). INTERVENTIONS: A single, 1 h nurse home visit 6-12 weeks after diagnosis, and telephone follow-up 1 week later (with a view to ongoing follow-up in future). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative assessment of intervention feasibility and acceptability. RESULTS: Modifiable predictors of QoL identified previously were symptoms (fatigue, pain, diarrhoea, shortness of breath, insomnia, anorexia/cachexia, poor psychological well-being, sexual problems) and impaired activities. To modify these symptoms and activities, an intervention based on Control Theory was developed to help participants identify personally important symptoms and activities; set appropriate goals; use action planning to progress towards goals; self-monitor progress and identify (and tackle) barriers limiting progress. Interview responses were generally favourable and included recommendations about timing and style of delivery that were incorporated into the intervention. The pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of intervention delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Through multidisciplinary collaboration, a theory-based, acceptable and feasible intervention to improve QoL in colorectal cancer patients was developed, and can now be evaluated.