Search

BACKGROUND: Uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) in women are among the most common bacterial infections in primary care. Given the health threats related to the overuse of antibiotics, alternative options are of increasing importance. Patient-reported outcome measures are valuable tools for including the patients' perspective when evaluating the efficacy of these strategies. Aiming to identify a suitable instrument to measure the severity and bothersomeness of UTI symptoms in women, we performed a systematic review of the literature and identified the Holm and Cordoba Urinary Tract Infection Score (HCUTI), which measures the severity, bothersomeness, and impact of uncomplicated UTIs on daily activities. This instrument showed sufficient content validity but needs translation and further validation before it can be used in German research.OBJECTIVE: For use in the German setting, we aim (1) to perform translation and linguistic validation of the HCUTI and (2) to evaluate content validity and psychometric properties of the German version of the HCUTI in a population of women with uncomplicated UTIs.METHODS: The HCUTI will be translated and linguistically validated using the dual-panel method. This process involves a bilingual translation panel and a lay panel to check the comprehensibility of the translation. Content validity of the translated questionnaire will be assessed using cognitive interviews according to the criteria for good content validity as recommended by the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) group involving women with uncomplicated UTIs and health care professionals. Subsequent psychometric validation of the German version of the HCUTI in a population of women with uncomplicated UTIs will include the assessment of structural validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, responsiveness, and interpretability.RESULTS: Results of the transla

Background: Patients dealing with severe mental illnesses (SMI) often face suboptimal clinical outcomes and higher mortality rates due to a range of factors, including undetected physical health conditions. The provision of care for individuals with SMI is frequently disjointed, as they engage with diverse healthcare providers. Despite this fragmentation, primary care, particularly general practitioners (GPs), assumes a pivotal role in the care of SMI patients. Our study aimed to delve into the first-hand experiences of GPs in delivering somatic care to SMI patients, concentrating on the challenges they encounter and the strategies they employ to navigate these difficulties. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with fifteen GPs, utilizing a semi-structured interview guide, supplemented by ethnographic observations during clinical consultations in general practice. Through inductive coding, interview transcripts and observational field notes were systematically analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). The findings were then deliberated upon within the author group. Results: GPs revealed that managing the chronic somatic care of SMI patients posed significant challenges. These challenges encompassed the multifaceted needs of patients, their behavior tied to symptoms, a lack of care continuity, and overarching time constraints. To tackle these challenges, the GPs had devised various strategies. However, all participants underscored the critical importance of having adequate time to properly prepare for, conduct, and follow up on consultations. Conclusion: The GPs’ interactions with SMI patients brought numerous challenges, although treating these patients were concurrently acknowledged as vital and fulfilling. The findings suggest that increased allocated time in general practice consultations for patients with SMI is important to support the somatic treatment requirements of this patient group.

Background Colorectal cancer screening programmes (CRCSPs) are implemented worldwide despite recent evidence indicating more physical harm occurring during CRCSPs than previously thought. Therefore, we aimed to review the evidence on physical harms associated with endoscopic diagnostic procedures during CRCSPs and, when possible, to quantify the risk of the most serious types of physical harm during CRCSPs, i.e. deaths and cardiopulmonary events (CPEs). Methods Systematic review with descriptive statistics and random-effects meta-analyses of studies investigating physical harms following CRCSPs. We conducted a systematic search in the literature and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. Results We included 134 studies for review, reporting findings from 151 unique populations when accounting for multiple screening interventions per study. Physical harm can be categorized into 17 types of harm. The evidence was very heterogeneous with inadequate measurement and reporting of harms. The risk of bias was serious or critical in 95% of assessments of deaths and CPEs, and the certainty of the evidence was very low in all analyses. The risk of death was assessed for 57 populations with large variation across studies. Meta-analyses indicated that 3 to 23 deaths occur during CRCSPs per 100,000 people screened. Cardiopulmonary events were assessed for 55 populations. Despite our efforts to subcategorize CPEs into 17 distinct subtypes, 41% of CPE assessments were too poorly measured or reported to allow quantification. We found a tendency towards lower estimates of deaths and CPEs in studies with a critical risk of bias. Discussion Deaths and CPEs during CRCSPs are rare, yet they do occur during CRCSPs. We believe that our findings are conservative due to the heterogeneity and low quality of the evidence. A standardized system for the measurement and reporting of the harms of screening is warranted., Background Colorectal cancer screening programmes (CRCSPs) are implemented worldwide despite recent evidence indicating more physical harm occurring during CRCSPs than previously thought. Therefore, we aimed to review the evidence on physical harms associated with endoscopic diagnostic procedures during CRCSPs and, when possible, to quantify the risk of the most serious types of physical harm during CRCSPs, i.e. deaths and cardiopulmonary events (CPEs). Methods Systematic review with descriptive statistics and random-effects meta-analyses of studies investigating physical harms following CRCSPs. We conducted a systematic search in the literature and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. Results We included 134 studies for review, reporting findings from 151 unique populations when accounting for multiple screening interventions per study. Physical harm can be categorized into 17 types of harm. The evidence was very heterogeneous with inadequate measurement and reporting of harms. The risk of bias was serious or critical in 95% of assessments of deaths and CPEs, and the certainty of the evidence was very low in all analyses. The risk of death was assessed for 57 populations with large variation across studies. Meta-analyses indicated that 3 to 23 deaths occur during CRCSPs per 100,000 people screened. Cardiopulmonary events were assessed for 55 populations. Despite our efforts to subcategorize CPEs into 17 distinct subtypes, 41% of CPE assessments were too poorly measured or reported to allow quantification. We found a tendency towards lower estimates of deaths and CPEs in studies with a critical risk of bias. Discussion Deaths and CPEs during CRCSPs are rare, yet they do occur during CRCSPs. We believe that our findings are conservative due to the heterogeneity and low quality of the evidence. A standardized system for the measurement and reporting of the harms of screening is warranted.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with complex multimorbidity face a high treatment burden and frequently have low quality of life. General practice is the key organisational setting in terms of offering people with complex multimorbidity integrated, longitudinal, patient-centred care. This protocol describes a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of an adaptive, multifaceted intervention in general practice for patients with complex multimorbidity.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this study, 250 recruited general practices will be randomly assigned 1:1 to either the intervention or control group. The eligible population are adult patients with two or more chronic conditions, at least one contact with secondary care within the last year, taking at least five repeat prescription drugs, living independently, who experience significant problems with their life and health due to their multimorbidity. During 2023 and 2024, intervention practices are financially incentivised to provide an extended consultation based on a patient-centred framework to eligible patients. Control practices continue care as usual. The primary outcome is need-based quality of life. Outcomes will be evaluated using linear and logistic regression models, with clustering considered. The analysis will be performed as intention to treat. In addition, a process evaluation will be carried out and reported elsewhere.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, the Helsinki Declaration in its most recent form and good clinical practice recommendations, as well as the regulation for informed consent. The study was submitted to the Danish Capital Region Ethical Committee (ref: H-22041229). As defined by Section 2 of the Danish Act on Research Ethics in Research Projects, this project does not constitute a health research project but is considered a quality improvement project that does not require formal ethical approval. All r

Background Since 2012, Cancer Patient Pathways for Non-specific Symptoms and Signs of Cancer (NSSC-CPP) have been implemented in Scandinavia and UK. Objectives This study aimed to describe the diagnostic flow for all patients referred from 1 January to 30 June 2020 to the NSSC-CPP in the Diagnostic Centre in Farsø (DC-F), Denmark. Methods During the study period, we prospectively recorded information on the diagnostic flow, including: pathway trajectory, symptoms and findings leading to referral, diagnostic procedures and diagnoses at the end of DC Farsø work-up and within 6-months for all patients referred to the NSSC-CPP in DC Farsø using electronic patient files and the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR). Results Of the 314 referrals to DC Farsø, 227 had diagnostic work-up in DC Farsø, the remaining were redirected to other CPPs (n = 11), outpatient clinics (n = 45) or redirected to general practice (n = 25). Of total referrals, 25 (8%) received a malignant diagnosis, 20 (6%) a non-malignant but clinically relevant diagnosis with initiation of treatment, 16 (5%) a non-malignant diagnosis but no treatment needed and in 253 (81%) referrals no severe new condition was diagnosed. Two (1%) additional malignancies were diagnosed within a 6-month follow-up period. Conclusion By tracking all patients referred to the NSSC-CPP in DC Farsø, including those redirected, this is the first study to describe the diagnostic flow for all patients referred to a diagnostic centre in Denmark. This knowledge is important for further organisation and planning of the NSSC-CPP., Background: Since 2012, Cancer Patient Pathways for Non-specific Symptoms and Signs of Cancer (NSSC-CPP) have been implemented in Scandinavia and UK. Objectives: This study aimed to describe the diagnostic flow for all patients referred from 1 January to 30 June 2020 to the NSSC-CPP in the Diagnostic Centre in Farsø (DC-F), Denmark. Methods: During the study period, we prospectively recorded information on the diagnostic flow, including: pathway trajectory, symptoms and findings leading to referral, diagnostic procedures and diagnoses at the end of DC Farsø work-up and within 6-months for all patients referred to the NSSC-CPP in DC Farsø using electronic patient files and the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR). Results: Of the 314 referrals to DC Farsø, 227 had diagnostic work-up in DC Farsø, the remaining were redirected to other CPPs (n = 11), outpatient clinics (n = 45) or redirected to general practice (n = 25). Of total referrals, 25 (8%) received a malignant diagnosis, 20 (6%) a non-malignant but clinically relevant diagnosis with initiation of treatment, 16 (5%) a non-malignant diagnosis but no treatment needed and in 253 (81%) referrals no severe new condition was diagnosed. Two (1%) additional malignancies were diagnosed within a 6-month follow-up period. Conclusion: By tracking all patients referred to the NSSC-CPP in DC Farsø, including those redirected, this is the first study to describe the diagnostic flow for all patients referred to a diagnostic centre in Denmark. This knowledge is important for further organisation and planning of the NSSC-CPP.

Objective: Patients with incurable cancer should receive general palliative care according to their needs, as provided through collaboration between hospital departments, municipalities, and general practices and as outlined in national guidelines. However, the implementation of general palliative care in Denmark has been inadequate. This study aimed to investigate the healthcare professionals' (HCPs') perceptions on barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of the Danish National Guideline (NG) for general palliative care. Methods: This descriptive, qualitative study was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Qualitative focus group and individual interviews were conducted with 23 HCPs. The interview guide, coding, analysis, and reporting of findings were developed within the CFIR framework. Results: The main barriers to implementing NG were as follows: lack of knowledge about the NG, lack of an implementation plan, and insufficient communication and collaboration across sectors. Important facilitators were as follows: HCP motivation to meet palliative care needs, HCPs with special functions taking responsibility for incorporating NG into local guidelines, and the role of district nurses specialised in palliative care as opinion leaders providing security and continuity for the HCPs working in palliative care. Conclusions: To address the needs of patients with incurable cancer, greater efforts are required on implementing general palliative care. Although HCPs in our setting were motivated to improve NG implementation, financial resources and strategies are necessary to ensure sufficient knowledge uptake and accommodate identified barriers in order to translate the NG into practice.

Objectives We aimed to systematically identify and scrutinise published empirical evidence about overdiagnosis in malignant melanoma and examine how frequent overdiagnosis of melanoma is and whether this is related to different types of interventions or diagnostic technologies. Design and setting Empirical studies that discussed overdiagnosis in malignant melanoma were eligible, including qualitative and quantitative studies in any type of population, age group and geographical location. We excluded studies that did not include empirical data, studies that only mentioned ‘overdiagnosis’ without addressing it further and studies that used the term overdiagnosis for cases of misdiagnosis or false positives. We developed the search strategy in cooperation with an information specialist. We searched five databases on 21 April 2022: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library. This scoping review adheres to The JBI methodology and Prefered Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts for inclusion and extracted data from the included studies. The data extracted include study characteristics, population details, research question, the context and the study’s main results. Results Our search resulted in 1134 potentially relevant studies. 35 studies were included: 29 register studies, 3 cohort studies, 1 case–control study, 1 survey study and 1 randomised controlled trial. Most register studies examined trends in melanoma incidence and/or mortality and found a significant increase in incidence between 0.39% and 6.6% annually and a little or no increase in mortality. Three cohort studies and one case–control study showed that skin screening was associated with increased detection of melanoma; especially in situ or thin invasive melanoma. Three studies estimated the degree of overdiagnosis which ranged fro

Objective To evaluate the feasibility and fidelity of implementing and assessing the SOFIA coordinated care program aimed at lowering mortality and increasing quality of life in patients with severe mental illness by improving somatic health care in general practice. Design A cluster-randomised, non-blinded controlled pilot trial. Setting General Practice in Denmark. Intervention The SOFIA coordinated care program comprised extended structured consultations carried out by the GP, group-based training of GPs and staff, and a handbook with information on signposting patients to relevant municipal, health, and social initiatives. Patients Persons aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of psychotic, bipolar, or severe depressive disorder. Main outcome measures We collected quantitative data on the delivery, recruitment and retention rates of practices and patients, and response rates of questionnaires MMQ and EQ-5D-5 L. Results From November 2020 to March 2021, nine practices were enrolled and assigned in a 2:1 ratio to the intervention group (n = 6) or control group (n = 3). Intervention group practices included 64 patients and Control practices included 23. The extended consultations were delivered with a high level of fidelity in the general practices; however, thresholds for collecting outcome measures, and recruitment of practices and patients were not reached. Conclusion Our findings suggest that delivering the coordinated care program in a fully powered trial in primary care is likely feasible. However, the recruitment methodology requires improvement to ensure sufficient recruitment and minimize selective inclusion. Trial registration The date of pilot trial protocol registration was 05/11/2020, and the registration number is NCT04618250.

Purpose: To describe the processes of developing domains and items for the MultiMorbidity Questionnaire (MMQ), a multimorbidity-specific PROM for the assessment of Needs-based QoL. Patients and Methods: We developed items and domains for the MMQ through 17 qualitative content validity questionnaire interviews with adults with multimorbidity by testing items from an item bank (covering items with content inspired by existing Needs-based QoL measures for single diseases). The interviews alternated between an explorative part and more focused cognitive interview techniques. Results: Testing the 47 items from the first draft of the MMQ items showed that the Needs-based approach as a framework did not cover all the QoL aspects our informants stated as being important. Therefore, the conceptual framework was supplemented by Self-perceived health inequity, and new items were generated. MMQ, measuring Needs-based QoL (MMQ1) and Self-perceived health inequity (MMQ2), was assembled. MMQ1 covers the domains: “Physical ability” (10 items), “Limitations in everyday life” (15 items), “Worries” (11 items), “My social life” (11 items), “Self-image” (12 items), and “Personal finances” (2 items). Self-perceived health inequity proved to be a relevant framework for other aspects of QoL not covered by the Needs-based approach to QoL. MMQ2 covers the domains: “Experiences of being stigmatized” (five items), “Experiences of not being seen and heard” (four items), “Insufficient understanding of the burden of disease” (three items) and “Experiences of feeling powerless” (five items). Conclusion: We have developed the final MMQ draft, a multimorbidity-specific PROM for the assessment of Needs-based QoL (MMQ1) and Self-perceived health inequity (MMQ2) with high content validity (regarding content relevance and comprehensiveness). The final MMQ draft will be assessed for its psychometric properties using Modern Test Theory. Keywords: quality of life, multimorbidity, patie, PURPOSE: To describe the processes of developing domains and items for the MultiMorbidity Questionnaire (MMQ), a multimorbidity-specific PROM for the assessment of Needs-based QoL.PATIENTS AND METHODS: We developed items and domains for the MMQ through 17 qualitative content validity questionnaire interviews with adults with multimorbidity by testing items from an item bank (covering items with content inspired by existing Needs-based QoL measures for single diseases). The interviews alternated between an explorative part and more focused cognitive interview techniques.RESULTS: Testing the 47 items from the first draft of the MMQ items showed that the Needs-based approach as a framework did not cover all the QoL aspects our informants stated as being important. Therefore, the conceptual framework was supplemented by Self-perceived health inequity, and new items were generated. MMQ, measuring Needs-based QoL (MMQ1) and Self-perceived health inequity (MMQ2), was assembled. MMQ1 covers the domains: "Physical ability" (10 items), "Limitations in everyday life" (15 items), "Worries" (11 items), "My social life" (11 items), "Self-image" (12 items), and "Personal finances" (2 items). Self-perceived health inequity proved to be a relevant framework for other aspects of QoL not covered by the Needs-based approach to QoL. MMQ2 covers the domains: "Experiences of being stigmatized" (five items), "Experiences of not being seen and heard" (four items), "Insufficient understanding of the burden of disease" (three items) and "Experiences of feeling powerless" (five items).CONCLUSION: We have developed the final MMQ draft, a multimorbidity-specific PROM for the assessment of Needs-based QoL (MMQ1) and Self-perceived health inequity (MMQ2) with high content validity (regarding content relevance and comprehensiveness). The final MMQ draft will be assessed for its psychometric properties using Modern Test Theory.

INTRODUCTION: Physical harm from Colorectal Cancer Screening tends to be inadequately measured and reported in clinical trials. Also, studies of ongoing Colorectal Cancer Screening programs have found more frequent and severe physical harm from screening procedures, e.g., bleeding and perforation, than reported in previous trials. Therefore, the objectives of the study were to systematically review the evidence on the risk of bleeding and perforation in Colorectal Cancer Screening.DESIGN: Systematic review with descriptive statistics and random-effects meta-analyses.METHODS: We systematically searched five databases for studies investigating physical harms related to Colorectal Cancer Screening. We assessed the internal and the external validity using the ROBINS-I tool and the GRADE approach. Harm estimates was calculated using mixed Poisson regression models in random-effect meta-analyses.RESULTS: We included 89 studies. Reporting and measurement of harms was inadequate in most studies. In effect, the risk of bias was critical in 97.3% and serious in 98.3% of studies. All GRADE ratings were very low. Based on severe findings with not-critical risk of bias and 30 days follow-up, the risk of bleedings per 100,000 people screened were 8 [2;24] for sigmoidoscopy, 229 [129;408] for colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test, 68 [39;118] for once-only colonoscopy, and 698 [443;1045] for colonoscopy following any screening tests. The risk of perforations was 88 [56;138] for colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test and 53 [25;112] for once-only colonoscopy. There were no findings within the subcategory severe perforation with long-term follow-up for colonoscopy following any screening tests and sigmoidoscopy.DISCUSSION: Harm estimates varied widely across studies, reporting and measurement of harms was mostly inadequate, and the risk of bias and GRADE ratings were very poor, collectively leading to underestimation of harm. In effe

Background Multimorbidity is a burden for the individual and to the healthcare sector worldwide, leading to a rising number of intervention studies towards this patient group. To measure a possible effect of such interventions, an adequate patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) is essential. The aim of this study was to assess the draft MultiMorbidity Questionnaire (MMQ), a PROM measuring needs-based quality of life and self-perceived inequity in patients with multimorbidity, for its psychometric properties and to adjust it accordingly to create a content- and construct valid measure. Methods The draft MMQ was sent to 1198 eligible respondents with multimorbidity. Modern test theory and classical test theory were used to analyse data. Dimensionality of the suggested domains and invariance of the items were assessed through item analysis, examining the fit to a psychometric model. Results The psychometric analyses were based on responses from 390 patients with multimorbidity. In the MMQ1, measuring needs-based QoL, evidence of six unidimensional scales was confirmed: physical ability (6 items), worries (6 items), limitations in everyday life (10 items), my social life (6 items), self-image (6 items), and personal finances (3 items). The psychometric analyses of the MMQ2 outlined four unidimensional scales measuring the feeling of Self-perceived inequity in patients with multimorbidity: experiences of being stigmatised (4–5 items), Experiences of insufficient understanding of the burden of disease (3 items), Experiences of not being seen and heard (4 items), Experience of powerlessness (5 items). These scales are relevant for patients’ with multimorbidity encounters with (1) their general pratitioner, (2) staff at their general practitioner’s surgery, (3) healthcare professionals, (4) staff at the local authorities and (5) friends, family, and others. Conclusion The MMQ, a QoL measure for patients living with multimorbidity, Background: Multimorbidity is a burden for the individual and to the healthcare sector worldwide, leading to a rising number of intervention studies towards this patient group. To measure a possible effect of such interventions, an adequate patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) is essential. The aim of this study was to assess the draft MultiMorbidity Questionnaire (MMQ), a PROM measuring needs-based quality of life and self-perceived inequity in patients with multimorbidity, for its psychometric properties and to adjust it accordingly to create a content- and construct valid measure. Methods: The draft MMQ was sent to 1198 eligible respondents with multimorbidity. Modern test theory and classical test theory were used to analyse data. Dimensionality of the suggested domains and invariance of the items were assessed through item analysis, examining the fit to a psychometric model. Results: The psychometric analyses were based on responses from 390 patients with multimorbidity. In the MMQ1, measuring needs-based QoL, evidence of six unidimensional scales was confirmed: physical ability (6 items), worries (6 items), limitations in everyday life (10 items), my social life (6 items), self-image (6 items), and personal finances (3 items). The psychometric analyses of the MMQ2 outlined four unidimensional scales measuring the feeling of Self-perceived inequity in patients with multimorbidity: experiences of being stigmatised (4–5 items), Experiences of insufficient understanding of the burden of disease (3 items), Experiences of not being seen and heard (4 items), Experience of powerlessness (5 items). These scales are relevant for patients’ with multimorbidity encounters with (1) their general pratitioner, (2) staff at their general practitioner’s surgery, (3) healthcare professionals, (4) staff at the local authorities and (5) friends, family, and others. Conclusion: The MMQ, a QoL measure for patients living with multimorbidity has been validated: the MMQ1 is a co

This review investigates prostate cancer which with approx. 4,500 new cases annually is the most frequent male cancer, and the incidence is expected to increase due to demographic developments. Prostate cancer can have a natural history without progression to symptomatic or fatal disease, which is why overdiagnosis is one of the disease's biggest challenges. In contrast to potential curable localized clinically significant disease, this is not the case after metastasis. Fortunately, new treatments, and not least combinations thereof, have increased both lifespan and quality of life in these patients significantly.

People are increasingly able to generate their own health data through new technologies such as wearables and online symptom checkers. However, generating data is one thing, interpreting them another. General practitioners (GPs) are likely to be the first to help with interpretations. Policymakers in the European Union are investing heavily in infrastructures to provide GPs access to patient measurements. But there may be a disconnect between policy ambitions and the everyday practices of GPs. To investigate this, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 Danish GPs. According to the GPs, patients relatively rarely bring data to them. GPs mostly remember three types of patient-generated data that patients bring to them for interpretation: heart and sleep measurements from wearables and results from online symptom checkers. However, they also spoke extensively about data work with patient queries concerning measurements from the GPs’ own online Patient Reported Outcome system and online access to laboratory results. We juxtapose GP reflections on these five data types and between policy ambitions and everyday practices. These data require substantial recontextualization work before the GPs ascribe them evidential value and act on them. Even when they perceived as actionable, patient-provided data are not approached as measurements, as suggested by policy frameworks. Rather, GPs treat them as analogous to symptoms—that is to say, GPs treat patient-provided data as subjective evidence rather than authoritative measures. Drawing on Science and Technology Studies (STS) literature,we suggest that GPs must be part of the conversation with policy makers and digital entrepreneurs around when and how to integrate patient-generated data into healthcare infrastructures., People are increasingly able to generate their own health data through new technologies such as wearables and online symptom checkers. However, generating data is one thing, interpreting them another. General practitioners (GPs) are likely to be the first to help with interpretations. Policymakers in the European Union are investing heavily in infrastructures to provide GPs access to patient measurements. But there may be a disconnect between policy ambitions and the everyday practices of GPs. To investigate this, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 Danish GPs. According to the GPs, patients relatively rarely bring data to them. GPs mostly remember three types of patient-generated data that patients bring to them for interpretation: heart and sleep measurements from wearables and results from online symptom checkers. However, they also spoke extensively about data work with patient queries concerning measurements from the GPs' own online Patient Reported Outcome system and online access to laboratory results. We juxtapose GP reflections on these five data types and between policy ambitions and everyday practices. These data require substantial recontextualization work before the GPs ascribe them evidential value and act on them. Even when they perceived as actionable, patient-provided data are not approached as measurements, as suggested by policy frameworks. Rather, GPs treat them as analogous to symptoms-that is to say, GPs treat patient-provided data as subjective evidence rather than authoritative measures. Drawing on Science and Technology Studies (STS) literature,we suggest that GPs must be part of the conversation with policy makers and digital entrepreneurs around when and how to integrate patient-generated data into healthcare infrastructures.

Purpose It can be challenging to research aspects of people’s health behaviour, attitudes, and emotions due to the sensitive nature of these topics. We aimed to develop a novel methodology for discussing sensitive health topics, and explore the effectiveness in focus groups using prostate cancer and screening as an example. Method We developed a fictitious case and employed it as a projective technique in focus groups on prostate cancer and screening. The participants were men and their partners who lived in Denmark. Results The technique encouraged emotional and cognitive openness in focus group discussions about the risk of prostate cancer, the benefits and harms of screening, and decision-making about screening. It appeared that using the fictitious case allowed the participants to personally distance themselves from the topic, project emotions onto the case, and thereby openly talk about their emotions. Conclusion This article presents a methodological contribution to communication about sensitive topics in focus groups, using prostate cancer screening as an example. Further refinement of the methodology is needed to enable participants to transfer improvements in knowledge to their own decision about screening.

Emma Grundtvig Gram,1,2 Jessica á Rogvi,1 Anders Heiberg Agerbeck,1 Frederik Martiny,1 Anne Katrine Lykke Bie,1 John Brandt Brodersen1– 3 1The Center of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; 2Research Unit for General Practice in Region Zealand, Region Zealand, Denmark; 3The Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Social Medicine, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, NorwayCorrespondence: Emma Grundtvig Gram, Email emma.gram@sund.ku.dkObjective: This systematic review aimed to assess the adequacy of measurement properties in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used to quantify psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening among adults at average risk.Methods: We searched four databases for eligible studies: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase. Our approach was inclusive and encompassed all empirical studies that quantified aspects of psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. We assessed the adequacy of PROM development and measurement properties for content validity using The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist.Results: We included 33 studies that all together used 30 different outcome measures. Two PROMs (6.7%) were developed in a colorectal cancer screening context. COSMIN rating for PROM development was inadequate for 29 out of 30 PROMs (97%). PROMs lacked proper cognitive interviews and pilot studies and therefore had no proven content validity. According to the COSMIN checklist, 27 out of 30 PROMs (90%) had inadequate measurement properties for content validity.Discussion: The majority of included PROMs had inadequate development and measurement properties. These findings shed light on the trustworthiness of the included studies’ findings and call for reevaluation of existing evidence on the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. To provide trustworthy evidence about the

BACKGROUND: Invitations to screening programmes may include influences that are intending to increase the participation rates. This study had two objectives: (i) to assess if different categories of influences had a significant effect on the intention to participate in a screening programme for a fictitious disease and (ii) whether participants were aware of the influences, and if the intention to participate was associated to this awareness.METHODS: A seven-armed randomized controlled trial. Six hundred passers-by were randomly allocated to receive one of seven pamphlets inviting to a fictitious screening programme (neutral, relative risk reductions, misrepresentation of harms, pre-booked appointment, recommendation of participation, fear appeals, all combined). Participants were surveyed to assess (i) intention to participate (ITP) in the screening programme and (ii) awareness of an exerted influence. Chi-squared test was used to calculate the effect of the influences on ITP and the association of ITP with indicating awareness of an exerted influence and correctly locating an influence.RESULTS: Five hundred and eighty-nine participants were included for analysis. ITP was significantly increased (P < 0.05) in three pamphlets (misrepresentation of harms, fear appeals, all combined) [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 4.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.54-9.23; OR 2.45, 95% CI: 1.31-4.59; OR 9.02, 95% CI: 4.44-18.34]. A percentage of 60.0-78.3 participants did not indicate awareness. Awareness was associated with a decreased ITP for those who could locate the influence (OR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.21-0.72) and those who failed to locate the influence (OR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.30-0.74).CONCLUSION: The application of influences should be carefully considered for interventions where an informed choice is desired.

Participation in medical screening programs is presented as a voluntary decision that should be based on an informed choice. An informed choice is often emphasized to rely on three assumptions: (1) the decision-maker has available information about the benefits and harms, (2) the decision-maker can understand and interpret this information, and (3) the decision-maker can relate this information to personal values and preferences. In this article, we empirically challenge the concept of informed choice in the context of medical screening. We use document analysis to analyze and build upon findings and interpretations from previously published articles on participation in screening. We find that citizens do not receive neutral or balanced information about benefits and harms, yet are exposed to manipulative framing effects. The citizens have high expectations about the benefits of screening, and therefore experience cognitive strains when informed about the harm. We demonstrate that decisions about screening participation are informed by neoliberal arguments of personal responsibility and cultural healthism, and thus cannot be regarded as decisions based on individual values and preferences independently of context. We argue that the concept of informed choice serves as a power technology for people to govern themselves and can be considered an implicit verification of biopower.