Search

Carers of people with dementia experience significant physical, emotional, and social burdens. Needs assessment can provide important information to assist services in providing support to carers to reduce these burdens. However, few studies have examined the prevalence of unmet needs experienced by carers of people with dementia using a quantitative instrument. This study aimed to examine the prevalence and type of unmet needs experienced by carers of people with dementia in Australia. This was a cross-sectional survey of carers providing support to community-dwelling individuals living with dementia. Carers were recruited through geriatric clinics, aged care providers, support services and community organisations. Consenting carers completed a survey including an 80-item study-specific unmet needs instrument for carers (UNI-C) and sociodemographic characteristics. Descriptive statistics were used to identify the most prevalent unmet needs reported by carers. A total of 169 carers (response rate 47%) completed the survey. Most (87%) carers reported at least one unmet need. Carers reported a median of 16.0 (IQR = 24.0; max = 58) out of a possible 80 unmet needs. The most frequently endorsed unmet needs spanned a range of areas including emotional wellbeing, accessing health and aged care services, managing apathy, and finding information. This study highlighted that a large proportion of carers experience unmet needs associated with caring for someone with dementia. Developing and rigorously testing interventions to meet carers' commonly reported unmet needs are warranted. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2022.2053833. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to determine the proportions and predictors of first-degree relatives (FDRs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients (i) ever receiving any CRC testing and (ii) receiving CRC screening in accordance with CRC screening guidelines. Methods Colorectal cancer patients and their FDRs were recruited through the population-based Victorian Cancer Registry, Victoria, Australia. Seven hundred and seven FDRs completed telephone interviews. Of these, 405 FDRs were deemed asymptomatic and eligible for analysis. Results Sixty-nine percent of FDRs had ever received any CRC testing. First-degree relatives of older age, those with private health insurance, siblings and FDRs who had ever been asked about family history of CRC by a doctor were significantly more likely than their counterparts to have ever received CRC testing. Twenty-five percent of FDRs “at or slightly above average risk” were adherent to CRC screening guidelines. For this group, adherence to guideline-recommended screening was significantly more likely to occur for male FDRs and those with a higher level of education. For persons at “moderately increased risk” and “potentially high risk”, 47% and 49% respectively adhered to CRC screening guidelines. For this group, guideline-recommended screening was significantly more likely to occur for FDRs who were living in metropolitan areas, siblings, those married or partnered and those ever asked about family history of CRC. Conclusions A significant level of non-compliance with screening guidelines was evident among FDRs. Improved CRC screening in accordance with guidelines and effective systematic interventions to increase screening rates among population groups experiencing inequality are needed. Trial Registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12609000628246

Abstract Background Family history is a common risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC), yet it is often underused to guide risk assessment and the provision of risk-appropriate CRC screening recommendation. The aim of this study was to identify from a patient perspective health care providers' current practice relating to: (i) assessment of family history of CRC; (ii) notification of "increased risk" to patients at "moderately/potentially high" familial risk; and (iii) recommendation that patients undertake CRC screening. Methods 1592 persons aged 56-88 years randomly selected from the Hunter Community Study (HCS), New South Wales, Australia were mailed a questionnaire. 1117 participants (70%) returned a questionnaire. Results Thirty eight percent of respondents reported ever being asked about their family history of CRC. Ever discussing family history of CRC with a health care provider was significantly more likely to occur for persons with a higher level of education, who had ever received screening advice and with a lower physical component summary score. Fifty one percent of persons at "moderately/potentially high risk" were notified of their "increased risk" of developing CRC. Thirty one percent of persons across each level of risk had ever received CRC screening advice from a health care provider. Screening advice provision was significantly more likely to occur for persons who had ever discussed their family history of CRC with a health care provider and who were at "moderately/potentially high risk". Conclusions Effective interventions that integrate both the assessment and notification of familial risk of CRC to the wider population are needed. Systematic and cost-effective mechanisms that facilitate family history collection, risk assessment and provision of screening advice within the primary health care setting are required.

Background: Participation rates in colorectal cancer screening (CRC) are low. Relatively little is known about screening uptake across varying levels of risk and across population groups. The purpose of the current study was to identify factors associated with (i) ever receiving colorectal cancer (CRC) testing; (ii) risk-appropriate CRC screening in accordance with guidelines; and (iii) recent colonoscopy screening. Methods: 1592 at-risk persons (aged 56-88 years) were randomly selected from the Hunter Community Study (HCS), Australia. Participants self-reported family history of CRC was used to quantify risk in accordance with national screening guidelines. Results: 1117 participants returned a questionnaire; 760 respondents were eligible for screening and analysis. Ever receiving CRC testing was significantly more likely for persons: aged 65-74 years; who had discussed with a doctor their family history of CRC or had ever received screening advice. For respondents "at or slightly above average risk", guideline-appropriate screening was significantly more likely for persons: aged 65-74 years; with higher household income; and who had ever received screening advice. For respondents at "moderately or potentially high risk", guideline-appropriate screening was significantly more likely for persons: with private health insurance and who had discussed their family history of CRC with a doctor. Colonoscopy screening was significantly more likely for persons: who had ever smoked; discussed their family history of CRC with a doctor; or had ever received screening advice. Conclusions: The level of risk-appropriate screening varied across populations groups. Interventions that target population groups less likely to engage in CRC screening are pivotal for decreasing screening inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]