Search

Introduction Economic evaluation has an important role to play in the demonstration of value for money of early childhood public health interventions; however, concerns have been raised regarding their consistent application and relevance to commissioners. This systematic review of the literature therefore aims to collate the breadth of the existing economic evaluation evidence of these interventions and to identify the approaches adopted in the assessment of value. Source of data Recently published literature in Medline, EMBASE, EconLit, Health Management Information Consortium, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Technology Assessment, NHS EED and Web of Science. Areas of agreement The importance of the early childhood period on future health and well-being as well as the potential to impact health inequalities making for a strong narrative case for expenditure in early childhood public health. Areas of controversy The most appropriate approaches to evaluating value for money of such preventative interventions relevant for UK decision-makers given the evident challenges. Growing points The presented review considered inconsistencies across methodological approaches used to demonstrate value for money. The results showed a mixed picture in terms of demonstrating value for money. Areas timely for developing research Future resource allocations decisions regarding early childhood public health interventions may benefit from consistency in the evaluative frameworks and health outcomes captured, as well as consistency in approaches to incorporating non-health costs and outcomes, incorporating equity concerns and the use of appropriate time horizons.

Background Cancer outcomes are poor in socioeconomically deprived communities, with low symptom awareness contributing to prolonged help-seeking and advanced disease. Targeted cancer awareness interventions require evaluation. Methods This is a randomised controlled trial involving adults aged 40+ years recruited in community and healthcare settings in deprived areas of South Yorkshire and South-East Wales. Intervention: personalised behavioural advice facilitated by a trained lay advisor. Control: usual care. Follow-up at two weeks and six months post-randomisation. Primary outcome: total cancer symptom recognition score two weeks post-randomisation. Results Two hundred and thirty-four participants were randomised. The difference in total symptom recognition at two weeks [adjusted mean difference (AMD) 0.6, 95% CI: −0.03, 1.17, p = 0.06] was not statistically significant. Intervention participants reported increased symptom recognition (AMD 0.8, 95% CI: 0.18, 1.37, p = 0.01) and earlier intended presentation (AMD −2.0, 95% CI: −3.02, −0.91, p Conclusions Improved symptom recognition and earlier anticipated presentation occurred at longer-term follow-up. The ABACus Health Check is a viable low-cost intervention to increase cancer awareness in socioeconomically deprived communities. Clinical trial registration ISRCTN16872545.

Background Recruitment of research participants poses challenges in socioeconomically deprived areas. The Awareness and Beliefs About Cancer (ABACus) phase 3 Randomised Control Trial recruited adult participants from socioeconomically deprived areas using a combined healthcare/community engagement model. We report the strategies used to successfully recruit and retain our trial participant sample. Methods Community and healthcare settings in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation were identified by lay advisors who recruited participants opportunistically or by appointment. Follow-up was done by telephone or post at 2-weeks and 6-months after recruitment, and all participants were offered financial incentives. Qualitative interviews were conducted with lay advisors regarding their experience and reflections. Results The lay advisors identified and contacted 107 potential recruitment venues across South and West Yorkshire and South East Wales of which 41.1% (n = 42) were opened for recruitment. A total of 234 participants were recruited, with 91% (n = 212) retention at 2-weeks and 85% (n = 199) at 6-months. Community settings yielded 75% (n = 176) of participants. Participants had a mean age of 61.3 years and 63.3% (n = 148) were female, with 66% (n = 154) resident in the most deprived geographical areas. Lay advisors described recruitment as intensive, although engaging participants was easier in community settings. Conclusions The ABACus3 trial achieved recruitment and high retention with a population that is often “hard to reach” or entirely missed in health research. Strategies were specifically tailored to engage the venues and adult residents of highly deprived areas. Future studies recruiting adults living in the most deprived areas might benefit from community recruitment and from collaborating with local gatekeepers who are key to engagement. This study adheres to CONSORT guidelines. Trial registration Retrospectively registered with ISRCTN (http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16872545) on 12.01.2018.

Cancer survival is lower in socioeconomically deprived communities, partly due to low awareness of symptoms, negative beliefs and delayed help-seeking. We developed an interactive health check questionnaire facilitated by trained lay advisors. It entails 29 questions about background, lifestyle and health with tailored behaviour change advice. Personalised results are printed using a traffic light (red/amber/green) system, highlighting areas where action should be taken. This is an individually randomised control trial to test effectiveness of the health check on symptom recognition. A total 246 participants aged 40+ years will be recruited from community and healthcare settings in socioeconomically deprived areas of Yorkshire and South Wales. Participants will be randomised to receive the health check or standard care (1:1 ratio). Outcome measures include: adapted Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer (primary outcome), brief State Trait Anxiety Inventory, intentions and motivation to adopt recommended health behaviours (early symptom presentation, cancer screening and lifestyle behaviours), adapted Client Service Receipt Inventory, brief medical history/screening and demographic questionnaire at: baseline; 2-weeks; and 6-months post-randomisation. A purposive sample of intervention sessions will be audio-recorded (n = 24) and half will additionally be observed (n = 12). Semi-structured interviews will take place at 2-weeks (n = 30) and 6-months (n = 15–20) post-randomisation. The primary analysis will compare cancer symptom recognition scores between arms at 2-weeks. Secondary analysis will assess cancer beliefs, barriers/time to presentation, screening and lifestyle behaviours, anxiety and costs. A process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity, dose and contamination. The London-Surrey NHS Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 17/LO/1507) approved this trial. This is a trial of a theoretically underpinned complex intervention which has undergone phase 1 and 2 development work. The findings will evaluate evidence about the effect of the health check on symptom awareness. Although there are few exclusion criteria there are limitations regarding the population we are able to reach, who may have even higher risks of late diagnosis and poor cancer prognosis. However, the health check has the potential to improve cancer symptom awareness and encourage early help-seeking behaviour in deprived populations, thereby reducing inequalities in longer term cancer outcomes. Retrospectively registered with ISRCTN (Ref: ISRCTN16872545 ) on 12.01.2018.