Search

Introduction: Right hemicolectomy (RHC) remains the treatment standard for goblet cell adenocarcinoma (GCA), despite limited evidence supporting survival benefit. This study aims to explore factors influencing surgical management and survival outcomes among patients treated with RHC or appendicectomy using NCRAS (UK) and SEER (USA) data. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using 998 (NCRAS) and 1703 (SEER) cases. Factors influencing procedure type were explored using logistic regression analyses. Overall survival (OS) probabilities and Kaplan–Meier (KM) plots were generated using KM analysis and the log-rank test compared survival between groups. Cox regression analyses were performed to assess hazard ratios. Results: The NCRAS analysis revealed that age and regional stage disease were determinants of undergoing RHC, with all age groups showing similar odds of receiving RHC, excluding the 75+ age group. The SEER analysis revealed tumour size > 2 cm, and receipt of chemotherapy were determinants of undergoing RHC, unlike the distant stage, which was associated with appendicectomy. Surgery type was not a significant predictor of OS in both analyses. In NCRAS, age and stage were significant predictors of OS. In SEER, age, stage, and Black race were significant predictors of worse OS. Conclusions: The study shows variations in the surgical management of GCA, with limited evidence to support a widespread recommendation for RHC.

Objectives The global prevalence of mental health disorders has risen significantly since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has additionally caused disruption to mental health services, leading to a shift from in-person to remote service delivery. Given its long-term impact, it has become critical to evaluate whether changes in health delivery during the pandemic have had an effect on prescribing patterns for commonly prescribed psychotropic drugs. This study aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on changes in psychotropic prescribing patterns in adults, as well as differences in prescribing in different healthcare delivery approaches across various geographical contexts.Design and eligibility requirements Systematic review of cohort, interrupted time-series and cross-sectional studies examining prescribing trends for at least one commonly prescribed psychotropic drug during and after COVID-19 in accessing care remotely or face to face between 1 January 2020 and 17 June 2022.Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC and PsycINFO databases were searched in addition to citation chaining of relevant reviews.Extraction and analysis Study screening, data extraction and quality assessment were completed by two independent reviewers. The PECO strategy was used to devise the systematic review and findings were synthesised narratively.Results 16 studies were eligible for inclusion. Studies documenting changes in psychotropic prescribing trends provided very conflicting findings. There were no stark differences in prescribing outcomes between different healthcare delivery methods (ie, face-to-face consultations vs remote consultations). A noteworthy finding was that the prescribing rate of benzodiazepines was higher in women than men. No particular trends were observed for the prescription rates of hypnotics, antidepressants or antipsychotics.Conclusions Findings support mixed trends in the prescription of psychotropic medications in a range of settings, hindering conclusive statements on COVID-19’s impact on prescribing. In areas where remote consultations are in use, more comprehensive research is required to assess the safety of prescribing in these settings to inform public health policy and assess if the observed trends in our systematic review persist over time (given the increased consideration of remote and telehealth care in delivering services), particularly the safe and effective deployment of these services.

Abstract Background Libraries in the UK have evolved from traditional book-lending institutions into dynamic community hubs, This study aims to explore the potential of libraries to act as community hubs to promote mental and physical health and wellbeing of community-dwelling adults, drawing on insights from both library users and library staff in England. Design A mixed-method, cross-sectional study using online survey and interviews with community-dwelling adults and library staff. Methods We collected data using a 14-item electronic survey and interviews with library users and staff to gauge perceptions. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used to identify key trends and emergent themes. Results We included 605 respondents from the survey and interviewed 12 library users and staff. Libraries remain popular and are considered a ‘safe place by members of the community, regardless of their frequency of service usage irrespective of whether they are frequent users of services. However, a lack of awareness among library users about community-facing services could act as a hurdle to improving community health and wellbeing. Targeted engagement with residents is needed to increase awareness of libraries’ services, including community interventions to help tackle loneliness and inequalities in digital and health literacy. Library staff often did not feel involved in important decision-making. Various barriers, drivers and practical recommendations were identified to leverage libraries as hubs to promote community health and wellbeing. Conclusion Libraries already offer a variety of resources that directly or indirectly support the health and wellbeing of community-dwelling adults and young people. However, public awareness of these services is limited. As we navigate post-pandemic recovery, libraries can serve as platforms for community engagement, fostering resilience, mental health support and reducing social isolation. Recognising libraries’ untapped potential can lead to healthier communities and improved wellbeing.

Abstract Background Even prior to the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was ample evidence that loneliness and social isolation negatively impacted physical and mental health, employability, and are a financial burden on the state. In response, there has been significant policy-level attention on tackling loneliness. The objective of this scoping review was to conduct a loneliness policy landscape analysis across 52 countries of the UN European country groups. Our policy analysis sought to highlight commonalities and differences between the different national approaches to manage loneliness, with the goal to provide actionable recommendations for the consideration of policymakers wishing to develop, expand or review existing loneliness policies. Methods We searched governmental websites using the Google search engine for publicly available documents related to loneliness and social isolation. Seventy-eight documents were identified in total, from which 23 documents were retained. Exclusion of documents was based on predetermined criteria. A structured content analysis approach was used to capture key information from the policy documents. Contextual data were captured in a configuration matrix to highlight common and unique themes. Results We could show that most policies describe loneliness as a phenomenon that was addressed to varying degrees in different domains such as social, health, geographical, economic and political. Limited evidence was found regarding funding for suggested interventions. We synthesised actionable recommendations for the consideration of policy makers focusing on the use of language, prioritisation of interventions, revisiting previous campaigns, sharing best practice across borders, setting out a vision, evaluating interventions, and the need for the rapid and sustainable scalability of interventions. Conclusions Our study provides the first overview of the national loneliness policy landscape, highlighting the increasing prioritisation of loneliness and social isolation as a major public health and societal issue. Our findings suggest that policymakers can sustain this momentum and strengthen their strategies by incorporating rigorous, evidence-based intervention evaluations and fostering international collaborations for knowledge sharing. We believe that policymakers can more effectively address loneliness by directing funds to develop and implement interventions that impact the individual, the community and society.

Abstract Background Our ability to self-care can play a crucial role in the prevention, management and rehabilitation of diverse conditions, including chronic non-communicable diseases. Various tools have been developed to support the measurement of self-care capabilities of healthy individuals, those experiencing everyday self-limiting conditions, or one or more multiple long-term conditions. We sought to characterise the various non-mono-disease specific self-care measurement tools for adults as such a review was lacking. Objective The aim of the review was to identify and characterise the various non-mono-disease specific self-care measurement tools for adults. Secondary objectives were to characterise these tools in terms of their content, structure and psychometric properties. Design Scoping review with content assessment. Methods The search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases using a variety of MeSH terms and keywords covering 1 January 1950 to 30 November 2022. Inclusion criteria included tools assessing health literacy, capability and/or performance of general health self-care practices and targeting adults. We excluded tools targeting self-care in the context of disease management only or indicated to a specific medical setting or theme. We used the Seven Pillars of Self-Care framework to inform the qualitative content assessment of each tool. Results We screened 26,304 reports to identify 38 relevant tools which were described in 42 primary reference studies. Descriptive analysis highlighted a temporal shift in the overall emphasis from rehabilitation-focused to prevention-focused tools. The intended method of administration also transitioned from observe-and-interview style methods to the utilisation of self-reporting tools. Only five tools incorporated questions relevant to the seven pillars of self-care. Conclusions Various tools exist to measure individual self-care capability, but few consider assessing capability against all seven pillars of self-care. There is a need to develop a comprehensive, validated tool and easily accessible tool to measure individual self-care capability including the assessment of a wide range of self-care practices. Such a tool could be used to inform targeted health and social care interventions.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of a national policy of shielding to safeguard clinically vulnerable patients. To ensure consistent care for high-risk patients with hypertension, NHS England introduced the BP@home initiative to enable patients to self-monitor their blood pressure by providing them with blood pressure monitors. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the initiative based on the experience and perspectives of programme managers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in its implementation in London.Methods and findingsWe conducted five semi-structured focus groups and one individual interview with a total of 20 healthcare professionals involved at different levels and stages in the BP@home initiative across four of the five London Integrated Care Systems (ICSs). All focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically following the Framework Method. Respondents reported being challenged by the lack of adequate IT, human and financial resources to support the substantial additional workload associated with the programme. These issues resulted in and reinforced the differential engagement capacities of PCNs, practices and patients, thus raising equity concerns among respondents. However respondents also identified several facilitators, including the integration of the eligibility criteria into the electronic health record (EHR), especially when combined with the adoption of practice-specific, pragmatic and opportunistic approaches to the onboarding of patients. Respondents also recommended the provision of blood pressure monitors (BPMs) on prescription, additional funding and training based on needs assessment, the incorporation of BP@home into daily practice and simplification of IT tools, and finally the adoption of a person-centred care approach. Contextualised using the second iteration of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), these findings support key evidence-based recommendations to help streamline the implementation of the BP@home initiative in London's primary care setting.ConclusionsPrograms such as BP@Home are likely to become more common in primary care. To successfully support HCPs' aim to care for their hypertensive patients, their implementation must be accompanied by additional financial, human and training resources, as well as supported task-shifting for capacity building. Future studies should explore the perspectives of HCPs based in other parts of the UK as well as patients' experiences with remote monitoring of blood pressure.

Key points We surveyed 1177 community dwelling adults to explore the use of lifestyle medicine approaches to tackle ED. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to explore the association of ED with health and lifestyle factors. We collected data on how ED was addressed in general practice and to identify the best rated strategy to tackle the condition. A key limitation was lack of follow-up using personal interview component to explore individual drivers and barriers for the routine adoption of lifestyle behaviour modification to tackle ED. Structured education about the impact of lifestyle behaviour modification and how this could influence the appearance or trajectory of ED could help improve personal choice.

BackgroundIn the context of a deepening global shortage of health workers and, in particular, the COVID-19 pandemic, there is growing international interest in, and use of, online symptom checkers (OSCs). However, the evidence surrounding the triage and diagnostic accuracy of these tools remains inconclusive. ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to summarize the existing peer-reviewed literature evaluating the triage accuracy (directing users to appropriate services based on their presenting symptoms) and diagnostic accuracy of OSCs aimed at lay users for general health concerns. MethodsSearches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), and Web of Science, as well as the citations of the studies selected for full-text screening. We included peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 1, 2010, and February 16, 2022, with a controlled and quantitative assessment of either or both triage and diagnostic accuracy of OSCs directed at lay users. We excluded tools supporting health care professionals, as well as disease- or specialty-specific OSCs. Screening and data extraction were carried out independently by 2 reviewers for each study. We performed a descriptive narrative synthesis. ResultsA total of 21,296 studies were identified, of which 14 (0.07%) were included. The included studies used clinical vignettes, medical records, or direct input by patients. Of the 14 studies, 6 (43%) reported on triage and diagnostic accuracy, 7 (50%) focused on triage accuracy, and 1 (7%) focused on diagnostic accuracy. These outcomes were assessed based on the diagnostic and triage recommendations attached to the vignette in the case of vignette studies or on those provided by nurses or general practitioners, including through face-to-face and telephone consultations. Both diagnostic accuracy and triage accuracy varied greatly among OSCs. Overall diagnostic accuracy was deemed to be low and was almost always lower than that of the comparator. Similarly, most of the studies (9/13, 69 %) showed suboptimal triage accuracy overall, with a few exceptions (4/13, 31%). The main variables affecting the levels of diagnostic and triage accuracy were the severity and urgency of the condition, the use of artificial intelligence algorithms, and demographic questions. However, the impact of each variable differed across tools and studies, making it difficult to draw any solid conclusions. All included studies had at least one area with unclear risk of bias according to the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. ConclusionsAlthough OSCs have potential to provide accessible and accurate health advice and triage recommendations to users, more research is needed to validate their triage and diagnostic accuracy before widescale adoption in community and health care settings. Future studies should aim to use a common methodology and agreed standard for evaluation to facilitate objective benchmarking and validation. Trial RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42020215210; https://tinyurl.com/3949zw83

Objectives While smoking tobacco remains a substantial cause of harm in Europe, novel products such as electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes (ECs) and heated tobacco products (HTPs) have entered the market recently. While debate still persists over the role of these novel products, they are now in widespread use. This study aimed to explore the prevalence and methods of attempts to quit EC and HTP.Setting We analysed the 2020 Eurobarometer survey, which collected data in 28 European countries.Participants A representative sample of individuals residing in these countries aged ≥15 years.Primary and secondary outcome measures Multilevel regression analyses were performed to assess differences in quit attempts and cessation methods among tobacco smokers and exclusive EC/HTP users separately.Results 51.1% of current tobacco smokers and 27.1% of exclusive EC or HTP users reported having ever made a quit attempt. The majority of former and current smokers (75.8%) who made a quit attempt did so unassisted, with 28.8% reporting at least one attempt using a cessation aid. The most popular cessation aids were nicotine replacement therapy or other medication (13.4%) and ECs (11.3%). 58.8% of exclusive EC or HTP users who had made a quit attempt did so unassisted, with 39.5% reporting the use of a cessation aid.Conclusion Most EC and HTP users in Europe try to quit unassisted, although more of them report the use of a cessation aid compared with tobacco smokers. Cessation support services should take into consideration the increasing numbers of users of EC and HTP who may be trying to quit.