Search

Background: Recent evidence suggests that screening with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans significantly reduces mortality from lung cancer. However, optimal methods to identify potentially eligible patients in primary care are not known. Using brief electronic screening forms administered prior to a primary care visit is a strategy to identify high risk, asymptomatic patients eligible for LDCT screening. The objective of this study was to compare the acceptability and feasibility of using brief electronic versus paper screening forms to identify eligible patients at high risk of developing lung cancer in primary care. Methods: A mixed method pilot comparative study was conducted in primary care. Practices were allocated to an electronic form (e-form) group or a paper-based form (p-form) group. Allocation was randomly assigned for the first practice then by alternation. Patients in the e-form practices completed forms at home via the web or in the waiting room on a tablet. Patients in p-form practices completed forms in waiting rooms. Interviews were conducted with patients, administrators, and primary care physicians (PCPs) about their experiences. Results: Six of 30 (20%) eligible practices agreed to participate. Over the 16-week study period, a total of 831 of an expected 1442 patients (58%) aged 55-74 years were enrolled; 573/690 (83%) patients in the e-form group and 258/752 (34%) in the p-form group. Of the 573 participants in the e-form group, 335 (58%) completed forms via the web; 238 (29%) did so via tablet. Twenty-four interviews were conducted with 15 patients, 5 administrative staff and 4 PCPs. Patients were willing to discuss lung cancer screening eligibility with their PCP. Staff members expressed low administrative burden except for an extra step to link appointment information to patient demographics to identify eligible patients. PCPs indicated that forms were reminders to discuss smoking cessation. PCPs in the e-form group reported that patients asked questions about screening. Conclusion: There was fairly low uptake by primary care practices. For e-forms to be feasible in practice workflow, electronic medical record software needs to link appointment information with patient eligibility requirements. The use of brief pre-consultation electronic screening forms for LDCT eligibility encouraged PCPs to discuss smoking cessation with patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Previous studies have suggested a role for prenatal viral infections in the etiology of schizophrenia; however, little is known about depression. We examined whether in-utero viral infections result in increased risk of depression in later life. Method: We identified a cohort (n = 3076) born between 1946 and 1980, whose mothers suffered known viral infections in pregnancy. Subjects were individually matched by birthdate, sex, and area of birth to another cohort (n = 3076) from the UK National Health Service Central Register (NHSCR). These 2 cohorts, one exposed to viruses prenatally, the other not known to have been exposed, were then followed-up to June 1996 by sending a morbidity questionnaire to their primary care physicians. This included specific items on affective disorders, schizophrenia, mental handicap (mental retardation), epilepsy, as well as other central nervous system disorders and specified physical illness, all coded according to the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition. Death certificates were supplied by the NHSCR. A method for matched-pair cohort data calculated the relative risk and 95% confidence intervals for depression in the exposed and unexposed cohorts by varying type of viral exposure. Results: The response to the questionnaire was high (85%). There was no overall increased risk for depression associated with viral exposure; a narrow confidence interval surrounded unity (RR = 1.0, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.2); effects for individual viral exposures were all scattered around unity. Conclusions: The results provide no support for the hypothesis that in-utero exposure to viral infection is associated with risk of subsequent nonpsychotic affective disorder. Further analyses on schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and mental illness other than depression are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collaboration between hospitals and community organisations has been promoted over the past 20 years by various levels of government, hospital associations, health promotion advocates, and others at the state/province, national and international levels as a way to improve the‘efficiency of the system’, reduce duplication, enhance effectiveness and service coordination, improve continuity of care, and enhance community capacity to address complex issues. Nevertheless, and despite a growing literature on interagency collaboration, systematic documentation and empirical analysis of hospital−community collaboration (HCC) is almost completely lacking in the literature, particularly as regards collaborations that address the determinants of health beyond the hospital walls. In this paper, we describe the methodology and key findings from a research study of HCC. TheHospital Involvement in Community Action(HICA) study undertook detailed qualitative case studies (in four urban, suburban, rural and northern locations) and a telephone survey (of 139 community organisations in a large urban centre) in order to learn about the range of collaborations and working relationships that exist between hospitals and community agencies in the province of Ontario (Canada), and the factors that influenced (enabled and/or hindered) HCC. Particular attention was paid to barriers and enablers at three nested levels of context (policy, hospital and community) and, drawing primarily on the qualitative case studies, it is this aspect that is the focus of this paper. That such collaborations continue to be widespread despite a generally unfavourable policy environment and hospital institutional culture that poses significant barriers, suggests that the extent to which HCC flourishes (or exists at all) crucially depends on the presence and ongoing enthusiasm/commitment of one or more‘champions’ within the hospital, and the commitment of both parties to overcome the marked cultural differences between hospital and community. We conclude with a discussion of implications for policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]